Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Jeff B
Posted:
2015-01-29
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnt-4y93

Some corollary arguments for your bag of tricks:

Abstinence reduces transmission of HIV. Prophylactic appendectomies reduce the risk of appendicitis. Cutting out your lungs reduces the risk of lung cancer.

In polite circles, we refer to clitorectomies as FGM, and we usually spit reflexively when those three letters are spoken together. Sexual mutilation has NO PLACE in secular modern life. It is indefensible, literally, which is why there is no need to rebut your cherry-picked statistics. The context of the conversation is MUTILATION, not how many babies will get UTIs.

You know that special aroma when politicians overstep their bounds, and attempt to regulate science? When their religious beliefs (and campaign finance debts) make it impossible for them to act reasonably?

Look deeper, friends. Show some humanity. And grow a pair.

~ An MIT-trained scientist who was raised Jewish (and mutilated).

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Jon Bowne
Posted:
2015-01-29
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnt-clnk

To : CDC

If routine infant circumcision truly is the prophylactic panacea that you claim it to be, why can you not explain why whole continents where it is NOT practiced have LOWER rates of HIV and other STDs? If it truly prevented the spread of STDs, statistically, countries where RIC is below 5% would have to have higher rates than the US where circumcision rates are astronomically higher. But the numbers are not there. Western Europe, Scandinavia, Japan, Australia, China, and most of South and Central America all have lower HIV and STD rates than the US. You state that flawed African studies prove this practice reduces HIV transmission by a whopping 60%. So, lets do the math.

How does one contract AIDS? Using the CDC figures of 1.2 million people in the US infected with HIV/AIDS: 55 % contract it through sex with men 30 % contract it through sex with high risk individuals (prostitutes, drug addicts, etc.) 14 % contract it via bad intravenous drug practices So, avoiding dirty needles and unprotected sex with 99% of those infected would prevent almost all disease transmission. But what about the other one percent...victims of bad blood transfusions, health care worker exposure, etc.? That would be about 12,000 people, half of which would be male. So you are advocating unnecessary surgery on the healthy tissue of non-consenting infant males to allegedly protect them 60% of the time from contracting a disease via unprotected sex with 6,000 women out of over 150 million (actually many fewer when you factor in mutual compatibility, age differences and personal preferences)?

And in this day and age, why is anybody having unprotected sex outside of long term relationships? It sounds like you are advocating this practice by giving the impression that unprotected sex is safe if you dont have a foreskin.

No other health organization in the world advocates RIC. You are obviously protecting this cash cow for the medical industry of the US. Stop it!

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
April Anonymous
Posted:
2015-01-29
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnu-cnzs

It is unethical to perform permanent body modifications on someone too young to give his own consent unless it is absolutely necessary. Where does it end? Why not remove the appendix from every newborn infant? Whatever objection you have to that most certainly applies here as well. If you are recommending circumcision to prevent stds or infections why not recommend for our daughters as well. Why is it wrong for girls but not boys? Foreskin is there for a reason, telling new gullible parents to cut it off is wrong. European countries have proven just how unnecessary circumcision is. Recommending this purely for financial purposes is atrocious. Things need to change, please start now by revoking your regulations. Say no to genital mutilation.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Alicia Bryan
Posted:
2015-01-29
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnu-yp0y

Please do not recommend that infants are non-consensually circumcised. If a person with a penis decides upon approaching and entering sexual activity that they believe circumcision is worth it, they should consent to that decision of their own agency.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Emily Donaldson
Posted:
2015-01-29
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnu-jd81

As a public health professional I strongly support the CDCs recommendations on medical male circumcision. The evidence that male circumcision helps in the prevention of sexually transmitted infections is clearmedical male circumcision can reduce risk of HIV infection by about 60 percent and reduce the risk of other STIs, such as HPV and herpes. Following implementation of medical male circumcision programs in Africa, evidence shows a public health benefit of protection from HIV in men, and in women, associated with increased levels of circumcision in a population. Additionally, the American Academy of Pediatrics position on male circumcision notes that the individual benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks. We continue to have approximately 50,000 new HIV infections, and over 20 million new sexually transmitted infections every year in the US, with poor and marginalized populations at increased risk for HIV and other STIs. It is vitally important that access to medical male circumcision is accessible, available and affordable for all.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Kolbrun Kolbeinsdottir
Posted:
2015-01-29
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnu-ph4z

Your guidelines for infant gential mutilation are dangerous, barbaric and not in the best interest of the population. Recommending a procedure that causes pain, harm and sexual dysfunction is wrong.I urge you to reconsider.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Christa Battle
Posted:
2015-01-29
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnu-ea6x

CDC:

I am appalled, along with many others, at your culturally biased, proposed guidelines. The American Academy of Pediatrics' policy statement on circumcision has been so very criticized in peer review that I am shocked at how you have merely rehashed their statement. As stated by the AAP, the risks of this procedure are unknown. You have made no mention at all of the ethics of such a procedure. The arguments made for male infant and child circumcision are the same cited in defense of female genital mutilation. More and more studies are emerging that show the clear harm that this traumatic surgery causes. Please stop perpetuating the myths and abandon your cultural bias. No disease, no consent, no surgery.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
aja f
Posted:
2015-01-29
Organization:
The Whole Network
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnu-6if6

Routine Infant Circumcision should not be recommended. Boys deserve to have the same genital autonomy as girls. His body, his choice.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Robert Weaver
Posted:
2015-01-29
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnu-6atu

As someone who knows several men who, as adults, wish they had not been circumcised as babies, I'm distressed by the CDC's proposed recommendations.

Medical organizations from other developed countries, among them the Netherlands, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark, have drawn the opposite conclusions from those of the CDC. They know that circumcision does NOT prevent HIV and STIs, and that the foreskin plays an important role in enhancing sexual pleasure and experience.

Circumcision results in the permanent loss of sensitive, natural and healthy tissue, the drying out of the head of the penis, and damage to nerves and the vascular system of the penis.

Rather than promoting circumcision, the CDC should be calling for systematic study of the harms that result from unnecessary circumcision surgery and wasted health care dollars.

The CDC cannot responsibly state that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks, when neither the short- or long-term risks have been systematically studied.

Please reconsider these recommendations for providers.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Nicholas Wivinus
Posted:
2015-01-29
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnu-1l9g

This policy statement is an embarrassment. Routine infant circumcision violates medical policies and practices that are in place for every other part of the body. This statement also completely disregards consent on the individual being operated upon even before any symptoms or medical condition ever arises. Policy statement also violates the principals of evidence based medicine. No other amputation of healthy tissue would ever be recommended without an actual diagnoses of a condition or without attempting less invasive means of treatment, the concept of modern medicine is thrown out the window only when we consider the human male prepuce.

You site a study done in Africa which is well known to be a flawed study that offers a conclusion that is questionable and has been contradicted by other studies as well. Let's begin with your dishonest use of the "60%" reduction figure as if it were an absolute reduction in risk -- that is, from 100% to 40%. Instead as you know or at least should know, 60% is the change between one very already low percentage (2.49%) to another (1.18%). The difference in absolute risk is an unimpressive 1.31%, and this is only regarding female to male unprotected sex. There has yet to be any causal link ever to be furnished between circumcision and HIV/AIDS, speculation and theories, but no causal link. This is likely due to the fact that HIV, AIDS and other STDs are spread through bodily fluids and the presence, or lack, of a prepuce in no was changes the biological function in which fluids will be exchanged during unprotected sex.

If you were to have even discussed or understood the function of the human male prepuce you would know that it functions to protect the glans and allow it to remain sensitive. A properly intact and sensitive adult male would be less likely to be discouraged by safe sex, that is the use of a condom, since they would retain the full sensitivity of their glans as well as the massive amount of very sensitive nerves that are in the foreskin. If they retain their whole penile sensitivity they would be more likely to successfully be encouraged to participate in safe sex practices and therefore there risk of catching or spreading STDs would be far lower than what one could expect from erroneously offering circumcision as protection. This is precisely why the USA, which has a far higher rate of circumcision, suffers from a much higher rate of STDs and HIV/AIDS than other developed nations where circumcision is rarer. If one simply looks at the rates on infection per the population while considering circumcision rates it becomes quite obvious that real world data contradicts your flawed claims.

I suggest you pull this statement and do some actual research instead of simply spewing forth flawed data from a flawed and dated study. Otherwise the results of such irresponsible recommendations will be more bad medicine practiced, less safe sex practice and higher rates of infections.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
A. L.
Posted:
2015-01-29
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnu-9534

To Whom It May Concern:

First, I appreciate the space provided on regulations.gov for Americans to voice their opinions in federal decision-making. My particular concern is regarding the CDCs Recommendations for Providers Counseling Male Patients and Parents Regarding Male Circumcision and the Prevention of HIV Infection, STIs, and other Health Outcomes. I find the CDCs stance problematic for several reasons, and I desire them to change statements that are pro-circumcision. For example, medical organizations from other developed countries, among them the Netherlands, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark have drawn the opposite conclusions from those of the CDC. They know that circumcision does NOT prevent HIV and STIs, and that the foreskin plays an important role in enhancing sexual pleasure and experience. This wouldnt be the first time that such countries have had better understanding or better research and ideas on a medical and/or scientific topic than the U.S. has, so it would certainly be wise to consider their perspective and re-evaluate our own before publishing any policy statements that could lead negative results in the lives of American citizens.

Additionally, circumcision results in the permanent loss of sensitive, natural and healthy tissue, the drying out of the head of the penis, and damage to nerves and the vascular system of the penis. Rather than promoting circumcision, the CDC should be calling for systematic studies of the harms that result from unnecessary circumcision surgery and wasted health care dollars. The CDC cannot responsibly state that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks, when neither the short- or long-term risks have been systematically studied. I urge the CDC to re-evaluate its position before encouraging circumcision for the masses of not only Americans, but for other countries who strive to follow in Americas footsteps.

Thank you for your consideration regarding this matter.

Sincerely,A.S.L.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2015-01-29
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnu-yukz

Your recommendation is flawed and ignores ethics and research. There are much less invasive ways to prevent these health problems [ever heard of a condom and soap and water?]. You don't recommend female genital amputation, so why recommend male genital amputation, especially in infants who can't consent?! Why violate a human's right to genital integrity?! Read ALL of the CURRENT research! Stop encouraging harmful surgery and learn more about ethics, for the sake of boys and men [human's with rights] everywhere!

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Sarah Clendenon
Posted:
2015-01-29
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnu-2zfv

Male genital cutting is just as harmful and unethical as female genital cutting. Besides the fact that doctors are violating their oath to do no harm, they are also violating the person's right to bodily autonomy. It is not the right or privilege of parent, a rabbi, a doctor, or any other person to cut anyone other than themself in the name of religion. This practice is barbaric. Additionally, males have the same right to be protected as females under the 14th amendment right to equal protection. The US is one of the last places on Earth that practice this unfathomable tradition. It has been proven to be physically, emotionally, and psychologically damaging. It is unbelievable that an organization that claims to be a credible source of medical information would promote and encourage misinformation, false data and facts, and outright lies. The American medical system makes a mockery of itself by publishing guidelines that the rest of the world knows to be false and harmful. Circumcision does not in any way prevent HIV, STDs, or any other disease. Because of the damage and loss of vital tissue, it may actually make susceptibility to these ailments worse. Beyond that, there is loss of sexual function. Additionally, it is extremely painful and often performed with little or no anesthetic. A people who harms the most vulnerable among us cannot call itself civilized. It is unethical for any medical professional or medical organization to promote this practice.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Paige Blose
Posted:
2015-01-29
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnu-sn1j

I do not understand why you would consider counseling male patients and parents in favor of circumcising to prevent HIV and STI's when the same result can be achieved with use of a condom. Removing a healthy functioning piece of skin is not a safe option when the same can be achieved with a much easier and safer method. I think if you are going to counsel parents on this subject, it must also be included in an unbiased manner on ways to prevent HIV, STIs and keep clean with an intact penis should the parent/patient decide not to circumcise. Parents and patients need to be informed on how to achieve the same result and that you CAN achieve the same result without this surgery. I believe this recommendation would be too strongly trying to persuade parents and patients into this surgery by highlighting and exaggerating the benefits and hiding the fact that the same results can be achieved without the procedure.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Steven Jacquier
Posted:
2015-01-29
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnu-xi5b

Even when genital cutting is performed without medical complications, evidence shows needless ongoing damage (see Narvaez, 11JAN2015 "Circumcisions Psychological Damage" http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201501/circumcision-s-psychological-damage ].

