Submitted:
2014-12-04
Author:
Julia Rudden
Posted:
2015-01-16
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu1-7s9g

How can supposed benefits, which have not been fully documented and studied, outweigh the risk of death (over 100 infant boys die each year in circumcision-related deaths) and the taking away of a useful body part without the permission of the one on which surgery is performed?

We condemn this surgery when done on female infants--it's illegal! Why in any supposedly sane nation would a national body condone the surgical alteration of an infant's genitalis? It's wrong, it's in total contradiction of the Hippocratic oath and it must stop.

Submitted:
2014-12-04
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2015-01-16
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu2-ohhr

Infant circumcision is genital mutilation. Gender plays no role

Are they going to also recommend fgm?

Did you address the loss of the functions of the foreskin as a risk of the procedure? Are you aware that most infections in infancy are caused by improper intact care (ie premature retraction)?

Are you aware that one of the reason circumcision was begun was to prevent pubescent boys from masturbating?

Will you also let parents know the functions of the foreskin so that they can actually make an educated decision for their son?CDC20140012

How do you offer proper knowledge to expecting parents when you don't offer correct knowledge to anyone? No. CDC20140012

Will you be fighting to have female circumcision legalized, since both male and female circumcision have similar benefits?CDC20140012

Are your babies born perfect or did you chop their fully functioning foreskin off as well? No. CDC20140012

Why is the risk of loosing an infant to possible complications of an unnecessary procedure to remove a functioning body part, more important than the person's rights, choices, and wants??CDC-2014-0012

Why is it that recommendations are being made to circumcise American infant boys based on studies done on African adult males? How can you compare the two?

Is it true that the only reason the intact males in the African study had a higher incidence of std's is because the circumcised males had to wait 6 weeks before having sex while the intact males did not?

Isn't it a fact that it is difficult for a male to get a uti in the first place because of the length of the penis that the bacteria has to travel up to reach the bladder. Which usually gets washed out when the male urinates. CDC20140012

If it is so much better, then why is most of the world uncircumcised and healthy? If it were truly better, why has only America decided to say it's cleaner? It's a natural body part. If they were born with it, how can it be that bad? What's next?

What is it about American boys and men that makes them so much more prone to these penile infections, cancers, defects and such? There is obviously a larger, dangerous issue here if the rest of the world (barring Africa...coincidentally where the CDCs studies were conducted) is populated with healthy intact males? In a country that has one of the highest rates of infant circumcision, we should also have the lowest rate of HIV and STD infection. However, we are (again...ironically barring Africa...) one of the most HIV and STD infected countries. What is it that is special and different about America makes our boys and men among the only ones in the world who are routinely circumcised as infants due to all these benefits, yet the vast majority (again...we must exclude Africa here) of the world does just fine without it?

I think I may know the answer.

It's because doctors here stand to make a damn pretty penny off the procedure. And not just when they perform it. They get paid at that point by the parents or an insurance company; sometimes both! Then, they can give the foreskin to a cosmetic company, make a bit more. For the many boys who have immediate complications, there is the payment for the aftercare and subsequent procedures. The ones that don't have problems until they are sexually active will become money makers for doctors and pharmaceutical companies and sexual aide companies. It's only the boys who remain intact, or the ones that die due to complications from circumcision, that do not guarantee extra money for doctors and other entities. The doctors still try to get the intact boys under the knife though, by providing harmful and incorrect intact care information to parents.

If an uncircumcised male and a circumcised male are both exposed to an std what gives the uncircumcised male a higher chance of getting the std if both males engage in unprotected sex? CDC20140012

Submitted:
2014-12-04
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2015-01-16
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu2-xfsp

Dear CDC,I have a few concerns related to your decision to back up Routine Infant Circumcision (RIC). If one of the biggest reasons for RIC to be done is that it lowers the chances of men catching HIV, why are you not advocating the use of condoms instead of a surgical procedure? Do condoms not work for intact males as it does for cut males? If a condom works the same for both cut and intact males why should a male be circumcised if it's the same as wearing a condom that does not harm the male? Do these risks really out way the chance of a person loosing their newborn child's life, as 100s of newborn males do due to "complications" from RIC? Why does the CDC state that it prevents penile cancer when the American Cancer Society clearly states that RIC does not prevent penile cancer? Why is it that you're using an African based study that was done on adult men as your resource of credit yet there is an over 10 year long study done by Dr. Dreher in Jamaica that clearly states the use of marijuana during pregnancy and throughout breastfeeding does not harm the newborn yet you do not back up this study. Nor does the CDC condone the hundreds of studies down that show that the use of marijuana can cure all forms of cancers, epilepsy, fibromyalgia, etc? The CDC clearly states that marijuana is dangerous and should never be used, yet it's never killed a person and has cured hundreds of people. But you will condone RIC, a procedure that kills 100s of babies every year based off of an African study done on adult males? Does the CDC acknowledge that other countries do not perform RIC and that it's even banned in some countries? If the CDC does, then why is countries like Britains people not dying off from HIV, penile cancer, or having issues with UTIs? Also, females are more likely to develop UTIs, and vaginas are much harder to keep cleaner than an intact male so why is the CDC not backing up Female Circumcision? Especially considering the study you're using is from Africa, where female circumcision (also known as female genital mutilation) is commonly preformed? If you, the CDC could answer these questions with legitimate statistics, sources, and studies I would appreciate it very much. CDC-2014-0012

This makes me so sad. The rate of circumcision has dropped so much in the US that now the CDC is trying to push for health insurance companies to cover the procedure... Only proving that they are only concerned with making money. And you know what helps prevent the spread of HIV and other STD's??? Condoms. That's really over-reaching for a "medical" reason for circumcision. I'd rather teach my boys to practice safe sex than to have a functional body part surgically removed from their innocent, perfect bodies without them being able to consent to the permanent alteration.

Were both control groups utilized in the studies regarding HIV given the same access to condoms?Did both control groups have a comprehensive STI/HIV transmission education class prior to the study? How did the malaria status of the control groups factor into the results of the study?

Why is it that now, after so many years of not recommending it, do you suddenly change your stance? Could it be because more babies are being born and left intact, they way should be? As a result, you're not getting that big paycheck from mutilating newborn boys? Oh, I'm sorry, I meant circumcising.

The are absolutely ZERO benefits of circumcision. If infection is your concern, then put out information to properly care for an intact infant penis. The few who get infections, are most likely from the mothers who were not correctly informed on how to care for an intact penis properly. It's really simple... When intact... DO NOT RETRACT. The intact infant penis is designed to keep bacteria out, and therefore keeping infections out. Retracting is extremely painful, and introduces infection.

Furthermore, if you're going to recommend routine infant circumcision, you should legalize female circumcision as well.... Why are infant males different than infant females? Are they not perfect in your eyes?

Lastly, when conducting an experiment on the circumcised penis, versus intact, and risk of infection, the least you could do is preform it on AMERICAN MEN.

CDC-2014-0012: How do you justify the removal of healthy tissue on non-consenting minors? Routine circumcision is a blatant disregard of medical ethics, and no other country recommends it. In the US, infant circumcision is a huge cash cow. Do you feel that promoting cosmetic surgery on minors is a conflict of interest

Why is it considered a birth defect to be born without foreskin? Are there any studies currently being performed to analyze the functions of the male foreskin?

There is no reason for circumcision !!! Our babies are born perfect! Wanna prevent STDs and infections ? USE CONDOMS! Girls get infections too but we don't go cutting them up. We treat them with medicine. CDC20140012

Submitted:
2014-12-04
Author:
Danielle Jenkins
Posted:
2015-01-16
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu2-7t0t

I am appalled and disgusted with the CDCs new statement that circumcision benefits outweigh the risks. There are so many complications and risks associated with routine infant circumcision and absolutely no benefits that outweigh death. It is a fact that over 100 babies die from it in America every year. The World Health Organization does not recommend RIC and neither does any other credible health organization in the world. America needs to stop being so greedy and start caring more about the wellbeing of newborn baby boys. Human rights are important to me and should be to all of America. I will not stop fighting until America agrees that my son deserves the same rights as my daughter. Everyone has a right to Genital integrity and everyone deserves to make the choice for their own bodies when they are adults. Please change your stance.

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

Submitted:
2014-12-04
Author:
Dana A.
Posted:
2015-01-16
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu2-4t6t

There aren't just "risks" to be considered. There are severe disadvantages to being circumcised. One is the extreme pain and trauma that the newborn suffers. The other is a lifetime with a desensitized sexual organ.

Submitted:
2014-12-04
Author:
Julie Paulette
Posted:
2015-01-16
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu2-twll

My son was born in 1998 and after researching circumcision, I knew that there was nothing wrong with his perfect body. He was left whole. After reading the CDC recommendation today that teenagers get circumcised, I told my now 16-year-old son about the CDC recommendation. He laughed out loud. Even a 16-year-old knows how ridiculous this is. This new recommendation is just grasping at straws as the medical community is realizing that people are becoming educated about his worthless and harmful procedure. Doctors and medical facilities are losing money and this is one last futile attempt to get people to fall in line and just go with the status quo. Most of the world's men are not circumcised and they are not dropping dead of health problems. I'm waiting for the CDC to recommend circumcision for baby girls and women. Girls have lots of "extra skin" as people call it that can harbor bacteria. Girls get way more infections than boys. Why don't you start recommending female circumcision? If it's ok to cut boys, why isn't it ok to cut girls for the same reasons? This is such utter craziness to me. This is junk science. I don't put a lot of stock in CDC recommendations overall and this is just another topic that you are dead wrong on. You should be ashamed to be perpetuating such nonsense.

Submitted:
2014-12-04
Author:
Jennifer B
Posted:
2015-01-16
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu2-fkkm

Routine infant circumcision is a medically unnecessary surgery performed an a patient that has not given consent. Period. Even if it gave 100% protection against all STD's and UTI's, it would still be a violation of all the basic tenants of medical ethics and human rights. Practicing safe sex and antibiotics have the same end results and do not require removing perfectly healthy tissue from a minor. It baffles me that if a person in this country took their dog to a vet and had the vet strap it down, give it insufficient or no anesthetic, and remove the prepuce from the glans penis, the vet and the owner could be arrested and imprisoned for animal cruelty, but this happens to baby boys in this country about once every 3 seconds and most people don't bat an eye over it. The general population can be forgiven for this because we have been culturally conditioned to view it as "the norm", but the major medical associations should be ashamed of themselves for encouraging such a blatant violation of medical ethics. It is not okay to amputate a body part in the absence of disease to maybe prevent a future disease and it is not okay to remove healthy tissue from a minor because their parents want you to, no matter their reasons.

Submitted:
2014-12-04
Author:
Amanda DuBose
Posted:
2015-01-16
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu2-hg43

The rest of the world is attempting to outlaw unnecessary infant circumcision, but here in America where children are seen as property with no rights, we're still trying to justify it. Tisk tisk, get with the program! How a grown man's penis looks, feels, and functions should be HIS choice. There's NO benefit of circumcision that CANNOT WAIT until he's old enough to decide FOR HIMSELF if the benefits are worth the risks and inherent loss.You want parents to choose the *permanent* state of someone else's penis based on cultural norm and THEIR religion?! Since when are INFANTS religious???SHAME ON YOU. Forced circumcision is a human rights violation.

Submitted:
2014-12-04
Author:
Louise Greer
Posted:
2015-01-16
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu2-h6wz

This is disgusting. Circumcision is barbaric, and unethical. How in the world can your recommendation be directly opposite to the recommendation of most other 1st world countries? Why would you recommend surgery over education? Teach about monogamy, safe sex, or abstinence, but don't suggest that infant males be permanently disfigured.

