CDC May Recommend Universal Circumcision
[Guest post by DRJ]
Recent studies show heterosexual African men can reduce their HIV infection risk by half if they are circumcised, because circumcision reduces the risk of infection from female partners – the main method of infection in Africa. As a result, the CDC is considering promoting universal circumcision of American male babies, even though the primary method of transmission in the U.S. is via men who have sex with men:
“For now, the focus of public health officials in this country appears to be on making recommendations for newborns, a prevention strategy that would only pay off many years from now. Critics say it subjects baby boys to medically unnecessary surgery without their consent. But Dr. Peter Kilmarx, chief of epidemiology for the Centers for Disease Control’s division of HIV/AIDS prevention, said that any step that could thwart the spread of HIV must be given serious consideration.
He and other experts acknowledged that although the clinical trials of circumcision in Africa had dramatic results, the effects of circumcision in the United States were likely to be more muted because the disease is less prevalent here, spreads through different routes, and the health systems are so disparate as to be incomparable.
Clinical trials in Kenya, South Africa and Uganda found that heterosexual men who were circumcised were up to 60 percent less likely to become infected with HIV over the course of the trials than those who were not circumcised. There is little to no evidence that circumcision protects men who have sex with men from infection. Another reason circumcision would have less effect in the United States is that some 79 percent of adult American men are already circumcised, public health officials say.”
The CDC is also considering voluntary circumcision for adult heterosexual males.
Thus, if this recommendation is approved, circumcision will be a recommended medical procedure for all male infants that will not have much impact on the problem it’s supposed to address. However, it lets the government claim it’s doing something about AIDS.
Who could object to that?
— DRJ
Hey DRJ — do you want to see the President’s Penis?
It’s all the rage at Free Republic.
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 8/24/2009 @ 3:17 pmI’m a petty person. I know that because myf irst thought was that this is going to annoy Andrew Sullivan, and I was more happy about that than I was irritated that the government thinks this kind of thing is its business.
Juan (bd4b30) — 8/24/2009 @ 3:28 pmBut the last few years there’s been a big push to NOT circumcise male infants, we’ve been hearing how circs are an unnecessary procedure. (Barring a couple of diagnoses.)
And now we’re coming 180 degrees. I sense some explody type heads over this:)
anne (ee680a) — 8/24/2009 @ 3:35 pma prevention strategy that would only pay off many years from now.
Because of course, due to the planned imposition of a government run health care system and the resultant decrease in private research, the CDC understands that there will be no progress in finding a cure for AIDS.
Apogee (e2dc9b) — 8/24/2009 @ 3:39 pmIf abortion is strictly a proceedure to be considered between a woman and her doctor, how does the CDC square that point-of-privacy with their advocacy of mandatory circumcision – or, once again, we find that the male viewpoint is unimportant. And, isn’t this a privacy matter between the physician and his patients (the mother and father of the infant child)?
AD - RtR/OS! (cbe8a1) — 8/24/2009 @ 3:40 pmGotta be a way for Obama to work a rebate program into this. Cash for foreskins maybe?
Old Coot (83c1d1) — 8/24/2009 @ 3:46 pmWell, it’s no skin off my nose.
Mitch (890cbf) — 8/24/2009 @ 3:55 pm“Who could object to that?”
DRJ – Just wait. There are some really nutty militant anti-circumcision groups in the gay community out there. When they appear on a thread, hilarity ensues. You definitely do not want to click on the links they provide.
daleyrocks (718861) — 8/24/2009 @ 3:59 pmWhy do you racists want to torture young boys, and practice male genital mutilation? /spit
JD (42a8c3) — 8/24/2009 @ 4:06 pmIf the CDC also recommend avoiding eye contact with hippopotamuses it would save even more lives which, that’s what we’re all about I think. Here is an uncircumcised hippopotamus what killed an uncircumcised zebra. Here is an uncircumcised hippopotamus with murder in his eyes. It’s very chilling, but I think it effectively makes my point. If you avoid foreskin and hippopotamuses you will live a longer life than otherwise and the CDC loves you and wants only good things to happen to you.