The push for infant genital mutilation appears partly based in misunderstanding &/or ignorance, partly in ideological/religious bias, and partly in a monetary profit motive. None of these is worthy of the CDC. I expect better results for my tax money paying your salaries and shall inform my congressional representatives of this expectation if the CDC continues to act in a religiously biased manner &/or serving as a shill for profit incentives of the medical lobby.

The USA is not sub-Saharan Africa so the (arguable) merits of infant genital mutilation in later STD control for truck drivers visiting prostitutes in the Congo and Rwanda are inapplicable here, nor constitute justification for cutting all American infants given potential for damage both immediately and long term.

Remember your oath: First, do no harm.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Kyla Cromer
Posted:
2015-01-29
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnu-h02j

Dear CDC,

Please do more research before you recommend circumcision of healthy babies, boys, and men. Our health care system is costly enough without this procedure, and I resent helping pay for genital mutilation for babies.

It can't possibly be harmless to put a newborn through the fear and pain of cutting, and the benefits are tiny if any. Unlike parts of Africa, we live in a country with plenty of soap and water. If it's ever proven there's a slight decrease in STIs in the US, it will just result in more people having unprotected sex.

Dr. Christiane Northrup once commented on Public Television that she was once the only woman on rounds with a group on an OB ward, and was stunned to hear a doctor explain episiotomies don't hurt because women don't have nerves down there. Sound familiar?

Religious freedom is a ludicrous argument - we don't allow female "cutting" or for that matter human sacrifice. One of the main responsibilites we ALL have as adults is to protect ALL children from abuse. Whether the parents think it's a good idea or not.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Wendy Anonymous
Posted:
2015-01-29
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnu-uycz

Please compare rates of HIV, STD's and penile cancer between the United States and European countries, where routine male genital mutilation does not occur. Our populations and lifestyles are very similar so it would be a fair comparison. You'll find that they do just fine in Europe with their normal penises. I did not mutilate the genitals of my son or daughter because it is wrong. I am a biologist at the NIH and I am disgusted that "science" is being used to keep male genital mutilation legal in this country.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
anonymous Sanchez
Posted:
2015-01-29
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnu-tahn

Statistics from other countries that do not do routine infant circumcision should show There is no increased protection from STIs. A boy should be taught to properly bathe to stay clean, not that removing a vital part of his penis will keep him clean. There's nothing clean about keeping am open surgical wound in a soiled diaper. Circumcision is unnecessary as proved by the 65% of American child living with healthy intact penises. Surgically wounding a child out of vanity is wrong. Females are born with the same foreskin as males and are protected. Let's keep our boys protected.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Brett Jones
Posted:
2015-01-29
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnu-nqrt

My circumcision has resulted in a lifelong of sexual impotence. Unfortunately, due the fact that I was 24 years of age by the time I realized that this surgery was the cause of my severe sexual dysfunction and 3 failed relationships, I had already passed the 21 year old limit on being able to sue my doctor for negligence. I am forced to live the rest of my life with no compensation for having had one of the most fundamental human experiences stolen from me under the guise of preventative medicine. Circumcision destroys male sexuality permanently, and the only people that should be able to consent to getting it done are males who are 18 years or older. I have no problem with adults consenting to having the most sensitive part of the genitals cut off, but parents should NOT be able to provide consent for their child to undergo the procedure under any means. Shame on you, CDC, for your recommendation that slicing off a part of a babies penis is anything other than a brutal, inhumane, irreversible and tragic human rights abuse. Shame on you.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Beth Donaldson
Posted:
2015-01-29
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnu-yh07

I strongly support the CDC's recommendations as the public health benefits are widely known. As a mother, as a tax payer, and as a proponent of doing what is possible to help rid the world of infectious diseases, I know that this is critical.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2015-01-29
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnu-b0e3

The foreskin is NOT a birth defect!

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Shemuel Garber
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnu-cfxi

As a circumcised male, I believe that the continued practice of advocating and performing routine neonatal circumcision represents a systematic ethical and scientific failure of the American medical community without precedent.

These draft guidelines claim that the overall risk of adverse events associated with male circumcision is low. This statement is not only wrong, but also truly absurd in that it ignores the essential fact that circumcision, as a procedure that removes highly specialized, functional tissue, IS a serious adverse event. Were it not for the fact that the practice of circumcision is culturally ingrained, its health benefits would never be considered. If we were to routinely amputate infants feet, there would inevitably be a reduction in the prevalence of toenail fungus, but this is not a valid argument for foot amputation because the feet are functional body parts. The male foreskin, similarly, is not an option to be decided upon by new parents like power windows or leather seats in a sedan. Rather is it is an organ that has developed over evolutionary history to fulfill specific mechanical, immunological, tactile, and sexual functions.

Furthermore, the idea the idea that adolescent or adult males in the US would choose to be circumcised after growing up with a foreskin is nothing short of ridiculous. To me, the fact that the guidelines put the counseling of uncircumcised heterosexually active adolescent and adult males on an equal footing with the counseling of the parents of newborns comes across as an attempt to skirt the obvious ethical problem of allowing the proxy consent of a parent in place of the real consent of the affected individual in the case of an elective amputation. The relevant issue in the US is and will for the foreseeable continue to be the circumcision of NEONATES. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Anthony Raya
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnu-i4kb

Your stance on circumcision needs to be reevaluated. Amputation of healthy tissue without a diagnosis is unethical on a newborn.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Erin Towsley
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnv-vu6i

Circumcison has so many negative effects. This procedure should only be done when the owner of the penis can choose for himself and when medically indicated. Your reccomendations will cause more harm than good. The psychological effects alone should be enough, let alone the impact on his sexual life.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Alexander Bowers
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnv-j4u0

Further study on harmful effects should be taken into consideration before releasing these proposed guidelines on modifying children's genitals. Bodily integrity should be awarded to children and consent in their hands when an appropriate age. I would have personally chosen not to have this procedure done on myself if I had the choice. It has compromised my self image as a male and human being. Circumcision before age of consent is not in the best interest of the child. Life threatening should be the only reason for this to be suggested without the child's consent.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Paul Nguyen
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnv-ebhs

If one looks at the evidence of whether removing healthy tissue actually makes it harder to contract a sexually transmitted disease many claims are made such as 2/3 reduction in risk which sounds pretty good. However most of these reports merely show correlation and not causation at best. Conditional probability and statistics is helpful in this situation. What we're interested in is whether or not being circumcised prevents STIs. Let's say A = circumcision status, B = having a certain type of STI say HIV. What is the probability of B given A? What is the probability of B given not A the false positives. When someone tells you reduction of 66% of infections, what does that really mean?

What really must be done is to look at it on a cost benefit analysis. Doctors are going to love extra procedures since that provides easy revenue, but are the costs worth it? Condoms are pretty darn effective. Education on how to use them is totally fine. Last time I checked, circumcised people get STIs and transmit them too. Regardless of probability I say the risk is too high. To recommend something as far reaching as body modification without some sort of guarantees will cause more harm than good. We might as well chop off breasts to prevent breast cancer.

The end goal is to reduce the spread and concentration of such diseases. An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure. But the CDCs implementation of such preventative measures should not be based on unreliable information. I thought it was a doctor's job to save the body before destroying parts of it, but I could be wrong.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Theodore Hellerud
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnv-p8ih

This seems like a very simple legal and moral matter. Since it is illegal and unlawful to preform cosmetic surgery without legal consent of the "little man" there are already severe consequences under present laws for these violations. Further, to do cosmetic surgery to a newborn female is definitely outlawed in USA and usA and we have equal protection under the law last time I checked. So how is it that doctors and parents are allowed to conspire and be felonious criminals in the case of male new born genital mutilation? Personally I believe the CDC is trying to help dirty doctors and ignorant parents to find an comfortable escape for crime already committed. CDC is trying to find after the fact, an acceptable explanation for serious and countless legal violations of assault, battery and mayhem by brainwashed parents and greedy medical institutions who have been strongly suggesting circumcision to uninformed mothers and often previously violated fathers. To suggest that male sex apparatus is defective by evolutionary design and seriously needs to be corrected at birth by capitalistic medicine for profit, is a pill no thinking human would or could swallow. SO WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON HERE? I suggest Circumcision is and always has been, Initiation into a GANG. It is now done at birth in USA so the baby boy has no choice (how beautifully democratic is that!) After this horribly painful experience is boldly imprinted on the new baby boy brain we can expect to get a more ferocious soldier later on. We get an individual a bit more likely to chop off body parts of an enemy after he is run through military training later in life. I am suggesting circumcision is or can be the seed of violence including beheading later. If you are offended by public beheading or the unbelievable violence done to women and children in war zones then please stop terrorizing and brutalizing infant boys. If you don't think the conclusions I reach are reasonable then just be reminded that the groups who religiously practice circumcision also have some other ugly habits concerning offensive cutting done to innocent humans. I think circumcision boils down to an activity properly labeled, "Gang Violence" for the purpose of violence. The CDC has no business promoting such criminal activity or participation in the cover-up of previous crimes committed by our huge medical industry.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Kristine Olson
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnv-kk03

I am an Obstetrical and Neonatal ICU nurse. I've assisted doctors on hundreds of circumcisions. They will haunt me the rest of my life. Parents are there to make medical decisions for their children until they are old enough to do it themselves. Medical decisions that are a matter of life and death or illness. Circumcision in purely cosmetic. No one has any right to make a permanent altercation to someone's body part for cosmetic reasons except the person whose body that part is on! His penis, his choice. When a boy is grown he can decide for himself how he wants his penis to look. Until then, let it be the way God and nature designed it. Circumcision is barbaric and unnecessary and causes permanent trauma, sexual dysfunction, high risk for infection and bleeding and even death. The only way to prevent HIV & other STI's from sexual activity is to use a condom. Circumcision is no the answer to preventing STI's, masturbation (the original reason circumcisions became the norm, to try to prevent masturbation, that hasn't worked so well has it...), penile cancer & uti's. Circumcision prevents none of these! His penis HIS CHOICE!!!!!

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Jenny B
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnv-wori

This is a bad rule that is based on a flawed belief in African studies applicability to the United States. It is based on studies in Africa, where HIV/AIDS is endemic, and spread through heterosexual sex. The CDC is making a recommendation for the US, where HIV is not endemic, and is generally spread through IV drug use, and to a lesser extent, through homosexual rather than heterosexual sex. Even if the applicability to general STI transmission is true, wouldnt it be more effective to require boys to get the HPV vaccine and to advocate for condom use? Additionally, making this recommendation based upon concern about STI transmission may actually lead to a decrease in condom use, a situation which has also occurred in Africa as a result of these studies; this is also a concern in the US regarding new drugs that decrease your risk of getting HIV. And while circumcision reduces acquisition of STIs, it does not reduce transmission, so from a public health perspective I would think that other methods would be more effective. Making a recommendation based on studies in countries with totally different public health issues is irresponsible. Especially irresponsible is proposing a flawed rule that will then become a standard recommendation to parents from their pediatrician whose opinion, as an expert, is given a lot of weight and will hold undue influence over parents decisions, especially those without the time or knowledge to research the subject on their own. I also dont think appropriate consideration is being given to the ethics of a proposal that is recommending painful surgery on tiny newborn babies without their consent. Public health recommendations are important and carry a lot of weight, and we should limit them to subjects like parental smoking or vaccination, that have demonstrated, overwhelming benefits to individuals and society. I do believe that more medical procedures, generally, should be covered by Medicaid, so if that is another purpose of this recommendation, can it be altered or rephrased so that it can be covered, but isnt being routinely recommended by pediatricians?