Submitted:
2014-12-04
Author:
Genevieve Odom
Posted:
2015-01-16
Organization:
All sweet, innocent, newborn baby boys everywhere!
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu2-gg6r

Hello,I'd like to comment on the CDC's recommendation of RIC. This news is highly distressing to me. I don't understand why they would use research conducted in Africa to back their stance on recommending RIC. This doesn't seem to translate to Americans at all. Our populations are geographically and figuratively worlds apart! Wouldn't a stance that included increasing public health knowledge about safe sex be a much better way to get their point across? What about other nations with very low circumcision rates that coincide with low transmission of STI's and HIV/AIDS (China). Where is the research conducted here in America? As a nurse, this is very discouraging. We need to stop performing unnecessary procedures. The cost of healthcare just keeping increasing. Cosmetic procedures, that are also barbaric and unnecessary should not be covered by insurance, much less government funding. I think this is going to completely discredit the CDC as an organization. Please reconsider your stance on RIC.

Submitted:
2014-12-04
Author:
Kimberly Barnwell
Posted:
2015-01-16
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu2-3el3

The fact is, the Africa study was flawed from conception. Until a unified study is completed, validated, and published, it is beyond irresponsible for an institution as publicly "worshipped" as the CDC to condone a cosmetic surgery performed on neonates who cannot and do not offer informed consent while at the same time not enforcing a strict "informed consent" policy for parents. Why does the WHO still debate these results? Why is there so much noise in the medical community about performing a well-done study. Many professionals would like the opportunity to complete such a study. Why does the CDC not simply state the truth: right now, we do NOT have enough validated evidence to support a position either way.

The CDC should NOT be a "follow the bureaucratic, follow the money" group. Our countries public welfare depends upon the CDC giving good, viable, studied, and accurate information. These three "studies" (using the term loosely, here) are certainly NOT any of those things.

Furthermore, let's take a real look at HIV/AIDS and STI's in general. The HUGE boom in the 90's of STI's occurred in a predominately circumcised population in our country. Many of the men who have dies and will die from HIV/AIDS were, in fact, already cut. Many of the women who received the virus from their sexual partners were sexually active with circumcised males.

And where is the stance on FGM? The fact is, there is more published evidence on the benefits of female circumcision than there are male circ's. But we don't do that. We need to ask societally why....why do we value our sons less than our daughters. Why do we think it acceptable to take away sexual function for a maybe? Why would we promote the cutting of genitals over the use of condoms? Why would we use a group of studies that has been and will continue to repudiated by the medical community across the globe? Why is the CDC taking this stance without the verifiable and accurate information that they require for vaccines, disease control, etc.

The CDC has to recognize the implications of this published stance. It will ensure the following:

1. The HIV/AIDS and STI rates will SOAR. Condoms will be out, circumcised penis in. The only reliable way to reduce infections has been and will remain condom use. If you think that won't happen, just remember our recent increases in active cases (in predominately circumcised males) since the great "Condom Campaign" of the 80's and 90's stalled. 2. Parents are woefully under-informed about this issue. This proclamation will ensure that they stay that way. 3. Your credibility (along with the AAP's) is already questionable.....this rash and medically repugnant decision will ensure you remain untrustworthy. 4. Europe. They still don't buy the circumcision myths. They still keep their neonates whole (predominately). Why are they not experiencing sharp increases in STI's? This needs to be answered. 5. Circumcision HURTS. This stance will ensure more little boys suffer this great pain (that often has lifelong consequence, think the sharp spike in ED and the drugs used to treat it) for still, no reason scientifically applicable to our country.

Your job is to PROTECT the citizens of the USA. All of them. Including male neonates. PROTECT them.

Rethink this CDC. Is whatever your pocket been padded with worth the risk to your reputation?

Submitted:
2014-12-04
Author:
Roberta King
Posted:
2015-01-16
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu2-qplm

Leave the boy babies alone. Foreskin protects against bacteria and is there for a reason. It's traumatic and unnecessary to cut little babies. Quit diddling with nature.

Submitted:
2014-12-04
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2015-01-16
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu2-keqv

I don't think that we have the right to remove functioning body parts from innocent infant boys in the guise of protecting them from some possible future harm. When the infant reaches adulthood, he should be able to decide for himself whether or not he'd like to remove his foreskin. It's a basic human right to decide what happens to your own body. At this point, many people allow their children to be surgically altered forever without even adequate counseling as to possible damage or side effects that may occur during this procedure. The rates are dropping, and I think they'd drop even more if parents understood the consequences of what they were doing. Foreskins are not birth defects. They are a functioning part of the body, and as such, they should not be removed without very good reason. In addition, the protection against disease is the least convincing argument because the only true protection from disease is abstinence, then condoms. This is true for both circumcised and uncircumcised men.

Submitted:
2014-12-04
Author:
Christina Bharara
Posted:
2015-01-16
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu2-50xu

The claimed health benefits, including protection against HIV/AIDS, genital herpes, genital warts, and penile cancer, are questionable, weak, and likely to have little public health relevance in a Western context, and they do not represent compelling reasons for surgery before boys are old enough to decide for themselves.

from the 1984 AAP report, and still valid:The Function of the Foreskin: The glans at birth is delicate and easily irritated by urine and feces. The foreskin shields the glans; with circumcision this protection is lost. In such cases, the glans and especially the urinary opening (meatus) may become irritated or infected, causing ulcers, meatitis (inflammation of the meatus), and meatal stenosis (a narrowing of the urinary opening). Such problems virtually never occur in uncircumcised penises. The foreskin protects the glans throughout life.

Circumcision has many risks, side effects, and changes the quality of sex. Circumcised men have more difficulties reaching orgasm, and their female partners experience more vaginal pains and an inferior sex life, a new study shows.

Every year, many babies die, or need follow-up visits and surgeries to fix botched circumcisions. With no other body part physicians recommend prophylactic surgery to a healthy (and non-consenting) child. "First, do no harm."

I'm really disappointed that this immoral and destructive practice is being promoted by the CDC.

Submitted:
2014-12-04
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2015-01-16
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu2-ka9m

The CDC should be very worried about its international image for taking a stance so markedly different than other health organizations. They suggest that the benefits of infant circumcision outweigh the risks enough to justify payment. How can the three RCTs (with frequentlu criticized methodological flaws) that show a decrease in male heterosexually aquired HIV apply to the U.S., where only 4100 new male heterosexual HIV infections were incurredi n 2010? How can such as small risk justify removing the most sensitive parts of the penis and changing sex so dramatically to remove the gliding mechanism, resulting in frictional movement rather than the rolling of the foreskin? It affects sex far more than a ritual nick on a baby girl would.

Foreskin is a functional, valuable part of the penis and it's very loss is a complication:From one study called "A multinational population survey of intravaginal ejaculation latency time", it found circumcised men took both insignificantly longer and significantly shorter to ejaculate. In Turkey (a country that circumcises over 80% of its male population), the ejaculation latency time was 3.7 minutes. In the US, the ejaculation time was not significantly more than that of uncircumcised populations.www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16422843

A small study from Turkey on voluntary adult circumcisions (for religious reasons) showed an increase in ejaculation time after circumcision (reasons being sensitivity), but in their circumcision culture, their conclusions were that "The increase in the ejaculatory latency time can be considered an advantage rather than a complication." LOLwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14751371

A newer study from 2007 on adult circumcision showed that there was no significant difference in the ejaculation latency time, but also stated the following: "Masturbatory pleasure decreased after circumcision in 48% of the respondents, while 8% reported increased pleasure. Masturbatory difficulty increased after circumcision in 63% of the respondents but was easier in 37%. About 6% answered that their sex lives improved, while 20% reported a worse sex life after circumcision.

There was a decrease in masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment after circumcision, indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men, possibly because of complications of the surgery and a loss of nerve endings." www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17155977

The was also a monofilament test done on circumcised and intact males which concluded the following: "The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis." File:Fine Touch Pressure Thresholds in the Adult Penis.gifwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17155977

There is also some preliminary evidence that circumcised men are more likely to suffer from alexithymia and erectile dysfunction: "The circumcised men had age-adjusted alexithymia scores 19.9 percent higher than the intact men; were 1.57 times more likely to have high alexithymia scores; were 2.30 times less likely to have low alexithymia scores; had higher prevalence of two of the three alex-ithymia factors (difficulty identifying feelings and difficulty describing feelings); and were 4.53 times more likely to use an erectile dysfunction drug. Alexithymia in this population of adult men is statistically significant for having experienced circumcision trauma and for erectile dysfunction drug use."www.mensstudies.com/content/2772r13...

Submitted:
2014-12-04
Author:
Tyler Holman
Posted:
2015-01-16
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu3-jdbc

I do not believe that it is appropriate for such a wholesale endorsement of a radical practice like circumcision to be made by the CDC. While there is some evidence to support the fact that circumcision has reduced incidence of heterosexual HIV transmission in some parts of Africa, no research exists taking into account modern Western hygiene and healthcare as exists in the United States and Europe. The simple fact is that complications from circumcision itself, though often classified as 'minor,' are far more common than complications from being intact.

Secondly, the penis is a very sensitive, delicate organ, and the foreskin is in place for a reason. Removal of it for preventive purposes has other consequences, not limited to the risk of complications. Reduced sensitivity and cosmetic defects are very common and very possible.

The simple fact is that circumcision probably has some minor role in reducing HIV transmission in societies which lack modern hygiene and medical practices, such as regular washing and high rates of condom usage. Ultimately, focusing on encouraging the use of condoms and unsafe sex in general would be of vastly more benefit than encouraging the amputation of a part of the body of every boy born in the United States, and of adults who did not go through the procedure at birth. One need only look at the rest of the world, and the entire world throughout history, to see that circumcision is far from an important procedure.

Submitted:
2014-12-04
Author:
Gary Harryman
Posted:
2015-01-16
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu3-mkd5

The CDC can only get away with this insanity because, most Americans think that "circumcision" is "Just a little snip-no big deal". Nobody, not even those admirable souls who demonstrate against it in all kinds of weather, will call this insanity what it is - the forced physical mutilation of infant boys that leaves the victims sexually sub-normal for life and is a violation of fundamental human rights on a scale that is a crime against humanity. The fact that nobody talks about the Ridged Band is proof that this decision was a political one that has nothing to do with protecting children from disease or harm.

Human Genital Anatomy #101: Neurologically, the four most specialized pressure-sensitive cells in the human body are Meissners corpuscles for localized light touch and fast touch, Merkels disc cells for light pressure and tactile form and texture, Ruffinis corpuscles for slow sustained pressure, deep skin tension, stretch, flutter and slip, and Pacinian corpuscles for deep touch and detection of rapid external vibrations. They are found only in the tongue, lips, palms, fingertips, nipples, and the clitoris, and in the crests of the Ridged Band at the tip of the male foreskin. These four specialized cell types process tens of thousands of information impulses per second and can sense texture, stretch, vibration, and movement at the micrometre level. These are the cells that allow blind people to "see" Braille with their fingertips. Cut them off and, male or female, it's like trying to read Braille with your elbow as a veritable symphony of sensation is downgraded dramatically and the victim is sub-normalized for life. A woman can live without the sensitivity of the visible part of her clitoris, and a man can live without the mobile and most sensitive part of his penis, the Ridged Band, but both are better off with their natural fine-touch parts intact - and so are their sexual partners. Genital mutilations, male or female, are religious and/or medical frauds and cannot be tolerated in a civilized world. Google The Ridged Band and The Lost List for more information.

The bureaucrat who approved this boondoggle at the CDC should be tried in The Hague for Crimes Against Humanity.