Also, stay away from oceans.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 8/24/2009 @ 4:28 pmalso *recommended* I mean
happyfeet (71f55e) — 8/24/2009 @ 4:30 pmComment by AD – RtR/OS! — 8/24/2009 @ 3:40 pm
You make a great point, AD. If abortion is between a woman and her doctor, shouldn’t the circumcision decision be between a man and his doctor? To go beyond your point, if parents are not allowed to decide whether their daughter can have an abortion, why should they be able to decide whether their son is circumcized? From what I hear, adult circumcision is pretty painful (much more so than infant circumcision), but that just may have to be the reality of striving for safer sex between two men. Why should every young boy be pushed into this procedure, except for the obvious politically correct reason?
JVW (d1215a) — 8/24/2009 @ 4:39 pmThe CDC is filled with nothing but foreskinists and needs to be disbanded. Male Member Mutilation (MMM) is an outrage and the CDC’s support of it will finally bring this matter to a head. I just hope I can be there when it happens.
A Sullivan (310017) — 8/24/2009 @ 4:41 pmA Sullivan,
I believe you posted under the name Max Power on another thread. I suspect you were just kidding but we’ve had an outbreak of this recently, so please pick one name and stick with it.
DRJ (3f5471) — 8/24/2009 @ 5:13 pmFanatical anti-circumcisionists (and PETA) are pretty much who I had in mind when I came up with “Eiland’s Theory Of Compensatory Misery”:
As human society gradually solves the problems of basic survival and reduces the amount of other miseries rooted in the reality of the human condition, the fringe elements of that society feel an increasingly strong compulsion to become obsessively angry about ever more trivial causes to recapture the sense that life is a painful struggle.
On the bright side, it would mean that if we have time for these loons, things are probably getting better.
M. Scott Eiland (5ccff0) — 8/24/2009 @ 5:13 pmSpeaking as a circumsized-at-birth male, let me tell you of the horrific trauma that it caused…..
Oh wait, there isn’t any. Well, I do vote conservative, I guess they’d consider that a potential negative aftereffect.
Techie (482700) — 8/24/2009 @ 5:24 pmThe African study is garbage. There are three groups of males down there who are circumcised — Jews, Muslims, and affluent meaning educated. All three less likely to engage in irresponsible sexual behavior.
nk (8214ee) — 8/24/2009 @ 5:24 pmThere is a way to test the circumcision theory in a valid way. Get a thousand men who are circumcised and another thousand who are not circumcised to have sex with women who are HIV-infected and are not on any HIV-suppressants. Then see which groups has more infections.
nk (8214ee) — 8/24/2009 @ 5:38 pmI’m not a fanatical anti-circumcisionist, but I do believe that any optional surgery should only be performed with the consent of the patient.
Males can be circumcised at any age, and there’s no reason not to give them a choice.
Evil Pundit (42e904) — 8/24/2009 @ 5:43 pmEven though this will upset Andrew Sullivan, I’m against it.
Why not wait until age 18 to decide whether or not to get circumcised? How many people who use condoms get AIDS before they turn 18?
Daryl Herbert (df9396) — 8/24/2009 @ 5:44 pmIt’s a mistake to lump all anti-circumcisionists into the same group. I reject the assumption that I’m some kind of militant gay whatever.
It’s an unnecessary procedure, and I would be furious if a doctor tried to push me into having my son circumcised. It’s mind-boggling to me that we should just cut a part of one’s body off without consent.
Andy (0d5f50) — 8/24/2009 @ 5:57 pmLet me see, how does this work … Since it’s black males that benefit, what’s wrong with it applying to just Black males? What’s wrong with this picture?
Sounds a lot like there ar a few people who are not insured, including illegals, so lets ruin the healthcare system for the other 85% as well. Wouldn’t it be a lot easier to just cancel the porkulus bill and buy the uninsured insurance?
