Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
Melissa P
Posted:
2014-12-03
Tracking Number:
1jy-8ftr-5esz

The funny thing is that many people focus on genital cutting of males as prevention, but it doesn't prevent. FGM has been shown to prevent, yet no one is beating down the door claiming we should cut women in the US. Men without foreskin are missing langerhans cells which can kill hiv in healthy individuals if they are exposed. Keep in mind that reuse of needles and poor health care conditions in various locations are big issues with regard to the spread of hiv. Men with out all their nerves, which foreskin has, tend to avoid condoms, too bc of the lack of sensation. This raises the chance of transmission. They also leave tiny tears in their partners due to the dry and calloused glans which makes it easier for the partner to get any STI if exposed. I am really tired of the #misandry #lies #myths you all perpetuate. http://www.washingtonpost.com/.../03/05/AR2007030500357.html

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2014-12-03
Tracking Number:
1jy-8ftw-x5vs

Even though circumcision is NOT medical treatment, your less than informed statement makes it APPEAR to be treatment. So let me explain which laws you're in violation of.. the most simple and important of all is the Constitutional right the Bodily integrity, and why the CDC is in VIOLATION of their mission statement, "Saving lives, Protecting People, by recommend forced infant genital mutilation. With this statement the CDC is in fact JEOPARDIZING public health.Definitions: Circumcision: The surgical removal of the foreskin of the penis or prepuce. Battery: an intentional unpermitted act causing harmful or offensive contact with the "person" of another. Forced infant circumcision is battery.It is intentionally done by the physician, assistant, mohel, or other persons.It is unpermitted by the individual who is being assaulted.It is harmful, removing functional, healthy tissue.You are criminal conspirators. Expect phone calls, public outcry and legal involvement in the interest of non-consenting children.In 1986, case Belchertown State Sch. V. Saikewicz a Supreme Court declared a patient have the right to refuse treatment for any reason.in 2010 Stouffer v Reid, "We explained that 'fountainhead of the doctrine [of informed consent] is the patient's right to exercise control over his own body, ...by deciding for himself [or herself] whether or not to submit to the particular therapy.'The list continues including critical cases like the 2006 Boldt V. Boldt a Supreme court ruled that the child has the right to declare if he undergoes surgery, specifically the type of genital mutilation that is commonly known as Circumcision.If the CDC continues to declare that this form of genital mutilation has benefits they will be in direct opposition to and in complete refusal to acknowledge existing medical evidence supporting the contrary, that men and their partners are at a GREATER risk of contracting STD's and HIV if the man is CIRCUMCISED. 38 MD's, 24 holding Doctorates, medical professionals from around the world came together to produce an informed professional statement, declaring, with evidence, that forced infant genital mutilation is harmful the boy the man and his partners. Find that here:http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/12/peds.2012-2896.full.pdf+htmlIn conclusion these 38 MD's, 24 of which holding PhD's, state

"There is growing consensus amongphysicians, including those in theUnited States, that physicians shoulddiscourage parents from circumcisingtheir healthy infant boys because nontherapeuticcircumcision of underageboys in Western societies has nocompelling health benefits, causespostoperative pain, can have seriouslong-term consequences, constitutesa violation of the United Nations Declarationof the Rights of the Child, andconflicts with the Hippocratic oath:primum non nocere: First, do no harm."

SHAME THE CDC

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2014-12-03
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fts-a4ah

Infants are not having sex. Ignoring the many flaws in coming to the conclusion that circumcision magically prevents the spread of HIV and STI's, it is completely irrelevant when deciding to remove a healthy part of a baby boy's genitals. If he comes of age and decides to amputate part of his penis and still have to use a condom to prevent getting STIs, all the more power to him. Also, the CDC has disregarded that the foreskin and frenulum are healthy, functional parts of the penis and how majorely downplayed the risks, which there are many. Shame on the CDC for putting out such a biased statement.

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2014-12-03
Tracking Number:
1jy-8ftu-yuu5

FIRST!

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2014-12-03
Tracking Number:
1jy-8ftu-yhyz

Circumcision is a procedure to remove a functioning organ from a non consenting minor. It's un-ethical and the benefits do not out weigh the risks. Where are the studies showing the infant mortality from circumcision? Also what about all the foreskin functions... why are they not included? This conclusion is very one sided!

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
Amanda Devoe
Posted:
2014-12-03
Tracking Number:
1jy-8ftu-9k71

Interesting that the recommendation from the CDC is to slice away perfectly healthy skin from infant boys over encouraging protected, safe sex. You recommend a permanent, life-long disfigurement as a protective method against an already drastically low rate of infection? Why not encourage proper intact care, recommending that pediatricians be brought up to date on knowing not to forcefully retract? Why not mention to the parents about the increased risk of ED later in life? Why not mention that the American Cancer Society states that circumcision is not an effective means of preventing penile cancer? Your power struggle is at the cost of innocent people, boys that have no say. Why aren't our boys deserving the same rights of protection of our girls? Higher rates of appendicitis, but they aren't routinely removed.

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
Amanda Garlow
Posted:
2014-12-03
Tracking Number:
1jy-8ftu-ucxx

Before I comment, I think it's important to note that I am at a disadvantage as an advocate for leaving infant foreskin intact. There is no way for me to back up an argument emphasizing the function of foreskin because there is little legitimately unbiased scientific study on the matter. If I quote information from anti-circ organizations, the information appears slanted and easy to discredit. Scientific journals are full of polls asking men if they're satisfied with being circumcised/intact, which does not constitute valid scientific research. There is inherent bias and no control data in an opinion poll when there is no frame of reference for respondents. (A circumcised male can never know whether he would be happier intact because he has never experienced that, and an intact male can never know whether he would be happier circumcised for the same reason.) I even have to be careful of my rhetoric. If I use semantically neutral language, such as "intact," or call circumcision what it is - forced genital cutting - I appear biased simply because in the U.S. circumcision is the norm. That being said, I will do my best to provide a valid, unbiased argument against circumcision with supporting evidence given these handicaps.

Firstly, studies supporting the effectiveness of circumcision in preventing certain STDs have been cherry picked. Other studies have been conducted that showed no difference, even in locations where HIV contraction rates are extremely high:

"To settle this issue, three trials were set up in sub-Saharan Africa, which together involved more than 11,000 previously uncircumcised men. (7) Each man was randomly assigned to one of two categories: one group had their foreskins removed at the start of the study and the others remained uncircumcised. All men received extensive counselling on HIV prevention and risk reduction techniques. During the trials, researchers collected information about the mens sexual behaviour to check whether it varied between the two groups; they found no significant differences." (http://www.avert.org/male-circumcision.htm#sthash.YYvH1ksM.dpuf)

Secondly, by our government's own admission, circumcision is a painful procedure administered without pain management for the infant, which means it is at best unethical to perform it without distinct cause. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0012623/)

Thirdly, there are many far more effective methods of preventing STDs, particularly HIV, that do not involve ethically questionable surgical intervention. Condom use has been shown to be at least 80 percent effective in preventing the spread of HIV, while in even the most optimistic of studies circumcision only had a 50 percent success rate.

Finally, UNAIDS and WHO recommend that circumcision be used as a preventative method in countries with high prevalence of HIV and other STDs. "High prevalence" is defined as above 3 percent of the general population, which includes many countries in sub-Saharan Africa. (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.html) No western country has an infection rate above 3 percent, despite circumcision rates being lower than 20 percent in most European countries. (http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/malecircumcision/infopack_en_2.pdf)

Propagating the recommendation to encourage routine infant circumcision would be devastating step backward for pediatric care in the United States. That fact that a procedure can prevent spread of illness is not enough justification for its recommendation if it violates the immediate bodily autonomy and long-term healthy function of the child. If continually backed by the scientific community, this notice will be heavily misinterpreted and cited, especially in the United States, as justification for unnecessary genital cutting.

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2014-12-03
Tracking Number:
1jy-8ftu-hjq0

CDC, Big time FAIL on your part. Encouraging mutilating baby boys because of studies done in a 3rd world countries on sexually active men in a nation with different sexual and hygiene practices??? Are you insane? It's all about the money, isn't it? Shame, shame on you. Because of this there will be an increase of parents violating their son's human rights by cutting healthy flesh from their bodies. Disgusting. Expect to see a lot of outrage now and in years to come when these babies grow up into men who resent their mutilations and blame you.

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
Lindsey D
Posted:
2014-12-03
Tracking Number:
1jy-8ftv-a47a

How many men will now believe that they are immune to HIV simply because they are circumcised? How many of those men will give up the use of condoms based on those ideas of "protection"? With these recommendations, the CDC will help to bring about a new surge in the epidemic.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2064110/

"A suspected entry route for HIV turns out to be a dead-end, report Lot de Witte, Teunis Geijtenbeek (VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, Netherlands), and colleagues. Langerhans cells [found in the foreskin of the penis], rather than transmitting the virus to T cells, trap HIV-1 and thus act as a barrier to infection."

Where are your recommendations based on these findings indicating that the foreskin is full of specialized cells that form an important barrier to HIV infection?

Why on earth should anyone believe that studies done in Africa would be applicable to the population of the United States?

Further examples of flaws from those African studies:

"All three of the clinical trials conducted in sub-Saharan Africa were terminated early. More than 700 participants were lost to follow-up, their HIV status unknown; i.e., 4.5 times more participants were lost to follow-up than were reported to have been protected from HIV by circumcision. The study participants were paid, provided free condoms, and given extensive education and counseling, thus limiting the real world applicability of the studies."

"No consideration was given to the probability that a significant number of HIV infections were contracted through means other than sexual conduct, calling into question the entire premise of the RCTs."

"All three RCTs were halted earlier than designed, including a study investigating the effect upon female infections. In one study, circumcised mens infection rates were increasing toward the intact mens rate prior to the study being halted. Following the study period, all participants in the control group were then offered circumcision, eliminating the possibility of any accurate follow-up study."

http://www.intactamerica.org/sites/default/files/IASummaryAtlanta.pdf

Give us an explanation for these recommendations that shows how these recommendations are not simply another example of American cultural bias, please. How many of the decision makers here are circumcised men? Let the public be aware.

One last question- since the United States has such a high incidence of circumcision, why does it also have such a high rate of HIV infection? Especially as compared to Europe (with an almost non-existent circumcision rate)? We are waiting for answers.

Thank you,

Students For Genital Iintegrity.org

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
Brother K
Posted:
2014-12-03
Tracking Number:
1jy-8ftv-xxw5

The CDC conveniently overlooks the European medical community's recent denunciation of American circumcision policy (link below). The trajectory of human history has always been the struggle between tyranny and freedom. Our founding fathers thought they had established a free nation that would sustain its freedom through our constitutional guarantees. They did not count on the cunning and cruelty of the circumcision superstition, nor did they envision that our nation's doctors would sneak it into our culture as medicine. Now the Federal Government has made its most arrogant venture into the circumcision wars, with a new Centers for Disease Control initiative to support the failing policy of the American Academy of Pediatrics. I do not view this as a setback in the slightest. It's a sign of their desperation, that the American people are rejecting the bloody penis surgery that has wounded generations of our sons, and the people who love them. A faceless bureaucrat at the CDC cannot alter the course of history. We are a free people in the process of fighting off yet another tyranny in the cruel history of mankind. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/12/peds.2012-2896.full.pdf+html

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
Sharlee Ashley
Posted:
2014-12-03
Tracking Number:
1jy-8ftv-2o1h

I urge the CDC to revoke their stance on circumcision. Not only is routine infant circumcision unethical because it is performing an unnecessary amputation of healthy tissue, it is a violation of human rights because it is performed on a non consenting minor without diagnostic value or a diagnosis. The foreskin is a valuable piece of the male genitalia and serves many purposes including protection and erogenous function. The argument that circumcision protects against HIV is invalid because even circumcised men absolutely must wear a condom to prevent transmission of HIV. It also brings up the question of how valid these finding are since most sexually active men in the US are circumcised, however we have astronomical rates of HIV in the country. Even the CDC states that circumcision only reduces risk by 60%. I don't know know about you but I would not take the 40% chance of contracting HIV AND still lose about 15 square inches of the most erogenous tissue in my body. It doesn't make sense that a healthy organ would function better with a part of it missing. Many will argue that intact boys are at higher risk for UTI's and infection. However, this is not the case when there is proper care of the intact penis. Intact infants and boys should never have their foreskin retracted as it creates micro-tears as the foreskin it attached to the glans. This introduces bacteria and is the number one cause of infection. Also, females are 5 times more likely to get UTI's or infection, but removing the clitoral hood or labia of an infant female would be seen and unethical and extreme. The case is identical to that of male circumcision. As a future nurse, I refuse to take part of any practice of circumcision as it is directly a violation of medical ethics. I will never recommend it and always speak to parents about how barbaric and unnecessary it is. I am extremely disappointed on the cultural biases stance that the CDC has taken on circumcision as no ETHICAL health organization in the world recxomends infant circumcision and there are even countries that are in proceeds of banning it all together.