How can anyone talk about the male foreskin or the penis and not mention the most sensitive part - The Ridged Band? That is like talking about the human head and never mentioning the brain.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Matthew Lee
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu7-pogb

Dear CDC,

ARE YOU STUPID? Foreskin does not cause disease and you would know that if you weren't basing your information on tests done in an area of the world where disease is already rampant and where the subjects aren't exactly the cleanest in the world. Circumcision doesn't cure cancer, it doesn't prevent cancer, it doesn't prevent anything. If you look at other countries that DON'T regularly circumcise their male population, then you will know that. If you do so, you will see that their HIV rates are actually lower than the US were they DO regularly circumcise. Probably because those countries are smarter and use protection. I don't know what the medical community in the US is thinking, keeping around these outdated practices and "removing" the problem instead of treating it. Doing more harm than good. That's not medicine at all.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Erika Queen
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu7-9tqq

I am appalled at this recommendation. Genital mutilation is NEVER OK; never ok to mutilate a little girl's genitals, never ok to mutilate a little boy's genitals. Male genital mutilation frequently causes infant (and thus maternal) stress leading to breastfeeding complications and failure. Use of infant formula increases the risk for everything from obesity and cancer to maternal cancer and mental health disorders for mom. If you want to prevent STDs including HIV, teach COMPREHENSIVE K-12 sexual health education at an age-appropriate level IN ADDITION TO already-mandated HIV education.

As a maternal-child health educator, I will NEVER advocate for unnecessary surgery (mutilation) of any infant. The mental and emotional health of the dyad far outweigh any potential benefit to a young man who isn't willing to properly protect himself and his partner from sexually transmitted diseases decades down the road.

The fact that MY GOVERNMENT is advocating for this makes me sick.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Brittani Gadway
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu8-yy6o

Circumcision of male infants is not worth the risks that come with it. Most of the supposed 'benefits' are either highly exaggerated or are complete fabrications. The foreskin protects against UTIs and other infections in infancy and childhood when properly cared for, and are prevented with proper hygiene from puberty onward. HIV and other STIs are prevented with safe sex practices such as wearing condoms, not by removing the most erogenous tissue from the penis. The 'benefits' are not worth the risks of infection, hemorrhaging, partial or complete amputation of the penis, deformity, and even death. Every newborn that suffers circumcision is left with raised cortisol levels and a hindrance to their psychological development and ability to bond with caretakers.Consult with the health organizations of nations that do not routinely circumcise children, such as the United Kingdom and other European countries, and learn why some go so far as to discourage it for all but the most serious medical cases. And if for some reason you proceed with the change to recommend neonatal circumcision, be certain that you include all of the risks that come with it, as well as offering that leaving a child intact is a viable option and is much easier to care for.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Hunter Oatman-Stanford
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu9-fctt

While I am not opposed to an informed adult male making the choice to have himself circumcised, I believe that the compulsory (or recommended) 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."

This is exactly why United States physicians should not be performing unnecessary surgery on infant males who have no connected health issues. The foundation of our circumcision tradition is the sex-phobic culture of the 19th century and the subsequent argument that a child should look like his father. Attempts to use studies that focus on very specific circumstances where HIV is prevalent to justify a cultural norm is completely inappropriate in the scientific community.

Like many other parts of our bodies, the foreskin is an essential, natural human trait that should be celebrated. The conversation regarding circumcision in the United States often focuses on the idea of "benefits" as though the removal of this body part has no negative impacts on a person's wellbeing and self image. Studies focusing on HIV prevention seem to ignore a huge part of the developed world that doesn't circumcise their children and actually has significantly lower rates of HIV and other STDs occurring among their men.

As a gay adult male who is uncircumcised, I have met so many men who wish they could reverse the procedure that was performed on them at infancy, and it's heartbreaking to know they had no say in the matter. There is always a strong chance that a child will regret their involuntary circumcision, and they can never get back that innervated tissue. And yet, if an adult male is regretful that his penis was left intact, he can always have the procedure done as an adult. Please consider the bigger picture and your moral obligation not to harm patients without reason.

thanks,Hunter

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu9-iups

Let me start by saying that I am a woman, one who happens to retain all of my body parts including my full set of natural, intact genitalia. In case you are not familiar, allow me to provide you with a list of just a few of the innumerable health issues and general annoyances that woman with intact genitalia face:

Yeast infectionsUrinary tract infectionsVulvodyniaVulvar varicositiesVulvar cancerGenital lesionsLabial cystsClitoral phimosisClitoral infectionVarious sexually transmitted diseases Sebaceous cysts (ingrown hairs)Persistent vaginal odorSmegma accumulationMenstrual odorSkin sensitivity (redness and irritation)

Several of these conditions are either inevitable or extremely common and occur as early as infancy. Some continue to increase in severity or frequency as the female body ages. Some are more rare but certainly not unheard of. A few can even lead to death. In short, the female genitals are a virtual land mine of potential health complications.

Across our lifetimes, we women spend millions of dollars on antibiotics, anti-fungal creams and suppositories, lubricants, douches, freshening sprays, odor absorbing pantiliners, special soaps, flushable wipes, and cranberry supplements. Our insurance is required to cover our many visits to the gynecologist to address these "maladies" as well as the medications required in order to treat them.

Despite all of this, we women manage quite well. We manage to keep ourselves clean, to seek appropriate medical care and treatment when issues arise, and to find partners who consider our bodies sexually desirable. We do not have to worry if a lover prefers his or her women to be "cut" or "uncut".

But most importantly, DESPITE ALL OF THIS, our genitals, our occasionally problematic but perfectly normal genitals, are considered valuable enough to be protected by federal law from any form of surgical alteration, including the tiniest of nicks often used in one of the most common forms of female circumcision (sunat, which was legal in the US until 1997).

As an American woman, my genitals are respected as my own and my parents were never counseled on whether or not they should be altered. My sexual organs are not subject to the religious, cultural, or cosmetic preferences of my family or physician. They are not disregarded as "extra skin" nor were they vulnerable to non-consented, prophylactic removal at birth.

So please tell me then, CDC- why is my beautiful baby boy not deserving of this same protection? Why do you not consider his perfectly healthy, functional body to be worth keeping intact? Why are you advocating that part of his sexual organ be painfully removed and disposed of shortly after birth in the event that it may, someday, develop some sort of medical complication? Do other body parts not have the same potential for concern? And yet, you would never think to remove them as a preventative measure.

Please, I ask you to reexamine your stance on routine infant and child circumcision. You have the opportunity to be a champion for the human rights of American males. Please do not miss out on that opportunity. Boys, and the men they will become, deserve to have their bodies protected, respected, and kept whole.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
james blair
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu9-vvfj

Telling people the lie that it's "beneficial" to destroy a natural part of the body on the small chance that they won't get an STD or AIDs is totally bogus and FUD at it's finest. Until 1960 or so men of Jewish faith were almost the only ones to be circumcised and there are more people with diseases now than back then. The only way to stop the diseases is by using protection and being choosy about who your partner is. Butchering the male anatomy and scarring a child for life, including creating erectile dysfunction, urinary incontinence and emotional terrors. What's wrong with teaching a child to roll back the foreskin and clean themselves? My mother did and I've had no issues to date and foresee none in the near future. We outlawed this being done to female babies and women as being barbaric. Why is it different with men?

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
William Haynes
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu9-xsto

I will be the first in line to file a damage case against the CDC and encourage all other young males who's lives are destroyed by said "guidance" of this money- grubbing, pro-genital cutting company. Class action will give all us rape and genital mutilation victims more reason to expose this injustice!

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fua-zkui

This is outrageous. There have been studies done of African women who have been genitally mutilated and have also been shown to have much lower rates of HIV infection. Should the government recommend cutting off clitorises as well?

Additionally, the US has one of the highest rates of male circumcision and one of the highest rates of HIV infection in the developed world. Where is the correlation there?

Disease prevention, especially of diseases that are rare and mainly non-life threatening, is no excuse to cut off a part of a child's genitals without their consent, indeed usually before they can give consent. Especially, given the light weight to the effects on the child in these recommendations.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Michelle Plata
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fua-8rhg

I am opposed to the draft recommendations that health care providers deliver information and counseling about elective male circumcision and the prevention of HIV and other adverse health outcomes to male patients and parents in the United States, as put forth by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, located within the Department of Health and Human Services (docket number CDC-2014-0012).

I find infant circumcision to be especially problematic given that infants cannot provide their consent for this invasive and painful procedure that is not without serious risks, including death.

I would support guidelines that recommend patient education regarding hygiene for the uncircumcised penis and sexual behaviors that can minimize the risk of disease transmission.

Sincerely,--Michelle Plata, MPH

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Paul Gaetani
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fub-qcnq

All of the information you are presenting regarding the benefits of circumcision are FALSE. Show me a statistically significant, with carefully controlled participant and control groups, that ran for 20 years, and THEN we'll talk. The medical industry MAKES MONEY selling the foreskins they circumcise. This is wrong. This information is wrong. It is wrong of the CDC to make this recommendation.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Rebecca Boni
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fub-mnus

This is reprehensible and irresponsible. The CDC needs to promote condoms, not genital cutting. The harms of circumcision are many. Do you explore the very common complication that is meatal stenosis? How many men will forgo condom use all together because they are led to believe that they now have a magical, invisible condom better known as the amputation of foreskin? What about the rest of the developed world? We are looked at in horror about what happens to infant boys in this country. Cultural bias has no place in the CDC. I know that condom use doesn't make money for the doctors who perform foreskin amputation, but this announcement that the benefits outweigh the risks is dangerous. My genitals are protected by federal law. Why can't boys also have the basic human right to their bodily autonomy?I implore your agency to convene with other countries who have very low rates of circumcision as well as low rates of STD/HIV. Finland, France, Denmark, and any other European countries all are good places to start. Japan also has a very low genital cutting rate and lower HIV rate. Instead of looking for reasons to continue forced genital cutting in the United States, look for ways to increase safe sex practices.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fuc-ano7

The decision to be circumcised should only be made by an adult male. Minors can be unduly influenced by parents and doctors. Legally we assume that a minor is unable to consent to sexual relationships because they are a child. We should look at circumcision the same way. A child cannot consent. Every adult male is entitled to make make their own decision after weighing the risks an benefits.

Consider that an adult male has other options to avoid STDs that don't involve surgery.

Circumcision without consent of the adult patient is no less barbaric than the practice of "female circumcision" that we strive to eradicate.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Cyndy Aleo
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fuc-m4tn

Congratulations, CDC. I can't believe that in a climate in which sex education for students in the U.S. is abhorrent at best, you'd recommend genital mutilation over TEACHING BOYS HOW TO USE CONDOMS CORRECTLY. Because I'm pretty sure you have scientific evidence that CONDOM USE reduces the odds of HIV infection even more than circumcision.

OH LOOK! YOUR OWN INFORMATION: http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/brief.html

Recommending an unnecessary surgery because we are squeamish about proper condom instruction should be criminalized.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Dan Seely
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fud-jk4i

Your agenda clearly shows your primary purposes is for health insurance to pay for male genital mutilation. Please don't continue to make the U.S. the continued laughing stock of the international medical community.

infants are not sexually active and these studies from Africa are flawed and are irrelevant to conditions in the U.S.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fud-38ss

Circumcising male infants is low risk. I disagree with the statement that circumcision of adolescent/adult males is also low risk. Newborn males need only a block for anesthesia. For those not in the newborn age bracket, they receive general anesthesia. This puts the person at an increased risk, which is no longer negligible. Doing so might cause harm, including death, to otherwise healthy individuals. This does not even bring into account the concern about pain following procedure, nor the cost (missed work or school days). Further, this will fall into the realm of the primary care physician to counsel a patient or family- already a very loaded visit. It is possible that discussing this in a thoughtful manner would take time away from the other preventative issues. Changing the recommendation to just newborns would be appropriate, but do not include the adolescent/adult males.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Scott Laughery
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fud-1cnb

I have no objection to recommending that certain adult males be circumcised. But I strongly encourage the CDC to avoid making any recommendation that would appear to encourage parents to circumcise their infants. Supposing that the risk of HIV transmission for circumcised males is indeed lower than for uncircumcised males, my question is the following: if I were entering a sexual relationship with an HIV-positive person, would the CDC's advice to me differ depending on whether or not I am circumcised? If, *irrespective of circumcision*, I am advised to use a condom and perhaps Truvada, then we know something about the importance of circumcision in HIV prevention.

