- Nov 26, 2011
- 123,585
- 55,212
- 2,290
Do the boy child a favor and get him cut, folks.
And a lot of unnecessary added pain.
Besides, an uncircumcised penis is fugly.
You can read the orginal policy statement here: Circumcision Policy Statement
For the new policy statement, researchers formed a task force in 2007 to review evidence from 1,000 studies that took place between 1995 and 2010. They found that the procedure had preventive benefits, including a major risk reduction for male urinary tract infections - especially during the first year of life - and a lower risk of cancer, and heterosexual acquisition of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. Specifically, risk for herpes was 28 to 34 percent lower for circumcised men and risk for HPV was reduced by 30 to 40 percent.
Based on current rates, it appears an increasing number of parents are opting to skip the procedure. A recent analysis from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found the U.S. circumcision rate fell from about 63 percent of newborn boys in 1999 to 55 percent in 2010. In the 1980s, the U.S. circumcision rate was about 79 percent of newborn boys.
A study in last week's Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine found the 20-year decline may have already contributed to about $2 billion in additional medical costs, for care related to treating urinary tract infections and sexually transmitted diseases throughout a male's lifetime. The researchers say if the trend continues to where only 10 percent of U.S. males are circumcised - rates similar to Europe - the country could face about $4.4 billion in health care costs - an added $407 per man.
And a lot of unnecessary added pain.
Besides, an uncircumcised penis is fugly.
You can read the orginal policy statement here: Circumcision Policy Statement