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2014-12-03
Tracking Number:
1jy-8ftv-q9cz

My body, my right. No cosmetic surgery on a child who cannot consent.

ENOUGH.

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
Tora Spigner RN MSN
Posted:
2014-12-03
Tracking Number:
1jy-8ftv-f1a5

Every child owns his or her own body. They have the right to keep their healthy genitals, as nature made them, to use as they see fit when they are adults. Any removal, alteration, cutting or mutilating of healthy sexual tissue from a CHILD is wrong. Adults should not be determining how much genitalia a child should have. They need to grow up with whole, healthy bodies to have the sex life that nature allows them to have, not one dictated by someone else. The only way to prevent or reduce the transmission of STIs and HIV is to 1. Not have sex with a person infected with an STI or HIV 2. Always use some barrier method when having sex (Condoms or Dental Dams) with another person 3. Get tested regularly and insist that your partner be tested regularly also 4. Have monogamous and exclusive sexual relations 5. Practice abstinence or mutual masturbation Removing healthy, functional tissue from a child because you think they can not or will not do these things is WRONG.

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
Lyndsey Lancaster
Posted:
2014-12-03
Tracking Number:
1jy-8ftv-gt4z

When the AAP released their 2012 statement that "circumcision benefits outweighed the risk", the statement was widely condemned for cultural bias and "bad science". A condemnation due to cultural bias and flawed methodology was even published in the journal Pediatrics. That file can be found here:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/12/peds.2012-2896.full.pdf

The CDC is now following in the AAP's flawed footsteps. No medical organization in the world recommends that circumcision be performed routinely on newborns. In 2010, the The Royal Australasian College of Physician issued a statement saying, "After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand." In Finland, The Central Union for Child Welfare has issued a strong statement in opposition to the proposal to offer ritual circumcision in public hospitals.The Netherlands has also taken a strong stance. The Royal Dutch Medical Society published a seventeen-page position statement in English regarding the circumcision of male childen on May 27, 2010. That statement cites many problems of male circumcision and says that the operation violates the human rights of the child. It goes on to say that the KNMG would not oppose making the circumcision of male children unlawful. The document is available in a PDF file on the KNMG website.

It is time the CDC also factored in ethical concerns into their statement. Adult males can provide informed consent, so long as they are presented with all of the facts, including the potential risks and harms of circumcision. Newborn males cannot. Accepted bioethical principles dictate that proxy (e.g., parental) consent is limited to interventions where the childs health or life is at risk. This is not the case with infant circumcision an elective surgical procedure that permanently removes healthy, functional tissue from a healthy baby. Furthermore, it is concerning that circumcision is being encouraged as a method to reduce HIV transmission. This may encourage men to engage in risky behavior, if they are under the false assumption that their risk of HIV transmission is low. The CDC statement may potentially mislead many circumcised men.

The CDC has a lot to answer to. Why aren't these studies being performed in America? The majority of the male population is circumcised here, yet the CDC states "CDC estimates that 1,201,100 persons aged 13 years and older are living with HIV infection, including 168,300 (14%) who are unaware of their infection".

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2014-12-03
Tracking Number:
1jy-8ftw-4sua

Even though circumcision is NOT medical treatment, your less than informed statement makes it APPEAR to be treatment. So let me explain which laws you're in violation of.. the most simple and important of all is the Constitutional right the Bodily integrity, and why the CDC is in VIOLATION of their mission statement, "Saving lives, Protecting People, by recommend forced infant genital mutilation. With this statement the CDC is in fact JEOPARDIZING public health.Definitions: Circumcision: The surgical removal of the foreskin of the penis or prepuce. Battery: an intentional unpermitted act causing harmful or offensive contact with the "person" of another. Forced infant circumcision is battery.It is intentionally done by the physician, assistant, mohel, or other persons.It is unpermitted by the individual who is being assaulted.It is harmful, removing functional, healthy tissue.You are criminal conspirators. Expect phone calls, public outcry and legal involvement in the interest of non-consenting children.In 1986, case Belchertown State Sch. V. Saikewicz a Supreme Court declared a patient have the right to refuse treatment for any reason.in 2010 Stouffer v Reid, "We explained that 'fountainhead of the doctrine [of informed consent] is the patient's right to exercise control over his own body, ...by deciding for himself [or herself] whether or not to submit to the particular therapy.'The list continues including critical cases like the 2006 Boldt V. Boldt a Supreme court ruled that the child has the right to declare if he undergoes surgery, specifically the type of genital mutilation that is commonly known as Circumcision.If the CDC continues to declare that this form of genital mutilation has benefits they will be in direct opposition to and in complete refusal to acknowledge existing medical evidence supporting the contrary, that men and their partners are at a GREATER risk of contracting STD's and HIV if the man is CIRCUMCISED. 38 MD's, 24 holding Doctorates, medical professionals from around the world came together to produce an informed professional statement, declaring, with evidence, that forced infant genital mutilation is harmful the boy the man and his partners. Find that here: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/.../peds.2012-2896...In conclusion these 38 MD's, 24 of which holding PhD's, state

"There is growing consensus amongphysicians, including those in theUnited States, that physicians shoulddiscourage parents from circumcisingtheir healthy infant boys because nontherapeuticcircumcision of underageboys in Western societies has nocompelling health benefits, causespostoperative pain, can have seriouslong-term consequences, constitutesa violation of the United Nations Declarationof the Rights of the Child, andconflicts with the Hippocratic oath:primum non nocere: First, do no harm."

SHAME THE CDC

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
D.L. Mitchell
Posted:
2014-12-03
Tracking Number:
1jy-8ftw-qrn8

Including research from other countries, with a lower quality of living, shows that your research is flawed. How about the CDC make policy for Americans based on the American standard of living? And not some 3rd world country most of us will never go to...

The reasons you site for recommending this barbaric practice are specious at best. Do females not have the same folds of skin? Will you next be recommending that they be circumcised too? You wouldn't dare!

So why not leave our male babies intact, the way God made them? If the male then later decides that he wants to circumcise himself then at least the decision is his, and his alone.

Reverse this flawed 'researched' decision, and end this barbaric practice of mutilating our male children in the name of "cleanliness".

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
Rob Kudos
Posted:
2014-12-03
Tracking Number:
1jy-8ftw-n374

Forcible circumcision of minors who cannot consent to the procedure is a clear violation of human rights.Circumcision carries significant risks and does not provide sufficient protection to abandon the policy of condom use.A condom provide superior protection, is cost effective, and prevents unwanted pregnancies.

Circumcision amputates significant amounts of erogenous tissue, and many more nerve endings than are found in the female clitoris. No medical society outside of the United States of America recommends circumcision. Several legal scholars have come to the consensus that this is genital mutilation and is already against the law.

Circumcision of minors should be prohibited by law. The choice can be made when the individual is at an age of consent.Babies are not sexually active, therefore forcing this on an infant has no benefit and is a violation of human rights.

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
Taryn Moy
Posted:
2014-12-03
Tracking Number:
1jy-8ftw-emrl

Circumcision is highly unethical when performed on an infant. It violates the child's rights to bodily autonomy. Foreskin is not a birth defect. To imply the "benefits outweigh the risk"- is deceiving. First- a risk is DEATH, loss of penis, adhesions, skin grafts, complications continue- not to mention the thousands of sexual nerve endings that are lost. As health care professionals we make an oath to "first do no harm". The foreskin is not diseased and therefore amputation is not a consideration. As stated before "foreskin is normal". Penile cancer is very rare- and an individual can still get penile cancer regardless of if they have foreskin or not. Also- a male is more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer- what will be next? The removal of breast buds from baby males and females? One out of eight women have breast cancer- why not "prophylatically" remove their breast buds to "maybe/possibly" save them from breast cancer? UTIs- women have much more issues with UTIs, will you release a statement to make infant girl circumcision legal again? This is a human rights violation. Foreskin is meant to be on the body. HIV/stds- America has the highest rates of circumcision and the highest rates of HIV/stds when compared to countries that do not circumcise. Please show my the research that is not flawed, also done in a country where they have no sex education. Why not prove your study in developed countries? Also, how is a condom over a circumcised penis more protective than a condom over a penis with foreskin?

This is going to be one huge mistake in the history books if you come out with this guideline. No health organization in the entire world recommends circumcision of infant males- do you really want to be the one and only?

Also- maybe we should talk about the selling of foreskin or the 14th amendment - EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL!

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2014-12-03
Tracking Number:
1jy-8ftw-uzvs

I find it incredible that the CDC, in today's environment where Female Genital Mutilation is a somewhat routine topic, provides support for this procedure which, for all intents and purposes, is akin to male genital mutilation. For the argument to be made that bacteria can grow under the foreskin is no different as bacteria also growing within the skin overlaps in a female's labia. So why not suggest removal of labia? Same outcome because the tissue overlaps where bacteria may grow are removed if we want to be clinical about it.

We, as a society, have come a long way in terms of hygiene. Daily washing and care have done far more to keep males healthy than submitting to male penile surgery. Why that is not the CDCs recommendation is beyond comprehension.

And while statistical data may, no doubt, reflect reduced cases of STD transmission in circumcised males, a condom is far more effective at reducing transmission by eliminating contact of bodily fluids during sexual activity altogether. The very fact that surgery is recommended as the primary method of STD transmission reduction is insane. The outcome of this recommendation will be additional unwanted pregnancies, a higher chance of STD transmission than compare with condom use as two major negatives. Surgery, of course, has risks associated with it that condoms do not.

Should this draft become be the CDC's final recommendation then I can only assume that female labia removal be following shortly behind as a recommended female STD reduction technique. How barbaric of a procedure in order to reduce STD transmission by 50% when other, non-surgical methods are available that have considerably higher prevention rates while having zero risk to the male as no surgical procedure is necessary.

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
Aimee mcnulty
Posted:
2014-12-03
Tracking Number:
1jy-8ftw-241x

It is unethical to permanently alter the body of an unconsenting child unless it is absolutely necessary. There are much less drastic ways to treat uti' s and stds should be prevented by the use of condoms. If an adult decides a circumcision is right for him he can do it then! His body, his choice. Plus, did you consider the negative effects of circumcision on breastfeeding? And we all know how beneficial breastfeeding is to health. Please think about an infant's basic human right to genital integrity and reconsider this recommendation.

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
Brandi J
Posted:
2014-12-03
Tracking Number:
1jy-8ftx-lwjj

All of the listed benefits can be received with hygiene, and safer sex. Amputation of healthy tissue should never be first course of treatment, or used as preventitive medicine.

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2014-12-03
Tracking Number:
1jy-8ftx-d50b

Female infants are protected by law from circumcision. So should our boys. Why are American boys not protected from routine, cosmetic circumcision on healthy, functioning tissue? The CDC is creating strawman arguments not founded in true science but in false conclusions based on studies done on African men. Not on American men or American babies! The truth we all know is that the rest of the developed world does NOT routinely circumcise their infants. There are no benefits and only risks. Please protect our boys as well as our girls. Please stop taking away the rights of innocent children from having an intact fully functioning anatomy. Full informed consent means telling parents that there are many dangers to circumcision and that there is NO proof that it is of any benefit and that there is clear benefit to keeping a foreskin as nature intended. Their babies are not born broken or damaged. That this is unnecessary, cosmetic surgery on healthy, functioning tissue.

