Utah Medicaid officials to reassess coverage of male circumcision

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • ladyjade3 Falls Church , VA
    Sept. 7, 2012 11:33 a.m.

    If there is any protective effect from circumcision on HIV acquisition it should be observable on a population level somewhere, but it is not. No where in the world is there any correlation between circumcision status of men and rates of HIV in a way that recommends circumcision. That should tell you all you need to know about the health value of the procedure and the quality of the science that has been cited.

    We all know that correlation is not causation. But they are claiming causation. Yet there is no correlation. Logically, this does not follow.

    In other words, if circumcision was protecting someone from something, you should be able to tell that from lower rates of HIV in countries that circumcise.

    But actually the statistics show - circumcised men still get AIDS.

  • mare54 KIHEI, HI
    Aug. 29, 2012 5:52 p.m.

    Did you know that the "circumcision task force" consisted of doctors who were involved in the flawed Africa studies? And many of their doctors were also Jewish? I think we can see how biased this statement is! But what is more concerning is that the AAP is even mentioning circumcision to be worthy of funding by medicaid and insurance....considering they stand to financially benefit from making such a statement......conflict of interest anyone??? I sure hope the states who dropped the funding of male genital cutting take the time to really assess the countless deficiencies in the AAP statement. After all, these are the same people who, not too long ago, were advocating for a "ritual nick" to the genitals of female infants!!!!!!! They have already lost their credibility. Foreskin is not a birth defect, so why are people cutting it off of normal healthy infants anyway???

  • ml66uk Manchester, 00
    Aug. 28, 2012 4:16 a.m.

    The AAP are way out of line with other national medical organizations, and it's very disappointing that they say this:
    "Parents are entitled to factually correct, nonbiased information about circumcision"

    but they provide information that is both biased and highly selective. They simply don't seem to consider that the foreskin might actually be valuable.

    It's really easy to find circumcised doctors who are against circumcision, but surprisingly difficult to find male doctors in favor who weren't circumcised themselves as children.

    How strange that all the health benefits the AAP claim don't seem to exist in Europe, where almost no-one circumcises unless they're Jewish or Muslim.

    I suppose it's a good thing they didn't look at operating on girls to prevent breast cancer. 11% of women get breast cancer, and 3% die of it, so the health benefits to the girls would massively outweigh the risks.

    Meanwhile, other national health organizations including the Canadian Paediatric Society and the Dutch Medical Association continue to recommend *against* circumcising newborns.

  • CraigGarrett Colorado Springs, CO
    Aug. 27, 2012 10:03 p.m.

    The AAP is now a disgrace. They are going to be the laughing stock among the international community; this new statement is way out of line with statements from other modern nations with advanced medical systems. The AAP should withdraw this statement immediately.