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Jennifer Anonymous
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnv-o87r

The endorsement of RIC is horrible and goes against the oath to "do no harm" babies die every year from this inhumane procedure and it should be outlawed. But then the doctors, hospitals and skin care companies would be out money, so like everything else in this country it's al about the money and who cares who gets hurt right? Shameful.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Able Anonymous
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnv-txnb

To the CDC: There is still time to turn back, to just stop. I might think you would have a much greater sense of caution since there is so much doubt, in the developed world, among our closest kin countries: Is there still time to question about the wisdom of infant circ. 3000 kids getting circ'd every day?! For no religious reason? Trying to fund more of that on the public purse?! The Brits and Kanuks, they very, very, very seriously question about WHY? It's not just emotional people like Dr. Diekema might like to think. How about putting a emergency moratorium on this: yes, give people a religious exemption if you can't get a preacher to say it's ok to wait. Give the kids a blessing ceremony and let the country have a debate about if infant boys deserve some protection from being so subdued and humiliated. Aren't those immigrants from Russia allowed to get circ'd as adults? Just get a preacher to say it's ok to put it off and give the kids, the medical people, the hospitals a rest from this. What if 3000 girls were getting cut in the privates like this every day? Getting circ'd because maybe they'd have a few fewer UTI's? Or just because the nurses, the relatives there that day said it was 'fine', hygienic, 'easy', safe. We could get somewhere with the discussion if we could think straight about the religious aspect, which I myself cannot do, even with old friends. Here' some discussion about the book "Marked In Your Flesh".

If anyone eats what is leavened, that person will be cut off from the congregation Exodus 12:19

To those who take brit milah the covenant of circumcision for granted, the contemporary debate around the practice may come as a surprise. Isnt this one of the foundations of the Jewish religion? And whats all the fuss about a little off the top, as one of the multitude of circumcision jokes puts it?

Well, for starters, theres the nature of the act itself. Glick is not the first to narrate the gruesome details of circumcision but that doesnt stop him from piling on plenty of stretching, cutting and bloodletting detail. The first page alone includes phrases such as piercing scream, his foreskin pinched and crushed, tugging, whimpering, and then crying helplessly. Few of the remaining 359 pages are any different. At least we know what were in for: The book lets us know that it will be a polemic, and an NC-17 one at that.Circumcision diminishes pleasure.As these facts about circumcision become known, the practice may well become a source of controversy within the Jewish community. Every day, Jewish boys are having their sexual organs damaged without their consent and even without the knowing consent of their parents, who, if they knew the costs, might well agree with Glick that the spiritual and possible health benefits do not justify them. For generations, circumcision has been seen as making a male body Jewish and it has been the body, not the mind or the soul, that is the site of holiness. But one wonders if the current wave of anti-circumcision backlash, formerly the domain of marginal eccentrics but now the purview of Oxford University Press, might cause the practice to diminish in importance.

On the other hand, maybe not. Philip Roth, in a letter quoted toward the end of Marked in Your Flesh, makes a point that Glick himself seems to miss, and that says much about the perverse appeal of a practice that is so violent, painful and irreversible. Its hard to understand, Roth writes, how serious this circumcision business is to Jews. I am still hypnotized by uncircumcised men when I see them at my swimming pool locker room I asked several of my equally secular Jewish male friends if they could have an uncircumcised son, and they all said no, sometimes without having to think about it and sometimes after the nice long pause that any rationalist takes before opting for the irrational.

Read more: http://forward.com/articles/2704/a-little-off-the-top-the-controversy-about-circum/#ixzz3P0XvWY4D

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Ronald Webster
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnv-x1me

Attn: Tom FriedenDirector, Centers for Disease Control and PreventionRon A. OttenActing Deputy Associate Director for Science, Centers for Disease Control and PreventionMale Circumcision Recommendations Docket Number CDC-2014-0012Re 1: CDC Recommendations for Providers Counseling Male Patients and Parents RegardingMale Circumcision and the Prevention of HIV Infection, STIs, and Other Health OutcomesRe 2: IntactHumanity.org opposes this CDC Recommendation on all counts; and demandsimmediate withdrawal of this CDC Recommendation, a recommendation, which not onlyhas no true scientific base, but also constitutes a violation of existing democratic rule ofconstitutional and penal law.Statement:As you well know, the male foreskin is a part of the reproductive system. It has been stated thatremoval of the healthy foreskin offers a health benefit during ones lifetime, however, RIC hasno proven health benefits, such proof has never been established. Therefore when perpetratedon a child, it amounts to the forced amputation of a functional body part for in no way medicallyindicated reason. Forced Circumcision on Humans of Any Age and Gender is an act of Inflictionof Non-Accidental Injury on another person, inflicted absent legal consent of this person, andthus infringes upon the guarantees of rights secured by Federal and State Law, both statutoryand constitutional. If perpetrated on adults, this act constitutes the criminal act of assault. Ifperpetrated on children, this act constitutes the criminal act of child abuse as defined under USFederal Law - Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) 42 U.S.C.A. 5106g - 2010 -P.L. 111-320: Child Abuse is a Criminal Offense that involves the physical, emotional, or sexualmistreatment of or Infliction of Non-Accidental injury to a Child committed by a parent oranother party if responsible for the childs welfare or not, either purposefully, or due to neglect. Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker or any other person, whichresults in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse, or exploitation, or an act orfailure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm.2There are over 100 deaths of healthy children per year in the USA caused by this infliction ofpreventable injury, established harm with no established benefit, medically not warrantedsurgery, amputation of the functional part of ones reproductive system, forced human genitalmutilation, also known as routine infant circumcision.First and foremost, you have now been informed that forcing circumcision onto any child of anyage and gender is an act that constitutes a violation of US Law, the act of Infliction of Non-Accidental Injury to a Child by way of removal of the healthy foreskin from a child, also definedas Child Abuse under Federal Law. Secondly, recommending such activity is aiding and abettingin criminal activity. We herewith demand you immediately withdraw this recommendation.Furthermore we demand that you inform the medical community and the public,that forcedcircumcision of any child of any age and gender is a violation of US Federal Law and thus isstrictly prohibited.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Meribah Moore-Christensen
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnv-qqpv

I could write so much, but truly, this is a human rights issue. I hope that our future generations will look back at this time in history with pride that we stood up for the basic rights of children and helped to end the barbaric practice of infant mutilation. Fortunately I am a female living in the United States, and was allowed my genital autonomy. It is unconscionable that males are not allowed that same choice.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
alan griego
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnv-s3jc

As a man who has been circumcised at birth. I have had to seek professional mental help dealing with the effects of circumcision. It also has a negative impact of my self image. Condoms prevent disease. Evolution made it so the glans in all mammals have a foreskin. Please don't recommend circumcision anymore:

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Leonora Gruenwald
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnv-9qdv

How is the doctor going to give unbiased information? A circumcised doctor is never going to be capable of detailing the benefits of having a foreskin. It is like having a priest give marital advice. A doctor with a foreskin is going to dwell on the negatives of circumcision. Even suggesting that doctors give unbiased advice is absurd. It is not a level playing field. Medical textbooks almost never include a drawing or photograph with a foreskin. There is no text on proper procedure in caring for one, or detailing a conservative approach to treating any condition in which the foreskin is involved. American medicine treats the foreskin like it is something which has yet to be removed.This is bad medicine, and bad education.The system is broken, and the CDC is much of the problem, and not part of the solution. All the CDC is doing, is perpetuating the mythology which has been built up since Kellogg. None of this has a basis in medicine or science.The CDC is playing a game. It is called bargaining for more coverage, so that circumcision will be paid for, and circumcised people will make more circumcised people.The babies are pawns.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Amanda Anonymous
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnv-3txk

I recently talked to my friend who is pregnant about if she will circumcise her son, she is going to. Let me tell you the reason she gave me. She said it was gross for a man to be left intact how nature intended. I love her very much but this made me sick to my stomach. I believe every male child should be left intact and decide for himself when he is 18 what he wants to do with his own penis. I understand that she wants to do this because it is the "norm". Why is that? Why is it normal in America to mutilate the genitals of innocent children who can not speak up for themselves? Some say religion, she is neither Muslim or Jewish. So why?? Because, America thinks you penis has to look a certain way and if it does not it is considered ugly, dirty and gross. Many parents are choosing to leave their children intact and I personally think that is AWESOME! I have 2 children, both girls. Had i had a son i would not circumcise. FGM is the exact same thing but in the USA you are not allowed to preform that procedure. So again, I ask why do you mutilate your sons? You say that it is "cleaner" to have a circumcised penis, how is that? When a male is circumcised they have an open wound in their diaper, how is that clean? An intact male has no open wound and his penis is protected from urine and feces by the foreskin. As adults, I personally don't understand how you can say it is beneficial for the child. Did you know the glans becomes callous over time of a circumcised penis? So that means less pleasure. Circumcised males have higher rates of erectile dysfunction. Adult males also have painful erections because their circ. was done too tightly. Why not just leave it alone?? My husband is not circumcised, he has no STD's, he does not have AIDS and has had ZERO infections! We have been together for 10+ years. If you teach your children how to properly clean themselves then there should be no problem. Outside of the USA most countries do not circumcise, they understand that it is genital mutilation! I want parents to understand that you do not have to get your son circumcised because his father or uncle or whoever is. It is your sons penis and it is your responsibility as a parent to protect that until he can decide on his own how he wants it to look. Moms who circumcise their sons, how would you feel if at birth your parents decided to do the same to you and cut your clitoris off? I personally would be furious with my parents for doing such things and taking away pleasure for the rest of my life. My friend also said she didn't care about her sons sex life, no parent wants to think of their kids having sex, but its going to happen. Having an intact penis gives more pleasure, there is natural lubrication with a foreskin, who wouldn't want that? Basically, the foreskin was put on the penis for a reason and it should be left that way. Choose the right thing! KEEP YOUR SONS INTACT!! I am sorry for the men who have to live with a circumcision that you did not want, use the anger and be an advocate! Keep your world foreskin friendly! I hope this helps and gets my point across, Children are helpless and as parents it is your job to protect them, and cutting a very sensitive part off of their genitals is not protecting them.

Thank you!

Proud wife of a beautiful man with a beautiful natural intact penis :)

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnv-bm5h

I do believe that in the 21st century we should have the knowledge and understanding that all humans deserve to be protected the same under every law. No matter what their race, religion or sex may be, and allowing infant males to be circumcised before they themsleves can consent, while still banning the practice on female children is unjust. It is a violation of that infants constitutional rights to not be given the same protection as a female.

"First do no harm" is part of the oath every doctor takes, and preforming invasive surgery on an unconsenting infant -before there is even a medical need- violates that oath.

We cannot ignore the rights of male children any longer. There are many countries around this world who have come out to question the ethics of the American medical system. There is not one other medical organisation on this planet that recommends *infant* circumcision, and the CDC has made a mockery of itself with this statement.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Robert Anderson
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnv-ws2e

I am convinced that it is unethical for parents to make a circumcision decision for their infant son. If HIV/STDs are an issue when a person becomes sexually active, there is no reason to alter a childs body at birth. These individuals could make this decision for themselves as teens or later in life. Also, it is against the law for a child to have a body tattoo/piercing under the age of 18. But prophylactic, genital surgery by a third party is permitted on babies? This is mis-guided!

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Matthew Walters
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnv-w3ax

In happy to see the CDC using scientific study, and ignoring the fear mongering activists, when making policy decisions. Bravo on this draft, and I look forward to seeing the finalized report.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Steven Dorfman
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnv-axcv

I am totally opposed to these recommendations. They are scientifically suspect and ethically objectionable.If a procedure's benefits outweigh the risks, this discussion comes at the END, not the beginning, of a long chain of decisions to recommend a drug or procedure. What matters FIRST and FOREMOST are the basic rights of our patients, and the obligations we physicians have to be extra cautious and respectful in the treatment of our most vulnerable patients.

Since the patient is healthy and normal, any benefit is, by definition, hypothetical or statistical. But the risks, which include death in rare circumstances, are concrete. This is why the usual "risks vs benefits" discussion doesn't apply in the case of non-therapeutic circumcision.

In no way can physicians risk the life or well-being of a minor patient for a theoretical benefit. Especially when it is being done at the behest of the parents' cultural or religious practices.

This outmoded, irrational, and cosmetic practice belongs in the history books. Our much more sensible colleagues in Europe and elsewhere realize this.

About 10 baby boys die every year in the United States from this procedure. If this were any other cosmetic practice, it would have been banned decades ago.

Shame on the CDC!

Steven Dorfman, MDDepartment of PediatricsThe Permanente Medical Group, IncSacramento, CA

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Kimberley Smith
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnv-zmvu

I find that the proposed statement ignores a number of important issues.

Firstly, it ignores the reality that while America has a mostly circumcised male population, we still have higher rates of HIV and STI's than European countries where circumcision is very uncommon.