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
lisa foster
Posted:
2014-12-03
Tracking Number:
1jy-8ftx-bvwr

Stating that infant circumcision is a medical benefit is irresponsible. The reduction of stds and hiv can easily be prevented with condoms that would be needed anyways to reduce the chances of pregnancy, stds, and hiv anyways.In your own response you say infant utis are uncommon but yet you still lost this as a benefit. There are antibiotics for utis. Why do we not alter female genitalia the help reduce utis as females are emote like to have utis? Penile cancer and circumcision: we should also remove the female infants breastfeeding tissue to reduce her chances of breast cancer? I don't think so.

There is always a risk of death during infant circumcision which is not mentioned in your suggestion of circumcision.

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
John Horstman
Posted:
2014-12-03
Tracking Number:
1jy-8ftx-cxxb

As the minor benefits (they are minor in populations at low risk for STIs and the cancer risk is mitigated by the HPV vaccine) of circumcision can be achieved with proper hygiene and condom use in the developed world, where most people have access to soap, water, and condoms, and as the benefits are not relevant until much later in life (when the person in question might be sexually active with partners), at which point the person on whom the surgery might be performed can actually express consent or non-consent for the surgery, recommending routine removal of the penile prepuce for infants is unethical. All surgeries carry risks, including an increasing risk of antibiotic-resistant post-surgical infections, and, additionally, this is an amputation that removes functional tissue from the person in question. Unless it's necessary to address an acute medical problem, medical ethics dictate that circumcision should not be performed on infants, as they are unable to consent to the procedure.

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
Allison Lee
Posted:
2014-12-03
Tracking Number:
1jy-8ftx-dmpz

I am disappointed to read about your statements regarding routine infant male circumcision. Studies on African males have clearly been conducted in a region with a highly dissimilar culture and with often remarkably dissimilar sexual practices and attitudes. Wouldn't it make more sense to compare cultures with more similar sexual practices and more similar attitudes toward sex, such as a Western European country? Countries that have much lower occurrence of RIC of baby boys and also lower incidences of HIV/AIDS?

No reputable medical organization in the world has recommended RIC of infant boys. Why these scare tactics that are spreading fear about a part of the body?

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
Emilee Roniger
Posted:
2014-12-03
Tracking Number:
1jy-8ftx-jeiw

This is very very sad to me. Why is our country, a country that is supposed to be a country I am proud of, using studies conducted on adult men in Africa to promote circumcision. Why are we cutting off a perfectly healthy body part that has so many functions and sensitive nerve endings? I hope that parents and adult men are given all the information. The risk of death from Circumcision, risk of loss of sensitivity, risk of too much skin being removed leading to adhesions and scarring or risk of infection. Both sides of the coin need to be shown for informed consent. A UTI can be treated with antibiotics. Condoms prevent stds. Unless you can tell me the removal of foreskin is equally as beneficial as wearing a condom, I just don't see the point. How can other developed nations survive and have lower std rates than the United states if this is such an issue? And as for penile cancer, I'm sure removing the breasts of every woman would lower the incidence of breast cancer, so why don't we just do that as well.

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
C R
Posted:
2014-12-03
Tracking Number:
1jy-8ftx-2u1b

The CDC needs to do more studies to be able to claim this as true. These are the research points I found:

Langerin is a natural barrier to HIV http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17334373

Foreskin cells DESTROY HIVhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030500357.html

More than Foreskin: Circumcision Status, History of HIV/STI, and Sexual Risk in a Clinic-Based Sample of Men in Puerto Ricohttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02871.x/abstract

Risk of HIV acquisition among circumcised and uncircumcised young men with penile human papillomavirus infection.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24149088

What's wrong with the Sub-Saharan African trials: "Sub-Saharan African randomised clinical trials into male circumcision and HIV transmission: Methodological, ethical and legal concerns" by Gregory J Boyle and George Hill http://www.salem-news.com/fms/pdf/2011-12_JLM-Boyle-Hill.pdf

A new study (published 11/9/2012 in the Journal of Sexual Medicine) in the Caribbean has shown that circumcised men actually were more likely to have had a Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI), genital warts (HPV), and be infected with HIV. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22897699

Women with circumcised partners who are infected with HIV are MORE likely to be infected with HIV. - The researchers of this study stopped it and did not advertise these results. They did, however heavily advertise the female to male study debunked by Boyle/Hill above. "The trial was stopped early because of futility. 92 couples in the intervention group and 67 couples in the control group [intact partner] were included in the modified ITT analysis. 17 (18%) women in the intervention group [circumcised partner] and eight (12%) women in the control group acquired HIV during follow-up (p=0.36). Cumulative probabilities of female HIV infection at 24 months were 21.7% (95% CI 12.7-33.4) in the intervention group and 13.4% (6.7-25. in the control group (adjusted hazard ratio 1.49, 95% CI 0.62-3.57; p=0.368)." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19616720

Male circumcision: a role in HIV prevention? http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/vincenzi/

Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV: http://www.thewholenetwork.org/14/post/2011/08/where-circumcision-doesnt-prevent-hiv.html

Circumcision and HIV infection: http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/

Circumcision and HIV: http://www.circumcisionandhiv.com/

Dr. Dean Edell on Aids/Circumcision: http://www.drmomma.org/2009/10/dr-edell-discusses-africa-aids.html

The truth about circumcision and HIV mothering magazine http://mothering.com/health/the-truth-about-circumcision-and-hiv

HIV rates continue to climb in Africa: http://www.drmomma.org/2011/05/hivaids-rates-continue-to-climb-in.html

Doctors reject circumcision as HIV prevention: http://www.drmomma.org/2010/04/doctors-reject-circumcision-as-hiv.html

HIV increases in Africa where most men are circumcised: http://www.drmomma.org/2009/09/hiv-increases-in-africa-where-most-men.html

HIV circumcision study ends early too many women infected: http://www.drmomma.org/2009/07/african-hiv-circumcision-study-ends.html

New York Times publishes HIV headlinehere we go again!: http://www.drmomma.org/2009/08/here-we-go-again-new-york-times.html

Malawi AIDS commissioner chooses education, exposes junk science behind illegal circumcision push being funded by Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and The U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR).: http://geoconger.wordpress.com/2010/10/03/malawi-no-to-circumcision-as-tool-to-stop-hivaids-the-church-of-england-newspaper-oct-1-2010-p-8/

President of Uganda: "Male circumcision is not a medically and scientifically proven way to stop the HIV/AIDS infection, and anyone who says so is misguiding the population: http://www.barefootintactivist.com/2011/07/my-response-to-gordon-habers-defense-of.html?spref=fb

Paper backed by Royal Society of Medicine: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6684230/One-in-five-HIV-infections-caused-by-medical-staff.html

International AIDS society: http://www.iasociety.org/Default.aspx?pageId=11&abstractId=2197431

Circumcision caused so many new HIV infections that they HAD to report it: http://cpj.sagepub.com/content/25/8/412.abstract

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
Jack Perry
Posted:
2014-12-03
Tracking Number:
1jy-8ftx-9ld6

Please consider the following comment as to male circumcision guideline for the United States.

Within the United States, population data does not show that there is any HIV (or STDs) risk advantage for men that have had the genital cutting surgery (GCS). Should not all guidelines as to GSC be based on what US population data shows? Please consider the NAVY study and others that show NO HIV, HPV or STD difference as to American males with natural genitals and American males that have had GSC.

Your material mentions a lower rate of HIV (and STDs) infection for men that had the genital cutting surgery (GCS). This appears to be based on Africa studies (AS), and not US population Data. There must be some consideration as to why Africa population data a does not match the AS. Also, as the US population data does not show the 50-60% risk change stated by the AS, this must be considered and addressed. It must be considered if the AS is based on other factors such as condom use/ of condom advice or some other bias This must be addressed or the AS must a least be discarded as not applicable to the US population.

The CDC must address the glaring issue that men in the EU mostly have natural genitals and a majority of men in the US have had GSC and the EU has much lower HIV, HPV and STD rates than the US. Although the HIV STDs rates of men in the US with natural genitals and men that have had GCS is the best data (our own population), the EU and US comparison indicates that men that have had GCS are at a higher risk of HIV and STDs. This must be considered and addressed.

Your material mentions benefits of GCS and risks. However, there is no analysis of:

The harm to infant/boy of loss of protective aspects of tissue amputated.Loss of nerve endings from the tissue amputated.Loss of mobile erogenous tissue.Affects on sexual pleasure and function related to the tissue amputated.Erectile dysfunction related to the tissue amputated.Premature ejaculation related to the tissue amputated.Changes to dynamics of coitus related to the tissue amputated.Changes as to masturbation related to the tissue amputated.

Please make sure that each of these points is fully considered and addressed. Obviously, there can be no consideration of the risks of MGCS if changes to sexual pleasure and function of the amputated tissue and loss of nerve endings related to the tissue amputated are never even considered.

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
C R
Posted:
2014-12-03
Tracking Number:
1jy-8ftx-5dxz

Also this:

CameroonIn Cameroon, where 91% of the male population is circumcised, the ratio of circumcised men vs. intact men who contracted HIV was 4.1 vs. 1.1. (See p. 17)http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR163/16chapitre16.pdf

Ghana"...the vast majority of Ghanaian men (95 percent) are circumcised... There is little difference in the HIV prevalence by circumcision status..." (1.6 vs 1.4 See p. 13)http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR152/13Chapter13.pdf

LesothoIn Lesotho, 23% of the men are circumcised, and the ratio circumcised men vs. intact men who contracted HIV was 22.8 vs 15.2.

"The relationship between male circumcision and HIV levels in Lesotho does not conform to the expected pattern of higher rates among uncircumcised men than circumcised men. The HIV rate is in fact substantially higher among circumcised men (23 percent) than among men who are not circumcised (15 percent). Moreover, the pattern of higher infection rates among circumcised men compared with uncircumcised men is virtually uniform across the various subgroups for which results are shown in the table. This finding could be explained by the Lesotho custom to conduct male circumcision later in life, when the individuals have already been exposed to the risk of HIV infection. (Additional analysis is necessary to better understand the unexpected pattern in Table 12.9.)" (p. 13)

What is disturbing here is that it seems researchers grope for a reason to dismiss these results because they are not what they are looking for; a positive result for circumcision. The above is an interesting defense of male circumcision, given the fact that the latest "studies," if they can even be called that, observed HIV transmission in men circumcised as adults. Then again, this demographic health survey was conducted in 2004, BEFORE the newer "studies" in 2006. None the less, the unproven assertion that "circumcision is only effective in reducing the risk of HIV when done in infancy" persists in some circles.http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR171/12Chapter12.pdf

MalawiIn Malawi, 20% of the male population is circumcised. The ratio of circumcised vs. intact men who contracted HIV was 13.2 vs 9.5.

"The relationship between HIV prevalence and circumcision status is not in the expected direction. In Malawi, circumcised men have a slightly higher HIV infection rate than men who were not circumcised (13 percent compared with 10 percent). In Malawi, the majority of men are not circumcised (80 percent)(...where one would expect HIV to be the most rampant... note the "expected direction.") (p. 10)http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR175/12Chapter12.pdf

RwandaAccording to a demographic health survey taken in 2005, the ratio of circumcised vs. intact men who contracted HIV was 3.8 vs 2.1. (See p. 10) http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR183/15Chapter15.pdf

Swaziland In a recent demographic health survey (2006-2007), the ratio of circumcised vs. intact men who contracted HIV was found to be 22 vs. 20.