Amd what’s with the lack of tort reform? Do the John Edwards ambulance chasers benefit anyone but the Democrat party?
bill-tb (365bd9) — 8/24/2009 @ 5:59 pmLouis XVI had phimosis and look at the trouble it got him into. Marie Antoinette might not have said “Let them eat cake” if her guy had been able to get it going sooner. Finally a snip was accomplished and we ended up with the French Revolution.
This sort of news will not be popular with Dr. Laura who forced Dean Edell off most of the EIB network because he was advocating circumcision. He was the only radio doc I’ve ever heard who was worth the time to listen. He ran afoul of Madame Defarge (I mean Dr. Laura) over foreskins and Jewish ritual. I liked her better when she was naked.
She does sail, though, so she can’t be a complete bi**ch.
Mike K (2cf494) — 8/24/2009 @ 6:42 pmComment by Techie — 8/24/2009 @ 5:24 pm
This brings up an interesting point:
Are circumcised males more or less likely to be Conservatives than un-circumcised males?
This calls for a comprehensive study…shouldn’t take more than five years and about $50B.
Comment by nk — 8/24/2009 @ 5:38 pm
In a prior life, were you a researcher at Tuskegee?
AD - RtR/OS! (cbe8a1) — 8/24/2009 @ 6:48 pmShe does sail, though, so she can’t be a complete bi**ch.
Comment by Mike K — 8/24/2009 @ 6:42 pm
Probably the threat of being used as shark-bait keeps her in line.
AD - RtR/OS! (cbe8a1) — 8/24/2009 @ 6:50 pmHighway checkpoints will commence shortly as a matter of public safety. Violators of this mandate will be directed to roadside surgical vans for immediate treatment at no charge under the Insurance Industry Reform Act. Anesthesia will be provided for qualified individuals covered by the Public Option.
bobdog (668440) — 8/24/2009 @ 7:19 pmAre circumcised males more or less likely to be Conservatives than un-circumcised males?
Isn’t the ritual of snipping a major part of Jewish tradition? And since a high percentage of people of that faith tend to favor “progressive” politics, well, there’s part of the answer.
Mark (411533) — 8/24/2009 @ 8:12 pmBecause Obama’s liberal base demands both abortion on demand and government approval of the myth of heterosexual HIV/AIDS in the US. Exaggerated Claims
I’m not making light of AIDS at all. I’m just saying that the threat to heterosexuals is exaggerated–and very political.
Patricia (29a01d) — 8/24/2009 @ 8:44 pm“CDC May Recommend Universal Circumcision”
Cue Sarah Palin facebook update on the “obamacare castration panels.”
imdw (017d51) — 8/24/2009 @ 8:53 pm“Because of course, due to the planned imposition of a government run health care system and the resultant decrease in private research, the CDC understands that there will be no progress in finding a cure for AIDS.”
How much public money is spent in the fight against AIDS?
imdw (017d51) — 8/24/2009 @ 8:55 pm“To go beyond your point, if parents are not allowed to decide whether their daughter can have an abortion, why should they be able to decide whether their son is circumcized?”
Has the word “recommend” ever made people so irrational? It’s because it involves dicks, isn’t it?
imdw (d54c8c) — 8/24/2009 @ 9:06 pmimdw, some people are more sensitive about that than others. Now, I don’t mean you have a reason to be sensitive or anything like that. Of course, one does wonder.
MIke K (2cf494) — 8/24/2009 @ 9:11 pmImdw is being exceptionally obtuse tonite, even for imdw.
JD (c3a7b7) — 8/24/2009 @ 9:16 pm“How much public money is spent in the fight against AIDS?”
Fiscal 2007 budget request was $22.8 billion.
daleyrocks (718861) — 8/24/2009 @ 9:17 pmImdw is just trying to keep up with David E. Kind of pathetic, if you ask me.
JD (b7fd45) — 8/24/2009 @ 9:35 pm“Fiscal 2007 budget request was $22.8 billion.”
And how much private money is this crowding out?
imdw (06d366) — 8/24/2009 @ 9:41 pmHow is comment #1 in any way appropriate? And, were there ever a more perfect example of projection, I have not yet seen it.
