Tuesday, August 28, 2012

NEW YORK: The NY Times doesn't quite buy the AAP policy

New York Times
August 27, 2012

Benefits of Circumcision Are Said to Outweigh Risks

By Roni Caryn Rabin
The American Academy of Pediatrics has shifted its stance on infant male circumcision, announcing on Monday that new research, including studies in Africa suggesting that the procedure may protect heterosexual men against H.I.V., indicated that the health benefits outweighed the risks.

But the academy stopped short of recommending routine circumcision for all baby boys, saying the decision remains a family matter. The academy had previously taken a neutral position on circumcision.

The new policy statement, the first update of the academy’s circumcision policy in over a decade, appears in the Aug. 27 issue of the journal Pediatrics. The group’s guidelines greatly influence pediatric care and decisions about coverage by insurers; in the new statement, the academy also said that circumcision should be covered by insurance.

The long-delayed policy update comes as sentiment against circumcision is gaining strength in the United States and parts of Europe. Circumcision rates in the United States declined to 54.5 percent in 2009 from 62.7 percent in 1999, ...

Officials with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, which for several years have been pondering circumcision recommendations of their own, have yet to weigh in and declined to comment on the academy’s new stance. Medicaid programs in several states have stopped paying for the routine circumcision of infants.

“We’re not pushing everybody to circumcise their babies,” Dr. Douglas S. Diekema, a member of the academy’s task force on circumcision and an author of the new policy, said in an interview. “This is not really pro-circumcision. It falls in the middle. It’s pro-choice, for lack of a better word. Really, what we’re saying is, ‘This ought to be a choice that’s available to parents.’ ”

But opponents of circumcision say no one — not even a well-meaning parent — has the right to make the decision to remove a healthy body part from another person.

“The bottom line is it’s unethical,” said Georganne Chapin, founding director of Intact America, a national group that advocates against circumcision. “A normal foreskin on a normal baby boy is no more threatening than the hymen or labia on your daughter.”

In updating its 1999 policy, the academy’s task force reviewed the medical literature on benefits and harms of the surgery. It was a protracted analysis that began in 2007, and the result is a 30-page report, which includes seven pages of references, including 248 citations.

Among those are 14 studies that provide what the experts characterize as “fair” evidence that circumcision in adulthood protects men from H.I.V. transmission from a female partner, cutting infection rates by 40 to 60 percent. Three of the studies were large randomized controlled trials of the kind considered the gold standard in medicine, but they were carried out in Africa, where H.I.V. — the virus the causes AIDS — is spread primarily among heterosexuals.
 
Circumcision does not appear to reduce H.I.V. transmission among men who have sex with men, Dr. Diekema said. “The degree of benefit, or degree of impact, in a place like the U.S. will clearly be smaller than in a place like Africa,” he said.

Two studies have found that circumcision actually increases the risk of H.I.V. infection among sexually active men and women, the academy noted.

Other studies have linked male circumcision to lower rates of infection with human papillomavirus and herpes simplex Type 2. But male circumcision is not associated with lower rates of gonorrhea or chlamydia, and evidence for protection against syphilis is weak, the review said.

The procedure has long been recognized to lower urinary tract infections early in life and reduce the incidence of penile cancer.

Although newborn male circumcision is generally believed to be relatively safe, deaths are not unheard of, and the review noted that “the true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision is unknown.”
 
Significant complications are believed to occur in approximately one in 500 procedures. Botched operations can result in damage or even amputation of parts of the penis, and by one estimate about 117 boys die each year.

Anesthesia is often not used, and the task force recommended that pain relief, including penile nerve blocks, be used regularly, a change that may raise the rate of complications.