As Table 14.10 shows, the relationship between HIV prevalence and circumcision status is not in the expected direction. Circumcised men have a slightly higher HIV infection rate than men who are not circumcised (22 percent compared with 20 percent). (p. 256)http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR202/FR202.pdf

Here is that "expected direction" again. The majority of Swazi men are uncircumcised, and one would especially expect to see HIV prevalence here. HIV transmission was more prevalent in the circumcised men here, yet the US government has decided to spend millions on a campaign to circumcise 80% of the men in Swaziland.http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/soka-uncobe-our-us-tax-dollars-at-work.html

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
C R
Posted:
2014-12-03
Tracking Number:
1jy-8ftx-jc9k

And lastly, this:

Other Countries Where HIV/Circumcision Rates Don't Correlate

MalaysiaAccording to Malaysian AIDS Council vice-president Datuk Zaman Khan, more than 70% of the 87,710 HIV/AIDS sufferers in the country are Muslims. In Malaysia, most, if not all Muslim men are circumcised, whereas circumcision is uncommon in the non-Muslim community. 60% of the Malaysian population is Muslim, which means that HIV is spreading in the community where most men are circumcised at an even faster rate, than in the community where most men are intact.http://www.mmail.com.my/content/39272-72-percent-aidshiv-sufferers-malaysia-are-muslims-says-council

The PhilippinesIn the Philippines, the majority of the male population is circumcised, as it is seen as an important rite of passage. In the 2010 Global AIDS report released by UNAIDS in late November, the Philippines was one of seven nations in the world which reported over 25 percent in new HIV infections between 2001 and 2009, whereas other countries have either stabilized or shown significant declines in the rate of new infections. Among all countries in Asia, only the Philippines and Bangladesh are reporting increases in HIV cases, with others either stable or decreasing.http://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/breakingnews/view/20110102-312124/Philippines-HIVAIDS-problem-worries-UN

IsraelDespite circumcision being near-universal, it hasn't stopped HIV transmission in Israel.http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/failing-the-aids-test-1.249088http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/israeli-gays-shun-condoms-despite-worrying-rise-in-aids-1.249372http://www.haaretz.com/news/has-the-aids-cocktail-worked-too-well-in-israel-1.258520http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/hiv-diagnoses-in-israel-climb-new-cases-among-gays-up-sharply-1.248651

The most obvious smoking gun: The United States of AmericaCircumcision hasn't stopped HIV in their own country.http://data.unaids.org/pub/Report/1998/19981125_global_epidemic_report_en.pdf

And, it hasn't stopped other STDs either.http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/01/13/us-infections-usa-idUSTRE50C5XV20090113?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

In America, the majority of the male population is circumcised, it has been as high as approximately 80% (The rate is currently hovering around 60% and will lower, because that is the trend), while in most countries in Europe, circumcision is uncommon. Despite these facts, their country does poorly.http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=419&Itemid=177 (I've shared this one before.)

In fact, AIDS rates in some US Cities rival hotspots in Africa. In some parts of the U.S., they're actually higher than those in sub-Saharan Africa. According to a 2010 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, rates of HIV among adults in Washington, D.C. exceed 1 in 30; rates higher than those reported in Ethiopia, Nigeria or Rwanda.http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1000069

The Washington D.C. district report on HIV and AIDS reported an increase of 22% from 2006 in 2009.

"[Washington D.C.'s] rates are higher than West Africa... they're on par with Uganda and some parts of Kenya."Shannon L. Hader, HIV/AIDS Administration, Washington D.C., March 15, 2009.She once led the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's work in Zimbabwe.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/14/AR2009031402176.html

One would expect for there to be a lower transmission rates in the United States, and for HIV to be rampant in Europe; HIV transmission rates are in fact higher in the United States, where most men are circumcised, than in various countries in Europe, where most men are intact. It is telling that the HIV epidemic struck in our country in the 1980s, 90% of the male population was already circumcised. Somehow, we're supposed to believe that what didn't worked in their own country, or anywhere else, is going to start working miracles in Africa

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
Warren Hart
Posted:
2014-12-03
Tracking Number:
1jy-8ftx-cdey

How about just teaching proper hygiene and the proper use of condoms instead of surgically removing part of a persons sexual organ without their permission? That is a human rights violation. Please do not promote this hideous practice.

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
Samantha Hansen
Posted:
2014-12-03
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fty-k7ks

Circumcision is an elective procedure, as stated within the document. Any other elective procedure or surgery would be considered highly unethical to perform without consent of the person undergoing the procedure (i.e. the patient/child). This should not be a procedure that is pushed on parents or even offered to parents because it is completely unnecessary. It is a decision that should be saved for the person who would undergo the elective, cosmetic change. Instead parents should be given information about how to properly care for their child's whole body. They should be thoroughly informed of the risks of circumcision if they request the procedure to be done, just like any surgery or procedure where risks are involved. Parents should also be informed about the many functions of the foreskin that they are electing to have removed. There are better, less invasive ways of reducing the risks of HIV, STI's, and other infections, including condoms and proper hygiene. These interventions require only education instead of permanently removing a healthy, normal, functioning part of the body without the patient's consent.

The American Cancer Society has stated that circumcision is not an effective way to prevent against penile cancer. Circumcised males can and still do get penile cancer. In addition, the penile cancer rates are far less than the rates for breast cancer (as an example) in males (and females) but suggesting prophylactic amputation of the breast tissue in infancy/childhood to prevent breast cancer would obviously be considered highly unethical. The rates for penile cancer are also far less than the rates for any cancer of the vulva, however again there are no prophylactic procedures being done to prevent that in women. In fact female circumcision was made illegal in the United States in 1997. Boys deserve the same kind of protection from unnecessary, elective procedures..

I would like to see organizations such as the CDC and AAP standing up for what is in the best interest of the patient, upholding higher ethical standards, and remembering "First Do No Harm." When it comes to circumcision, it is not a patient centered act. It is a parent and physician centered act. Medical professionals should think, "what would the patient want?" And if the patient themselves cannot consent to an elective procedure, it is completely unethical to perform that procedure on the patient. It is appalling that the CDC is taking this stance as other nations across the globe are only getting closer to making infant circumcision illegal.

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
Donald Rhodes Rhodes
Posted:
2014-12-03
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fty-1j54

If the CDC doesn't know that the 60% reduction in HIV is statistical sleight of hand and that the actual % reduction from the African studies is 1.3%, then I am concerned for the state of American medicine. If they don't know that penile cancer is very, very rare as are UTI in males of all ages, then I am further concerned. If they don't know that circumcision removes all the nerve endings found in the external clitorus plus thousands more leaving only those nerve endings found in the corona of the glans that sense friction making the use of condoms almost impossible, then we are finished. And, surely they are aware that there are more than 100 deaths per year from this barbaric practice. P.S. there is a vaccine for herpes.

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2014-12-03
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fty-sy7h

Docket Number CDC20140012

I am glad that the CDC is asking for public opinion on their recommendations regarding elective male circumcision.

I am in favor of personal choice in all issues pertaining to one's body. I believe adult males should receive information about elective circumcision, including the potential health benefits and risks of the procedure, because adults have the right to and the ability to make decisions about their own bodies. However, I strongly oppose the idea of an elective procedure being performed on someone who is not able to consent to it.

The potential benefits mentioned in this docket all pertain to adult sexual health; is it not fitting that the decision to permanently alter someone's body be saved until that someone is able to decide for himself? This procedure will, after all, be affecting his sexual life, so he should be the one to decide what to do with his own body. The potential benefits to circumcision do not outweigh the basic human right to have control over one's own body.

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
Youssef Abdalla
Posted:
2014-12-03
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fty-ggjr

As a person who was circumcised at birth, I am dismayed that the CDC has conjectured upon the African studies that showed that circumcision "lessens the chances of HIV infection by 50%" (which is based on african trials in South Africa, Kenya and Uganda BUT does NOT HOLD TRUE for the rest of the world, like Europe, where most men are uncircumcised but have less occurrence of HIV infections). Also Please take in consideration that circumcision reduces the sensitivity of the penis (cutting skin away reduces more than 10,000 nerve endings), and reduces the sensitivity of the penis by 50% percent. Cutting away skin at the extent of trying to "prevent" something in the future that is NOT fully safe. Even if, The 50% protection is not enough, and Why trust in a vague 50% percentage when condoms offer a 95% protection?

As a person who was circumcised birth, the MOST IMPORTANT THING is NOT having a CHOICE whether I wanted to circumcise or not. Circumcision when not consented is a CRIME for males and females, and it should be stopped for infants!

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
anonymous anonymous
Posted:
2014-12-03
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fty-fjur

"Male circumcision decreases penile sensitivity as measured in a large cohort."The analysis sample consisted of 1059 uncircumcised and 310 circumcised men. For the glans penis, circumcised men reported decreased sexual pleasure and lower orgasm intensity. They also stated more effort was required to achieve orgasm, and a higher percentage of them experienced unusual sensations (burning, prickling, itching, or tingling and numbness of the glans penis). For the penile shaft a higher percentage of circumcised men described discomfort and pain, numbness and unusual sensations. In comparison to men circumcised before puberty, men circumcised during adolescence or later indicated less sexual pleasure at the glans penis, and a higher percentage of them reported discomfort or pain and unusual sensations at the penile shaft."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
James Harris
Posted:
2014-12-03
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fty-jl7i

UN International NGO Council's report to the SRSG for Violence Against Children:

" a childrens rights analysis suggests that non-consensual, non-therapeutic circumcision of boys, whatever the circumstances, constitutes a gross violation of their rights, including the right to physical integrity, to freedom of thought and religion and to protection from physical and mental violence. When extreme complications arise, it may violate the right to life. It is reported that male circumcision can result in numerous physical, psychological, and sexual health problems during the surgery, afterwards, and throughout adulthood, including haemorrhage, panic attacks, erectile dysfunction, infection (in severe forms leading to partial or complete loss of the penis), urinary infections, necrosis, permanent injury or loss of the glans, excessive penile skin loss,external deformity, and in some cases even death."

"The WHO review quoted three randomized controlled trials suggesting that circumcision reduces the risk of acquiring HIV infection in males. But this potential health benefit does not over-ride a childs right to give informed consent to the practice. The decision to undertake circumcision for these reasons can be deferred to a time where the risk is relevant and the child is old enough to choose and consent for himself."

http://srsg.violenceagainstchildren.org/sites/default/files/documents/docs/InCo_Report_15Oct.pdf

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
C. Kirschner
Posted:
2014-12-03
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fty-cma3

Dear CDC. There is absolutely nothing wrong with an intact penis and it is horrifying that the proposed suggestions can in good faith recommend otherwise. Suggesting that parents circumcise their sons is near incomprehensible. This procedure literally removes the most sensitive part of the penis without the newborn patient's consent and the United States is the only developed country in the world that routinely practices such mutilation. If anything, the United States should be moving towards banning such practice and offer the same equal protection against circumcision to males that has been provided to females. Your report cites "health risks", but how is it that countries such as the UK where circumcision is rarely performed do not have increased instances of these risks?

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2014-12-03
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fty-icff

The CDC should be embarrassed and ashamed for publishing such dangerous and inaccurate information. All the benefits it states have been debunked years ago!The African studies were flawed and should not even be cited.We have the highest rates of HIV in spite of 50 percent of boys circumcised. Christ! It's torture and child abuse. How can it even be legal. Someone's losing money because so many children are left intact now, so the CDC is probably promoting baby mutilation in order to lessen some of that loss. What hypocrites. Most of the world's men are intact with none of the problems the CDC is lying about. Charlatans!