JD (b9706a) — 8/24/2009 @ 10:09 pmWhy would he do this? It looks like Obama wants to impose Islamic practices on America.
(I only said it “looks like,” I know Obama’s not a Muslim, he’s an atheist. But I’m just saying.)
Daryl Herbert (df9396) — 8/24/2009 @ 10:18 pmAre circumcised males more or less likely to be Conservatives than un-circumcised males?
One of your first experiences as an out-of-the-womb human is to have an important body part, full of nerve endings, amputated? That’s going to scar anyone’s psyche.
So I’m going to have to go with “conservative.”
Daryl Herbert (df9396) — 8/24/2009 @ 10:19 pm“And how much private money is this crowding out?”
imdw – Explain your question.
daleyrocks (718861) — 8/24/2009 @ 10:27 pmTypical. Punish the innocent to protect the guilty.
Perhaps we could circumcise girls too!
Don Meaker (9ceac6) — 8/24/2009 @ 10:44 pmUniversal circumcision? How do we circumcise the universe? Take a scalpel to the Southern Cross (which can be seen from Hawaii)?
But a word of clarity from my perspective: There was a reason God told the Jews their males had to be circumcised, and the reason was science-based. It only took how many millenia for scientists to catch up?
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 8/24/2009 @ 10:57 pmHey DRJ — do you want to see the President’s Penis?
That’s “Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton” to you, buddy.
M. Scott Eiland (5ccff0) — 8/24/2009 @ 11:08 pm#36 –Comment by imdw — 8/24/2009 @ 9:41 pm
imdw, I do not understand your question, but I’ll play. Here is what I found:
$26.8 billion: for 2007 NIH & HHS for R&D only
$58.8 billion: for 2007 PHRMA for R&D only
$27.1 billion: for 2006 BIO for R&D only (latest I could find)
$112.7 billion: for a Total
That makes the following ratios:
24%: for Government
76%: for Private
Obviously these ratios have to be off somewhat, but (hopefully) they should be close.
enjoy!
Pons Asinorum (20c241) — 8/24/2009 @ 11:43 pmHow much public money is spent in the fight against AIDS?
If Obamacare passes, the health care system will eventually crash due to government incompetence, corruption and lack of a profit motive. There simply isn’t enough money in the system to maintain the current level of government sponsored R&D and still provide enough graft and payoffs to ‘associates’. Government R&D will have to be reduced, and since there will be no private sector to take up the slack, the sick will just have to get by.
Or not.
Apogee (e2dc9b) — 8/25/2009 @ 12:16 amIs it any coincidence that previous eastern-bloc countries were behind the times in medical care, equipment and facilities? And I know of which I speak, being the brother of a man who found himself in a Prague hospital for treatment of Guillan-Barre Syndrome.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 8/25/2009 @ 12:45 amJohn, I just went to your blog.
You have my prayers, and I hope all is well (or soon will be) for you.
Pons Asinorum (20c241) — 8/25/2009 @ 1:09 amYou’re spectacularly wrong about everything you just wrote.
1. Dr. Laura Schlessinger didn’t “force” Dr. Dean Edell “off most of” anything.
2. Schlessinger is not and never has been on “the EIB network,” which is made up solely of stations carrying The Rush Limbaugh Show, syndicated by Premiere Radio Networks (a subsidiary of radio mammoth Clear Channel).
3. Schlessinger first became a national sensation after her local L.A. show was bought by Premiere, but she has recently signed a new exclusive deal with Roy Masters’ Talk Radio Network, which syndicates Michael Savage, Laura Ingraham and Rusty Humphries, among others. OTOH, Dr. Dean Edell is still on the air and still syndicated by Premiere.
4. Dr. Dean Edell DOESN’T advocate circumcision, he has called it “child abuse” and has vociferously supported the anti-circumcision activist group NOCIRC.
If you can’t hear Edell on the radio anymore, maybe it’s because most radio listeners find him as boring as I do.
Where do you get your information, AmericaBlog?
