The United States' most influential pediatricians group has released a study saying that the health benefits of circumcision in newborn boys outweigh any risks involved (the study does not include the practice of Metzitza B'peh). They also recommended that insurance companies should pay for it, as it is likely to bring net health savings down the line.
Doctors: Benefits of Circumcision Outweigh Risks
The United States’ most influential pediatricians group has released a study saying that the health benefits of circumcision in newborn boys outweigh any risks involved (the study does not include the practice of Metzitza B’peh). They also recommended that insurance companies should pay for it, as it is likely to bring net health savings down the line.
From the AP:
In its latest policy statement on circumcision, a procedure that has been declining nationwide, the American Academy of Pediatrics moved closer to an endorsement but said the decision should be up to parents.
“It’s not a verdict from on high,” said policy co-author Dr. Andrew Freedman. “There’s not a one-size-fits-all-answer.” But from a medical standpoint, circumcision’s benefits in reducing risk of disease outweigh its small risks, said Freedman, a pediatric urologist in Los Angeles.
Recent research bolstering evidence that circumcision reduces chances of infection with HIV and other diseases, urinary tract infections and cancer influenced the academy to update their 13-year-old policy.
Their old stance said potential medical benefits were not sufficient to warrant recommending routinely circumcising newborn boys. The new one says, “The benefits of newborn male circumcision justify access to this procedure for those families who choose it.” The academy also says pain relief stronger than a sugar-coated pacifier is essential, usually an injection to numb the area.
The federal Centers for Disease Control and Convention has estimated circumcision costs range from about $200 to $600 nationwide. Coverage varies among insurers and several states have stopped Medicaid funding for circumcisions.
The new policy was published online Monday in Pediatrics. It comes amid ongoing debate over whether circumcision is medically necessary or a cosmetic procedure that critics say amounts to genital mutilation. Activists favoring a circumcision ban made headway in putting it to a vote last year in San Francisco but a judge later knocked the measure off the city ballot, ruling that regulating medical procedures is up to the state, not city officials.
In Germany, Jewish and Muslim leaders have protested a regional court ruling in June that said circumcision amounts to bodily harm.
Meantime, a recent study projected that declining U.S. circumcision rates could add more than $4 billion in health care costs in coming years because of increased illness and infections.
Circumcision involves removing foreskin at the tip of the male genitals. The procedure can reduce germs that can grow underneath the foreskin, and complications, including bleeding and infection, are rare, the academy says.
Despite the U.S. decline, about half of baby boys nationwide still undergo circumcision, or roughly 1 million each year. The country’s overall rate is much higher than in other developed nations, but U.S. rates vary by region and are higher in areas where it is a cultural or religious tradition, including among Jews and Muslims.
Psychologist Ronald Goldman, director of an anti-circumcision group, the Circumcision Resource Center, contends medical studies showing benefits are flawed and that the academy’s new position is “out of step” with medical groups in other developed countries.
The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists took part in the research review that led to the new policy and has endorsed it. Circumcisions in hospitals are typically performed by obstetricians or pediatricians.
The CDC also participated in the review, and will consider the academy’s updated policy in preparing its own recommendations, a CDC spokesman said. The agency has a fact sheet summarizing circumcision’s potential health benefits and risks but no formal guidelines.
The American Medical Association and American Academy of Family Physicians have neutral policies similar to the pediatrics academy’s previous position.
Philadelphia social worker Shannon Coyne examined medical research on circumcision before her son was born last September and had a tough time making a decision. She learned that a relative’s boy needed reconstructive surgery after a botched circumcision, and that another’s son who wasn’t circumcised developed urinary infections.
Coyne said she and her husband ultimately decided against circumcision, because she didn’t want her baby to have what she considers cosmetic surgery without being able to consent.
Her advice to other parents is “just make an informed decision. Do your research, be open-minded.”
Some 18 states have eliminated Medicaid coverage for circumcision, a trend that could contribute to rising health care costs to treat infections if circumcision rates continue to decline, according to a study published Aug. 20 in Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine.
Dr. Aaron Tobian, a Johns Hopkins University assistant professor who co-authored the study, said the academy’s updated policy “is a very good step.”
that guy
The holy Rabbi Feldman from Palo Alto. Best RABBI in the bay area!
so
all of a sudden we are using science to back up religion? thats fresh…
Milhouse
#2, Why not? Should it surprise us if Hashem’s mitzvos turn out to have physical benefits too? He made the world, after all, so it stands to reason.
Ish Cali
I agree with Milhouse. Things that benefit us spiritually are likely to benefit us physically a simple connection from above to below.
to #3 typical village idiot
for every 1 study that goes w religion there are 100 going against. are you that ignorant of the scientific community, which is in by large atheist.
its antithetical to use science when it helps us, but to throw it away when it goes against us. if you want to be a hypocrite than so be it. i will not.
Milhouse
#5, You have no idea what the word “antithetical” means, do you? You just use it because it’s long and you think it makes you sound smart; but it doesn’t. When scientists’ conclusions support kedusha, of course we should accept them; and when they don’t, we should reject them. What could be more logical than that? Lo mipihem anu chayim, after all.
When a major pediatric body acknowledges that a mitzvah is beneficial, it’s a big deal and we should trumpet it. If it persuades one Jew to do the mitzvah, then it’s the right thing to do. And if your refusal to do so means that one Jew chooses not to do the mitzvah, how can you live with yourself? Is your small-minded quest for some sort of foolish consistency more important than a Jewish child being circumcised?!
To #5
I’ve yet to see 100 scientific studies showing Mitzvos to be harmful, that is in contrast to the many studies showing benefits of many mitzvos such as Taharas Hamishpachah, Shabbos, Kashrus to name a few…
if this is moving
to a discussion of science and religion than my comments will be blocked as this is not the proper forum for such a discussion. please don’t embarrass yourself.
if all atheists were to leave the US, 92% of the scientific community would disappear. further more, just because a scientific study says one thing, we all know these things change, just look at how evolution is attacked from jews, christians, pretty much all faiths. same idea, so don’t be a fool and a hypocrite. leave science and religion alone, don’t mix them.
Milhouse
#8, Good, your comments should be blocked. Torah is truth; when science’s findings support it we accept them, and when they don’t we reject them. It’s as simple as that. Only a heretic would call that foolish.
CR
Suffice to say there are good medical reasons to circumcise and there are good medical reasons not to. Bottom line is we do bris milah because it is a mitzvah of the Torah and that is the only justification we need. All the rest is “parpra’os lechachmah”.
to #9
for someone who hides behind a goyish cartoon character name, you have much to say, mostly garbage..
Milhouse
#11, I dare you to point to one thing I’ve written that was not true. You, on the other hand, probably write blatant lies all the time, but you don’t use a consistent name so how would anyone know? But Hashem knows.