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
Brytni Retcher
Posted:
2014-12-03
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fty-2yqe

I am a bit disappointed that the CDC would promote and encourage such misinformation that harms children, and even kills. It is unethical and considered mutilation to circumcise a female, but it's perfectly okay to circumcise a male? According to other Health Organizations, the AAP stance is completely misleading and ill - informed. Over 70% of the world's population of the male gender is intact. In civilized countries where RIC is not performed, they have a significant decrease in penile illnesses such as STD's and STI's. They understand that proper intact care, as well as, the use of condoms is wonderfully helpful. Peoples of other countries do not have the illnesses that our circumcised American men have, because by removing the foreskin, you are removing the protection of the penis and it's glans. It also decreases sexual pleasure and function, and this is why the very FEW countries who circumcise their children also have the highest rates of HIV/Aids, as well as, a dangerously high usage of Viagra. This is to be expected if one knows the value, purpose, and functions of a foreskin and why it is there. This supposedly new result of the so called "study" is a mirroring of the 2012 statement from the AAP. It is very well known that the people behind the AAP are also behind this as well, so it is obvious that this is going to replicate the myths that's been debunked many times before. It is discouraging to know that Americans, the people within the country of intelligence, is very far from such. I am surprised that with all the information in the world in regards to genital mutilation, we have the CDC spewing debunked myths and promoting such as facts. While the long term effects have not been studied in the USA, because circumcision forced upon newborns is a money maker and doctors earn approximately 100,000.00 dollars more just from circumcisions per year. These are far from being opinions, and can be clearly proven as facts. You have many doctors in the USA who do not understand the foreskin in general, because in Medical School they are taught one thing, and that is to remove it. 3 out of 50 Medical Text books actually inform students of the foreskin. Also, to simply state that circumcision's benefits outweigh the risks, one must educate themselves on the risks. 1 out of 5 babies will suffer from staph infections. Approximately 120 babies die a year from complications that could not be rectified. Botched circumcisions happen often, as well as, the whole penis being mistakenly amputated. So many more "mistakes" occur, because doctors are motivated by the money involved rather than the actual well being of the child. I honestly feel that if we were to conduct studies, than we need to see what the other countries are doing that is factually working wonders for them literally. As they don't cut their children, and miraculously the child becomes a man with his whole penis, and never has issues. Please consider this, and make necessary changes. The most common reasons for issues on an intact penis is because health officials misinform the parents on care. You do not forcibly retract the foreskin, not even a little bit, to clean it. You just wipe it like a finger and clean what is seen. During bath time, you wash with warm water on the genitals. That is it. Forceful retraction tears the connective tissues, causes adhesions, infections, pain, bleeding, scarring, as well as many other issues. That will indeed cause an intact male to be circumcised. So it all does come back to you, the CDC. The cancer society states to not circumcise a child to prevent penile cancer. However, you say differently. Penile cancer is extremely rare as approximately 1 out of 800,000 males will ever get that. Also, penile cancer has nothing to do with foreskin and starts elsewhere that is not even close to the foreskin. So your misinformation is misleading the public, for your own financial gain. Shame on you CDC.

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
Amanda Anonymous
Posted:
2014-12-03
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fty-a3nc

Routine infant male circumcision is in no way beneficial to an infant or even a boy prior to being sexually active. My son has yet to incur any problems from being left how nature intended. The benefits you list weigh heavily on the studies done in Africa which were not only performed in a way that would skew the results to benefit the side of circumcision. Africa has low quality of care, low hygiene or access to clean water for that matter among many other things. Please look at the more equivalent countries like England and Australia. Why is the US still stuck on such a barbaric procedure yet we protect our little girls from a less invasive one? Yes. FGM in the 2 most common forms is far less invasive and does less damage than circumcision to an infant male.

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
Chelsea Carey
Posted:
2014-12-03
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fty-ufam

I think that your recommendations are skewed by faulty research and should be reviewed once more. What needs to happen is more care providers need to be instructing their patients on the proper care for the intact penis. Doesn't the proper use of condoms and good hygiene achieve the same the end state without amputation of a perfectly healthy body part. No other civilized country puts boys through this tremendously painful and unnecessary procedure unless driven by religious motives but America. It's time to put routine infant circumcision in the past. Please retract these recommendations and conduct more research!

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
Heather Whittaker
Posted:
2014-12-03
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fty-r7dq

This is an ethical and human rights violation advocating the forceful cutting of healthy genitals of non-consenting minor boys. The U.S. outlawed forced female genital cutting as of 1997 but the law itself is in violation of the constitution because it only protects females and leaves males unprotected. Under the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States, there should be no discriminating between the genitals of a male, female, or transgendered individual. We have a duty to protect all citizens from forced and unnecessary genital cutting, and the routine circumcision of neonates is just that - completely unnecessary. Leave this decision to a man who is at least 18 years of age and stop advocating that cutting the penises of baby boys as acceptable. You can also reduce the incidence of breast cancer by routinely removing the breast tissue of all adolescents. There would be fewer deaths associated with this disease, too. Ridiculous, right? How is this different? Circumcision does not prevent STD's - condoms and abstinence do. Take the money used towards furthering this uniquely American agenda and fund proper sex education and hand out condoms. Baby boys can and do die from this procedure each year, a risk that is hardly worth any touted benefit to the newborn.

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
Tony Lesce
Posted:
2014-12-03
Tracking Number:
1jy-8ftz-uhxs

I'd like to point out the obvious:European countries do not routinely circumcise their male infants. Yet here in the U.S. circumcision advocates regularly bring out statistics that point to the "benefits" of routine circumcision, versus the risks. These "benefits" are always by tiny margins, sometimes so small as not to be statistically significant.

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu3-vjrj

If the benefits so greatly outweigh the risks, then why is America the country with highest rate of HIV/AIDS along with the highest rate of circumcision? That doesn't make sense to me. Help teach our children proper hygiene and sexual education. the foreskin has 20,000 nerves. Why would you take away such a sensitive part of a child's anatomy? I'm so sad for all the parents who refused to look at both sides, and educate themselves.

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
Tara Chapman
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu3-1k4b

Every major medical organization in the world has deemed routine infant circumcision as a cosmetic procedure, not a therapeutic procedure. Just as we no longer routinely remove tonsils we should not remove healthy tissue from the masses. More boys are dying each year from complications associated with routine infant circumcision than would ever actually need the surgery later in life. Therefore the risk outweighs the benefit. The only way to prevent STIs is be the practice of abstinence, condom use, frequent testing, and monogomy. #CDCEthics

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
Elizabeth Anonymous
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu3-vk3h

Infant circumcision is a human Rights violation. When a reputable organization such as the CDC recommends this without any real medical need, it shows a money-driven propaganda. Parents will start questioning everything such as vaccines, and also the CDC's credibility.

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu3-3xbu

I believe routine male circumcision should be stopped. While there are reasons that make circumcision necessary, I do not think the ones (reasons) listed in the report are beneficial enough to warrant the procedure. Though there are known advantages to circumcision, there are not large enough concerns to regularly preform the procedure. The benefits of the procedures are at most minimal, and in most cases completely nonexistent. There are however many downsides to the procedure including, but not limited to,: loss of sensitivity, scarring, the creation of "skin-bridges", and painful erections. I, and many others, believe the downsides of circumcision completely outweigh the benefits in the majority of cases.

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
Anonymous anonymous
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu4-zlkh

I am appalled at the misinformation and subsequent infringement of rights these "guidelines" will impose. I find it all together interesting that circumcision was considered elective, even by the APA, for all of time until only recently. Now all the sudden the APA and the CDC have some new information that make it recommended? It's ludicrous! Even infants have basic human rights! If the CDC released guidelines for female circumcision, the media and women would be having a fit! These days male circumcision feels more about politics and financial gain than anything else. Protect the people, government! Infant boys have rights to their body. And adults have a right to GOOD information. This is really an injustice and abuse of government influence and power.

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
Mom Miller
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu4-jdey

If it such a big health risk it should be covered by insurance companies. At least part of the way, that way people who aren't as "Wealthy" can afford to do the procedure.

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu4-42cs

This is absolutely appalling. I strongly suspect it is mainly financial. One of the reasons that other developed nations do not circumcise is that they have the socialized/single-payer/centralized medical systems that we in the US are now moving toward. The governments of nations that perhaps did practice RIC at some point in their histories (like England) soon discovered that circumcision of children was not worth paying for in the absence of any health problems. I believe that the medical establishment here is aware of this and that is why the AAP issued its statement when they did, with the bottom line of their position being that third party payers/insurance companies should cover RIC. Insurance companies are now notifying customers of the procedures they are newly covering, and, quelle surprise, circumcision has been added to the list. The CDC is heavily tied to the medical lobby and trade organizations such as AAP and AMA. These groups are clinging to a lucrative source of income by flying in the face of science, medical ethics, and basic human rights, at the expense of our most vulnerable citizens and society as a whole. There are no words strong enough to express how disgusting this is.

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
crystal fink
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu4-qfzn

Please focus on real ways to prevent HIV and STIs like safe sex practices and monogamy. Circumcision violates basic human rights and the risks are extremely underestimated. If a MAN chooses to be circumcised that is his right, but it is no one's right to choose to circumcise a child to prevent a STI he may never be exposed to. Furthermore, the US has more circumcised men than any other industrialized nation, yet our rate of STIs is one of the highest in the world.

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
Kevin B
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu4-ckhc

I think that before infants should be circumcised parents should be made aware of the losses that occur to the child. Later in life he will experience less pleasurable sex as will his future partner. Simply saying that circumcision reduces risks for hiv and other diseases is not adequate. Hiv can also be prevented through abstinence or with a condom and these methods are way more effective than circumcision. By saying that circumcision is better for the child because it marginally reduces std transmission rates is like saying "well if you completely remove the penis, there is virtually a 0% chance of ever catching an std"

I was circumcised at birth and I greatly wish that I was not. My parents signed a form that gave a doctor permission to remove a part of my body. I did not consent to this and I will not tolerate it being done to my children. Circumcision is an outdated practice that is largely unpopular in the rest of the world with the exception of the usa and Israel. I think we need to be more like European countries where circumcision is NOT the norm rather it's the exception.

In my opinion the losses greatly outweigh the benefits and circumcision needs to be reserved as a last resort for those with tighter foreskins that would hinder normal function.

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
Joy Wong
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu4-wzdg

The removal of any body part is guaranteed to prevent infections, cancers, and diseases in said body part. Why have you chosen the male foreskin? Why not other tissues and organs that are more prone to health issues, such as breast tissue, vulva, toenails, appendixes, etc.? Because by all other accounts you acknowledge that the preventative removal of body parts, regardless of their potential for disease, is ethically and morally reprehensible. Why are you not protecting male foreskin in this manner? Your proposed statement proves an egregious lack of ethics within the CDC based purely on cultural bias (the majority of the rest of the world is happily and healthily intact). In addition, your effort to promote circumcision as a prophylactic measure implies that circumcised men can rely on their surgical status to protect them and their partners from STD's. You do realize that the financial and health related ramifications of mass numbers of American men engaging in risky sexual behavior with a false sense of security will be far costlier and deadlier in the long run than men keeping their intended body parts and using adequate hygiene and protection, yes? Please, CDC, stop the mass deconstruction of baby boy penises and learn about the foreskin and its benefits. Respect the genitals of baby boys as you would those of a baby girl. Do no harm!

Submitted:
2014-12-02
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu4-2ba1

Condoms are a more effective preventative measure of contracting STD's&I's. One only needs to look at the rate of circumcision and sexually transmitted diseases and infections in the states and Europe. Why do European men who tend to be intact and not circumcised have lower rates of HIV & AIDS? American men who tend to be circumcised have one of the higher rates of HIV & AIDS. Shouldn't these numbers be reversed if genital cutting did in fact protect from from such diseases?

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Willamina B
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu5-yf5j

This "research" doesn't really make sense or hold up. What happened to using condoms to prevent HIV infection and STIs? Genital mutilation seems like a very severe solution. Why does America have so much trouble with the idea of an intact penis? Go home, CDC, you are drunk.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Brandy Kincaid
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu5-dokk

I am absolutely disgusted by these proposals. How dare we Americans criticize other cultures for cutting their daughters' genitals when we recommend cutting our sons. How DARE WE.Fact: no medical organization in the world recommends infant circumcision. Fact: the foreskin serves an important purpose, protecting the glans, an internal organ, just as the eyelid protects the eye. In removing the foreskin, the sensitive glans becomes an external organ, resulting in countless *side effects*, many not seen until puberty, including narrowing of the meatus (which can and does result in repetitive uti's), stretching and splitting of the shaft skin during erection, painful erections and erectile dysfunction.Fact: no study in an industrialized nation has been able to repeat studies showing HIV reduction rates in cut men.Fact: every male mammal is born with a foreskin and only American human males are said to be born with defective body parts requiring immediate surgery on healthy tissue.Fact: every human is born with a foreskin.Fact: human males have a higher risk of breast cancer than penile cancer. If cancer was that much of a concern, you would be recommending breast buds in male infants be removed as well.