My plea is that CDC take seriously the importance of autonomy, consent, and bodily integrity. We should be skeptical of a medical procedure that irrevocably modifies the anatomy of a newborn infant, incapable of giving consent. The medical justification should be really convincing. A hypothesized reduction in HIV transmission probability -- if the reduction does not even change medical advice concerning HIV prevention strategies (condoms, Truvada), then I submit that the justification is lacking.

One final point: when an infant is born, neither parent nor pediatrician knows whether he will ever engage in high-risk behavior. A great many men never do. HIV prevention as a medical justification for infant circumcision is further weakened by the fact that the benefit will only accrue to that fraction of circumcised babies who later engage in high-risk behavior. It seems like there could be compelling evidence supporting a CDC recommendation of adult circumcision in some cases, but the justification for recommending infant circumcision remains woefully lacking.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fud-5l1o

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:
2014-12-03
Author:
Malina Kalogrides
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fud-4o14

Female circumcision is illegal. Boys deserve the same. This goes against the 14th amendment. "..nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the EQUAL protection of the laws." The risk of infant circumcision is DEATH. Are you still willing to say the benefits outweigh the RISK of DEATH?

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fue-k6bk

Routine infant circumcision is morally wrong because it is non-essential cosmetic surgery performed on the body of a human being not yet old enough to give informed consent. Circumcision permanently alters a boy's anatomy and takes no account of whether that boy would want this permanent change to his penis once he's old enough to know what was done. The argument about hygiene is ridiculous: we don't remove the fingernails at birth, despite the fact that dirt can easily become lodged under them. The argument about prevention of HIV is equally foolish: the USA has one of the highest rates of HIV in the developed world despite having the highest rate of circumcision in the developed world.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fue-9yzq

If circumcision is mutilation for females, why is it not also banned for males? Babies are dying from infections, severed penises, and infections from the rabbis using their mouths on them. Other developed nations are shunning the practice. Men are suing doctors when they turn 18 and winning settlements. The word "religion " should NeEVER appear in a government or scientific document- yet it is listed as possible reasons for parents wanting this. How is that any different than the loving parents who want this for their daughters ?Why should Medicaid pay for this? It's cosmetic.It violates informed consent, it actually causes more problems- there is no way to know how big a penis will get- if there's not enough skin the penis will bend making erections painful. It makes men more needful of erectile dysfunction drugs as they age. The foreskin is used in wrinkle creams. Yuck.I hope the ACLU will get involved, and these injured men will continue their fight until it is banned in our country.Public health is also about protecting our vulnerable members. Why not sever the entire penis to one day prevent aids? And american boys are more likely to be bathed and kept clean unlike where the study was done. Study it here.People in America have a low opinion of the CDC. Myself included . Do the right thing- restore some faith in the institution and become leaders once again. Stop hurting baby boys. First do no harm.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Daniel Spillers
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fue-pt1d

What are the rates when condoms are used with uncircumcised males? Couldn't that study be biased toward a population with already high rates of HIV and a catastrophically low condom use? Why amputate a body part at birth when the simple use of a condom can have the same or greater impact? How is this different from removing a child's mammary glands because it lowers the risk of breast cancer? I'm so sad that this is becoming a trend because of studies that originated in countries where condom use is low and HIV transmission is high. While I don't doubt the studies' findings as they are, the policy you are advocating for the United States based on those findings seems out of place (we don't have anywhere near the same numbers as Africa, for HIV transmission or lack of condom use) and it also seems unethical.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fuf-dbck

Stop trying to make insurance companies pay for an unnecessary, non-therapeutic, and completely cosmetic surgery. I'm sure you're aware no other country in the world agrees with your stance on "the benefits outweighing the risk", because the "benefits" surely don't. Please provide unbiased research and stop trying to generate revenue at the expense of our perfect baby boys. How do you people sleep at night?

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
anna anonymous
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fuf-3gdi

A government agency has no right to make a child mutilate their body. What parents need is true education to make informed choices themselves.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Rick King
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fuf-rk15

I'm against MGM and it should have been my choice to be Mutilated,they don't Mutilate girls at birth!!!

Submitted:
2014-12-04
Author:
Ian Wilson
Posted:
2015-01-16
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu3-f9g1

I am writing to express my strong concerns about the new CDC recommendations regarding male circumcision in the USA. I have a number of concerns about these recommendations, which are listed below. While I realize that the issue is complex and the recommendations are multi-faceted, the media is only reporting that "the CDC recommends male circumcision" and that the "benefits far outweigh the risks". The public and many medical professionals will not take the time to truly understand what the findings mean. Some concerns include:

-The study does not take into account the many psychological / emotional /physical issues associated with circumcision. There is a network of support groups across the USA and Canada (for example the NORM group) that assist adult men going through these issues. Many thousands of men have also chosen to undergo "foreskin restoration" techniques because of these psychological and physical issues. While these issues may not be as damaging as HIV, they have a very real impact on men, their wives and partners and families. Here is one source that summarizes these impacts (Doctors Opposing Circumcision): http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/DOC/statement06.html

-The guidelines state that circumcision has little or no effect on sexual satisfaction or function. However there is clear evidence (as stated above) that this is not true for a significant number of men.

-The study does not find that circumcision has a clear benefit for reducing transmission of HIV during anal sex, yet also states that most new HIV cases in the USA are from homosexual intercourse. Further, the guidelines suggest that only "sub-populations are likely to benefit". Therefore the true quantitative benefit to men in the USA in reducing HIV transmission is very unclear and very difficult to quantify. It seems that it "might" help some subpopulations in the US.

-The study is based on clinical trials in Africa where HIV rates are much higher and cultural, sexual practices and psychological factors are significantly different. Therefore I submit that extrapolating this study to a US population is erroneous.

In summary, while there is some evidence that circumcision may reduce HIV transmission rates in certain subpopulations in Africa, the guidelines ignore many other negative factors associate with male circumcision. The biggest problem is that most circumcision occurs among male infants who do not give consent. The key recommendation of the study should be that American heterosexual adults (who can make informed consent) may wish to consider circumcision to reduce their chances of HIV infection (and only if they have unprotected sex with multiple partners).

Submitted:
2014-12-04
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2015-01-16
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu3-8v0a

I am appalled that the government shows so little concern with baby boys' right to bodily autonomy. The unnecessary removal of a baby girl's labia isn't even questioned: it is simply immoral, and that is the end of the story. Yet you go to such extreme lengths to defend the removal of boys' erogenous tissue without ever considering their pain.

If adults wish to get circumcised, that is their business. However, the vague idea that a boy may someday contract an STD is no excuse to cut off a part of his penis as an infant, any more than it would excuse cutting off part of a girl's vulva. As an adult, he may decide to get circumcised in full awareness of the risks and possible benefits; he may practice safe sex, which is far more effective than circumcision in reducing the spread of STDs; he may even be celibate.

But if he is circumcised as an infant, he will not be making an informed decision; rather, an almost certainly UNinformed decision will be thrust upon him; he will experience severe pain, both during the cutting-off of part of his genitals and after as his penis heals and his highly-sensitive glans is exposed rather than protected; he may suffer any number of complications, some of which would make sexual activity extremely painful and will require further surgery to fix, if they can be fixed at all; and, as is the case with all surgery, he may even die. He could die because his parents and doctor decided cutting off part of his penis was more sensible than teaching him about safe sex.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Beth Doyle
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fuf-ismk

We live in a completely industrialized world where our citizens have access to health care and education. Your recommendations regarding circumcision are misleading. The recommendations should clearly outline that for SOME populations the benefits outweigh the risks. Not for all populations. For instance, the risk of male UTI in infants and boys is already relatively low, and without other risk factors (vesicioureteral reflux), you are essentially telling people that reducing the (already small) risk of UTIs outweighs the risks of the circumcision procedure and possible long term affects of the procedure. The risk of reducing STD transmission, again, is less of a benefit here in the US where people have access to condoms, and sex education. It makes sense for populations with high rates of HIV (some African populations), particularly where there is no access to condoms and/or sex education. Please consider revising your recommendations in a way that makes sense for our population. Why is it that the UK has only a fraction of the number of males receiving circumcision than we do in the US, and yet they don't have rampant STD problems? The same goes for Australia and the majority of Europe. The CDC recommendations on circumcision are dangerous and do not fully paint an accurate picture of the genuine risk here in the US.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
N S
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fuf-uhgt

Resources better spent addressing vaccination and safe sex education. Prophylactic surgery is irreversible and does not make sense for the infectious diseases in question, especially in the developed world.

Submitted:
2014-12-04
Author:
Beth Carlson
Posted:
2015-01-16
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu3-1h8n

We should be teaching our sons and daughters equally about safe sex practices instead of cutting off pieces of their bodies to decrease the risk of them. I think it is completely ridiculous in our culture to use that as a reason for removing one of the most erogenous areas of our men. God made my son perfect, why would I force my son to have an elective procedure without his full consent. If a study of African woman showed that females who were cut have lower STD rates due to less promiscuity would everyone in America decide that we should now circumcise all of our daughters too? Somehow the majority of people in other countries stay healthy without routine circumcision. Please reconsider these guidelines. They are harmful to helpless boys.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Henry Murphy
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fuf-z5dc

Reminds me of prophylactic tonsillectomies, radical mastectomies, HRT, medical doctors promoting cigarettes, and a long litany of other horrors temporarily in fashion that seem, to even the most uninformed, an obvious violation of the most basic common sense.

The evidence seems clear from reading it, well summarized, from the CDC's website. For sub-Saharan males engaging in unprotected vaginal intercourse with multiple infected women, circumcision reduces their infection rate by 50%, and so might be one sensible course. For any other group of males, it appears to be of no benefit and substantial harm.

Submitted:
2014-12-04
Author:
Virag Mack
Posted:
2015-01-16
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fu3-b2pz

I, the daughter of an intact man, the sister of an intact man, the aunt of intact men, the wife of a mutilated man and the mother of an intact man am revolted by the fact the an organization such as the CDC would actually favor the barbaric and dangerous practice of infant circumcision.As the leading health authority in the USA the public deserves better than that. All babies are born intact. In the absence of immediate medical necessity, the forced amputation of body parts is unethical, and a human rights violation impacting the most innocent of human beings.Most of the men on this earth are intact and healthy. I cannot believe the CDC would consider taking into account some faulty African studies and apply it to newborn boys in this country. We live in the 21st Century not in Victorian times. Evolve, its what humans do! And men still have their foreskins, because its a functional body part! Why would anyone in the medical field knowingly cause harm to an infant? Barely on this earth and the CDC believes it's a good idea to cut off the most sensitive part of their genitalia. Gentlemen of the CDC look around you, look outside the USA, look to Europe, South America, Asia, anywhere in the world and you'll see millions of healthy intact men and boy. They are not all dying from STDs and penile cancer. There are condoms for STDs prevention and antibiotics for UTIs, there is no need to mutilate newborn males bodies.The CDC of all institutions should be unbiased and rational and not recommend archaic rituals which are cruel, unnecessary and dangerous.Do no harm, which means PROTECT THE FUTURE GENERATIONS IF THIS COUNTY. Respect their human right for bodily autonomy.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fuf-ggom

This whole document is a joke. Keeping one's body parts is not inherently a health hazard, as clearly demonstrated by the majority intact population in Europe. The majority of sexually active, adult males in the USA are circumcised, yet our HIV and STI rates are among the highest in the developed world. The stated risks according to the CDC for routine infant circumcision are on the order of over 100 deaths per year. If we quantify this, the risk of dying due to complications from circumcision surgery are far greater than the risk of ever "needing" to be circumcised later in life. Amputation should always be a last resort. How about recommending the use of condoms to prevent infection and antibiotics to treat UTIs, as well as providing caregivers with the information to properly care for intact children (instead of forcefully retracting, which introduces microtears and bacteria)? Where do I even begin to comment on the ethics behind forced infant circumcision on a healthy child? This is laughable at best, and the methodologies used in these "studies" are quite flawed.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Kelly U
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fui-k8jz

I am concerned that in terms of this recommendation/statement, "risks" of the procedure are being limited to immediate risks (like bleeding, infection, death).