It completely ignores any and all functions of the male foreskin.

It also completely ignores the ethical issues of recommending that healthy and normal tissue is removed from non-consenting minors.

As a parent of 2 intact children it is distressing to me that my son might be counceled by his doctor to remove an important part of his genitals. What America needs is comprehensive sex education, NOT genital cutting.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Robert Kaplan
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnv-hzza

Circumcision is not an effective way to prevent the transmission of HIV. The most effective methods for preventing the spread of HIV are universal access to HIV testing, universal access to safer-sex education, universal access to non-expired condoms, and universal access to the most effective and appropriate antiretroviral drugs for all people who are currently infected with HIV. The CDC should focus on fostering and improving implementation of these four effective prevention methods instead of promoting male circumcision, which does not effectively prevent the spread of HIV. The promotion of circumcision as an HIV prevention technique is likely to cause many circumcised men and their sexual partners to turn away from these 4 effective prevention methods and, consequently, increase the spread of HIV in the long run. This has already happened in a number of the places in Africa where circumcision was wrongfully touted as an HIV prevention measure.

Circumcision is also not an effective way to prevent the spread of HPV. The most effective measures for preventing HPV transmission are universal access to vaccination against the 4 most common strains of the HPV virus, universal access to safer-sex education, universal access to non-expired condoms, and universal access to HPV testing and treatment. Some studies have actually shown that circumcised males take longer to clear HPV infections than intact males and are at greater risk for developing long-term chronic HPV infections than intact males.

The U.S.A. has the highest rate of male circumcision in the Western Industrialized World, and it also has the highest rates of HIV infection and HPV infection in the Western Industrialized World. On the other hand, the nations of Scandinavia have some of the lowest rates of male circumcision in the world and also have some of the lowest rates of HIV and HPV infection in the world. This is because the nations of Scandinavia have done a much better job of implementing the effective prevention measures mentioned above than the U.S.A. has.

The male penile foreskin generally contains around 20,000 sensory nerve receptors. By way of comparison, the female external glans clitoris generally contains around 9,000 sensory nerve receptors. The male foreskin is also the only part of the penis which contains fine touch nerve receptors known as Meissner's Corpuscles. A list of many of the things that a male loses when he is subjected to circumcision, published by the National Organization of Restoring Men (NORM), can be found here. http://www.norm.org/lost.html In the absence of medically exigent circumstances, it is medically unethical to perform such amputations on infants and children, who are categorically not able to give informed consent to such an amputation. Furthermore, it is generally a violation of medical ethics to perform surgery on an infant or a child for utilitarian purposes.

The forced circumcision of male, female, or intersex infants and children constitutes a grievous human rights violation.

The majority of national medical associations and national pediatrics associations in Western Europe have spoken out against forced male circumcision.

In 2012, after the American Academy of Pediatrics released its unethical, culturally biased, and religiously biased policy statement on the forced circumcision of male infants, 38 senior physicians from 16 European countries and Canada published a paper rebutting the position of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Among those senior physicians were the spokespersons of a number of European national pediatrics associations and national medical associations. That paper was entitled, "Cultural Bias in the AAPs 2012 Technical Report and Policy Statement on Male Circumcision." That rebuttal can be found here. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/12/peds.2012-2896

The National Health Service (NHS) of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (U.K.) states on their website that, "...most healthcare professionals now agree that the risks associated with routine circumcision, such as infection and excessive bleeding, outweigh any potential benefits." The U.K. NHS also states on their website that, "Most health professionals in England would argue that there are no medical reasons why a baby boy should be circumcised." http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Circumcision/Pages/Introduction.aspx

I urge the CDC to come to its senses, cease and desist with its cultural and religious bias, and rescind its present proposal.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
John McGlen
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnv-b3bu

It is said that the tissue is highly innervated. Others say that the tissue is not or that no one knows. No recommendation can really be made if there is no knowledge of exactly how many and what type of nerve endings are severed. The idea that there is no input as to sensory aspects, makes any recommendation flawed. There must at least be full knowledge as to the sensory tissue harm. How is it that your recommendation does not mentions the sensory system damage? This must me fully investigated before there can be any talk about the risks of removal of the tissue.

There also should be some consideration as to the dynamics of the penis before and after penis parts are amputated. It should be obvious that the dynamics of the penis is drastically changed. Before taking any action as to a recommendation of amputating tissue, please do studies as to the changes in sex and masturbation caused by removal of the only male mobile erogenous tissue. This must be fully investigated before there can be any talk about the risks of removal of the tissue.

Some data has been collected as to sexual dysfunction caused by male genital cutting. This must be be further explored in depth as health includes sexual health. Any recommendation that does not warn men or parents as to KNOWN harm to sexual function and sexual pleasure is on its faced flawed.

I think your recommendations misses just how important and innervated and awesome the parts are that are cut off. Very few men that have these parts would ever consider cutting them off. In considering your recommendations, they appear to be written in a vacuum as to the value and importance of the tissue. It almost appears to be a joke -- people that do not have the parts suggesting that they have no value and cause problems. Besides the religious and cultural baggage that those that have had this done to them carry, there is an inherent bias amongst those that DO NOT have the tissue as to refusing to consider the value of the tissue. This is a denial of sorts, denying the harm in an attempt to justify the state of one's own genitals. I would suggest that the recommendation cannot go forward without a review by a panel of qualified men with natural genitals.

A great deal of what the recommendation terms as a benefit is based on Africa data. The studies do not prove a benefit as correlation does not necessarily mean causation. The results of these studies ~- a 1.3% risk change could be based on condom advice, the cut men being wounded (not being able to have sex) for 1/9th or more of the study or could even be related to men being lost to the study and their loss changing the results. The CDC must at least acknowledge that real population data is not consistent with the studies. As the CDC serves the US, the CDC MUST at least consider US population studies as to cut and natural Americans and the % of each group with HIV. That is the data that is useful for US disease control.

Also, as to UTIs, it have now been well established that a portion of the UTIs in the United States are actually caused by US medical advice -- Doctors, NURSES and caregivers have been retracting the natural genitals of little boys and otherwise touching them with their hands, fussing and causing problems including CAUSING infections. Natural boys are so easy to clean, just clean like a finger, don't mess with the sterile package. As to UTIs, possibly data should be reviewed as to countries where medical professionals are not causing these issues. In any case amputation of tissue, where a simple treatment is available, should never be recommended -- particularly in a general way or before there actually is a problem.

When this genital cutting is preformed on neonates, it permanently removes 3 feet of arteries, veins and capillaries and thousands of nerve endings. No one has the right to make the removal decision except the owner of the tissue. Infant circumcision violates the fundamental ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence and primum non nocere. Medical associations have stated that there is no justification for performing the procedure without medical urgency. Medical associations in these countries are calling for the practice to stop due to ethical and human rights concerns.

The recommendations are on their face unethical..How can it be ethical to not give the option to the men that the children become. How can anyone think it is not ethically wrong to cut off innervated parts of the HUMAN MALE and shut down a part of the kids/mans sensory system without their consent? The cut off nerves can never be returned (a part of the sensory system is shut down for good). If an adult (male or female) wants to cut off parts of their genitals, that is their right. However EVERY HUMAN (male and female) has the RIGHT (a human right) to reach adulthood with all of their tissue (particularly all of their erogenous tissue) that THEIR genetic code provides.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnv-ng5x

We need to stop the madness. This is a totally unacceptable practice that needs to stop.for generation's we have mutilated infants. Please stop this practice.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Val S.
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnv-rk5j

It is time to set aside pseudo-"science" and look at actual science. Please join the majority of the rest of the world who have realized that unnecessary mutilation of genitalia (male or female) is barbaric. There is *NO* science to show any benefit, and in fact studies that show the exact opposite. Circumcision does a great deal of harm, all in the name of some out-dated religious dictate.

Please stop allowing the harm of our beautiful and perfect babies!

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Audra White
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnv-f1ob

Apart from feeling great when touched, the foreskin has a lot of functions. Pulling on the tip, on the underside, produces an instant erection in most men. It keeps the penis moist and supple, and looking shiny and pink, not greyish and dull.When a man pulls it forward, it makes penetration painless and gentle. It keeps in pheremones, which cause instant arousal in both sexes. All it takes is a finger or a tongue up and down the frenulum, to bring a man to a mind blowing climax.These are enough reasons for the CDC to stop its war on foreskins. It is a beneficial body part, or we as humans would have evolved differently.The CDC shows it is being clueless with this recommendation. Please, pretend you know basic anatomy, and stop.This makes as much sense as declaring war on the clitoral hood. It causes just as many problems.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnv-8zy7

If it were such a good idea to cut off foreskins, you'd think humans would have evolved by now to not have them. And yet nature persists in putting them there. Luckily, we have surgeons to correct this mistake.

If we think it's so smart to cut off body parts from newborns that might later be challenging to keep clean, we'd better start removing hair, nails, and -- as soon as they appear -- teeth. Why not all sexual organs, on infants of both sexes, while we're at it? Much more sanitary.

If life is so much better for men without a foreskin, why not allow infants to turn into sentient adults and come to this conclusion themselves? What's the rush, pressuring parents of newborns into making an irrevocable decision when they're already frazzled by the experience of just having had a baby? Whose interests are served by hurrying?

Routine infant circumcision in this country is a misguided practice that also happens to be violent and cruel. Over the relatively few decades it has been in fashion here, its proponents (and parents who didn't have strong opinions or many facts at their disposal) have come up with all sorts of reasons why it's ok. But it's so very not ok. It's time for us to join other enlightened, civilized countries in rejecting infant circumcision.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Seth Anonymous
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnv-6v41

Per the Federal Register notice, no images are being posted in this docket. Links that contain images have been redacted.

CDC: I've read that some orthodox people performing ritual circ. in NYC are still arguing about the germ theory. Reading news reports, about ritual circ, herpes, in NYC, how could one think that the young mother or grandmother in that story is informed? I tried to tell my cousin that Maimonides said the very purpose for circumcision was to cause pain. How can a western trained medical person, like Dr. Andrew Freedman come to grips with this kind of thinking? My cousin wouldn't even look at a quote by Maimonides: he thought that surely the doctors would circ his grandkid for a 'medical' reason. Like being 'clean'. I tried to tell my cousin that it was likely our own tradition, of our own grandfathers, great-grandfathers, and fathers being uncut, uncircumcised, being 'whole', "natural', yes natural, that tradition too, was ancient, and was only broken a generation or two ago. Maybe the Lord was playing a joke on Abraham when he told him get circ'd at age 99? I mean, did Abraham stop to think that we, living here by cold Canada, might need to have a lot more warmth and protection, and covering, around our main member, in the winter, when we got into our 70's? See the quote from Maimonides at the bottom. A odd use for foreskin is also, that in a emergency, there is some skin for grafts. I think that source of graft skin also has UV protection, which my relative with a big skin graft does not have as the skin came off his butt. But, especially disturbing to me is the reports that the nerves that were connected to the foreskin, and hence to the brain, that they die off right back to the spine. If you are circ'd as an adult, maybe that's not so true?

.

Teach thy tongue to say 'I do not know,' and thou shalt progress.

Maimonides

The mohel, A. Romi Cohn, said he had performed more than 25,000 circumcisions, on babies and adults, in New York City and elsewhere over the last 40 years. When he circumcises an infant, he said, he almost always put his mouth on the babys penis to pull blood away from the wound in an ancient part of the circumcision ritual, known in Hebrew as metzitzah bpeh, that is still commonplace in parts of the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community.......

The citys health department says that, between 2000 and 2011, 11 babies contracted herpes as a result, and 2 of them died.

Danielle Alfaks, 22, said she had found out two days earlier that the mohel would put his mouth over the wound of her 8-day-old son, Eli. Thats freaky, for me, she said.........But she added she would sign a consent form if asked.

Benjamin Ashers grandmother, Sara Mor, who had carried him carefully up to the altar last week at the Sephardic Synagogue on Avenue S in Brooklyn, said she had not heard of it, though she has four sons.

I never watch it, Im scared to watch it, she said of the circumcisions. I dont know what they are doing there.

After each circumcision, he places the thimble-size foreskin in a small jar of sand and ground cloves that he carries. He wants one day to be buried with the jars at the Mount of Olives in Israel, where Jewish tradition says the Messiah will arrive.

