Nip the tip as public policy

posted at 3:19 pm on August 24, 2009 by
[ Healthcare ]   

Apparently Amy Klobuchar wouldn’t have taken this question, but I would like to see someone ask a Congressperson somewhere about whether circumcisions would be mandated under Obamacare.

For now, the focus of public health officials in this country appears to be on making recommendations for newborns, a prevention strategy that would only pay off many years from now. Critics say it subjects baby boys to medically unnecessary surgery without their consent.

But Dr. Peter Kilmarx, chief of epidemiology for the division of H.I.V./AIDS prevention at the C.D.C., said that any step that could thwart the spread of H.I.V. must be given serious consideration.

“We have a significant H.I.V. epidemic in this country, and we really need to look carefully at any potential intervention that could be another tool in the toolbox we use to address the epidemic,” Dr. Kilmarx said. “What we’ve heard from our consultants is that there would be a benefit for infants from infant circumcision, and that the benefits outweigh the risks.”

You think I jest about this mohel full employment act? Read on from the American Journal of Public Health (2009):

Results. The mean neonatal male circumcision rate was 55.9%. When we controlled for other factors, hospitals in states in which Medicaid covers routine male circumcision had circumcision rates that were 24 percentage points higher than did hospitals in states without such coverage (P < .001). Hospitals serving greater proportions of Hispanic patients had lower circumcision rates; this was not true of hospitals serving more African Americans. Medicaid coverage had a smaller effect on circumcision rates when a hospital had a greater percentage of Hispanic births. Conclusions. Lack of Medicaid coverage for neonatal male circumcision correlated with lower rates of circumcision. Because uncircumcised males face greater risk of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, lack of Medicaid coverage for circumcision may translate into future health disparities for children born to poor families covered by Medicaid.

From your mouth to the Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research’s ear! Should make for some great bumper stickers for the 2012 election: Proleteriat of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your foreskin!

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Foreskins scare me.

sammypants on August 24, 2009 at 3:39 PM

Because uncircumcised males face greater risk of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections,

What? Does this make sense?

Abby Adams on August 24, 2009 at 3:58 PM

Watch out for this operation. Circumcision has some nasty side effects.

I couldn’t walk for a year later.

Or so I’ve been told.
http://www.instantrimshot.com/

NaCly dog on August 24, 2009 at 4:40 PM

Abby Adams on August 24, 2009 at 3:58 PM

From the CDC, excerpted from the Biologic Plausibility section of http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

The foreskin has more cells that HIV targets, cells that are less resistant to viral infection, more susceptible to micro tears, and harder to keep free of viruses because of less rigorous cleaning.
Other STDs show the same pattern of higher risk of infection with foreskins.

NaCly dog on August 24, 2009 at 4:50 PM

Leave my …… alone

macncheez on August 24, 2009 at 5:07 PM

It’s incredulous that anyone can believe that millions of years of evolution of the penis somehow needs a Jewish knife to be safe. The foreskin is there for a reason. Ask God. He put it there.

keep the change on August 24, 2009 at 7:39 PM

How come the word Jewish triggers the filter? Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist does not. But Jewish does.

Interesting.

keep the change on August 24, 2009 at 7:41 PM

Oh, b.s.! And the ones who don’t want their kids circ’ed are the crazy white people – not the minorities.

Blake on August 24, 2009 at 8:01 PM

I was always taught that being part of a committed, monogamous, heterosexual relationship prevented the passage of STD’s and HIV…who knew it was circumcision?

texabama on August 24, 2009 at 8:13 PM