It is extremely important to realize that many of the risks/outcomes of circumcision are more long term in nature and may not start to become apparent until months or years after the procedure is performed. Is this statement/recommendation taking that into account? Things like meatal stenosis, painful erection, erectile dysfunction, excessive scar tissue, etc, are things that take time to develop after the procedure, and if you take them into account may amount to significantly higher "risk" in the procedure when compared to the benefits (and most of the benefits are things that can be accomplished by other means, primarily good hygeine and safe sex practices).

I'm not sure the public, and new parents in particular, are getting the full picture of the risks and LONG TERM outcomes of this procedure when they discuss it with their physicians and pediatricians. When we talked about it, "risks" from their point of view were limited to immediate risks of the surgery (and note, they also did not discuss things like problems with breastfeeding, etc, that are frequently noted in newly circumcised boys, but only 'physical' issues like bleeding).

I rely on the CDC to give accurate information and to be science minded, and frequently refer to you for information and statistics on infectious diseases and vaccinations. However I can't wrap my head around this being good policy to promote - it doesn't seem to take into account long term problems with the procedure, and also seems to rely on studies performed in a completely different environment than the United States as far as any protective benefit in regards to STIs.

I also feel that it's very important for the CDC (and AAP, and medical community in general) to start considering that this particular body part has a purpose, and an important one. For a long time it was considered "extraneous" and unnecessary, driving the idea that circumcision is not a big deal. But when considering the basic anatomy, it seems pretty clear that it serves several important purposes, and it's about time the medical community in the US began considering that to be important.

Given the source of the STI studies, the environment and cultural situations that influenced them, the lack of consideration for LONG term effects of circumcision rather than just immediate ones, and the general lack of consideration for the benefits of having an intact body, I am left feeling like the CDC may be acting in the interest of a medical community that makes a decent amount of money on this procedure, rather than in the best interests of boys and men and their health. I think it's very important to note that in countries where the vast majority of men are intact (western europe, canada), the rates of HIV seem to be lower than in the US, where at this point the majority of adult men are circumcised.

I also think that there should be new research on UTI rates in children under 1 year, for years circumcision was sold as a means of protecting against these, but also for years parents were given incorrect information on care and cleaning, and I believe statistics about UTIs may be skewed as a result. As this is sold as a "benefit" to parents, it is extremely important to get better data, and find out if the rates of UTI are actually greater in intact children when they are given *correct* care and not retracted.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Private Citizen
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fue-ypbc

It is completely inappropriate for doctors, governments or other groups to take a proactive stance on any issue which would encourage the unnecessary mutilation of a human being. While medical evidence may show that circumcision reduces the transfer of any STD, it does not mean that such an extreme recommendation should be encouraged. Parents, governments and medical professionals should respect the right of the individual to make such a personal and private decision without coercion, fear or force.

When we as a society cannot allow or accept that a person has a choice over his or her own body, we weaken the fabric of our entire society. Where will such steps end? Will we next force women to have parts of their body removed because it might lead to a reduction in STDs? Can we not simply instruct uncircumcised males in hygiene that will lead to the same result? Is our society so blinded by the quick-fix and the profit margin that it will mutilate a completely normal person? How can we even consider encouraging a person to such harm when a little education and improved hygiene is all that is required?

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misandry) defines misandry in this way," Misandry /msndri/, from the Greek misos (, "hatred") and anr, andros (, gen. ; "man"), is the hatred or dislike of men or boys.[1][2] Misandry can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, denigration of men, violence against men, and sexual objectification of men. The form "misandrist" was first used in 1871." The recommendation to mutilate the penis of every male objectifies men as a group and clearly is an extremely violent projection against men as a whole. Such a recommendation is morally wrong and stigmatizes every uncircumcised male.

I hope that you will return to the boundary of human decency and make a clear recommendation that encouraging circumcision is wrong and that individuals have the right to remain in their natural uncircumcised state. As a health organization you should focus your attention on hygiene and other approaches that do not encourage the mutilation of the human body. Neither men nor women should feel compelled to mutilate their bodies. We should encourage the development of virtue among our men and women and we should use reason to help them make the right decision.

I realize that as our population grows that we are constantly moving toward a quick fix with a knife or money. This is not the best approach to our problems. We must find a better course in dealing with our problems. A course that helps us live together and does not persecute a person who chooses to remain as DNA dictates him or her to be.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Raymond Holden
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fui-dr7y

I think that even if the cdc suggests circumcision, this should only be a choice to be made in medical emergencies or by the boy himself when he turns 18.

I am against this advisory as condoms and sexual education prevent STDs more than circumcision ever would.

I can't have back what was taken from me without my permission. Stop allowing the genital mutilation of boys; if at least they deserve the same protection girls have from forced genital mutilation.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Alexandrea Hayhurst
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fuj-iqwc

This makes me so sad. I'd rather teach my boys to practice safe sex than to have a functional body part surgically removed from their innocent, perfect bodies without them being able to consent to the permanent alteration. Routine Infant Circumcision is a barbaric and outdated ritual. It's time the USA catches up to the rest of the westernized world and puts an end to it. If not only cosmetic, it is 110% UNETHICAL and a major violation of basic human rights.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Pediatric Resident
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fuj-nwqp

To whom it may concern,

I am a pediatric resident in California. I practice in an area where circumcision rates are low. I am not required to perform circumcisions nor am I trained adequately manage the complications. This topic is of intense debate among residents and attending physicians alike. The proposed statement may effect more harm than benefit in medical practice, particularly in areas of already low circumcision rates. Allow me to reflect on a couple personal anecdotes, followed by evidence.

I have had a handful of teenagers who ask me confidentially about the health benefits of circumcision. And although I present the evidence, I always emphasize the need for and importance of condoms. Their take-away point is, "If I need to use a condom anyway, why have a painful procedure done on my body?" In the area where I practice, sexual education in public schools has been drastically reduced such that it only takes place once in middle school. Evidence is consistent that comprehensive sexual education and counseling on safe sex practices will have a greater impact.

As for parents who are not even considering circumcision, to raise this topic is almost a cultural affront. They ask, "Why are advocating for removing a normal part of the body, when there is nothing wrong with it?" They see it as inflicting a painful procedure on the body when it is not medically necessary or indicated. This can foster distrust in the medical system, particularly in an area of poverty and already poor access to health care.

The reported complication rate of circumcision is low if done before 1 year of age, and it sounds benign until you personally witness a serious complication. I observed an operation by a urologist who had to graft skin from the patient's abdomen to his penis because too much skin was removed in a circumcision. When I walk by the operating rooms, I always see at least 2-3 circumcision revisions/corrections scheduled. Perhaps this is sampling bias, but 0.5% does not seem to adequately reflect reality.

If the proposed CDC recommendations are taken at face value, medical providers will be unprepared to adequately counsel patients in the context of their patient populations. The reported 50-60% reduction in contracting HIV in the African studies are relative risk reductions, not absolute risk reductions. On a population scale, relative risk reduction makes sense but for an individual, that impact may be negligible. And if a patient were to ask whether the African studies have been replicated or validated in the US, how are we to answer when there is no such data? How can we be sure that those studies are externally valid? Sexual practices and primary modes of HIV transmission differ greatly between the US and sub-Saharan Africa, are the recommendations not premature without a study confirming this risk reduction in a US population?

We are pressed for time to see our patients as it currently stands. Will I devote the same amount of time to discussing the benefits/risks of circumcision when the teenager has never had foreskin/urologic pathology, inconsistently uses condoms, and does not desire the procedure? Or will I devote that time to promoting correct and consistent condom use, and safe sex and healthy relationship advice? Which will make a greater individual AND public health impact?

In summary, on a provider level, devoting time towards counseling patients on male circumcision will take time away from counseling that has a greater impact on individual and public health. Additionally, the recommendations must be taken into the cultural and geographic context of a provider's patient population, but many providers are not equipped to do so. And to counsel on circumcision to an uncircumcised patient who is not considering the procedure may be viewed as a personal affront or demonization of a normal healthy body part, which can further cultural stigmas.

Finally, consider a quote from Nietsche: "There are no facts, only interpretation." When Canada, Europe, and Australia look at the same information but reach a polar opposite conclusion, we must take pause.

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

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
stefan lovecchio
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fuj-phcs

If some members of the medical community want to recommend circumcision to curb STI's, that is fine with me. But first we need to have a serious discussion about autonomy, and inherent agency over one's own body. In other words, any recommendations must be for ADULT circumcision only, otherwise it is a violation of human rights. The removal of sexual tissue is not an insignificant thing!

Circumcision, the removal of erogenous tissue from the penis, should be a personal choice. The individual must decide weather its worthwhile to marginally reduce their chances of STI by removing their own sexual tissue. Personally, I am so glad that my father is a European immigrant and refused to have me circumcised, and there are plenty of men out there who are glad they are intact. I also know many circumcised men who wish they hadn't been (though of course, most don't think about it.)

If i woke up from a surgery on one part of my body and found that the surgeon had removed my foreskin, because my parent requested it, I would sue, I would win, and I would STILL be angry, because a part of my body (with nerves) has been permanently removed. Just because it happens to a baby who is UNABLE to object, doesn't make it permissible.

It should always, unless medically necessary, be up to the individual if they want to remove a part of their body.

To the vacillating mothers reading this, and to the fathers who were cut as babies and don't see the issue as significant: well, it might be significant to your son. And if that possibility exists, its only right to allow him to decide!

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Francesca Bessey
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fuj-squb

My name is Francesca Bessey and I am currently studying to pursue a career in global development and public health advocacy. I have been deeply disturbed to hear reports that circumcision is being promoted as a means to prevent HIV/AIDS both in the United States, and in high-risk areas globally such as sub-saharan Africa. As the CDC should well know, the data supporting risk reduction for STIs thanks to circumcision is largely inconclusive and lacked controls to distinguish between correlation versus causation. What is more, the risk reduction it suggests is extremely small. Most importantly, even if there is a (minute) risk reduction, a person who is circumcised can still very easily contract and pass on HIV. Circumcision does not mitigate the need to engage in safe sexual practices as a means to prevent HIV, nor does it alleviate the responsibility of a person to inform their partner if they have an STI. In this way, the CDC counselling of circumcision as a legitimate means of HIV and STI prevention is medically irresponsible.We can see the negative effects of this irresponsibility in high risk areas abroad, where public health campaigns falsely suggest that circumcised men cannot get or pass on HIV. This is disturbing and unethical and it stems from well-respected medical institutions like the CDC making recommendations such as these.