"........we know how useful the foreskin is for that member.......... In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally.

The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened."

http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/jewish.htm

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
James Mac
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnv-8wbk

First Principles: Removing perfectly normal, healthy tissue from the body of a child is morally wrong. Period.

To argue the sexual organs of male children should be treated somehow differently than EVERY other body part reflects a deep cultural bias and an complete failure of judgement and ethics.

When forced on a child, circumcision denies that person the right to a normal, complete and fully functioning body for the entirety of their lives. I deeply and bitterly resent how this cruel, harmful social custom was forced upon me before I could possibly defend myself.

When a doctor suggests to a teenage boy that he might be better off with (the protective, mobile, densely innervated and highly erogenous) parts of his penis removed, he is soliciting unnecessary surgery and actively participating in body-shaming of the worst kind.

CDC: Please refer to your own 'Mission, Role and Pledge' and get back to what you're supposed to be doing; public safety and preparedness. Without credibility, the CDC is nothing. The CDC's sanctioning of a cultural practice (merely masquerading as medicine) which voliates the physical integrity and the most private parts of children would be the worst yet, among a series of gravely serious mis-steps. A cultural practice that has done nothing to prevent the United States having the worst sexual health among all first world nations.

www.cdc.gov/about/organization/mission.htm

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Kelcy Hanson
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnw-dasj

This new recommendation from the CDC is not only harmful for baby boys, but ridiculous. Boys are created to be intact for a reason, God made them that way. The foreskin has a purpose and it is not our right to alter our baby boys. The United States is the only country that recommends or routinely does this procedure. Sons are dying every year because of this unnecessary procedure. There is no reason for it. Please consider revising the recommendation for all infant boys.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
anonymous anonymous
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnw-kbp3

Any surgical procedure needs to be of obvious medical benefit before undertaken. Religious proscriptions and traditional customs don't count as medical benefits.

Medical organizations from other developed countries, among them the Netherlands, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark, have drawn the opposite conclusions from those of the CDC. They know that circumcision does NOT prevent HIV and STIs, and that the foreskin plays an important role in enhancing sexual pleasure and experience.

Circumcision results in the permanent loss of sensitive, natural and healthy tissue, the drying out of the head of the penis, and damage to nerves and the vascular system of the penis.

Rather than promoting circumcision, the CDC should be calling for systematic study of the harms that result from unnecessary circumcision surgery and wasted health care dollars.

The CDC cannot responsibly state that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks, when neither the short- or long-term risks have been systematically studied.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
danyel brooker
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnw-8qhv

Horrible what is recommended for little boys. Anyone that thinks this is ok does not have a total bond with baby. It's torture. And shame fpr saying it's a reduction of his or what ever. Lies

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Danielle Cook
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnw-d6w3

The foreskin has more nerve endings than the clit. Circumcised men feel so much less pleasure than intact men and when you wash an intact baby you don't retract them to clean as the foreskin is fused. Body autonomy, his body his rights and circumcision is already illegal in some countries.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Jessica B
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnw-7amp

I strongly believe this is a tragic notice to release to the public. Telling everyone that a normal intact penis is somehow harmful is not only ridiculous it is offensive. We do not remove other body parts because "one day they might make us sick". I will not go into the risks of circumcision at this time but I will say that ALL of the "risks" you are stating are increased by remaining intact can simply be prevented by good hygiene, use of condoms and the sanitary conditions majority of us enjoy in the US. Majority of the studies supporting routine infant circumcision are based in countries with much higher than average STI/HIV infections, less access to prophylactics and lower sanitary conditions.

An infant has absolutely NO say in being physically mutilated and altered in this way. It is insulting that we, as a country, assume that men aren't capable of cleaning themselves or taking care of their own body parts. The conversations on sexuality, hygiene and self-care need to change so that our children are better prepared to enter the world of pre-pubescent hormones, sexual curiosity and reproduction. Why cut off part of your body when a condom serves the same purpose AND prevents pregnancy?

I urge you to change your position and statement on routine infant circumcision. No child should lose a part of their body forcefully and unnecessarily.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Benita Bartel
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnw-k769

Medical organizations from other developed countries, among them the Netherlands, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark, have drawn the opposite conclusions from those of the CDC. They know that circumcision does NOT prevent HIV and STIs, and that the foreskin plays an important role in enhancing sexual pleasure and experience.

Circumcision results in the permanent loss of sensitive, natural and healthy tissue, the drying out of the head of the penis, and damage to nerves and the vascular system of the penis.

Rather than promoting circumcision, the CDC should be calling for systematic study of the harms that result from unnecessary circumcision surgery and wasted health care dollars.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnw-q0xp

Any comprehensive review of the risks and benefits of circumcision should at least include a description of the foreskin and its functions. This information is not listed anywhere in the entire 61-page review. The only text that even mentions penile anatomy is an incorrect statement on page 7: compared to the dry external skin surface of the glans penis and the penile shaft, the inner surface of the foreskin is less keratinized. In fact, the glans surface is mucosal tissue in an intact (uncircumcised) person; it does not become keratinized until after it is exposed by circumcision. The foreskin is a protective covering that is fused to the glans during infancy, thereby protecting the penis from abrasion and contaminants. It is not just skin; it includes smooth muscle and is highly innervated. By ignoring this most basic information about the foreskin, the authors expose an obvious bias in their reporting. Care providers will hopefully recognize this bias and avoid making the same mistake. At the very least, healthcare providers counseling parents regarding potential circumcision of their newborn or child should include complete information about the true function, purpose, and benefits of the foreskin, which the CDC egregiously fails to recommend.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Ashley Burke
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnw-xut9

Forced genital cutting of healthy, erogenous tissue on a child who cannot consent nor understand what is happening to him causes unnecessary pain, trauma and harm, while permanently damaging his sexual function and diminishing his pleasure for life. HIS penis, HIS rights, HIS choice! Federal law 18 U.S. Code 116 has protected girls genitals since 1997, regardless of parental, religious, and cultural beliefs. Why protect one gender, yet amputate part of the other without his consent? Intact genitals are a human right - for ALL humans, not only females.We are meant to have foreskin (prepuce); were all born with it (female prepuce is the clitoral hood). Foreskin has 16+ protective, sensory and sexual functions. Worldwide, 70% of men are intact and enjoy the full extent of their sexuality. Less than 1% of them ever choose to have this significant part (15 sq. inches) of their penis cut off. Why force it on a child if he wouldnt choose it for himself?Abstinence, education, condoms, and testing prevent sexually transmitted infections; not forced genital cutting on children. The U.S. is not sub-Saharan Africa. The randomized controlled trials in Kenya, Uganda, and South Africa were severely flawed, and the researchers had known biases toward circumcision. The majority of American men are circumcised, yet the U.S. has some of the highest rates of sexually transmitted infections among developed countries.Cutting children's genitals began in the U.S. in the mid-1800s as punishment to prevent masturbation. Ever since circumcision has been a cure in search of disease. It's time to tell the truth, CDC!

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Lindy Anonymous
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnw-wxyr

The new guidelines are setting us up for disaster. You can't make people think that circumcision will protect their children against STI's. You can't make boys (or girls who would sleep with them) think the absence of a foreskin is protection of any kind! In your attempt to make money amputating healthy baby body parts, sexually transmitted infections will run rampant. The risks and disadvantages of circumcision FAR outweigh any possible benefits. Be honest!

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Kayleigh Brodeur
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnw-4t7h

Medical organizations from other developed countries, among them the Netherlands, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark, have drawn the opposite conclusions from those of the CDC. They know that circumcision does NOT prevent HIV and STIs, and that the foreskin plays an important role in enhancing sexual pleasure and experience.

Circumcision results in the permanent loss of sensitive, natural and healthy tissue, the drying out of the head of the penis, and damage to nerves and the vascular system of the penis.

Rather than promoting circumcision, the CDC should be calling for systematic study of the harms that result from unnecessary circumcision surgery and wasted health care dollars.

The CDC cannot responsibly state that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks, when neither the short- or long-term risks have been systematically studied.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Dennis Judd
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnw-ed12

Please do not falsely encourage the medically needless practice of routine infant circumcision in the United States of Americal. The procedure has previously been widely embraced yet had zero impact in the infection rate of various STD/STI and HIV despite the recent dubious claims to the contrary. Any evidence supported by "studies" overseas are at face value dubious and statistically speaking are invalid to compare to the USA. Male children should be afforded the same protections granted to female children and guaranteed genital integrity against this irreversible procedure.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Mike Price
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnw-hjhi

You don't remove breasts in fear of beast cancer. You don't remove eyelids in fear of eye problems. It just doesn't make sense to circumcise. Nature has provided men with a foreskin for a good reason. But most importantly, how about we let the person getting circumcised decide whether or not he wants part of his penis cut off?

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
D S
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnw-2wqs

Beyond the physiological impacts of circumcision, the basic human right of body integrity needs to be seriously respected. When a baby boy has his foreskin cut off shortly after birth when he CANNOT CONSENT, and only for very questionable reasons like (an unproven reduced chance of HIV) or (to be like his father) or (because it's the default practice), it shows just how wrong, uncaring, unethcial, and malicious this practice is. Every boy (like every girl), should be protected from this type of procedure until they are of an age where they can think for themselves and ELECT to have a circumcision if they deem it right for them (whether it is a personal, medical, or religious reason). This is the ONLY way this kind of procedure should happen.

Medical organizations from other developed countries, among them the Netherlands, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark, have drawn the opposite conclusions from those of the CDC. They know that circumcision does NOT prevent HIV and STIs, and that the foreskin plays an important role in enhancing sexual pleasure and experience.

Circumcision results in the permanent loss of sensitive, natural and healthy tissue, the drying out of the head of the penis, and damage to nerves and the vascular system of the penis.

Rather than promoting circumcision, the CDC should be calling for systematic study of the harms that result from unnecessary circumcision surgery and wasted health care dollars.

The CDC cannot responsibly state that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks, when neither the short- or long-term risks have been systematically studied.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Jennifer Strutz
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnw-s9y5

Medical organizations from other developed countries, among them the Netherlands, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark, have drawn the opposite conclusions from those of the CDC. They know that circumcision does NOT prevent HIV and STIs, and that the foreskin plays an important role in enhancing sexual pleasure and experience.

Circumcision results in the permanent loss of sensitive, natural and healthy tissue, the drying out of the head of the penis, and damage to nerves and the vascular system of the penis which leads to decreased levels of sexual function.

Rather than promoting circumcision, the CDC should be calling for systematic study of the harms that result from unnecessary circumcision surgery and wasted health care dollars.

The CDC cannot responsibly state that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks, when neither the short- or long-term risks have been systematically studied.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
K H
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnw-si2k

Per the Federal Register notice, no images are being posted in this docket. Links that contain images have been redacted.

I am appalled that the CDC advocates having physicians counsel their vulnerable young patients that something is wrong with their intact penises and pressuring them to have surgery to fix them. Adolescents do not need supposedly trusted advisers to be body-shaming them. It's frankly shocking that the CDC is basing this recommendation on some outdated and inconclusive studies on populations from regions that couldn't be more dissimilar to the U.S. HIV infection rates are lower in Western Europe than in the U.S., even though circumcision rates are much lower there. Why wasn't that statistic taken into account when this recommendation was crafted? The CDC should reconsider this misguided circumcision proposal before even more damage is done to its credibility.

As for the CDC recommending that babies be circumcised because 15+ years hence the child may have more protection from HIV and HPV and perhaps other STDs? That is ridiculous. We already have a vaccine for HPV. Fifteen years from now there may be a cure for HIV, making the circumcision done at birth to protect the child from HIV unnecessary. Besides, circumcision will not protect gay men or IV drug users from contracting HIV, and the chances of a man (circumcised or not) contracting HIV through heterosexual contact is very low in the U.S. We cannot cut off all parts of babies that may become diseased later in life. Physicians stopped removing tonsils "just in case" years ago. Should the CDC recommend that baby girls have breast buds removed to prevent breast cancer?

This pro-circumcision bias of the CDC counter to all of the facts is frankly embarrassing.

