Decline in circumcision rate could cost billions

Why does it feel like every controversial thread on science/medicine on here involves both sides just posting articles over and over?

"Look at my article!"

"No! That article is false. Look at this article instead"

"Ok well I'll post another article then"

"Me too. In fact, I'm going to post 4 articles in a row!"
 
Obviously the mammary ridge, milk-duct system and lobes can be removed from infant females, thus nearly eliminating the potential medical cost of breast cancer. This will result in quite a government budget savings in the future.

When you find it necessary to resort to absolute absurdity to support your position, you probably should grow up, step back and take another look at your position.

(Did you not know that there are indeed women who opt to have radical mastectomies before the cancer shows up? I can tell you lots about that, as every woman in my husband's mother's side of the family gets breast cancer. So you're not actually all that far off. They weighed the risks vs the rewards, and decided it was best not to get cancer.)
 
LOL, of course, the reason is "no access to health care", not the fact that people are beginning to realize that if genital mutilation is wrong for little girls then it's wrong for little boys as well.

Yah, people ran to the doctor ever time they got the sniffles in the 1970s, not at all like now.




Decline in circumcision rate could cost billions: study

The rate has dropped from 79% in the ‘80s to 59% now — costing the U.S. $2 billion so far. Part of the reason the rates of male circumcision have fallen is that there is reduced access to health care, say researchers.

By Victoria Cavaliere / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Tuesday, August 21, 2012, 4:52 PM

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-sty...illions-study-article-1.1141383#ixzz24DkqtFNz

The drop in rates from the 1970s and 1980s have cost the U.S. approximately $2.2 billion in additional healthcare costs.

Declining rates of circumcision among newborn boys in the U.S. could add up to billions of dollars in unnecessary medical costs for treatment of sexually transmitted diseases, a new study warns.

Rates of male circumcision have been falling steadily in the U.S. over the past twenty years, in part because of reduced access to affordable health care, according to a study published in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine.

The circumcision rate - which has dropped from 79 percent to 55 percent in the 1970s and 1980s - has already cost the nation an estimated $2 billion. That number could reach $4.4 billion if rates drop to the 10 percent circumcision level seen in Europe, the study found.

"Our economic evidence is backing up what our medical evidence has already shown to be perfectly clear," said researcher AaronTobian. "There are health benefits to infant male circumcision in guarding against illness and disease, and declining male circumcision rates come at a severe price, not just in human suffering, but in billions of health care dollars as well."

Medical experts believe that circumcision reduces the risk of urinary tract infections and STDs because it lessens the chance for bacteria or viruses to slip into the mucosal layers under the foreskin and thrive in the moist environment.

The study found that on average, each male circumcision not performed leads to $313 more in illness-related expense through a lifetime.

The decline in circumcisions on has been linked to shifting attitudes among parents as well as the loss of Medicaid coverage for such procedures in 18 states, the study found.

Some parents and health care experts have advocated an end to the practice, saying links to increased STD rates are unproven.

In San Francisco last year, anti-circumcision activists nearly got a measure criminalizing the practice on the November ballot.

- Original Post
 
angelatc is exhibiting an unusual interest in circumcised and uncircumcised penises, just saying...
 
Look HB - this is hosted on the "Doctors Against Circ" site you provided:

Risk factors for neonatal methicillinresistant Staphylococcus aureus infection in a well-infant nursery.


Results. Eleven case infants were identified in 2 outbreaks: outbreak 1 occurred from November 18 through December 24, 2003, and
outbreak 2 occurred from May 26 through June 5, 2004. All were full-term male infants with pustular-vesicular lesions in the groin.
Inspection revealed uncovered circumcision equipment, multiple-dose lidocaine vials, and inadequate hand hygiene practices. In outbreak
1, case infants ( ) had a significantly higher mean length of stay than np6 control infants (3.7 vs 2.5 days; Pp.01). In outbreak 2, case
infants (np5) were more likely to have been circumcised in the nursery (OR, undefined [95% CI, 1.7 to undefined]) and to have received
lidocaine injections (OR, undefined [95% CI, 2.6 to undefined]). Controlling for length of stay, case infants were more likely to have been
circumcised in the nursery (OR, 12.2 [95% CI, 1.5 to undefined]). Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis showed that 7 available isolates were
indistinguishable from a community-associated MRSA strain (USA300-0114).

Conclusions. Newborns in well-infant nurseries are at risk for nosocomial infection with community-associated MRSA strains. Reducing
length of stay, improving circumcision and hand hygiene practices, and eliminating use of multiple-dose lidocaine vials should decrease transmission of community-associated MRSA strains in nurseries.
If you read the whole story, you'll find that it's about the condition newborn infants are kept in, not circumcision status.
MRSA transmission was apparently facilitated by inadequatehand hygiene practices. Efforts to minimize contacts
between newborns and staff were pursued. Universal gloving
and gowning was impractical. The hospital began housing newborns
with their mothers. This approach had been reported to
reduce the incidence of nosocomial infection by fostering neonatal
colonization with maternal flora, which might prevent
colonization with more pathogenic organisms.23
Therefore, everyone should have their hands chopped off. :rolleyes:
 
Why does it feel like every controversial thread on science/medicine on here involves both sides just posting articles over and over?
Because very few of us have enough knowledge to speak authoritatively about such things. Same reason essayists cite other writers.
 