Finally, it is frankly medically illogical to counsel circumcision as a means to prevent HIV and other STIs. I see it as tantamount to counseling parents to have their children's fingers amputated to prevent eczema. Cutting off body parts without considering other means of treatment or prevention has not been considered a legitimate medical practice for over a century. Circumcision impairs the natural function of the penis. If CDC feels comfortable advising medical practitioners based on questionable research studies, then they should also state plainly what we know as fact: Removing the foreskin removes the natural protection for the penis and prevents it from self-lubrication.

I implore the CDC to reconsider how this practice is framed to the public and the medical community, so that people can make adequately informed decisions about their and their childrens' health.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fuj-n9c7

This is mutilation! How can you protect females from this barbaric outdated procedure and not males? How can you explain why this country has some of the highest rates of HIV among all other industrialized nations, most of which do NOT have high rates of circumcision, like the USA? Stop using data from Africa to drive the business of cutting babies in this country! Teach proper hygiene, and safe sex. Condoms can prevent the same STD's and are much less invasive then removing the foreskin. Using the reduction of UTI's as an excuse is even more pathetic. Women and young girls are FAR more likely to get UTI's and we stopped cutting them years ago. It's time to protect our boys and leave this barbaric, twisted tradition in the past. Preforming plastic surgery (on a minor that cannot consent) to remove a HEALTHY and FULLY functioning part of their body is WRONG and violates the hippocratic oath to "do no harm". I do not support this, and my intact male children WILL not be getting lectures from their doctor about having the surgery later in life. It's time for this county to catch up with the rest of the world and STOP mutilating half of the children born in US hospitals.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Dan McCarthy
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fuj-lkmt

Why don't you recommend female circumcision? It must have similar "benefits".

Please consider the importance of body autonomy in these recommendation. People should have the right to elect this procedure. It's a human rights issue if you recommend this be done routinely and with out consent. American cultural influences are clearly a factor in these recommendations, and that needs to be taken into consideration. Since when is automatically cutting off a natural body part ever an option in prevention of deceases?

Similar logic: If we remove women's breasts that might reduce breast cancer.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Stacey Plasch
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fuj-y2wy

Even if a man is circumcised, he will still need to use a condom in order to have adequate protection from HIV and other STI's. Many other first world countries DO NOT recommend routine infant circumcision as a preventative health measure, such as most of Europe, Canada, and Australia. They have LOWER rates of STI's and HIV than America does. Foreskin is not useless skin, it has many functions including protecting the glans and providing optimal sexual pleasure. Circumcision is painful and traumatic, even with anesthetic. Circumcision has many risks including death. Statistically speaking, a boy has a greater chance of dying from a circumcision than he does of ever medically needing one in his life. If the CDC is going to recommend amputation of a body part as a protection measure for possible future diseases, then they may want to consider recommending infant mastectomy on girls since their chance of having breast cancer is much higher than a boys chance of any of the health conditions listed. The US needs to catch up with the rest of the first world nations with their recommendations on infant circumcision!

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Michael Hampson
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fuj-mohn

If we assume the CDC premise to help reduce STDs is through circumcision (and not through sexual education classes and condoms), then let's talk about the segment of the population who has the most foreskin. Women.

Per the CDC's own admission, the CDC must TARGET women FIRST for circumcision due to the massive amount of female foreskin. Therefore, the CDC can not only help slow down the spread of STDs by promoting female circumcision but this will also help reduce the offensive smell from below. How can a woman ever be expected to understand how to clean all that skin, anyway?

If talking about female circumcision in this manner is horrifying, disgusting and sounds condescending to you, then you know exactly how men feel when people talk about the myth that males need to be circumcised. Circumcision for men is horrifying, unnecessary and immoral--per science.

If the CDC insists on recommending circumcision for men, then be blunt and recommend circumcision for women FIRST. Once you agree to target women for genital mutilation, then we can discuss genital mutilation for men, SECOND.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fuj-802y

It is very concerning that the CDC would consider making a broad recommendation about circumcision for boys and men of all ages in the US based solely on data from African studies - a limitation mentioned frequently in the supporting documents.

It seems also extremely misleading to provide recommendations citing a 50-60% reduction in HIV risk without stating that this is based entirely on African data, and only applies to the very specific situation when a man is having unprotected vaginal sex with an HIV-infected women. Given that the supporting documents mention multiple times that most transmission of HIV in the US is male-to-male, this seems like a limited scenario that most men are unlikely to encounter. Moreover, they have the option of the personal choice to use a condom or to not engage in risky sex.

Before making such a broad recommendation, I would hope that the CDC would conduct a more rigorous analysis of the association between circumcision and HIV contraction risk in other countries (particularly in the US, if the recommendation is to be applied here), and clearly acknowledge the limited nature of the data even in a summary. People are often wowed by numbers, and largely will believe the statement that there is a 50-60% reduction in risk without looking more closely. Those with the power to have such an impact need to consider their influence very seriously.

Perhaps I missed it, but I also did not see in the supporting documents a discussion of how the "effect" of circumcision was teased out from other important related factors, such as general hygiene and engagement in other behaviors that could increase infection risk and be associated with circumcision.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fuj-k334

I am appalled at the new recommendations. Please explain how the United States ranked #64 in HIV/AIDS and has a 58 percent circumcision rate and Australia ranked #125 in HIV/AIDS and only has a 12.9% circumcision rate? Shouldn't, by your "studies", that number be reversed? You know what really reduces HIV/AIDS? Frequent testing. Needle exchange programs. Condoms (which also happen to reduce other STDs and sexually active males should be using anyway circumcised or not!) Education. And this may lead to circumcised men thinking that they are "safe" and not using precautions. Please do the right thing and recant this dangerous and false information!

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Anonymous Emergency Physician
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fuj-zizl

To offer appropriate advice for an elective procedure with any complications at all, we need more specific information about prevalence of HIV, specifically in the U.S.....not Africa, and risk of acquiring HIV after unprotected sex with HIV positive parter IN THE U.S....100%? 10%? 0.2%? This is the information, specific numbers, which should be considered along with risk of procedure.Also would like information on how many adult men are unhappy with the decision of their parents? Any significant ramifications of any potential psychological injury or symptoms?What is the risk of a male getting penile cancer? 1:1? 1:1,000,000?What is the risk of a male getting HPV? Of getting HPV and NOT getting penile cancer? Of getting penile cancer if does NOT have HPV?What is the risk of a male getting HPV if he is vaccinated against HPV?Does HPV vaccination decrease the risk of acquiring HIV?Does HPV vaccination decrease the risk of getting penile cancer?How much does circumcision cost?Who pays for circumcision now?If you make these recommendations, who will pay for circumcision?What would annual profit of circumcision be, nationwide?What would reduction in annual costs for caring for HIV, penile cancer be?Who are the foundational studies funded by?Please get all these additional details and statistics out before you make a broad recommendation that is clearly premature.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Robbyn Canter
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fuj-8y11

This is a terrible policy. It is not a through study nor is it right. Circumcision is not to be taken lightly and cannot be undone. Please reverse this terrible recommendation and fight for our childrens right to having all of their body parts. We do not routinely remove other parts because of small chances of complications later: breasts, appendixes, pancreas, etc. so why are foreskins any different?

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Betsy Hathaway
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fuj-d4p4

Circumcision is genital mutilation. Period. It is removing a sexual, functional body part without the choice of the child. It's not right for the CDC to recommend something that is absolutely not safer, nor healthier. There is nothing wrong with foreskin. The studies done in Africa are flawed. They began the studies from day of the surgery on the men that were circumcised and then were told to wait for 6 weeks to have sex. THAT'S what caused the reduced risk! They weren't being sexually active. The study shouldn't have started tracking the men until after the healing period ended and both groups should have been told to abstain. Men who practice safe sex and standard hygiene are at no greater risk for infections and STIs just because they have foreskin. These recommendations are atrocious.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fuj-d7ws

I am very upset that a USA government agency would suggest circumcision to the male population based on a faulty study done in Africa. The Africans that were circumcised in the study were told to refrain from sexual activity while the penis healed from surgery. The men that remained intact were able to freely have sex during the weeks that the other men recovered therefore it is not surprising that the men that had less sex were less likely to get HIV. HIV in Africa is transmitted predominately in heterosexual relationships where HIV in USA is predominately in homosexual relationships.

For the sake of our sons and for the sake of our daughters who may grow up to have a heterosexual relationship, do NOT go thru with this recommendation. In fact, if the government feels the need to recommend anything about male genitals, it should be that the foreskin has MANY sexual benefits including 20,000 nerve endings and the ability to create natural lubrication giving pleasure to both partners. The USA is the highest consumer of sexual lubricant in the world and one of the highest countries of circumcision. (NOT a coincidence!) The clitoris has 8,000 nerve ending and it's illegal to remove that. Why is genetial mutilation continuing and even being recommended in this country in this day and age?

If this goes thru PLEASE also create a document about how to care for a natural/normal/intact penis. I can't even trust my son's pediatrician because she thinks she should retract my son's foreskin to check under there. Please teach doctors, parents, nurses, child-care providers that retraction should only be done by the penis owner!

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Linda Williams
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fuj-wp9g

This is disgusting! You are promoting genital mutilation. How about promoting safe sex and proper washing instead of amputation? You all should be ashamed of yourselves.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fuj-lo2x

To whom it may concern:

I think it is ridiculous the CDC is advocating circumcision, a (usually) unnecessary and risky medical procedure, on the grounds that it is more hygienic and prevents disease. Sometimes circumcisions go horribly wrong and the entire penis has to be removed, or worse, the infant can be killed. There have been recent cases of mohels passing herpes on to infants via ritualistic circumcision. Once circumcised, a baby is usually placed in a diaper, where the open wound will be exposed to feces.

The CDC should be advocating keeping infant genitals intact, teaching proper hygiene techniques, and condom usage to prevent STIs, not elective and dangerous surgery performed without anesthetic. Please let this barbaric practice fall out of favor instead of endorsing it. First, do no harm.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Leslie Bouwsma
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fuj-rj0x

If a grown man chooses to have surgery to remove a chunk of his penis, that is his choice. Tiny baby boys do not need to have unnecessary surgery on their genitals because they MIGHT get an STD when they are sexually active. Teach them cleanliness and the importance of using a condom when they grow up. Stop recommending this ridiculous mutilation. The only one who should ever make a decision about male circumcision is the one who owns the penis.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fuj-8x73

I am disgusted with the notice you've posted on this subject. The "benefits" you claim are the same as those stated for female genital mutilation (aka female circumcision) and it is BANNED in America for a reason. America is one of the only European countries that still recommend male circumcision and other countries do not report any of the supposed "issues" from being intact. You can not claim cutting off a healthy and functioning part of an infants body as a preventative measure. Do we remove breast buds from infant girls to prevent breast cancer? Absolutely not. It sounds barbaric, right? So is circumcising a helpless infant. It is NOT the parents choice to preform a cosmetic surgery on an infant who can not give informed consent. You can not base your information about HIV on a country that does not have access to the same preventative measures that we have access to in the Untied States. The CDC SEVERELY needs to re-evaluate their information on this subject and consider the harm they are causing to the genitals of babies by recommending something so barbaric.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
clarissa bennett
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fuk-ze4w

This is disgusting. No other medical association in the world recommeds RIC. The health benefits do not outweigh the risks.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Terri-Jane Smith
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fuk-phiq

Circumcision does not prevent the spread of HIV or other STIs. The chance of a man getting breast cancer is higher than him getting penile cancer. Niether of these reasons should be used to encourage circumcision. Its a completely cosmetic procedure and should only be used as a lady resort. What is needed in the US medical field is broader and more comprehensive intact education. Only in America is the name foreskin seen as a birth defect. Maybe America needs to realise that they do not know what they are talking about here and open themselves up to outside information and education do the senseless cutting if baby boys and ignorant men can be halted.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Celena Hebert
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fuk-tdiy

Using studies done on grown men from Africa to apply to male babies, children, adolescents, and adults in the US is irresponsible and just bad science. I would like to see data from Europe, where most males are left intact. Removing healthy tissue that serves a purpose on the off chance that it might develop disease or infection is barbaric. These new statements are reckless and misleading. My 2 intact sons prove to me every day that the male body deserves to remain unmolested and unaltered. Males deserve to have a say over their own bodies just as much as females and Transgendered people do. NO ONE should have the right or ability to carve pieces of another human's body off without their informed consent.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Vivien Hovater
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fuk-t384

It is absolutely horrific that there are legal guidelines for infant circumcision. It should be illegal, period. It is illegal to cut or "mutilate" infant girls and helpless infant boys should be treated with equal dignity & respect. Circumcision does not provide benefits & is cosmetic. It robs a boy of over 20,000 sensitive nerve areas. This is a human rights crime that should be against the law!! Not to mention the barbaric and painful procedure in & of itself is unthinkable. Do NOT MUTILATE OUR BABY BOYS!! STAND UP FOR HUMAN RIGHTS!!