And now there is a study linking autism and circumcision: . I hope the CDC will give that study at least as much consideration as it has the African studies.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
gary morr
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnw-eq2r

please let the child decide, when he has grown up to make the decision whether is foreskin should be cut off.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Aaron Storm
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnw-zo36

Doctors should not be cooking up reasons to remove normal, healthy, erogenous tissue from non-consenting infants. Circumcision and HIV actually have nothing to do with each other, as we can clearly see in world-wide circ/HIV rates. This is not a medical practice. It's sexually damaging and serves no beneficial purpose other than profit for the ones doing the cutting. The tissue that is removed in circumcision is highly innervated and is beneficial for sex.

RIC is Forced Circumcision and is the forced amputation of a healthy body part, a non accidental injury to the body, for no established benefit on a healthy child, and at the risk of death. This act constitutes the criminal act of child abuse as defined under US Federal Law - Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) 42 U.S.C.A. 5106g - 2010 - P.L. 111-320:

Child Abuse is a Criminal Offense that involves the physical, emotional, or sexual mistreatment of or Infliction of Non-Accidental injury to a Child committed by a parent or another party if responsible for the childs welfare or not, either purposefully, or due to neglect.

Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker or any other person, which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse, or exploitation, or an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm.

In short, it's illegal to harm another human being.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Lolita Cook
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnw-gkoa

Since it is apparent that the author is unaware of the function of the foreskin I can only conclude that this text is inefficient and needs to be rewritten to include more sufficient information.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Aaron Meade
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnw-ux3k

This is ridiculous. These "facts" are only facts when money can be made from the innocent bloodshed of boys. These accusations are false. We see this in eastern cultures and Europe. It's rediculous think people believe this is true. Quit feeding America lies.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Craig Anonymous
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnw-vifq

The recommendations are comprehensive and well written. They will be helpful for counseling patients and families on the question of circumcision.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Suzanne Sparks
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnw-hhsz

Please reconsider your stance on forcing circumcision on non-consenting minors. The studies used are "voluntary adult male circumcision"-which should not be applied to infants. Females are protected from all forms of circumcision, therefore males should enjoy the same protection under the law.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Kristen Richardson
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnw-vjoa

My 5 year-old son is intact, as his pediatrician stated that there was no medical reason to alter how he was born. He has not had a single problem or infection with his penis.As far as STIs, I'd like to see the data from college campus clinics & health departments on the number of circumcised men with STIs. Sex education & condoms are the way to prevent these, not removing a body part during infancy. Penile cancer in men under 18 is extremely low, so if more CONCLUSIVE studies show that removal of the foreskin can significantly reduce the rates of cancer, then adult males can CHOOSE to remove the foreskin. FIRST, DO NO HARM!

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Rina Joye Bly
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnw-g2el

Per the Federal Register notice, no images are being posted in this docket. Links that contain images have been redacted.

My first son is circumcised, but I regret it. The surgery was extremely painful and traumatic for him, and he has had common complications and infections.

My second son is intact. He has benefited from the protection of his foreskin, and will continued to benefit for the rest of his life. I am so glad that we learned more and did better for our second son.

I believe that girls, boys, and intersex children should have their rights to genital integrity and autonomy protected. I also feel that our religious and cultural freedoms should end where another human's body begins.

In my humble opinion, all parents should take the time to learn about the functions of the foreskin. I wish that we had before having our first son...maybe he would still be intact.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Meri Gomez
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnw-eqhn

Circumcision is dangerous and causes undue pain and possible sexual disfunction. It needs to be outlawed!

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Felix Persall
Posted:
2015-02-02
Organization:
CDC
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnw-7qpa

LEAVE ALL MALE BABY'S AND YOUNGE AND OLDER MALES LET THEM DECIDE ON THERE OWN. FOR YOUR TAKING 50-70 THOUSAND NERVE CELLS THAT HARMS ALL MALE PENIS. ALSO KEEP YOUR MIND AND YOUR VIEWS TO YOUSELF.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Angela B
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnw-dtmo

Since the "health benefits" of male circumcision are so negligible, it should be illegal and frowned upon just like circumcising females in this country. Body modification, especially genital mutilation, should never be forced on a minor. Deciding to have healthy, erogenous tissue removed is not a parental choice, even if supported by biased propaganda such as this. I hope these recommendations are amended to support bodily autonomy for all sexes.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
CARRIE BORING
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnw-a4er

Medical organizations from other developed countries, among them the Netherlands, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark, have drawn the opposite conclusions from those of the CDC. They know that circumcision does NOT prevent HIV and STIs, and that the foreskin plays an important role in enhancing sexual pleasure and experience.

Circumcision results in the permanent loss of sensitive, natural and healthy tissue, the drying out of the head of the penis, and damage to nerves and the vascular system of the penis.

Rather than promoting circumcision, the CDC should be calling for systematic study of the harms that result from unnecessary circumcision surgery and wasted health care dollars.

The CDC cannot responsibly state that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks, when neither the short- or long-term risks have been systematically studied.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
miranda hertwig
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnw-uu13

Per the Federal Register notice, no images are being posted in this docket. Links that contain images have been redacted.

Recommendations surrounding decision making included:

consideration of religion, societal norms and social customs, hygiene, aesthetic preference, and ethics.

While function of the foreskin was not mentioned, this is a very important consideration during the decision making process. Many people have a misunderstanding of what the prepuce organ does and how to care for it. In order to make an informed decision about sexual organ removal, it would be helpful to understand the purpose of the organ and have a basic understanding of the anatomy of the natural penis.

Functions of the foreskin are as follows:

During infancy the prepuce protects the glans and urinary meatus from foreign debris and invading bacteria. The opening of the prepuce remains tightly closed until urination, ensuring no harmful matter will enter. It then relaxes and allows urine to pass, sterilizing the inside of the penis as it flows through. The opening will stay tightly closed until the next act of urination.

The foreskin is a protective layer of skin to shield the penis from accidents such as burns, lacerations, abrasions and every day contaminants such as lint from clothing or harmful bacteria. This function remains through adulthood.

As a natural consequence of removing the prepuce organ and it's protections, circumcision removes the mentioned functions and leaves the glans exposed and vulnerable. Circumcised boys under 3 years of age are significantly more likely to experience an irritated and reddened meatus, balanitis and trapped epithelial debris.(1)

Care takers of neonates, toddlers and adolescent boys with an intact foreskin should be informed about the anatomy of the foreskin and how to care for it. AAP warns against harmful cleaning, stating "Forcing the foreskin to retract before it is ready can cause severe pain, bleeding, and tears in the skin."(2) Parents and care takers should be fully informed that retracting the foreskin before it is ready gives bacteria a door to enter and invade through tears and easier access to the meatus.

During adulthood the foreskin keeps the glans moist and sensitive. While flaccid, it shields the tip from the outside environmental factors that will cause the glans to callous. When a circumcised penis is exposed to air or diapers and clothing rubbing against the bare glans and cause keratinization. This is easy to see in a simple intact vs circumcised picture of the glans and give parents in the decision making process a visual of how the adult penis differs in each state.

How the penis in either given state differs during sexual activity may also be a point of interest such as the dispersal of pheromones the gliding action of the foreskin that provides cushion to both the owner of the penis and his partner and the foreskin's self lubricating function during sex.

With the questionable ethics of "counselling" minors on sexual organ removal, the less than reliable studies cited on HIV, the claim that that neonatal circumcision is safer that was not cited, and the consistently flawed and ethical issues of these recommendations are refuted by other major medical organizations.

One notable quote from The Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG): "There is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene[...]circumcision is not justifiable except on medical/therapeutic grounds. Insofar as there are medical benefits, such as a possibly reduced risk of HIV infection, it is reasonable to put off circumcision until the age at which such a risk is relevant and the boy himself can decide about the intervention, or can opt for any available alternatives. Contrary to what is often thought, circumcision entails the risk of medical and psychological complications. The most common complications are bleeding, infections, meatus stenosis (narrowing of the urethra) and panic attacks. Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors conflicts with the childs right to

autonomy and physical integrity."(3)

In conclusion, it is apparent that the anatomy of the circumcised and intact penis differ, therefore doctors and paediatricians should understand these points and include in counselling others before they make an important sexual decision for their self or others. One cannot be fully informed about the removal of an organ if one does not know what it does or how to care for it, therefore, to only consider the religious, social norms and customs, hygiene, the aesthetic preference and the ethical is incomplete without a comprehensive knowledge of the anatomy of both the cut and naturally born penis.

(1) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9393302

(2)

(3) http://knmg.artsennet.nl/Publicaties/KNMGpublicatie/77942/Nontherapeutic-circumcision-of-male-minors-2010.htm

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Amanda Penny
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnw-fpgl

Circumcision is an unnecessary surgery forced upon many unwilling and unconsenting infants everyday. The foreskin is not a birth defect and it serves many purposes. The money spent on this needless surgery could be put to better use. Surgery is painful and traumatic for these babies. Every human should have the right to say when and if they want to permanently alter his/her body. We protect our infant girls, why do we harm our boys? Circumcision doesn't prevent STIs, if it did then circ'd males wouldn't have any STIs. The government should not condone needless and pointless mutilation of anyone's genitals. Please don't assist in doling out useless information of outdated statistics that further perpetuate slicing little boys penises.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Allison Cox
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnw-vwnn

Foreskin is normal, healthy, functioning tissue. It should not be removed from a newborn baby or child. If a person wants to alter their body, they can do it at age of consent. Nobody should be able to make that decision for them.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Rood Andersson
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnw-h57g

By recommending the universal amputation of normal, healthy infant and adolescent penile tissue based upon an African model, the CDC is tarnishing their reputation, as the conditions which fostered HIV/AIDS in Africa don't exist in the USA. By pretending they do, members of the CDC bring disrepute both upon themselves.

African HIV/AIDS was not caused or spread by penile tissue, it was and is spread among people by long traditions of rampant male promiscuity.

Fully 60% of all HIVAIDS cases in Africa are found among women, spread to them by men who have a tradition of having multiple sexual partners. They believe it their right, whether the female be young or old. PBS Journalist Sharlayne Hunter-Gault reported from South Africa that many African men feel it their right to rape young girls, Indeed, some African men prey on infants, confident children won't have STD's.

It is shocking to learn the CDC, designed to protect Americans, has the temerity to advocate the forcible rape of American infant and boys by a painful, unnecessary, wasteful, expensive, and harmful procedure, simply because African men have a tradition of raping women.

The CDC implies prior consent is always necessary, but the only way infants and adolescent boys can possibly express their feelings about being forcibly strapped down, while their genitals are mutilated by men with knives ... is by screaming in pain and going into shock.

Members of the CDC attempt to transfer their guilt onto innocent parents, whose concerns are inflated by having doctors fill them with stories about all sorts of dread afflictions ... tactics similar to those used during the past century to convince parents to submit their children to the amputation of healthy penile tissue.

The CDC gives short shrift to the many untoward consequences of genital amputation .. We are assured "only" 0.05 % of infants between birth and one year of age experience complications, but a half percent of the million boys now circumcised every year equals 5,000 boys. Do we merely dismiss those thousands, and the many complications experienced by older boys?

Not counting the loss of tissue absolutely necessary to a normal sex life, complications may often be minor, though many are truly horrific. I've seen photographs that would make normal people gasp in disgust and horror.

UTI's, being one of the CDC's reasons for recommending the amputation of healthy penile tissue, reminds of Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis, the Hungarian physician who discovered washing hands and surgical instruments in birthing hospitals prevented childbed fever (usually resulted in the death of thousands of mothers). Semmelweis was literally driven into insanity by virulent opposition to his theory from fellow doctors.

His story bears an ironic connection to today's UTI cases. Whereas washing hands and surgical instruments could have saved the lives of countless numbers of women in childbirth, too rigourous bathing of infants in hot, soapy water is what usually causes UTI's, as soap suds get into every genital nook and cranny, killing good bacterial strains, thus promoting infection.

Counseling parents to wash their children in clean, clear water, only, would virtually eliminate UTI's. Girls get UTI's, too, but they never face amputation. One might think doctors enjoy cutting boys.

If the amputation of flesh were the answer doctors might better amputate children's fingers ... by which most infections are transmitted. If this sounds bizarre ... why amputate genital flesh?

The worst consequence of infant circumcision is death. Thymos: The Journal of Boyhood Studies estimates over a hundred American boys die every year as a consequence of circumcision, but parents rarely if ever hear mention of that grim possibility, when asked to give consent.