Let's call a spade a spade, this isn't about health or cleanliness. It's about money.

Condoms prevent STI's. Whether intact or cut, cdc will tell a man to wear a condom. So why recommend removing 15 square inches of adult tissue, with over 20,000 nerve endings and more than 16 important functions.

It's time to End this barbarism.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Daniel Meislin
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu5-d0xn

While I am not opposed to an informed adult male making the choice to have himself circumcised, I believe that the compulsory circumcision of anyone under the age of majority is morally reprehensible.

One passage of the supplementary information I find particularly egregious is the following: "Such decision making [regarding circumcision] is made in the context of not only health considerations, but also other social, cultural, ethical, and religious factors."

I do not think United States physicians should be in the business of involuntary surgery for the sake of "social, cultural or religious factors." To me, that is reminiscent the female genital mutilation seen in Africa, where females' genitals are cut because of "social, cultural or religious factors." That being said, it should be made clear that the majority of female circumcision is far more severe, though this should not foster apathy regarding the ethics of male circumcision.

If a young boy feels compelled to be circumcised in order to fulfill cultural norms, I think he should be counseled to learn to accept, love and appreciate his natural body, not counseled to be convinced of the "benefits" of the procedure.

The conversation regarding circumcision in the United States often centers around "benefits" and "risks" though seldom do any US reports mention the functions of the foreskin. The foreskin offers protection for the glans from becoming desensitized and forming a layer of keratin that reduces sensitivity. The foreskin itself is highly innervated with thousands of fine-touch nerve endings, the exact number of which is unknown. In terms of mechanical function, it provides a natural lubricant and gliding motion, reducing pain and abrasion for both partners during intercourse.

As an adult male, I regret that my infant circumcision was performed on me, even more so that it was done for religious reasons. There is always a chance that a child will regret their involuntary circumcision, and they can never get back that innervated tissue. On the other hand, if an adult male is regretful that his penis was left intact, he can always have the procedure done as an adult, and be cut exactly the way he wants, while infants' foreskins are cut however the doctor chooses to do so.

The CDC website itself lists the risk of HIV transmission from receptive and insertive penile-vaginal intercourse at rates of .08% and .04% respectively. If condoms are used, HIV transmission is negligible. Circumcision may be seen by some as a justification for having unsafe sex.

Europe generally has much lower rates of circumcision, yet their rates of HIV and STI transmission tend to be lower as well.

Regarding general hygiene, smegma is found in both male and female genitalia and is easily washed away with water.

I have no doubt that the majority of healthcare professionals who read this will see it as a radical fringe opinion, I see it as fulfillment of the Hippocratic Oath with "utmost respect for human life from its beginning." Ablation of healthy living tissue from a baby boy's penis is no way to welcome him into the world.

I commend the CDC for not blatantly recommending routine infant circumcision, though I believe the "benefits and risks" of the procedure should be reevaluated while taking into the account with the many functions and benefits of the foreskin.

Thank you.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu5-x21t

I am absolutely disgusted with the advice of the CDC. How dare those people suggests parents mutilate their babies to help avoid std's. This is sick. I know tons of people that have never been curcumsized and that have never had a problem. This is for money and everyone knows it. In all other countries where healthcare is regulated it is not suggested because no one is benefiting from it. These people should be ashamed of themselves. What next cut part of the vagina off because girls get yeast infections. Sick!!!!!!!!

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Michael Clark
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu5-2sca

I can't believe the CDC is considering recommending for infants based on minimal benefits that do not consider the harm that is done. The benefits just are not significant enough to justify mutilating a man's penis without his consent.

Cancer reduction? Penile cancer is caused by HPV, which there is a vaccine to prevent now. In addition, it is so rare, that most urologists will never see a case of cancer of the penis in their entire career. This is absurd.

HIV risk reduction? I don't believe that a group of Africans who have different cultural traditions between those being circumcised and those not being circumcised, along with the motivations of those getting circumcised possibly affecting their risky behavior, is remotely relevant to the behavior of men in the United States regarding HIV prevention. In addition, these adult men chose to have the procedure done, unlike infants, who cannot give informed consent on their own body being radically modified with no way to undo this procedure. Please look at other cultures around the world where circumcision is not common and their rate of infection is not radically different than this country where circumcision is prevalent and is actually lower than what we find in the United States.

If there are benefits to circumcision, which I do not believe come close to outweighing the damage done, please recommend it for adults rather than infants. There is no more justification for radically modifying a male's penis than there would be to remove breast tissue from infant girls on the hope of preventing some potential cancer. I am writing this because I realized the damage that was done to my body when I was a teen 30 years ago and it bothers me greatly that I did not have any part of the decision.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu5-r4re

Regarding circumcision. Prove that the men in the African trials were equally exposed to the AIDS virus. You can't. Why you would accept an obviously flawed study, I don't know. Do I need to justify keeping my childs ears? Do you even know the functions of the foreskin? What are long term effects of circumcision? Such a joke, I don't think anyone bothers to even keep track. How many children suffer meatal stenosis? How many men have narrow urethras?

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Monica Mansfield
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu5-d2la

I have 3 intact boys and have/will be teaching them how to wash as well as how to use a condom. Touting that circumcision proects against HIV and other STDs is just irresponsible on anyone's part. It may lessen the chance by a small percent, but the only real way is by using protection! Otherwise the US would have had little to no HIV or STDs for years since the majority of boys used to be circumcised.

I'm sure that if you removed the labias of little girls you'd see a slight reduction inUTIs and STDs as well. However that is thankfully against the law in the US, when will little boys be provided that same right?

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
teresa berg
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu5-hkjr

please recommend that it be routine and common for all children born at hospitals to leave the hospital with all their body parts intact.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Frank Mueller
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu5-xsel

In 1975, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) stated in no uncertain terms that "there is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn." In 1983, the AAP and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) restated this position. In 1999 and again in 2005, the AAP again restated this position of equivocation.

Submitted:
2014-12-04
Author:
Senika Eastman
Posted:
2015-01-16
Tracking Number:
1jy-8ftz-e8g2

Prophylactic removal of foreskin in babies is so outrageously immoral. I propose the CDC remove the recommendation based on biased and erroneous "evidence".. Throwing The Africa studies is the icing on the false medicine cake. Removing healthy tissue from babies causes more problems than it solves. Dysfunction, loss of receptor cells, Langerhaans cells, Sexual function, and many more problems!!

Submitted:
2014-12-04
Author:
Hayley Buchko
Posted:
2015-01-16
Tracking Number:
1jy-8ftz-1mlm

You all have posted a very biased point of view of circumcision. You do not have research from both sides, why not contact sweeden and talk to them about their findings. Please let the person who is attached to the foreskin choose what they want, this is almost disgusting how you are telling parents that they almost have to do this or they are putting their son at risk. Nothing at all lowers std/sti rates except safer sex practices and condoms.

Submitted:
2014-12-04
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2015-01-16
Tracking Number:
1jy-8ftz-79kl

These recommendations completely miss the point. OBVIOUSLY we could remove breast buds from both males and females at birth and completely eradicate breast cancer and the numbers would look great! We could also preemptively removed the appendix at birth, etc. etc. etc. From a numerical stand point that would be a good decision for any parent to make for their child. But we don't do it because that would be morally wrong.

The same principles apply here- we could perform hundreds of preemptive surgeries on our children to help lower their chances of ever having anything go wrong in their bodies- but how much do you removed (well-intentioned, obviously) before it becomes wrong? The prepuce of the penis performs a biological function- it isn't a birth defect.

All of this is completely ignoring the emotion of the fact that female circumcision is illegal and male circumcision is routine.

Submitted:
2014-12-04
Author:
Echo Rodetsky
Posted:
2015-01-16
Tracking Number:
1jy-8ftz-e8su

I can't believe that there are actual doctors that recommend amputating perfectly healthy tissue in order to prevent potential infection at some point in the nebulous future. But only for boys, as it seems vulva do not benefit from surgery in order to prevent infection and cancer.

North America, and the United States in particular, has the highest rate of non-therapeutic circumcision in the world. If circumcision prevented HIV, by up to 60% (!), North America would have the lowest prevalence of HIV infection of any developed region. The prevalence of HIV infection in North America is .6% vs Western and Central Europe, and Eastern Europe and Central Asia- which both sit at .2% http://www.avert.org/worldwide-hiv-aids-statistics.htm

STI rates are about equal between North America and Western Europe. Again, shouldn't North America have a much lower rate? http://www.avert.org/std-statistics-worldwide.htm

Another factor is that the United States interest in circumcision is profit-driven. Routine Infant Circumcision is a double-dip profit machine, by charging for both the surgery and the sale of tissue that has been removed (not one penny of which goes to the patient the tissue was removed from).http://www.timeslive.co.za/ilive/2011/08/10/interest-in-circumcision-more-than-foreskin-deep

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
yotam megged
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu6-ijk2

Hello. I'm from israel and I'm was circumcise against my will when i was a baby.Circumcision is wrong and should not preform on babies! Only condom protect from hiv and other diseases! circumcision jast make the sex with condom more difficult and therefore we use it less!! The outcome it's exactly the opposite!

Submitted:
2014-12-04
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2015-01-16
Tracking Number:
1jy-8ftz-cylg

Disgusting. What other body parts should we cut off of babies to prevent possible "problems" in the future. What ever happened to teaching our children basic hygiene and safe sex. Better yet to take responsibility for their own actions. I have lost faith in the CDC.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu6-o919

I am an adult male that was circumcised as an infant. I am the father of an uncircumcised son. All information that was provided to me regarding circumcision for the birth of my son was devoid of critically important information. That information is this; circumcision is unnecessary and has negative consequences on the adult male sexual experience. While the incidence of short term complications have been deemed outweighed by the benefits, I have found no good measure of long term complications. There was no real discussion of this with medical staff pertaining to my son, as it was generally brushed of as "rare". This is not statistically verified. As a case of one I offer this; I suffer from painfully tight erections that have been diagnosed as the removal of too much skin during my circumcision. This is relevant to everyone. It is very relevant to me. My adult sexual life has been spent in pain, because of an unnecessary procedure that I did not choose. When I had sex before I married, I used a condom for my protection and I never contracted an STI. A condom protected me with far greater that 50-60% that circumcision reports, and it is still the stance of the CDC to use a condom for sexual encounters.

Circumcision did not protect me. Sound advice of condom use protected me. Circumcision harmed me in a way that no doctor, who ever discussed it with me regarding my son, feels is relevant. That, is wrong. This is not a procedure without harm. To recommend that parent do this to their son is a disservice to all males. Offering this service to adult males who can consent I feel is an acceptable practice. I may have unknowingly taken it up myself, had it not been done to me. However, in no way do I support a recommendation of circumcising an infant. A man's sexual experience belongs to him. This I know, for I have never owned my own sexual experience. That was stolen from me. My sexual experience has always been compromised by a decision made for me 19 years before I had it.

The long term negative consequences are certainly enough to not make this a recommended procedure on children. They most certainly must be addressed in every conversation of the topic and cannot be dismissed as "rare". This is not a procedure to be forced upon someone, it is an elective procedure that can be made by a willing adult.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
James Anonymous
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu6-wcre

Where is the proof that cutting off parts of a male human's penis absolutely reduces the risks associated with this CDC statement. If this were in any way true, why is it not standard practice to cut off other body parts that might be at risk of the same or other maladies? Washing under the foreskin solves all of the issues along with using condoms to prevent body fluid exchange. Why is the USA so adamant about mutilating unconcenting boys but absolutely opposed to mutilating girls' genitals? Many countries do not perform ritual circumscions on boys. Are you implying that those countries have more HIV, STIs, and other diseases on their boys' penises? I find that hard to believe. You condoning of this medeival practice shows that the USA is still ashamed of the human body and more specifically the penis. Circumscions are not something doctors should be doing "just because." It's high time that this fallacy be put to rest. Stop endorsing and condoning male genital mutilation. Stop it now.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Emilie Anonymous
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu6-rnb8

America has one of the HIGHEST sti rates in a developed country as well as a high circumcision rates. If you are going to suggest that removing a healthy part of a males body is ok then why have a doctors take an oath to 'first DO NO HARM?'. Strapping a child down while awake and cutting a healthy part of their body off in the name of POSSIBLY preventing stds? Teach safe sex practices and not removal of body parts! NO OTHER health org in the world suggests circumcising a baby with a healthy functioning penis, YOU are the only ones, everyone is looking at America right now in shock! please reconsider your stance on this topic.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Jonathan Lopes
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu6-b82l

The fact that the CDC and the federal government is using flimsy medical "benefits" that haven't been replicated outside of the three African trials or replicated in any first-world, industrialized nations is disheartening. The proposed "counseling" for men and teens who have not been circumcised is a clear counterattack to a cultural norm that some people or groups within the CDC are clearly uncomfortable with.