L.N. Smithee (1f50b5) — 8/25/2009 @ 1:41 amI blame the Jews!
lonetown (d7ec3b) — 8/25/2009 @ 2:44 am“That makes the following ratios:
24%: for Government
76%: for Private”
The question is about AIDS research.
imdw (81eb09) — 8/25/2009 @ 4:57 amIt literally takes effort to be as intentionally obtuse in the manner in which imdw is, consistently.
JD (b86d0b) — 8/25/2009 @ 5:18 amimdw – Say “dicks” again. Giggles.
daleyrocks (718861) — 8/25/2009 @ 5:25 amSmithee, you’re right about one thing. I had the circumcision story backwards. Otherwise, she did force him off and he is on only on weekends. You may find him boring but his info is excellent (except the circumcision bit) and most radio docs are useless.
Mike K (2cf494) — 8/25/2009 @ 5:42 amGreat. Now the Gov’t want to forcible mutilate my son’s genitalia. How did the US become Nazi Germany overnight?
Clancy (90974f) — 8/25/2009 @ 6:13 am[…] Will Obama Appoint a Circumcision Czar Jump to Comments The Centers for Disease Control Are Preparing to Recommend Mandatory Circumcision for American Boys …. […]
Will Obama Appoint a Circumcision Czar « Teh Resistance Blog (c67638) — 8/25/2009 @ 6:30 amAre the doctors coming for our foreskins the same ones that prey on our persecuted tonsils??
Techie (482700) — 8/25/2009 @ 6:31 amI apologize in advance for the TMI, but I’ve gone from being normal, to being a victim of male genital mutilation to being normal again. My head spins (and no, that is not a deliberate pun).
GM Roper (85dcd7) — 8/25/2009 @ 6:44 amThat’s going to scar anyone’s psyche.
Not only the psyche!
GM Roper (85dcd7) — 8/25/2009 @ 6:47 amChopping off part of your body because of what might happen in the future is ridiculous. Similarly, we could recommend all newborns have their appendixes (appendices?) removed because they might develop appendicitis later on in life, and you “really don’t need that appendix anyway.”
Andy (0d5f50) — 8/25/2009 @ 6:49 amAnd how much private money is this crowding out?
Since all you seem to be doing is “asking questions,” in the guise of changing the subject by any means necessary, how about you answer one yourself: how much money did Bush spend on eradicating AIDS in Africa, and what were the results?
Dmac (e6d1c2) — 8/25/2009 @ 7:10 am#50 — Comment by imdw — 8/25/2009 @ 4:57 am
Just like a liberal: cannot formulate a clear question, wants someone else to do the work, then complains when that work is done for them.
I stipulated that your question was unclear (@44), but gave a good faith effort to research it anyway, on the off-chance you had a good point to make (should have saved my effort).
Now I have a multiple- choice question for you: Why can’t you do own research?
a) lazy
b) sloppy
c) incapable
d) scared
e) disingenuous
f) all (or some combination) of above.
PS: The figure quoted to you (@36) was TOTAL budget, which you did not object.
Pons Asinorum (20c241) — 8/25/2009 @ 10:35 amPPS: daleyrock asked for clarification of your question (@40), which you did not provide.
PPPS: you’re welcome.
More Pons, less asshattery. Please.
I have one word which should end this debate.
Smegma
JD (c4dd89) — 8/25/2009 @ 10:44 amPerfect description JD — you always find the right word.
!! LOL !!
Pons Asinorum (20c241) — 8/25/2009 @ 10:49 amThere’s a saying: Be careful where you put your signature and your weenie.
nk (b17d90) — 8/25/2009 @ 11:01 amAndy, if removing an appendix was trivially easy, and the appendix did as little as the foreskin did, and was as prone to filth and disease or some other equivalent risk, of course it would be wise to remove it at birth.
Though I wouldn’t say that’s the government’s business by any stretch.
The logic is clear as to how circumcision prevents sickness. Parents should think about it and make their own minds up, but I hope they go ahead and have this done.