The CDC has not estimated the cost of herding intact infants, adolescents and adult males into hospitals to have part of their penis amputated, but genital cutting is not a priority for most hard-pressed middle income people. Those same parents would be incensed to learn how much money hospitals make selling children's foreskins to cosmetic and tissue firms. Vivisection, that's what it is: mining the bodies of innocent infants for profit.

One risk was recently reported by Danish doctors, who suggest correlations between autism and circumcision, when such amputations are accomplished in the first five years of a child's life. The CDC must address this report, published in the Royal Journal of Medicine.

The CDC acts as though nothing is known of the complex anatomy and functions of the intact penis, though the literature is full of remarkable findings by such men as Drs, Cold and Taylor, revealing the specialized nature of the glans and inner foreskin. Evidently CDC doctors are victims, too, and know little of normal, intact male sexuality.

Tens of thousands of men restoring their foreskins DO know.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Elizabeth Hoskins
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnw-tc5y

Medical organizations around the world see circumcision for what it is, a worthless and damaging act that violates a person's human rights to genital autonomy. No other health organization around the world recommends the routine circumcision of newborn males, and in fact, many have denounced the practice and warn of the many harms. Removing a healthy, functional, and normal part of a person's sexual organs is a gross violation of medical ethics and basic human rights. No disease, no consent, no surgery. What other healthy body parts would you have doctors counsel parents on removing from their newborns at birth because they *might* cause an issue later in life?

In 2013, the European medical community denounced the American practice of circumcision as "cultural bias," with no valid medical benefits. Their report was published in the American Academy of Pediatrics' official medical journal 'Pediatrics.' Their report can be reviewed here:

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

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Cynthia Maloney
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnw-ai0l

I have been extensively researching circumcision for the past five years and I am disgusted by your current stance on the forced genital cutting of baby boys.

If I, a person who does research independently, can find out the what the benefits of keeping the foreskin intact, and the junk science used to prove otherwise, then your organization - the Center for Disease Control - should be able to do the same.

Instead you are pushing a barbaric blood ritual that has NO health benefits in the neonatal period, or childhood. This surgery has many risks, up to and including death. It provides only harm to children that are unable to consent resist or escape.

This stance violate ALL medical ethics.

I have lost ALL faith in your organization and your recommendations from here on out. Your agenda has nothing to do with the health and safety of our youngest and most vulnerable citizens and everything to do with lining your pockets with blood money.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Angie Johnston
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnw-n13o

Please stop giving people the impression that circumcision is okay. It's a barbaric, harmful practice that we should never put baby boys through.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Richard Brevard Russell IV
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnw-g92p

In the Laboratory-of-Real-Life, males in Europe and Japan are not circumcised; those cultures have much better male genital health than males in mostly circumcised US. HIV infection rate of US is six times that of several nations in Europe, three times that of several others, and two times that of European nations with highest HIV rates (600%, 300%, and 200% as much US HIV as in Europe, applying percentage approach similar to that used to say controlled trials in Africa reduce HIV by 60% with circumcision). Actual difference in African trials was less than two percentage points. Even if Africa trials were not manipulated in any way to favor circumcision, they deal with circumcision of young men between 18 and 25. That doesnt say circumcising infant boys in US will yield same results; clearly US practice of circumcision has not worked to reduce HIV infections in the US. Why then do AAP and CDC wish to cause ever more circumcisions to happen? Maybe for whatever personal, emotional reasons they have? As a general rule circumcised men want other men circumcised; they are psychologically challenged by the sight of a foreskin, fearing its owner may have something good they dont have. Worldwide HIV rates are easily found in widely available research sources; they are compiled from public health data with no circumcision agenda, the sort of resource that should be considered, rather than pseudo-scientific reports from scientists with an agenda of finding value in circumcision.

When I was circumcised in a US hospital by a US physician, a day or two after I was born, my circumcision was horribly botched. It required numerous sutures to save a partially amputated glans. I developed long term amputation stump pain at the point of reattachment. The pain became extremely severe when I began to develop sexual maturity. It was intermittent, recurring several times daily, lasting several hours at each event. By the time I was about 25 the pain became somewhat milder, of shorter duration at each event, recurring less frequently (several times a week rather than several times a day). It still jumped in at times of its own choosing and could disrupt intimate moments. No space for details, but mine was a life of great confusion and sexual dysfunction. Beyond sex, the pain could disrupt lucid thinking for a man working in a profession that required extreme mental concentration and alertness. Later in life I met some kind and compassionate medical and mental health professionals from whom I learned how to accomplish the unimaginable: Through changes in daily life routines my body was able to extrude debris from the scar line where my glans had been reattached. Sadly there was no budget to subject these extrusions to laboratory analysis, but the best guesses are that they were either suture tunnels that had not come out with the sutures, or that they were neuromas developed there in response to the amputation incision and its repair. By this time episodes of pain were recurring only three or four times a month; after a few months of no recurring pain I was able to conclude with some confidence that the extruded debris had been the cause of a life of pain. Any time I asked any US doctor for help with pain, I was told that pain from circumcision is not possible, that it was my imagination. I was once threatened with this: Anyone who thinks there is anything wrong with circumcision is crazy and belongs in an insane asylum. No such doctor ever even looked at the scars I hoped they would examine to consider help for me. From my experience, I can only conclude that this is how US medicine (and now US CDC) deals with circumcision botches. They dont happen. Men who complain are crazy. Or worse, do not exist. We are merely erased. Is this how circumcision is preserved and perpetuated by US medicine, along with the pseudo-science used to get parents to buy the medical product being offered for sale?

America's century long experimentation on sexual organs of small children is a failure. Its time to quit propping up a golden goose at the expense of boys who deserve to grow up with a whole body, free from complications of dangerous genital surgery. Circumcision is a prehistoric blood ritual, given rudimentary legitimacy by two extant, organized religions, and by US medicines cult of cutting. About 20% of Earths males are circumcised; about 16% of Earths population is Muslim. Most of the difference is made up of US males who have been circumcised by US medicine. The US CDC should not endorse medicines money grab for circumcision fees. CDCs initiative is clearly to get more consent from parents; problem is, the baby boy is NOT consenting to amputation surgery that may leave him a sexual cripple. Its time for CDC to end its foray into circumcision advocacy, to avoid a calamitous historical record of promoting a commercial product that harms children.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
D. Roy Mitchell, IV
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnw-2dnm

Even when genital cutting is performed without medical complications, evidence shows needless ongoing damage (see Narvaez, 11JAN2015 "Circumcisions Psychological Damage" http://www.psychologytoday.com//circumcision-s-psychologic ].The push for infant genital mutilation appears partly based in misunderstanding &/or ignorance, partly in ideological/religious bias, and partly in a monetary profit motive. None of these is worthy of the CDC. I expect better results for my tax money paying your salaries and shall inform my congressional representatives of this expectation if the CDC continues to act in a religiously biased manner &/or serving as a shill for profit incentives of the medical lobby.The USA is not sub-Saharan Africa so the (arguable) merits of infant genital mutilation in later STD control for truck drivers visiting prostitutes in the Congo and Rwanda are inapplicable here, nor constitute justification for cutting all American infants given potential for damage both immediately and long term.Remember your oath: First, do no harm.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Resentful Cut American
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnw-q5zl

In the name of decency, human rights and integrity, please don't proceed forward with this absurd statement and guideline. The damage already wrought by circumcision is documented and so repeatedly expressed. Should the CDC ignore these thousand of comments trying to educate, enlighten and stir you to care, we can weep as a nation and wonder how can such blatant and self-apparent de facto cruelty go on. Skeptics call this just a formality and The CDC won't be moved because it's the US government. For the sake of baby boys who don't want and don't need their bodies carved on for cultural reasons, please do the medically ethical thing and disavow circumcision. The circumcision industry in the US can find honest alternatives for income. Cutting on perfect babies like this should be unlawful.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnw-qukk

As a health care provider, I am appalled that the CDC would even release this proposal the public. This should have been squashed before it ever became a proposal. Medical establishments like the CDC putting out recommendations like this are why the rest of the developed world are constantly pointing out the cultural bias against foreskins in the United States. It is a sad reality that this type of rhetoric is usually the result of professionals with either a total lack of knowledge about the intact penis or a subconscious need to defend their own surgically altered genitalia by proposing policy in favor of circumcision. Stop promoting unnecessary violence against infants. First do no harm.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
John Hecker
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnw-rbzp

Circumcision is painful. Not only are doctors not giving anesthesia in the way it has been suggested, but the needle to deliver it is painful. Then there is the horrible cutting, and breaking the synchea. Then, the foreskin is torn from the glans.This is likely the most pain a human body can experience, because it takes place on one of the most highly ennervated spots.

The CDC is a party to all of this. You could obey the prime directive, first do no harm, but choose to ignore it.Further, you are now actively recommending it. This is going to cause millions more boys to suffer.My question is, knowing all of this as you undoubtedly do, how do you sleep at night?

When the protesters show up, you won't have to wonder why.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Sarah Coyle
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnw-7l9w

I oppose these recomendations for medical reasons and human rights. There are literally scores of studies which document the HARM done by infant circumcision, including damage to the immune system, lifelong sexual dysfunction for circumcised males AND their sexual partners, and very importantly, emotional damage done including permanent trauma, rewiring of the baby's brain to confuse pain with sex, disrupted emotional attachment, impaired breastfeeding, and a higher likelihood of erectile dysfuction and depression in adulthood.

Subjecting non-consenting persons to amputation of a healthy, highly important body part is a gross violation of human rights. Recommending such practice is highly unethical and should not occur.

Adult men have the capacity to review the literature and make an informed choice. This is a choice that ONLY an adult man can or should make for himself. No one should ever force an amputation that will negatively impact a person for the rest of their life. We do not have the right to do this to a baby or a child.

To follow the logic of the CDC, virtually all body parts should be amutated during childhood because they all run risk of incurring disease, correct? Why target the foreskin? Why not aputate a baby's lips because they might spread oral herpes someday while kissing? Because alas, lips have many important functions, including protecting the mouth, and allowing for speaking and eating. Foreskins also have many important fuctions, such as protecting the penis and allowing for intense, natual sexual pleasure which DOES NOT HAPPEN to nearly the degree or in the same way as a foreskin provides. To remove this experience from non-consenting persons is not acceptable.

No parent, doctor, or government agency has the right to permanently disfigure, traumatize, and destroy natural sexual pleasure for a man and his sexual partners for the rest of his life, for a dubious and questionable reduction in disease that can be avoided through benign and more appropriate means such as condoms (which will be needed anyway).

Speaking of which, circumcision plus a condom equals almost zero sensation, while men with foreskins AND condoms can still feel - and enjoy - what they are doing.

Do the right thing and rescind this policy.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnw-a49b

There are no health benefits to mutilating a babies genitals. Are there health benefits to female circumcision? Is female circumcision legal? Didn't think so, why is male genital mutilion legal and advocated for?

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Julie Scofield
Posted:
2015-02-02
Organization:
NASTAD
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnx-kabw

January 16, 2015

Division of HIV/AIDS PreventionNational Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB PreventionCenters for Disease Control and Prevention1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop D-21Atlanta, Georgia 30333

Attention: CDC-2014-0012-0001

To Whom It May Concern:

On behalf of the National Alliance of State & Territorial AIDS Directors (NASTAD), which represents the public health officials that administer state and territorial HIV/AIDS and viral hepatitis prevention and care programs nationwide, I am writing to provide comment regarding recommendations for male circumcision to prevent HIV, STIs and other health outcomes.

With over 50,000 new HIV infections in the United States each year, we must take every step necessary to prevent new infections. For this reason, we support the use of evidence-based medical interventions to prevent the transmission of HIV. As with every medical intervention, it is imperative that at-risk male patients and parents of newborn males receive comprehensive counseling on the risks and benefits of male circumcision. With this information, male patients and parents of newborn males will be able to decide if circumcision is in their best interest and weigh medical information in the perspective of their own religious, moral and cultural beliefs.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments regarding recommendations for male circumcision to prevent HIV and STIs. We appreciate your attention and consideration of these comments. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (202) 434-8090 or by email at jscofield@NASTAD.org if you have questions related to these comments.