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Tabatha Anonymous
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fuk-qcjm

I am horrified with this recommendation. Even assuming the African aids study is relevant in America, condoms are still necessary to prevent hiv. Why in the world, aside from monetary gain, would one recommend a surgery when there is a non surgical option that is far more effective? Instead of falling in favor of a surgery, the cdc should be focusing on educating the public regarding intact care. premature retraction is common practice in medical offices. Parents are being told to retract their newborn sons. The lack of knowledge is appalling. The cdc should be ashamed for publishing this!

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Caitlin B
Posted:
2014-12-04
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fuk-jcum

I'm applled that the cdc is recommending forced cosmetic body modifications. Girls are FAR more likely to get UTIs but we just give them medicine we don't remove body parts. Girls are FAR more likely to get breast cancer than the chances a boy will ever get penile cancer but we don't remove their breast buds at birth. Most arguments for circumcision, rather truthful or not, don't affect the child until adulthood anyway (and then the man could just wear a condom to prevent these things) so why not let the adult men that could have adequate pain management and a lower risk of bleeding to death make this decision? Around 117 baby boys DIE every year from this cosmetic surgery, nobody has ever died from having their whole body. If slicing up the most sensitive part of your body was actually "cleaner" why would the rest of the world be perfectly healthy and clean? Because the foreskin protects the glans (which was made to be an INTERNAL organ) from dirt and debris. Both male and female bodies produce smegma though and women more so than men but no one is rushing to cut off their labia or clitoral hood. I can't believe Americans would follow some African study that shows whole men that don't speak to anyone continue to spread aids but those gullible enough cut their most pleasurable organ and are then given and told to use condoms also to prevent the spread of disease. Obviously wearing a condom is preventing these diseases NOT genital mutilation! I for one am so glad we found out the truth before it was too late and we have 2 happy healthy boy with their bodily autonomy intact. They will always know their body belongs to them and future sex partners won't have to struggle with painful sex since the foreskin will allow a natural gliding motion unlike rough calloused glans of cut men. Circumcision should already be illegal and should have been since 1997 when female genital cutting was made illegal because men deserve equal human rights.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Leticia Qamar-Busler
Posted:
2014-12-05
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fuk-fm97

I am deeply disappointed in the CDC's recommendations to my colleagues regarding circumcision both as a family physician and a mother. There is scant education on foreskin anatomy and physiology in medical schools, and the majority of our education as physicians about circumcision comes from other doctors and trusted sources, such as the CDC, AAP, and the WHO. I am familiar with the research these recommendations are referencing, and to say that this is good science and evidence-based medicine is absurd. I strongly recommend that these recommendations be reconsidered, taking into account statistically significant information and our moral obligation as health care providers to first do no harm. Patients and physicians alike will be misled by this erroneous information, and I fear the moral and medical implications.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Birgit Michael
Posted:
2014-12-05
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fuk-op7p

Strapping down a newborn to rip apart fused tissues so they can be crushed and sliced away from his genitals without medical cause while he is awake and can feel it is WRONG.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
August Kersten
Posted:
2014-12-05
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fuk-8imi

As a student of biology and a firm believer in science, I am against this recommendation. The science in the studies cited by your researchers is biased, and comes to the conclusion that I suspect many of those in charge of the commission wished to come to. The claim that a procedure which cuts off parts of infants (who will later become adults) without their consent, and is demonstrated to have long lasting damaging effects on sexuality, is a beneficial procedure is a claim that requires substantial evidence. Your committee's cited research is not substantial enough to warrant this recommendation.

Indeed, consider that many countries (like Germany, the UK, Japan, and most others) which do not usually mutilate their children have STI and HIV rates dropping, while the USA and many African countries, who all share the love of cutting children, see our rates soar.

The proper way to deal with STI's and HIV is to educate the public about safe sex and condom use. Telling people to chop off bits and pieces of children without probable cause that those bits will cause harm is wrong, and if these recommendations go through, will go down in history as a great affront against human rights.

Thank you for your time,

-August KerstenBiology Student, Truman State University

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Erin anonymous
Posted:
2014-12-05
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fuk-75mo

I do not support the CDC's recommendation to encourage circumcision. I certainly do not want to be harrassed by my child's pediatrician every time I take my intact son in for a check up. I know many parents that feel the same way, to the point of avoiding taking their child in for check ups if their doctor is going to encourage an unneccessary, poorly researched directive. This could put more children at risk then protect. I would loose all faith in any doctor who tried to feed me the propaganda coming out of the CDC. I would love to provide my contact info, but my comment about avoiding checkups to save being harrassed as well as my obvious rejection of the CDC's circumcision recommendation might win me a visit from CPS.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Jazmynn Kennedy
Posted:
2014-12-05
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fuk-77xz

I'm very disappointed in the CDC now. I also don't understand why Americans are so quick to promote circumcision. Yet, Europes rate of circumcision is less than 20%. If there was a higher chance of disease or infection wouldn't the entire world be on the same page? Why do other people in the world get by okay with being intact but Americans can't? Are we more dirty? Do we not have enough brain capacity to clean ourselves? I just don't get why America and third world countries are the only ones who practice this.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Melodie D.
Posted:
2014-12-05
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fuk-eve6

Please consider that these recommendations will make circumcised men to feel they are inherently protected from STDs and HIV which encourages them to not wear a condom. That is very dangerous.

Please also be aware that many OBs do NOT use ANY form of pain control aside from a pacifier and sugar water, and babies often scream so hard they choke, stop breathing, turn purple, puke, and go into a deep sleep for the rest of the day, not eating well, and hard to arouse.

Please keep in mind that over 100 boys would have to be circumcised to prevent just one boy from getting a UTI, and out of those 100 boys, 2-3 of them will have hemorrhage (bleeding) issues or infections. In my short time (a few months) working in newborn nursery i have seen choking, several bleedings including a hemorrhage, several that look anatomically crooked cuts, and one who called back with a swollen, infected, draining pus a week later.

I am sure removing breast tissue from newborn baby girls would have "benefits that exceed the risks" in preventing breast cancer (which is exceedingly more common then penile cancer) but we do not routinely recommend that. Removing healthy tissue from a nonconsenting baby is not acceptable, in any form.

Please keep in mind that just because a baby will not remember something, does not mean it ahould be done. A newborn baby would not remember being burned, neglected, or abused either. You would still use pain medication on an alzheimers patient, even if they won't remember the pain.

My husband is not circumcised and is very glad he never was. He never has had a UTI or any other issue.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
John Henderson
Posted:
2014-12-05
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fuk-2zhw

I'm 27 yrs old and uncircumcised and have never had any medical issues due to being uncircumcised. I Do not think being circumcised at birth is right..

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
John Wiener
Posted:
2014-12-05
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fuk-v1jv

The information presented is a thorough synopsis of recent medical literature regarding the benefits and risks of circumcision. This draft recommendations reflect this data well. Particularly, for those health care providers and researcher working in HIV, circumcision is attractive health policy because it is the best proven preventative against HIV infection. I applaud the recommendation that there are definite benefits of circumcision, but I also agree that the decision to perform circumcision should rest with the family, as there are cultural, ethical, and personal issues related to this controversial topic.

As a practicing pediatric urologist who both performs circumcisions and has lengthy discussions with patients and families to often dissuade them from performing circumcision if there is no strong medical indication, I want to bring attention to a health policy issue related to this recommendation. My state and 17 others do not provide Medicaid coverage for circumcision unless certain medical criteria are met. In the era of reducing medical costs, particularly as it relates to government assistance, it is unlikely that these states will begin paying this procedure despite new CDC recommendations touting its benefits. It may require federal action to encourage coverage of this procedure in all states if the CDC definitely recommends it.

John S. Wiener, M.D.Professor of Urologic Surgery and PediatricsDuke University Medical CenterDurham, NC

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2014-12-05
Tracking Number:
1jy-8ful-eyzs

Good Morning,

I think this is a well crafted document with one exception. I believe he following statement is ill-thought and should be removed.

"The American Academy of Pediatrics Taskforce on Circumcision states that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and that the benefits of newborn male circumcision justify access to this procedure for families who choose it"

American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision. Circumcision PolicyStatement. Pediatrics. Sep 2012;130(3):e756-785.

When the AAP released this statement it was highly controversial, critics pointed to the possibility of bias.

I don't see any reason why a statement put for by a non-Governmental organization such as the AAP should be included in CDC guidelines.

Please consider removing this statement from the guidelines. Thank you.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2014-12-05
Tracking Number:
1jy-8ful-um2b

I'm sure that it's more logical to teach proper hygiene than it is to mutilate an infants genitals. Human males are born with a foreskin for a reason. Female genital mutilation had the same "benefits" yet it was deemed cruel and unnecessary and is currently illegal. The same should be true for male genital mutilation.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2014-12-05
Tracking Number:
1jy-8ful-5b5z

"Strapping down a newborn to rip apart fused tissues so they can be crushed and sliced away from his genitals without medical cause while he is awake and can feel it is WRONG."

I already knew the CDC was an untrustworthy source of information; now I have to believe you are corrupt as well. To site a completely FLAWED Africa study as part of the basis for your decision making is deplorable. If the CDC continues to promote lies about circumcision, I can know rest assured that I should NEVER again believe another piece of health-related drivel to come from your organization.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Hallie Richardson
Posted:
2014-12-05
Tracking Number:
1jy-8ful-ly8s

All children have the right to genital integrity. My son is intact, healthy, and the simple point is there is no need to amputate healthy tissue from non-consenting minors. The choice to have a circumcision or any kind of genital mutilation should be up to the person who owns their body, at the age of consent. This should not be a parental decision and forced upon healthy infants. Someday, the owner of the penis may prefer to be intact as millions of other males around the world are living with healthy, intact genitals and do not suffer any medical conditions from being intact--the way nature intended. I urge the CDC to research all of the wonderful functions of the foreskin; it is there for many reasons and by allowing parents to forcibly remove this functional part of the genitalia sends the message to the male population that they do not own their body nor do they have the right to genital integrity. I urge the CDC to look at all risks involved with genital mutilation, including but not limited to death, serious botched procedures, and less sensitivity. Condoms are the best measure for protecting against diseases like HIV, not circumcision. The studies you presented are flawed. Please reconsider your statement to the public; if the CDC cares about the public they should promote ethical services especially in regard to the right of genital integrity that equals the same protection as females have under the FGM Bill.