Juan (bd4b30) — 8/25/2009 @ 2:37 pmSo, not only is Juan a racist, he is also an advocate for male genital mutilation and the torture of innocents who cannot even give consent /spit
JD (b279d0) — 8/25/2009 @ 2:44 pmHey, JD. Do you mean that Juan wants to torture innocents who cannot even give consent or spit, or do you mean that he wants to torture innocents who cannot even give consent and then you spit with disdain over Juan’s attitude?
It’s so tough to be politically correct these days. Your guidance—all things are racist—is invaluable (grin)!
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 8/25/2009 @ 3:09 pmJD – Didn’t they have a fraternity where you went to school called “eta smegma pie”?
daleyrocks (718861) — 8/25/2009 @ 3:11 pmJD, I can see the bumper stickers now:
“They can have my foreskin after they pry it from my cold, dead fingers.”
Pons Asinorum (20c241) — 8/25/2009 @ 3:41 pmLess DSCSA, more smegma.
JD (b2305c) — 8/25/2009 @ 3:46 pmPons – It is actually “spastic cancer-ridden fingers”
JD (16fd4f) — 8/25/2009 @ 4:18 pmWhy stop at the foreskin? Removing the whole penis would have any number of benefits besides preventing disease — preventing rape for one thing and messy urine around toilets from men peeing while standing up for another. Not to mention a certain measure of equality with one half of the human race who are born without penises. Sperm, for the continuation of the human race, can be extracted via a catheter and introduced via a turkey baster or in vitro.
nk (b17d90) — 8/25/2009 @ 4:27 pmFinally, mandatory circumcision. That will be the end of AIDS, stupid anti-circ nuts. I bet every CDC doctor has a good tight circumcision. They need to make it mandatory for going to school. There’s nothing the anti-circ nuts can do about it. It had to come to this: we couldn’t let circ rates drop any farther. Every boy will be cut good. And if your doctor won’t do it, he won’t get the federal money from the CDC. It’s that simple. We won. GO USA!!!
Sirius (2b96d8) — 8/25/2009 @ 4:45 pm“Cue Sarah Palin facebook update on the “obamacare castration panels.””
I make this joke and then what? This:
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200908250038
It’s really hard to lampoon these wingnuts.
“Since all you seem to be doing is “asking questions,” in the guise of changing the subject by any means necessary, how about you answer one yourself: how much money did Bush spend on eradicating AIDS in Africa, and what were the results?”
I’ve heard he spent a lot of money buying AIDS drugs. Now, would this qualify as public money funding AIDS work, or private money when PhArma takes this money and maybe does some research with it?
imdw (e1eeed) — 8/25/2009 @ 7:05 pmThis one deserves nothing but mockery and scorn. It is a second rate alphie.
JD (c1b316) — 8/25/2009 @ 7:12 pmPersonally, I never saw any need for any money to be spent on AIDS. It is a disease of homosexuals, intravenous drug addicts, prostitutes, and those who have sex with them. It should have been allowed to burn itself out.
nk (b17d90) — 8/25/2009 @ 7:15 pmnk,
Hemophiliacs, transfusion recipients, newborns of infected mothers, hospital workers, first responders, Haitans, plus confirmed heterosexual transmission. I probably missed quite a few.
Just sayin’
Stashiu3 (ed6467) — 8/25/2009 @ 7:27 pmnk’s obviously joking in #72, but really how far will the government go? They think my genitals are their business.
I’ve met a few democrats who think men should have a license to have their mandatory vasectomies reversed in order to have kids. It’s planned parenthood’s eugenic dream. How far would Obama go? We really don’t know. He’s fucking crazy with his death panel staff and his AIDS conspiracy preacher (imdw, how dare you criticize Bush fighting AIDS when it was probably the GOP who invented AIDS!!!).
this stop never ends. They get my circumcision, and then what? They get snitches for my emails, and then what? That’s Rush’s basic argument… this isn’t their business, even if it’s a good idea.
Juan (bd4b30) — 8/25/2009 @ 7:28 pm“Personally, I never saw any need for any money to be spent on AIDS. It is a disease of homosexuals, intravenous drug addicts, prostitutes, and those who have sex with them. It should have been allowed to burn itself out.”