Sincerely, Julie M. ScofieldExecutive Director

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
anonymos anonymos
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnx-bw2b

Your guidelines are dangerous and will cause pain, harm and sexual dysfunction.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Anonymous Anonymous
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnx-75ly

I am writing to encourage the CDC to stand by its draft recommendations. Data should guide medical recommendations, not public pressure from special interest groups. My comments exceed the 5000 character limit, so please refer to the attached file.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Georganne Chapin
Posted:
2015-02-02
Organization:
Intact America/Attorneys for the Rights of the Child
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnx-513v

The following comments were jointly prepared by Intact America and Attorneys for the Rights of the Child both not-for-profit organizations dedicated to protecting children from medically unnecessary genital surgery to which they cannot consent.In compiling its proposed recommendations, the CDC ignored the considerable and reputable literature from the fields of medicine, medical ethics, law, and human rights that questions the legitimacy of foreskin removal (circumcision) as a health care measure.Recommendation #1 acknowledges that routine circumcision in the United States is primarily a religious, social, cultural and cosmetic procedure. As such, and in the absence of diagnosable pathology, infant and child circumcision and the circumcision of any individual in the absence of full informed consent (including the functions and benefits of the foreskin) is unethical. The CDC fails to mention that many medical organizations, legislatures, and ethicists from European and Commonwealth countries with sophisticated medical systems and lower rates of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HIV, have criticized the American medical establishment for its cultural bias toward circumcision, for exaggerating the procedures benefits, and for ignoring and understating its risks and harms. The CDC also fails to acknowledge that even the merest pin prick of a minor girls genitals whether motivated by religion, culture or aesthetic preference violates federal laws against female genital mutilation. The U.S. Constitution guarantees equal treatment of females and males; thus the circumcision of non-consenting male minors combined with the protection of female minors constitutes illegal discrimination. It also may constitute establishment of a religion in violation of the Constitution. Recommendation # 2 states that all sexually active adolescent and adult males need to use other (i.e., other than circumcision) proven HIV and STI risk-reduction strategies. The question must then be asked: Why perform surgery at all? Recommendation #3 fails to mention that there has been no systematic longitudinal study of long-term harms and complications from neonatal circumcision many of which doctors are not taught to recognize and some of which do not appear until later in life. Nor do the recommendations acknowledge that unnecessary surgery itself causes harm. A California Appeals Court has stated, Even if a surgery is executed flawlessly, if the surgery were unnecessary, the surgery in and of itself constitutes harm." Recommendation #4 fails to mention that urinary tract infections can be treated with simple antibiotics rather than surgical removal of a healthy body part; that balanitis and balanoposthitis are treatable with topical creams; that penile cancer is extremely rare, and no medical organization (including the American Cancer Society) recommends circumcision as a preventive measure. The CDCs reference to a possibility that circumcised males are less likely to experience prostate cancer is purely speculative and thus inappropriate to cite as an argument for circumcision. The CDC acknowledges that the risk [of HIV and STIs] for any individual neonate, child or adolescent cannot be definitively defined at the time that a circumcision decision is made. The CDC fails to examine and weigh the immunological, protective, erogenous, and other functions of the tissue being removed. Surrogate (i.e., parental) permission for a procedure on a child is only valid in the case of a serious or life-threatening disease or illness. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) states that the surrogate is limited to providing informed permission for diagnosis and treatment of children. Non-therapeutic child circumcision is neither diagnosis nor treatment and thus falls outside parental power to consent. Regarding the timing of male circumcision, the recommendations dismiss the important fact that infants are not at risk of STIs. The recommendations also mention the lower cost of neonatal circumcision as justification. This claim is irrelevant as any surgery is too expensive if unnecessary. Regarding complications, mounting evidence indicates that both circumcised men and their partners experience sexual problems as a result of the male having had his foreskin permanently removed.The AAPs 2012 technical report on circumcision has been roundly criticized for reasons also applicable to the CDC recommendations: cultural bias, cherry-picking of evidence, repeatedly stating that benefits of circumcision outweigh its risks without providing evidence of the harms, and omitting information about the functions of the foreskin.In sum, the CDC exaggerates the benefits of circumcision, minimizes its risks, utterly ignores the function and benefits of the foreskin, and blithely disregards critical ethical and legal questions regarding the rights of all children to enjoy their normal, natural sex organs.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Michelle VanGurp
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnx-du2h

None of the arguments in favor of preventive surgery put forth by the CDC outweigh the risks and costs of male circumcision. An analysis of the CDCs own data suggests that it would take 5,000 of these preventive surgeries to prevent one case of HIV transmission. Pre-emptive amputation of healthy functional tissue is not an acceptable medical practice, and is contrary to medical ethics and practices worldwide.

The CDC claims their conclusions were evidence-based. It now apparent that the body of evidence reviewed was biased, narrow, and of little relevance to the American population. If American medicine isn't going to look to other countries with similar demographics and take into account the views of every other "first world" country on the planet that does NOT circumcise their infants, why are we focused on Sub-Saharan African nations, that bear no semblance to our own population?

The chief reason stated by the CDC for its new policy is HIV prevention. The studies cited by the CDC purporting to show that circumcision reduces transmission of STIs were conducted in poor rural areas of sub-Saharan Africa over eight years ago. These studies have never been replicated elsewherelet alone in the United Statesand have no relevance to children or men in the developed world. In fact, a study conducted in the U.S. came to the conclusion that circumcision provided no protection against HIV, and this was ignored by the CDC. (Ref: US Naval Health Research Center) Medical organizations from other developed countries, among them the Netherlands, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark, have drawn the opposite conclusions from those of the CDC. They know that circumcision does NOT prevent HIV and STIs, and that the foreskin plays an important role in enhancing sexual pleasure and experience.

Circumcision results in the permanent loss of sensitive, natural and healthy tissue, the drying out of the head of the penis, and damage to nerves and the vascular system of the penis. Surveying 133 men immediately following their ADULT consensual circumcision about the (subjective) sensitivity of their penises is NOT an unbiased "study". Infant circumcision is a) prophylactic (at best) b) done on a basis of "Parental Choice/Preference" rather than actual medical need and c) deeply cultural. What other procedures are performed under the guise of medicine that we rely on cultural, religious, and parental preferences over medical necessity? NONE.

Rather than promoting circumcision, the CDC should be calling for systematic study of the harms that result from unnecessary circumcision surgery and wasted health care dollars. There need to be MORE studies on the physical and psychological long-term harms of infant circumcision, and there are numerous. The CDC cannot responsibly state that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks, when neither the short- or long-term risks have been systematically studied.

I am concerned that by promoting unnecessary and potentially harmful surgery on infants, children and adolescents, the Centers for Disease Control, an agency of the federal government, is perpetuating a cultural practice that is increasingly being called into question by medical communities worldwide. The CDC may also be violating constitutional guarantees of equal protection, given that it is illegal under both federal and state laws to inflict even a minor surgical cutting on the genitals of female children.The CDC is actually contributing to the squandering of limited healthcare dollars - funds that could better be spent on medically necessary services.

The current rate of newborn circumcision is dropping in the US. If adopted, this guideline will be an attempt to reverse that trend. Increasing numbers of circumcision procedures, and procedures addressing the complications from circumcision, will increase costs for all payers, including Medicaid. This will further strain the limited resources available to treat real threats to health and longevity.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Brittany Joiner
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnx-v5ca

This is disappointing that the cdc is paying more mind to America's culture of cutting rather than the well being of boys. How strange that Americans can't take care of their penis and the rest of the world can. How is the American penis composted to a European penis? And also, why not teach condoms, not cutting... This guideline basically gives circumcised men a free pass for unprotected sex... Afterall, didn't you know that circumcised men don't get hiv? Rethink your guidelines!

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Daniel Capobianco
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnx-7ysl

None of the arguments in favor of preventive surgery put forth by the CDC outweigh the risks and costs of male circumcision. An analysis of the CDCs own data suggests that it would take 5,000 of these preventive surgeries to prevent one case of HIV transmission. Pre-emptive amputation of healthy functional tissue is not an acceptable medical practice, and is contrary to medical ethics and practices worldwide.

The CDC claims their conclusions were evidence-based. It now apparent that the body of evidence reviewed was biased, narrow, and of little relevance to the American population.

The chief reason stated by the CDC for its new policy is HIV prevention. The studies cited by the CDC purporting to show that circumcision reduces transmission of STIs were conducted in poor rural areas of sub-Saharan Africa over eight years ago. These studies have never been replicated elsewherelet alone in the United Statesand have no relevance to children or men in the developed world. In fact, a study conducted in the U.S. came to the conclusion that circumcision provided no protection against HIV, and this was ignored by the CDC. (Ref: US Naval Health Research Center) Medical organizations from other developed countries, among them the Netherlands, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark, have drawn the opposite conclusions from those of the CDC. They know that circumcision does NOT prevent HIV and STIs, and that the foreskin plays an important role in enhancing sexual pleasure and experience.Circumcision results in the permanent loss of sensitive, natural and healthy tissue, the drying out of the head of the penis, and damage to nerves and the vascular system of the penis.

This is an unnecessary procedure with few benefits in the developed world. Please reconsider your recommendationit will create harm at scale!

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Kelsi Kennedy
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnx-dznm

The recommendation is not based on relevant information to our country. We don't have the same prevalence of HIV in America, nor do we have the same primary forms of transmission. The choice about an individuals penis should be left to that individual. Other countries with extremely low circumcision rates (Latin countries and the UK) have no higher risk of HIV.

Furthermore, the idea that men are somehow "protected" because they are circumcised is very harmful because condoms are the most effective way to prevent the spread of stds and HIV. Stating that circumcision reduces the spread of disease is dangerous because it doesn't promote safe sex (particularly among teens)

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Candace Blanchette
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnx-pe4j

The most important aspect of this debate is the ability of the child in the absence of medical necessity to make his own informed choices about his own most sensitive, private parts. That right does not belong to his mother, father, doctor, or government. Men around the world remain intact without complications. We understand genital cutting of females to be morally reprehensible, and our males deserve the same respect.

Submitted:
2015-01-16
Author:
Jennifer Petrus
Posted:
2015-02-02
Tracking Number:
1jz-8gnx-7ydd

This proposed policy goes against the Hippocratic Oath. In cases where no pathology is present, then no surgery is required, and it would be highly unethical for health care workers to counsel parents of boys, and the boys themselves, on the "benefits" of circumcision at routine visits. For any doctor to perform this cosmetic surgery on a healthy minor is completely against medical ethics. Even if there were any merit to the claims of prophylaxis (medical societies in countries other than the U.S.A. are not jumping to recommend circumcision for disease prevention), the decision to choose this radical amputative surgery for such reasons can only be made by the owner of the penis when he is a competent adult. It is already shameful enough how parents are badgered by hospital staff and doctors about having their newborn circumcised. Instead of making a policy to continue pushing this unnecessary and harmful surgery, repeatedly, at every encounter with a healthcare provider, throughout the child's life, the CDC should instead be taking medical ethics and scientific studies seriously, and banning the solicitation for unnecessary surgery on those too young to consent (note that proxy consent by parents is only actually valid in cases where urgent need for the intervention to be done has been established, although this is routinely ignored as parents give "consent" to have an amputation performed on a perfectly healthy child.)In considering possible "benefits," it is important to have a clear accounting of the attendant risks and harms. This excellent document clearly outlines that when one concludes that the "risks" of circumcision are minimal, it is because they are only considering immediate risk of surgical complications, and disregarding the lifelong HARM that is inflicted by the surgery: http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/male-and-female-circumcision-are-equally-wrong/ (the relevant part is about halfway through, although you would do well to read and understand the entire document.)Bottom line, the CDC should not be in the business of pushing for harmful, risky surgery on perfectly healthy people.Another problem with the proposed policy to continually push for circumcision is the effect it could have on the emotional health of the boys and young men. Imagine if every time you interacted with a health care provider, you were advised that your natural and whole body was unacceptable; a disease risk that needed to be altered surgically. I actually know someone who went through this. Every time he went to his doctor as a teen, the doctor would conclude the checkup by asking when he was going to get "THAT" "taken care of." Previously, this young man (from a Latin American heritage) had not thought there was anything wrong with his body, but after being embarrassed and hounded by his doctor, he began to feel like there was something very wrong with him. He eventually agreed to the surgery at age 18. He had complications from the circumcision and is unable to have a normal sex life or even to masturbate satisfactorily, and all because of a doctor pushing his culturally biased prejudice against a normal penis. And now you want to make this kind of thing an official policy?? No. Just no.