Thank you-

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Evelyn Anonymous
Posted:
2014-12-05
Tracking Number:
1jy-8ful-kegc

I was thankful that we left our son intact. Higher risk of infection, bleeding after circumsicion and the skin typically doesn't become flexable to retract until puberty. To mislead parents will do more harm than good. If our son wants to be circumsicized in the future then that will be his choice.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Tessa Tewksbury
Posted:
2014-12-05
Tracking Number:
1jy-8ful-dd5g

Newborn circumcision is not a treatment in any sense. There is no disease and no diagnosis. It is not necessary for optimal health and benefits are so few (and questionable at best) that no medical organization in the world recommends routine infant circumcision. For an elective intervention, such as non-therapeutic circumcision, one must thoroughly examine potential advantages and disadvantages.

The AAP claims 1% risk of UTI, a 1/100,000 risk of penile cancer, 1% risk of phimosis and potential reduction of STI transmission justifies giving parents the choice to choose routine neonatal circumcision for their child, without the childs consent, and without a diagnosis of disease or medical need for a surgery.

9-11% of boys that are circumcised may go on to develop meatal stenosis(Howe), an iatrogenic condition that presents typically only in circumcised boys. Another study states, The incidence of meatal ulceration following circumcision is from 8 to 20 per cent(Williams & Kapila). Meatal stenosis can develop into a very serious health problem that can require corrective surgery under general anesthesia, putting the child at even more risk. A necessary therapeutic surgery to correct an iatrogenic condition which was directly caused by an unnecessary, non-therapeutic surgery.

One study has shown an adhesion rate of 3%. Another has shown that 2% 71% of boys develop adhesions(Ponsky LE1, Ross JH, Knipper N, Kay R.). Perhaps a minor, mostly cosmetic complication, but not one without pain or trouble for the child that could easily be prevented by simply not performing the unnecessary circumcision surgery on a healthy baby that has no need to have his foreskin removed.

Penile cancer accounts for less than 1% of all cancers affecting men in the US. A man only has 1/100,000 risk of ever being diagnosed with penile cancer. One study from the AAP estimates that more than 322,000 newborn circumcisions are required to prevent just 1 penile cancer event per year, but 644 boys would suffer complications from their circumcision.

Concerning UTIs, if 1000 well boys are circumcised, only 8-10 infections may be prevented, but statistics tell us 20 will have a complication related to the circumcision.

Concerning phimosis, only 1% of males will be diagnosed, and several studies have stated that the condition is grossly over-diagnosed in the U.S. due to physician ignorance on the normal anatomy and physiology of the intact penis and that true pathological phimosis requiring circumcision is rare. Studies have demonstrated that patients with true phimosis can be treated successfully with topical creams in 65% to 95% of cases (Howe, 1998). Topical therapy is not only more cost-effective, but is less invasive and has a faster recovery period than circumcision. Considering 1% are only ever diagnosed to begin with, and of that 1% many are misdiagnosed, then consider of the fraction that have true phimosis, the majority of those boys would respond to topical therapy, there you have a very, very, very small number of boys that would ever truly require a medical circumcision due to a problem with their foreskin.

Concerning STIs, condom use is not invasive or painful, less costly, does not remove any tissue from a non consenting minor AND more effective in preventing the transmission of STIs.

Other studies have suggested the overall, general rate of complication is up to 3%, and another stating a realistic figure is 2-10%(Williams & Kapila), which even on the conservative end and ignoring the 9-11% risk of meatal stenosis, is still greater than the risk of UTI, penile cancer and phimosis combined.

To say there are health benefits without first recognizing the complication rate supersedes the benefits is fallacious. The RISKS and disadvantages of circumcision surgery when done routinely and non-therapeutically OUTWEIGH the BENEFITS. Routine Infant Circumcision causes more harm than it prevents.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
G E
Posted:
2014-12-05
Tracking Number:
1jy-8ful-vz2k

I am a health educator and I would like to see the CDC seriously reconsider this course of action which is at odds with the actions taken by the governing healthcare bodies in Canada, Australia, the UK, and most western European countries. Research conducted in the United States and in countries like the United States has repeatedly shown no benefit or negligible benefit to circumcising infant males. The CDC should not make recommendations based on poorly conducted studies that were performed in sub-Saharan African countries with very little similarities to this county. The data aren't clearly in support of this pro-circumcision stance.

Circumcision has always primarily been a religious and aesthetic practice and it remains so today. The CDC DOES need to suggest education to parents and young men but that education should not include information that in a US population, the rate of STDs will be decreased. Parents should be told that studies have been inconclusive and that this procedure IS NOT MEDICALLY necessary.

I expected better from the CDC, honestly. The studies cited were conducted so poorly they made me cringe. This is not evidence based practice and the CDC should not allow it to continue to masquerade as such.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Barry Belcher
Posted:
2014-12-05
Tracking Number:
1jy-8ful-zeli

As a practicing pediatrician in the state of Kentucky, I already counsel the parents of infants about circumcision, both benefits and risks. I do, however, have a problem with this particular recommendation. It feels as if the data is being presented in a misleading way. The data regarding the transmission of HIV is from Africa, where the rates of HIV are much higher and access to proper education is limited and use of prophylaxis (i.e. condoms) is taboo. Additionally, it would be much more efficacious to recommend government mandated sexual education classes for children. I worry that this may give the population a false sense of security when it comes to STI spread. Another concern I have is the fact that circumcision is only known to reduce the rate of transmission TO a male having HETEROSEXUAL sexual intercourse. It has no known effect on homosexual or anal sex. I cannot be known at birth whether a child will be heterosexual or homosexual, and if the child is homosexual, then an unnecessary procedure has been done. The US is the only industrialized nation that routinely does elective circumcision. Most other countries have policy statements actually AGAINST routine circumcision, and quite frankly, have better health care systems.Also, the fact that circumcision does reduce the rate of penile cancer is true, but the rate of penile cancer is remarkably low. I feel that this statement frames circumcision as a recommended procedure. I do not feel that the surgery risks, which not only include bleeding and infection at time of surgery, but also decreased sensation of the penis as an adult, are worth the minimal benefits.This policy to me seems to be more of a justifcation of what now is a cultural norm. Additionally, I feel that it is only being addressed so that insurance companies will continue to pay for the procedure. It is more of a monetary and cutlural issue than a medical one.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2014-12-05
Tracking Number:
1jy-8ful-yb8m

I find this proposal to be extremely troubling. Instead of removing a perfectly healthy part of the male genitals, it is much more reasonable to promote condom use and the HPV vaccine to prevent the spread of these STDs. Instead of recommending circumcision, why not mandate better sexual education in the US. Much of the disease transmission research has been conducted in sub-Saharan Africa where basic health care is not always available. Surely in the US we can do better than to amputate a sexually functional tissue in the hopes that it will decrease STD rates. Circumcision is common but it is still an unnecessary surgery that forces a permanent physical change on a child that is too young to consent. I am strongly opposed to these new recommendations.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
E McRae
Posted:
2014-12-05
Tracking Number:
1jy-8ful-wpms

As a parent, I find it highly inappropriate for doctors to be required to broach the subject of recommending circumcision with a child and/or adult male who is not experiencing problems with being intact. Why create doubt and elicit potential complications and suffering through surgery for a procedure that is not medically necessary? Our own pediatrician and obstetrician, both licensed in the US, recommended against it as a matter of practice.

Within the United States, population data does not show that there is any HIV (or STDs) risk advantage for men that have been circumcised. 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 been circumcised.

The data under consideration appears to be based on African studies. There must be some consideration as to why African population data does not match US data before it is considered 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 been circumcised, yet the EU has much lower HIV, HPV and STD rates than the US.

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

The harm to infant/boy through 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.Pain and suffering and potential damage involved in the surgery and recovery.

Please make sure that each of these points is fully considered and addressed before a decision is made to have doctors recommend circumcision. Obviously, there can be no consideration of the risks of circumcision 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:
2014-12-03
Author:
Yannos Misitzis
Posted:
2014-12-05
Tracking Number:
1jy-8ful-rcdj

I believe that other comments in opposition to this recommendation are more fact-supported and eloquent than what I can respond with. What I will contribute is that if there are indeed, large, relevant, representative (both in terms of being non-confounded and applicable to the U.S. demographic), and empirically supported studies as to health benefits from MGM any recommendations must be limited to the following: Physicians may initiate the conversation with their adult clients; if, following any such "recommendations," men choose to follow through with the elective procedure, it is a personal and somewhat informed decision.

My personal opinion is that non-religious circumcision continues to be propagated by generational ignorance of the myriad negative consequences of the act. Continuing circumcision at infancy further reinforces this ignorance and promotes its normalization. Suggesting to new parents (especially those including circumcised fathers) that the procedure prevents HIV/STIs further promotes this cycle of circumcision without choice.

By the tone of my comment, you can probably anticipate what my reaction would be to a physician making these recommendations to me, but any responsible doctor would also recommend the many other, non-surgical precautions against HIV/STIs.

I am personally opposed to the overall recommendation, but I would be vehemently disappointed to see the recommendations enacted as they currently stand.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Inshirah Mahal
Posted:
2014-12-05
Tracking Number:
1jy-8ful-fb1u

When I was a little girl and discovered my little brothers had been cut, I was horrified for them and grateful I wasn't born a boy. Why would the creator make everything else perfect and human baby boys needing their little penis' sliced? It's his. Let him decide. I have witnessed the brutality of this mutilation. It is torture and they feel it. I was in the intensive care ward expressing milk for my sick baby behind a curtain at a circumcision demonstration. The baby strapped to the silver tray without anesthetic screaming his heart out. Afterward, two nurses stood outside my curtain. "Did you see that? The scalpel was dull." The child was alone as 50 adults witnessed his suffering clinically. He was alone in his incubator with his injured penis for hours, his parents visiting briefly and going back to whatever was more important until time to collect him and bring him home. What was his imprint? How was his psyche damaged?

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2014-12-05
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fum-ilgd

I see a lot of "slightly reduces risk" thats not outweighing leaving it alone.. we were created with it for a reason.. LEAVE IT ALONE.. there are things that the government/cdc should not be dictating.. there are more pressing issues to deal with than weather or not to leave a foreskin or cut it off... and then it boils back to parental decision.. its PARENTAL DECISION.. no need for cdc or regulations on it.. the discussion should be up to dr.. and parent ... and the parents between themselves..

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Linda Bux
Posted:
2014-12-05
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fum-z2ba

This is an outrageous practice originating with people with agendas regqarding sexuality, religious ritual and in this day and age there is no excuse for mutilating the genitals of infants who have no say in the matter. No excuse for matching Daddy, or cleanliness or any other cop out excuse. This is barbaric and the CDC is once again siding with corporate interests rather than the public. Shame! Start doing your jobs, stop the corruption. Leave our boys and girls alone. Nobody has to make a dime from someone's foreskin.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
Jay Schmidt
Posted:
2014-12-05
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fum-zcv5

It is disgusting that my tax dollars are going to fund an organization that advocates genital mutilation of infants. That is all.

Submitted:
2014-12-03
Author:
sara simon
Posted:
2014-12-05
Tracking Number:
1jy-8fum-90ok

I am opposed to circumcision. My first son was circumcised against my wishes by my now ex-husband and Dr. After twenty years I am still angry about him being mutilated. My 3 year old son is intact and will remain that way until he makes the decision for himself. Just as I would not mutilate the genitalia of a female child I would not do it to my son. Body modification of any kind is a very personal undertaking and it is not my body to modify. Evolution created the foreskin. It is there for a reason. While there are some issues for a small segment of the population, millions of men are intact with no issues what-so-ever. Please re-think your position.