It’s 1986 all over again.
imdw (1b1354) — 8/25/2009 @ 7:32 pm“this stop never ends. They get my circumcision, and then what? They get snitches for my emails, and then what? That’s Rush’s basic argument… this isn’t their business, even if it’s a good idea.”
It totally is the dicks.
imdw (1b1354) — 8/25/2009 @ 7:34 pmTo clarify, I didn’t see anything that suggests this will be a mandatory policy, just a recommendation. However, most physicians urge their patients to comply with CDC recommendations so it can have a quasi-mandatory effect.
DRJ (3f5471) — 8/25/2009 @ 7:36 pmStashiu #77,
Hemophiliacs and transfusion recipients, who got infected blood, were all dead by 1992. That is the major source of my bitterness. Homosexuals, intravenous drug users, prostitutes, and those who has sex with them, were able to infect the blood supply and make their problem our problem.
Ok, you’re 100% right about newborns and health care workers.
nk (b17d90) — 8/25/2009 @ 7:55 pm“To clarify, I didn’t see anything that suggests this will be a mandatory policy, just a recommendation.”
Why clarify? you’re spoiling all the fun. Obama is coming to get all the dicks.
imdw (932e84) — 8/25/2009 @ 8:20 pmIn an effort to control costs of this program, Doctors will not be allowed to charge for cirumcisions. However, they can keep the tips.
TomHynes (2e563b) — 8/25/2009 @ 9:11 pmIf there was ever a need for an example of the aggressive dishonesty and mendacity of imdw, one only need to read its comments here.
JD (3138f3) — 8/25/2009 @ 9:18 pmUmm…it is the CDC we’re talking about, isn’t making recommendations regarding “Disease Control” kinda the point?
NK asked the pertinent question way up at #17: How good is the science on this? I’m too lazy to check myself (not that I’m actually qualified), but I trust that the CDC isn’t and that they maintain high scientific standards. I’d be concerned if we have reasons to doubt this.
DRJ, I agree that individual physicians give strong weight to CDC recommendations, but I don’t believe they give equal weight to all recommendations. Physicians have their own resposibilities to keep abreast of the latest science in areas where they have to make their own recommendations. Also I imagine this decision is still made primarily by parental preference – likely how the men in the family are cut.
A CDC recommendation will obviously push towards greater circumcision, but nobody is being forced and if that is what the science recommends, then isn’t that what you should do?
Bob Loblaw (6d485c) — 8/25/2009 @ 10:20 pmThe article notes several reasons why circumcision is unlikely to contribute anything to AIDS prevention in America the way it has in Africa, so what’s the point of this recommendation? In other words, do we really want the CDC to encourage physicians to make recommendations that are unlikely to produce a meaningful benefit?
DRJ (3f5471) — 8/25/2009 @ 10:28 pmDRJ, I think we disagree on what the CDC’s role is here.
I see their role as providing an answer to the scientific and public policy question: is circumcision better than non-circumcision to control this disease? That to me is pretty straight forward. I would assume they convey their recommendations on to the primary physicians along with information regarding efficacy etc.
Certainly primary physicians (who after all have to have this conversation at half their births) will be well informed of all the important implications when discussing this with the new parents.
Bob Loblaw (6d485c) — 8/25/2009 @ 10:59 pmI view that as the CDC’s role, too, but AIDS isn’t the only disease in the U.S. and circumcision isn’t the only solution. Further, there are risks to circumcision that this recommendation glosses over, and the American Academy of Pediatrics does not recommend it:
DRJ (3f5471) — 8/25/2009 @ 11:21 pmSo the CDC & AAP don’t see eye to eye; sounds like a pretty borderline issue. CDC obviously has a bias towards disease control, I don’t really see the problem here? I don’t doubt both agree: “parents should choose what is best for their child by looking at the benefits and risks.”
Bob Loblaw (6d485c) — 8/26/2009 @ 12:38 am