Why does it feel like every controversial thread on science/medicine on here involves both sides just posting articles over and over?

"Look at my article!"

"No! That article is false. Look at this article instead"

"Ok well I'll post another article then"

"Me too. In fact, I'm going to post 4 articles in a row!"

In this instance, it's because it's simply absurd to assert that circumcision provides no benefits to males. It's a big self-celebrating circle jerk. The point of all the documented studies is not to change minds, but to prevent minds from being contaminated by the lies and half truths those with an agenda put out.

I seriously believe that the government is more likely to outlaw circumcision than make it mandatory, which means that the elite will travel offshore to have the procedure done, while the rest of us become even more mundane.
 
If you read the whole story, you'll find that it's about the condition newborn infants are kept in, not circumcision status.

Therefore, everyone should have their hands chopped off. :rolleyes:

If you read the conclusion, they clearly said that improved circumcision rates would help solve the health problems associated with the nursery environments.
 
At the request of another member, I'll lay down my 2 cents on the subject.

1 - I do not think circumcision should be illegal.

2 - I think there is a mega shit ton of hypocrisy involved in "society" getting livid over female genital mutilation but not male.

3 - I am very opposed to any medical decision being based on or mandated by what the "collective costs" of declining or accepting a medical procedure or treatment might be.

4 - Ultimately the parents must have the final say so.
 
angela, I don't know why you bother posting all those studies, considering that the same argument can be used to cut the entire penis.

Again, if you have to resort to the absurd, you essentially are admitting you can't actually make a real case for your position.

But nobody here expects much in the way of intelligence from you anyway, so carry on!
 
Madonna-popcorn.gif
 
At the request of another member, I'll lay down my 2 cents on the subject.

1 - I do not think circumcision should be illegal.

2 - I think there is a mega shit ton of hypocrisy involved in "society" getting livid over female genital mutilation but not male.

3 - I am very opposed to any medical decision being based on or mandated by what the "collective costs" of declining or accepting a medical procedure or treatment might be.

4 - Ultimately the parents must have the final say so.

Absolutely. But to angrily deny that there are medical benefits to circumcision isn't doing the world any great favors. Parents can't make informed decisions when they only hear propaganda. That's true of any topic.
 
Why does it feel like every controversial thread on science/medicine on here involves both sides just posting articles over and over?

"Look at my article!"

"No! That article is false. Look at this article instead"

"Ok well I'll post another article then"

"Me too. In fact, I'm going to post 4 articles in a row!"

Why? Easy. It bumped my reply to her post, lol.
 
No they don't. Usually these are statistical studies, with no controls whatsoever. They are not scientific, and often do not take into account the most obvious of outside factors. And even at that, when these biased studies do find small statistical differences, that is not enough to warrant performing unnecessary surgery. The crux of the whole bean-counting economic argument here in the OP revolves around the expense of the very small amount of people who will contract AIDS.

And the exact same argument being used here will be used for a whole host of other procedures, not the least of which is a whole host of vaccines and drugs, all potentially to be government mandated.

I would think that the clinical studies that were posted in my stream should be enough to disprove the assertion that those are statistical studies. (HB's study was, in fact, "only" a statistical study, but I wasn't going to point that out, because AFAIK, they count.)

And you're wrong about the crux being centered on AIDs. There are other considerations - uncircumcised infants are more likely to get urinary tract infections, and they stand a higher risk of developing penile cancer. OTOH, circumcised infants stand a bigger chance of developing infections related to the circumcision.

I don't get the contradiction - how can we hope that the market will win if it's suddenly taboo to discuss the cost/benefits analysis of procedures.

"Our economic evidence is backing up what our medical evidence has already shown to be perfectly clear," said researcher AaronTobian.

Damn those bean counters, indeed.

"We dare not speak the truth, because somebody might use it against us." There's no win in that.
 
Last edited:
When you find it necessary to resort to absolute absurdity to support your position, you probably should grow up, step back and take another look at your position.

(Did you not know that there are indeed women who opt to have radical mastectomies before the cancer shows up? I can tell you lots about that, as every woman in my husband's mother's side of the family gets breast cancer. So you're not actually all that far off. They weighed the risks vs the rewards, and decided it was best not to get cancer.)

Yes, I am aware of preventative mastectomies. Which makes the analogy very appropriate, and not as absurd as it might seem. It's a matter of "normality", isn't it? Cutting of this part is ludicrous, cutting off that part is common sense. Sounds more like cultural norms than science.
 
Back
Top