Three years ago we told you that the US health authorities were wondering if they should circumcise all babies at birth when corroborating that this measure reduced the chances of contracting the HIV virus.
At that time the position of the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) was not excessively clear, expressing that circumcision was not necessary. However he commissioned an investigation to clarify the evidence and after looking at more than 1,000 studies have decided to position themselves recommending circumcision of newborns to prevent HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, urinary infections and penile cancer.
In light of the evidence, they declare that circumcising a newborn has more advantages than risks for the baby. In fact, at present, 55% of children in the US are already having this intervention. When positioning yourself in favor of circumcision, it is very likely that medical insurance will begin to include the operation within your portfolio of services.
To make clear their position and remove some responsibility, they clarified that they do not affirm that it is necessary to do so, but that if a family considers it interesting, the baby's health benefit is enough to support the decision.
Review of more than 1,000 studies
In order to position oneself in favor of the practice, it took five years of work. The AAP brought together in 2007 a group of experts whose mission was to evaluate all the scientific evidence related to circumcision. After review more than 1,000 studies They have reached the following conclusion:
The health benefits of male circumcision in newborns outweigh the risks. In addition, the advantages of circumcision of neonatal males justify access to this procedure for families that choose it.
With regard to possible inconveniences, they ensure that the intervention does not seem to negatively affect the function or sensitivity of the penis or sexual satisfaction.
The research results have been published in the journal. Pediatrics (you can read the abstract from the study here), where they say that with circumcision men are less at risk of urinary infections, penile cancer and sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV.
In the 70s 80% of Americans were circumcised
The debate exists because there in America is a very common practice, so much so that in the seventies and eighties 80% of the children were operated. Now it has been reduced to the mentioned 55%, which is still very high when compared with data from Europe, where only 10% of children are circumcised.
As I said in the previous post in which I talked about it: “I love my foreskin. I'm sorry, but I can't imagine my life without him. ”