The Intactivism Pages say:

The American Academy of Pediatrics policy on male genital cutting is flawed and culturally biased. It should be withdrawn.
  • It fails to consider the structure or functions of the foreskin, a normal healthy body part, only cutting it off.
  • It claims benefits of circumcising outweigh the risks without ever numerically comparing them.
  • It exaggerates benefits and minimizes risks and harm: For example -
    • It cites a study showing that circumcision removes the most sensitive part of the penis and ignores that finding.
    • It admits the African HIV findings may not be applicable to the USA, but goes ahead and applies them.
    • It cites a study suggesting circumcising men increases the HIV risk to women, and ignores that finding.
    • It cites a study showing that a narrow foreskin, not a normal one, is the issue in penile cancer, and ignores that finding.
    • It dismisses major complications and death from circumcision because it didn't find any statistical studies of them.
    • It discusses the action of the Mogen circumcision clamp without mentioning that the clamp has caused too much of several boys' penises to be cut off; lawsuits have driven the company out of business.
  • It repeats the common claim that it is safer to circumcise babies than adults, but offers no evidence for that claim.
  • Its ethical consultant has said elsewhere that circumcision is not necessary and has a risk of harm, and that a parental wish is not sufficient to justify doing any surgery, and it ignores that.
The AAP should withdraw its circumcision policy the way it withdrew its female genital cutting policy after a storm of outrage two years ago, when it recommended a token ritual nick to baby girls, much LESS extensive than neonatal male genital cutting. If that was unacceptable, how can this be acceptable?

Other reaction:

DENMARK: Does circumcision violate the health code?

August 26, 2012

Denmark to probe whether circumcision violates health code

(JTA) -- Denmark has commissioned an investigation into whether non-medical circumcision procedures violate its health code.

“We will examine the public health recommendations followed in this area,” Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt told the Copenhagen-based Politiken daily on Saturday.

Politiken reported that the Danish government has commissioned a study on this question. Last month the paper published an expose that said the National Board of Health did not monitor the conditions under which circumcision takes place.

Non-medical circumcision of minors has been the subject of a heated debate in Denmark over the past few months. Several politicians reportedly have called for a ban on the practice, prompting angry reactions from Jews and Muslims.

Venstre, Denmark’s largest party, will decide whether to seek a ban on such circumcisions based on the results of the study, a party spokesperson told JTA.

The chief rabbi of Denmark, Bent Lexner, told Politiken that he did not think the launching of the investigation reflected distrust on the government’s part. He said the government was welcome to carry out its investigation.
...

Sunday, August 26, 2012

EDITORIAL: AAP policy unethical, dishonest

August 26, 2012

Leaks distort AAP's already-biased policy

By Hugh Young
Websites supporting circumcision have leaked the American Academy of Pediatrics' policy on circumcision, adding further spin to an already biased policy.

The Tablet trumpets "Leading Pediatric Group Endorses Circumcision" and this has been echoed on other conservative sites.

They do NOT "endorse" it. They say "health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns" but the benefits outweigh the risks and then, as they always have, leave it up to parents.

Yet their own ethicist, Dr Douglas Diekema has said on oath that, "the request of a parent or surrogate decision-maker is never sufficient to justify a particular clinical intervention." (The same Dr Diekema has never recanted his support of a token ritual nick to girls' genitals "much less extensive than neonatal male genital cutting" that was the AAP's policy on FGC for a month in 2010 until a storm of public outrage forced it to backtrack).

Their policy exaggerates the benefits and minimizes the risks. For example, there are no good statistical studies of major complications or deaths, so it simply ignores them. It cherry-picks data and misrepresents it. For example it cites a study that found "circumcision [removes] the most senstive part of the penis" but ignores that finding - in fact it ignores the foreskin as much as it can, neither defining it nor considering its unique structure and many functions.

It discusses one circumcision clamp's action without mentioning that its maker has gone out of business after losing lawsuits worth millions to the families of boys who lost too much in the clamps.

Its pro-circumcision bias is manifest - as is its financial interest in getting your taxes and health insurance premiums into their pockets through public funding of circumcision.