Make no mistake: The goal isn't to save lives. It's to cement circumcision as the American norm and to achieve this goal, the agenda is being pushed under the guise of "it's healthier." This despite the fact that nations in Europe, Latin America and Asia that DON'T practice male circumcision see similar or lower prevalence levels of HIV and STD infection rates. As an intact (uncircumcised) man I find the tone of these recommendations offensive and I am not comfortable with my government taking a side in what is essentially a controversial cultural and ethical debate.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu6-plin

Altering the body of a human being without their permission is unethical.

If the CDC would like to offer this option to adult males over the age of 18 years, that would be acceptable, but not before that.

Regards

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu6-3kwe

Risks clearly outweigh benefits. The "benefits" mentioned would be better from proper cleaning and using condoms.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Lisa Stephon
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu6-hi3r

The only benefit of infant circumcision is the fatter wallet of the circumciser. Wake up people! Condoms prevent sexually transmitted diseases, not circumcision. Males deserve the same protection from genital cuttings that females do.

Shame on the CDC for condoning such a barbaric, outdated practice that nearly every other industrialized nation has refused to adopt!

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Garrett Wolfe
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu6-k8d5

How dare you recommend a medically unnecessary surgery, permanently altering MY genitals, both visually and functionally, on MY perfectly healthy body when I am too young to consent. My doctors and my parents have no business making decisions about my adult bedroom when I am just an infant. How dare you?!? I was the patient, my wishes are supposed to matter!!! I had no voice then, beyond my screams. I am speaking up now. We are speaking up now. Why do you ignore us. We don't want our genitals cut without our consent. We demand that you respect our right to live with the body we were born with. How dare you recommend cutting the genitals of an infant?!? How dare you?!?

Submitted:
2014-12-04
Author:
Crystal McIntyre
Posted:
2015-01-16
Tracking Number:
1jy-8ftz-zotn

1. Human rights trump all. No infant should ever be forced to undergo an unnecessary surgery. It is the owner of the penis who should decide whether or not to have 20,000 nerve endings cut off or not. His body, his choice.2. Do your research in a first world country. Using African based research to sway a parents decision is trickery and unethical.3. Instead of causing harm, why don't we focus on education of being safe in sexual activities. Even the research shows, slicing off the foreskin doesnt even completely protect a man from diseases or infections. Being clean, not forcefully retracting, and using protection is what will actually help our future men.4. Circumcision is illegal for females. It should be for males too.

I don't trust the AAP and now I can't trust the CDC. Obviously money trumps any ethical advise.

Submitted:
2014-12-04
Author:
anonymous anonymous
Posted:
2015-01-16
Tracking Number:
1jy-8ftz-wc9m

This information is grossly misguided. The people that come up with this information are clearly driven by profits. Males as well as females are born with their body intact as it should remain. Stop lying to people and convincing them to permanently harm their children's bodies for the sake of manipulated statistics. There is much information regarding the truth out there. Please research!

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
mike kronan
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu7-2i0l

I strongly urge you to change your official recommendation for circumcision. Not ONE of the reasons given for this barbaric procedure have yet to be proven valid by science. Every one of the so called studies into the benefits of circumcision have been flawed. 85% of the world is INTACT and report NO higher incidence of any of the things circumcision supposedly prevents. It causes more damage and harm than it prevents. "WHAT IF" doesn't cut it here. I was cut as an adult and I can safely say that it is better to have one's foreskin and mine was a good clean cut leaving generous amounts of mucousa. MANY are not so fortunate. Sensitivity drops off immensely and it is morally wrong to force this on an individual who cannot consent to this procedure and does not even know what is happening to them. The documented changes on the brain during infant circumcision affect those areas of the brain that deal with emotion, perception, and reasoning due to the intense pain having a negative effect on the forming infants brain. This is because the amount (if any) of local anesthetic given is insufficient to completely deaden pain because an infant's body cannot tolerate the higher dose necessary.This whole thing is about money and control and needs to be banned. Females are protected from this heinous procedure, why not MALES?

Submitted:
2014-12-04
Author:
John Garner
Posted:
2015-01-16
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu0-ehwi

These guidelines are for the U.S. but circumcision does not protect men who have sex with men, who make up the majority of HIV infected people in the U.S.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Peter Anonymous
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu7-cnmx

As a circumcised male I can say without a doubt that this practice should not be condoned by any government affiliated agency, let alone anyone at all. The CDC has manipulated studies to show benefits that have time and again been disproved. I am against infant circumcision and my male friends who are circumcised are as well. Nobody deserves to have part of their body removed without consent, especially a part that can provide such pleasure, pleasure all circumcised men will never know.

Submitted:
2014-12-04
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2015-01-16
Organization:
South Florida Intactivists Unite
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu0-2npx

Dear CDC,

Please reconsider your stance on this very important issue. Research this throughly, do not just base this on the AAP. Are you aware 75-80% of the men in the world are intact (not circumcised) and do not suffer from any "foreskin problems" or have high rates of HIV/STDs. America (which has the highest rate of sexually active circumcised males) has over 1 million adults infected with HIV, as well as 110 million adults with contacted STD's. Yet non-circumcising countries, such as Finland, have a substantially lower rate of HIV/STD's. Finland has a less than 1% circumcision rate, yet only has 2,900 adults infected with HIV, and only 1 million adults with contracted STDs. Please explain how America, with a huge majority of sexually active males being circumcised, has one of the highest rates of HIV/STDs in the world, while non-circumcising countries have the lowest rates?? If circumcision did "prevent" these diseases, why are they so rampant in this country??

Circumcision does not prevent the spread of HIV/STDs. Condoms do. Please retract this statement right away and stop trying to use scare tactics on innocent parents.

Submitted:
2014-12-04
Author:
Daniel Kucich
Posted:
2015-01-16
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu0-aus7

I have taken it upon myself to write a piece of satire that is meant to both entertain and illustrate an ethical complexity lacking in the CDC's position. It is much easier to spot a human rights violation that occurs in an outside culture than it is to identify one in your very own. Without further ado, I present to you my allegory. In the year 2049, the UK health administration concluded that the partial removal of the back of the tongue in newborns would virtually eliminate the transfer of mononucleosis, the highly contagious and damaging kissing disease. Patients can expect to feel minor pain during and after the procedure, and in some cases swelling of the tongue may pose a minor concern that can be easily treated with an anti-inflammatory or a cold compress. It is not suspected that this treatment will result in difficulty breastfeeding. The time to fully recover will take anywhere from 10 to 15 days, after which time all possible ill effects should subside. As the child matures, he or she will be fully capable of eating any and all solid foods. No difference in taste buds will occur with the minor exception of sensing sourness. Since several of the sensors responsible for detecting acidic flavors will naturally be absent as a result of the excision, some fruits such as apples and grapefruit may produce a milder sensation against the eater's palette. It must be stressed that all infants who undergo this procedure will still be able to gain full satisfaction from eating. The receptors for sweetness, saltiness, and even bitterness will be left mostly or fully intact. The patient will never miss out on the joy of certain acidic food because he or she will never have known sourness to begin with. Studies have even concluded that the three remaining tastes may even be stronger and more enjoyable as a result of the permanent loss of the sourness taste buds. It is estimated that if more than 65% of the population agrees to this elective procedure on all of their newborns, then mononucleosis could be completely eradicated within 25 years, and rates of the infectious disease could drastically diminish within as few as 15 years. It is also noted that the procedure may have the added benefit of reducing the onset of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and throat cancer. The health administration will be closely monitoring these and other possible benefits over the course of the next five years to determine whether or not to make the procedure compulsory for all hospital births. Since the cost of the procedure may be prohibitive for certain families, several government programs are being created to subsidize the cost. In most cases, the procedure will be available free of cost to those patients coming from low-income households.

How did I come up with this imaginative and whimsical idea? I purposely chose the back of the tongue because it was gentle, almost benign...almost. When the reader takes a small step back and ponders for a few moments what life might be like without the unique sensation that comes from drinking lemonade on a hot day, or the pleasant tartness unique to a dessert such as apple pie, they start to see the inherent unfairness of such a scenario. It shifts from being a concern of health, to a concern of a whole and satisfactory eating experience. Like sex, eating is one of life's greatest pleasures. I would be livid if I knew that a pleasant sensation had been robbed from me against my will all for the sake of a supposed health benefit that may or may not actually be of any use to me. I have never contracted mononucleosis, and though I know it's a terrible disease, I would never relinquish any part of the culinary experience to prevent a possible infection. We would never think to cheat our children out of the joy of lemonade on a summer afternoon, the refreshing zing of a grapefruit, or the zest of a raspberry vinaigrette over cold crisp romaine lettuce. These are little things that make life worth living. A fully sensory sexual experience is a big thing that makes life worth living. A lot of educated people in America aren't making this connection. I'm here to help.

Submitted:
2014-12-04
Author:
Tara Chapman
Posted:
2015-01-16
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu0-xpbe

Every major medical organization in the world has deemed routine infant circumcision as a cosmetic procedure, not a therapeutic procedure. Just as we no longer routinely remove tonsils we should not remove healthy tissue from the masses. More boys are dying each year from complications associated with routine infant circumcision than would ever actually need the surgery later in life. Therefore the risk outweighs the benefit. The only way to prevent STIs is the practice of abstinence, condom use, frequent testing, and monogomy. #CDCEthics

Submitted:
2014-12-04
Author:
James Ketter
Posted:
2015-01-16
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu0-io9c

Any recommendation that includes the statement, "The benefits outweigh the risks," should include ALL of the risks, not just those immediate to the surgery, but conditional complications, conditions, and negative long term results as well.

Without including such complications as Meatal Stenosis in their calculations the CDC has done a great disservice to the heath of the public. Meatal Stenosis cannot be assessed in the hours or days after the circumcision surgery, but may take years to develop. As only circumcised males suffer from this condition it is clear that this is an unintended consequence of the surgery. To put it more simply, Meatal Stenosis is a circumcision risk.

The AAP placed those circumcised at a 9% to 32% chance of developing this risk. The CDC has completely ignored these findings.

What other long term complications has the CDC ignored to make this culturally biased recommendation?

Submitted:
2014-12-04
Author:
Clifford Brickner
Posted:
2015-01-16
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu0-lugh

I am a 60 year old man with a "natural" penis. I have 2 grown sons who have never had their penis mutilated. We have never experienced a problem. I find the whole idea of genital mutilation of males or females a violation of their human rights. I urge you to look again at the idea that circumcision is something the CDC should recommend!

Submitted:
2014-12-04
Author:
Richard Boldy
Posted:
2015-01-16
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu0-1mpl

It is shocking and utterly disgusting to me that the CDC have taken this stance. Americans should be setting the standard for fair and educated treatment of all human beings. It is abhorrent to me that a US government agency is not standing against such a horrific act of child abuse let alone actively supporting it.

The barbaric practice of genital mutilation of both females and males has no place in modern society. The medical findings in this report are dubious at best and lean heavily towards bias of the conducting group. There is no clinical evidence to show that the same reduction in both HIV and STI transmission could be achieved through education of both sexual methods and basic human hygiene rather than physical removing part of a boys penis without the individual being of age to object. I challenge the doctors in this study to produce an adult that would volunteer for the procedure based on the studies evidence.

