Monday, August 27, 2012

Circumcision

The American Academy of Pediatrics has concluded that circumcision of newborn males is economically wise and should be an insurance company reimbursable expense:

In 2007, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) formed a multidisciplinary task force of AAP members and other stakeholders to evaluate the recent evidence on male circumcision and update the Academy’s  1999 recommendations in this area. Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and that the procedure’s benefits justify access to this procedure for families who choose it. Specific benefits identified included prevention of urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has endorsed this statement. Pediatrics 2012;130:585–586

4 comments:

Stan Burton said...

there are of course reasons to circumcise (STD's and religious rites primarily) but you have to balance that against the rare but real risk of permanent damage to the child's genitalia as well. Any time you carve on the human body there are risks. risks of infection, scarring, loss of sensation, or if the doctor is really incompetent, loss of the penis is possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

Joseph said...

Should any routine medical procedure be covered by insurance?

Jessica Swinson said...

Economically wise? Not only do I severely question taking advantage of helpless infants for monetary reasons, I don't believe that is the case at all...in the majority of the world, circumcision is NOT as common as it is in the US and the other 1st world countries health care systems don't seem to be breaking the bank. As far as STD protection goes,"Condoms are much more effective (99%) than circumcision, less invasive, much less costly, and they protect women from infection. (Common sense check: If a condom is better than circumcision, why circumcise?)" http://www.circumcision.org/aap.htm

dreamer said...

It's interesting how this position is in such strong contrast with the Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG), and any benefits are not so urgent that the decision cannot be put off until the age where the risk is relevant and the boy can decide for himself. The KNMG calls to inform parents and carers of the risks and lack of convincing medical benefits and to ultimately restrict non-therapeutic circumcision of minors as much as possible.

Read the full viewpoint here: http://knmg.artsennet.nl/web/file?uuid=579e836d-ea83-410f-9889-feb7eda87cd5&owner=a8a9ce0e-f42b-47a5-960e-be08025b7b04&contentid=77976&elementid=771754