As one satirist put it:
An earnest, overachieving group of middle school students proudly turns in a 3-year term paper entitled:

Forty Reasons Why Circumcision Is a Really Good Thing

by Cathie Cutup and her 8 friends
when the assignment was, in fact,
Juvenile Male Anatomy:
How It Looks, How It Works and How to Keep it Healthy
.
 
They exhaustively answered the wrong question, and delved deeper into wrong than anyone thought humanly possible. They get an "A" for effort and an "F" overall on the assignment....

There never should have been a "Task Force on Circumcision", because everything looks like a nail when you're a hammer. If the AAP is so concerned with the health of the penis, then they should have had a Task Force on Male Urogenital Health and Development, and just observed in passing that unnecessary circumcision was an odd religious thing, outside the realm of ethical medicine. Period.

Trainer: You exhaustively answered the wrong question, but thanks for playing". Bzzt!

Bottom line: the AAP does not recommend circumcision. It is still true that no national medical association in the world does.

SWAZILAND: Fashion shows to lure mothers into circumcising

Swazi Observer
August 24, 2012

Fashion show for expectant moms at SITF

By Phumla Dlamini
PSI Swaziland invites all expectant mums and dads to a Baby Fair on September 3 at the Mavuso Trade Centre. The event will coincide with the ongoing Swaziland International Trade Fair (SITF).

The Baby Fair is part of the ‘Lugotjwa Lusemanti’ campaign that seeks to encourage early circumcision of the boy child.

highlight
The main highlight on this day will be a fashion show, which will see pregnant women parading fashionable maternity wear.

...

scanning
Due to popular demand at the previous trade fair, there will also be a sex scanning machine which will be available for the first 50 women to utilise.
[...so they can browbeat those expecting boys before they are born]
 
...

Mothers willing to have their babies circumcised must come through because it will be done for free.
[Hurry! This price won't last!] ...

DENMARK: Enquiry into circumcision practice

Straits Times
August 24, 2012

Denmark to review male circumcision practices

COPENHAGEN (AFP) - Denmark has commissioned a report into whether male circumcision is always carried out in line with national health guidelines, the prime minister said on Thursday.

Controversy surrounding the non-medical circumcision of young boys arose earlier this summer when Danish media revealed that the National Board of Health did not monitor the conditions under which circumcision takes place.

"We must make sure that things take place in a proper way. And the government is taking the initiative to do so. We will investigate whether the National Board of Health recommendations are being met," Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt told a national daily.

Under the health board rules, a doctor must be present during male circumcision...

BERLIN: "Ethics" council condones non-therapeutic cutting

Jpost
August 23, 2012

Peres to German president: End circumcision row

By Benjamin Weithal
German Ethics Council conditionally supports the ritual, following an anti-circumcision ruling in Cologne.

President Shimon Peres called on German President Joachim Gauck on Thursday to resolve the German legal issues around circumcision, Army Radio reported.

...

The controversy follows a criminal complaint filed this week by a physician in Germany against Rabbi David Goldberg, a mohel based in Hof Saale, Bavaria, for performing brit mila.
Germany's Ethics Council came out in conditional support of circumcision, its chairwoman Christiane Woopen said Thursday following a council meeting.

[So how did it address the statement in the Grundgesetz (Basic Law) that
"Every person shall have the right to life and physical integrity. Freedom of the person shall be inviolable."?] According to German media, Woopen said that the agreement of both parents should be necessary, the possibility of anesthesia should be introduced to alleviate pain and there should be comprehensive education about the risks associated with circumcision.

Additionally, the procedure should be carried out by medical professional. [...like the one who botched the Muslim boy in Cologne....]
 
The members of the ethics council recommended a committee consisting of Jews, Muslims, parent groups and doctors from various disciplines to participate in clarifying Germany's position on the issue. According to reports, members of the Ethics council had differing views on the ritual's place in Germany.