This practice served people in history for medical purposes where clean water, effective communication and education were unavailable. In some places the only communication that was able to be made was via religion thus this became religious doctrine that remains in some religions today however just like female genital mutilation any civilized country and secular government should oppose and actively work to abolish this practice.

This practice has been very common in the USA historically, however a widening scope of educated new parents are choosing to not harm their baby boys by subjecting them to a process that has been normalized over time, much like other historical practices were before we became more educated such as lobotomy or the use of leaches.

Unfortunately due to sensitive nature of this issue we are also fighting a battle against male ego. In America there are many men that feel that if it wasn't a problem for them it shouldn't be for their son's. This largely has psychological roots in these men not wishing to deal with the fact that their parents unknowingly abused them in this way, although these parent should not be blamed.

If the CDC continues with this line of recommendation it is not only helping to subject another generation of boys and the men they grow into, to this physical and mental anguish it is also actively and immediately condoning the organized physical abuse of children. Anyone working for and acting on behave of the CDC in this matter should be working to revoke this as soon as humanly possible.

In addition to my previous challenge I also challenge the CDC to publish the names of all clinical people involved in this study along with information about there current circumcision status - both male and female. In the light of the well documented psychological bias that is mentioned above this information is crucial to the validity of this study as it directly impact group identity bias.

Kind regardsRichard M Boldy

Submitted:
2014-12-04
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2015-01-16
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu1-kbqg

Why is the mutilation of newborn boys still being pushed when the same mutilation against a girl is recognized as unethical, inhumane and barbaric?

Submitted:
2014-12-04
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2015-01-16
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu1-8k7m

What a disappointing bunch of baloney from the CDC.

Any guy who manages to wash their armpit, keep clean behind their ears and between their teeth sure should know how to prevent bacteria from growing under their foreskin: Water and soap!

Of course if we were to amputate arms and ears of babies and pull children's teeth as soon as they grow, we wouldn't have to worry about keeping those clean, either.

"Only" one in 200 circumcisions in babies have complications? Really? Would the CDC approve a drug that has serious side effects at this rate when the benefit is highly questionable?

Western Europe and North America have almost exactly the same rate of STD overall (19 vs. 20 per 1,000), although most European men are uncircumcised. Risk of getting STD is much more dependent on other factors than circumcision vs. non-circumcision.

Shame on you, CDC. This has nothing to do with science. It's a culturally ingrained prejudice brought to you by a couple of obsolete religions and their tendency to maim and kill.

Some real advise: If you are worried about catching a genital disease from your partner, WEAR A CONDOM, buddy. 30 years after the outbreak of HIV it seems the CDC has forgotten what works and what doesn't when it comes to prevention of STDs.

Shame!

Submitted:
2014-12-04
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2015-01-16
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu1-iln8

Why is the mutilation of newborn boys still being pushed when the same mutilation against a girl is recognized as unethical, inhumane and barbaric?

Why are girls more worthy of antibiotics if they get an infection than boys? Why do we treat girls with UTI's instead of cutting off THEIR foreskin?

Are you circumcised? If so, what are you missing? No. CDC20140012

Why aren't you providing ALL the information instead of picking and choosing? No. CDC20140012

Are you also letting parents know that their boys are legally allowed to sue their parents and will win the lawsuit if they are circumcised without consent?

Baby boys are statistically more likely to die from complications from their circumcision than to ever actually need one.

Should be give routine mastectomies to baby girls since they are more likely to get breast cancer then a man is to get penile cancer?

Why are there only a handful of places on earth where routine infant circumcision is common? Why do the men in countries where RIC isn't common not have any problems with their foreskin?

Is the CDC prepared to take on the responsibility and live with the blood on their hands of any little boys who die as a result to botched circumcision?

Why promote circumcision of males as a way to avoid sti's (including hiv/AIDS) instead of safe sex?

In a letter from 1996 from the American Cancer Society to Dr. Peter Rappo (Committee on Practice & Ambulatory Medicine for the American Academy of pediatrics) they state that the claim that circumcision prevents penile cancer is an outdated belief that is methodologically flawed and not a valid or effective preventative measure. Why then, is this misinformation still being used to push an unnecessary cosmetic procedure on infants?

Babies are not sexually active, couldn't adult men decide if the benefits outweighs the risks ?

Most of the benefits you claim happen when a male starts having sex. When a man starts having sex, they should be old enough to make the decision themselves.

Infant circumcision is genital mutilation. Gender plays no role

Submitted:
2014-12-04
Author:
T Ouellette
Posted:
2015-01-16
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu1-vfff

There are some very serious flaws with the opinion provided by the CDC regarding recommendations for male circumcision.

How is it logical or ethical to perform surgery on a healthy baby without medical emergency? This violates the code of ethics to "First do no Harm"? Circumcision is done by many families for purely cosmetic and mythical reasons such as that intact penises are 'dirtier' and harder to clean which is a complete fallacy.

The Universal Declaration of Human rights states that every human being has a right to bodily integrity. Period.

Many of the supposed 'benefits' only apply to sexually active individuals and adults (HIV/Aids, penile cancer). Babies and infants are not sexually active. Only people of age to consent are sexually active, therefore, wait until an individual is old enough to weigh the risks, benefits, and understand the pros and cons of this procedure before permanently altering their genitals to suit a parent or even medical practitioners opinions, especially when the body modification is unnecessary and without that persons understanding or consent?

Urinary tract infections have been proven to actually be more prevalent in little girls than in boys. In the rare instance that this occurs girls are given an antibiotic or some other non-invasive form of medical care. This excuse to perform circumcision is unnecessarily invasive compared to alternative methods of treatment. Again, does first, do no harm not apply to this situation!?

Who's body is it anyways? Shouldnt the owner of the penis be able to decide what happens to it? There are thousands of individuals across North America who attest to feeling violated, betrayed, mutilated, and unhappy with the fact that their genitals were modified without their consent. Parents should not get to have this say. I feel that in many instances fathers who have been circumcised feel the necessity to justify their procedures. They chose to circumcise their male children based on the thought pattern that 'that's just what you do' or justifying it in some personal way. Mothers leave this decision up to their husbands because "They have the penis" but no scientific research goes into the reasoning behind it. I think it is simple, his body, his choice. If I was born a male I would be furious that this choice was taken for me. No consent, no emergency, no surgery!

38 leading non-US physicians disagree with the American Academy of Pediatrics as stated in the " Cultural Bias in the AAP's 2012 Technical Report and Policy Statement on Male Circumcision" which can easily be found on the internet Many countries do not routinely circumcise their infant boys and they have seen little to no complications with leaving boys intact. Those countries respect and accept the natural male form. They have determined that only one in Many countries feel the practice of RIC is barbaric, outdated, and completely unnecessary.

All mammals are born with foreskin both male and female. That evolution's way of telling us its beneficial and healthy to have foreskin!

The risks and complications of this surgery are grossly underestimated & under recorded. No scientific body has researched extensively the effect of circumcision on mental health, sexual relations for men AND their partners? Foreskin has many functions which can not be discounted! My partner suffers damage including mangled frenulum, skin bridges, holes in his urethral opening, skin tags, keratinization of his glans, loss of sensitivity to the penis and he has had to endure corrective surgeries to repair the damage done by his circumcision. The huge need for corrective surgeries minor or major should be considered before recommending circumcision as a prophylactic! Babies die from this procedure, have reactions to the anesthetic, ect yet none of these are considered seriously which is repulsive and unacceptable. Phimosis is wrongly diagnosed as a reason to circumcise even though retraction is not supposed to happen until puberty, hypocritical much doctors recommend it causing further damage.

The USA has the highest rate of circumcision and also one of the highest rates of HIV/AIDS? Isn't that counter intuitive to the supposed research that has been done in those so very obviously biased studies. The USA also has one of the highest consumption rates of sexual stimulants and yet no one has bothered to correlate this towards circumcision. Shame!

Studies in Africa. These are poor second and third world countries we are using as guinea pigs in order to justify a religious practice in our own back yard. We could be offering them real aid and medical resources but instead we are convincing a very uneducated people to line themselves and their children up to have their genitals cut as some sort of a miracle breakthrough for preventing HIV and AIDS. This is one of the most despicable and unethical types of research that I have witnessed and should be widely condemned by medical science.

Submitted:
2014-12-04
Author:
Craig Chapman
Posted:
2015-01-16
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu1-5a62

Female circumcision is outlawed. Under amendment 14 males should be protected equally from circumcision. Please take a look at Europe... the majority of European men are not circumcised and hiv/std rates are not as high as they are here in the U.S. The choice should not be a parental choice as babies are not sexually active the boys can choose themselves. As far as uti's girls have them as well they are treatable with antibiotics. Infections do not require amputation. #CDCEthics

Submitted:
2014-12-04
Author:
Nicole Peiffer
Posted:
2015-01-16
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu1-hlii

Yeah-countries are considering outlawing this-it's a human rights violation and the lack of ethics in the CDC is appalling. Shame on you. Times are changing and you are behind them. How can people trust your recommendations on actual health concerns that are actually necessary when you are obviously so monetarily motivated. Sad.

Submitted:
2014-12-04
Author:
Tracy Baker
Posted:
2015-01-16
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu1-je3x

Every major medical organization in the world has deemed routine infant circumcision as a cosmetic procedure, not a therapeutic procedure. Just as we no longer routinely remove tonsils we should not remove healthy tissue from the masses. More boys are dying each year from complications associated with routine infant circumcision than would ever actually need the surgery later in life. Therefore the risk outweighs the benefit. The only way to prevent STIs is the practice of abstinence, condom use, frequent testing, and monogomy.

Submitted:
2014-12-04
Author:
Katie Cavanaugh
Posted:
2015-01-16
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu1-m1ov

Male circumcision is a cosmetic procedure and digging up studies with faulty methods and in countries completely different than ours is akin to lying. If the procedure is illegal on girls it should also be illegal on boys. Lastly, even if it did protect from certain STDs (most studies show it doesn't and hand picking the one study where they did not counsel the control group about safe sex and did not make them refrain from sex for the same period of time as those who were cut is shameful) that type of procedure can wait until the boy is old enough to decide if he wants to trade sensation for supposed protection. Not to mention an adult can fully consent AND receive adequate pain meds, a newborn cannot.

Submitted:
2014-12-04
Author:
Jennifer Williams
Posted:
2015-01-16
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu1-3v70

Completely unacceptable to suggest circumcision is better for babies. Circumcising a boy is as awful as circumcising a girl. No proper pain killer can be given at birth. It decreases sexual feeling for adults. Condoms exist. Monogamy exists. Look at Europe and the rest of the civilized world for a hint as to how ignorant this is. This is barbaric and sick. It's 2014, people. Stop supporting the mutilation of baby genitals. Please.

Submitted:
2014-12-04
Author:
Wendy Anonymous
Posted:
2015-01-16
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu1-cgmf

I did a good amount of personal research on having my son circumcised or not too when he was born in 2003. I wanted him to be circumcised but then learned ND medical assistance considered it cosmetic and would not cover it. Not having the $200 to pay out of pocket I was unable to afford to have it done. I convinced myself since the fathers child and my own father had never had it done, it was no big deal. I later learned that its just a matter of coding the procedure a certain way for it to be covered under medical assistance, as I learned from a friend who had both of her sons circumcised and paid in full by medical assistance.she knew this also because she was a medical transcription coder as profession. Doctors providing the information to parents published by CDC gives them the ability to make an educated decision. Further more I think all insurance companies should cover the cost in full when the decision is based on research or Pay at least 90 to 85% when its religious or requested. These recommendations being published could help educate and in turn control the spread of diseases.

Submitted:
2014-12-04
Author:
Daniel Seely
Posted:
2015-01-16
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu1-753w

How about the CDC educating doctors, nurses and parents about proper intact care! The number of doctors and nurses improperly advising forcible retraction of minor boys a physically forcibly retracting them themselves during medical visits is shameful. This is unacceptable seeing as forcibly retracting a minor boy's adherent foreskin is sexual assault and battery whether or not it is done out of ignorance.