Hamburg-based legal expert Reinhard Merkel stressed at the meeting that he considers circumcision without anesthesia to be" legally and ethically not acceptable." He added this should not be allowed to take place.

The deputy representative of the ethics council, the evangelical theologian, Peter Dabrock, advocated for "proven effective pain therapy measures" for the procedure.

However, the Cologne legal expert, Wolfram Höfling, said it is necessary to have a "recognition of circumcision as a parental right." He conditioned his advocacy of circumcision on the avoidance of pain during the process.

Leo Latasch, a Jewish physician on the council, suggested he was amenable to a local anesthesia. He said anesthesia is already a customary method in Germany. Latasch flatly rejected that circumcision of young boys is comparable with genital mutilation of young girls.According to Latasch, medical complications take place in less than 0.2 percent of the cases by circumcision and there is no proof that the procedure results in traumatic after effects.

The Muslim medical ethicist Ilhan Ilkiliç called for a "factual" debate. He warned of operations in back rooms without supervision and a "circumcision tourism" if lawmakers do not react to the Cologne decision criminalizing circumcision.
[The fear of backroom cutting has never deterred bans on FGC - except briefly, in AAP policy.]
 
...

According to the DPA news service, the authorities in Bavaria are examining the complaint for "criminal relevancy."

However, following the Cologne ruling Bavarian authorities said that they would not enforce the decision in their state.

...


Just Genesis
August 25, 2012

Circumcision debated

Germany's national Ethics Council (Ethikrat) has recommended authorising circumcision if safeguards are in place. ...

But the recommendation was made after a robust debate. A legal scholar, Reinhard Merkel, said that it was "bizarre" that religious communities could be allowed to define when and how a human body could be injured. If a child's right to bodily integrity had to be weighed against religious requirements, this was a "legal policy crisis". However, he squared the circle by invoking an "indebtedness" to Jews which called for a "special law". [Would this "indebtedness" apply outside Germany? And would the special law include Muslims?] Constitutional law expert Wolfram Höfling, on the other hand, argued that parental rights were paramount. If they believed that the ritual was in the best interests of the child then this should be respected, especially since millions of circumcisions have occurred without complications. [Complications are not the only issue.]

DURBAN: Call for enquiry into TaraKLamp

iol
August 23, 2012

Call for circumcision device probe

By Nosihle Shelembe
Durban - The Treatment Action Campaign has asked the Public Protector to investigate the procurement and ongoing use of a device used to perform medical male circumcisions in KwaZulu-Natal.

...

“The TK [Tara KLamp] is a dangerous device. It has specifically not been approved by the World Health Organisation because it failed in the only clinical trial conducted to test its safety,” [TAC provincial chairman Patrick] Mdletshe said.

The TK is a plastic device which is clamped over the foreskin of a man’s penis for seven to 10 days until the foreskin falls off. Sometimes, the device has to be surgically removed.

The TAC said the TK was used only in KwaZulu-Natal, as all the other provinces had rejected it.
Using TK cost R120 more per circumcision than the standard surgical method, Mdletshe said.

A man who did not want to be named, and who was circumcised using the TK, said that before the procedure, his penis had not been measured when it was in an erect state.

“At about 3am in the morning, when I get my erection, it becomes very painful as my penis size increases,” he said.

...

“In January 2012, we received a draft document outlining the research carried out. However the methodology of this research was so poor it provided no evidential value regarding the safety of the TK,” Mdletshe said.

Trials of the TK on adults in Orange Farm showed that it was unsafe.

The trials revealed that there was a 32 percent infection rate using the TK compared to the zero percent when using the forceps guided method (FGM), which was the standard surgical method.

The complication rate when using the TK was 37 percent compared to three percent using the FGM.
According to the TAC, no tender had been published for the procurement of the TK.

“The TK was purchased from a supplier with links to government, rather than a competitor offering a low price,” Mdletshe said.

...