But first the good news.
Aren't they beautiful!
ok - not sure why they're so small, but as soon as Tuan gets home with the car I'll take more pics and post them.
The left one says "Circumcision? NO! Moroni 8:8"
The right one says "If God wanted me to have a foreskin, I would have been born with one."
Now, the bad news.
The Centers for Disease Control need to hear from you. Today! I would also strongly urge you to cc your Senate and Congressional Representative.
For those interested in where this is all coming from, there was a conference in the last few weeks that resulted in two very important presentations. The first was a study by Millett et al. that confirmed the Sydney study that male circumcision has no value for gay men, who are the major risk group. Then there was this presentation that seems to recommend mass infant male circumcision anyway on a cost-effectiveness basis. No human rights issues were discussed or apparently even contemplated in recommending genital surgeries on children.
If you have never written to your Congress(wo)men, now is a great time to start!
Here is the letter I sent:
December 10, 2007
Julie Louise Gerberding, M.D., M.P.H.
Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Office of the Director
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
1600 Clifton Rd Atlanta, GA 30333
RE: Recommendations viz neonatal male circumcision and HIV
Dear Dr. Gerberding:
I have learned with grave concern that you and the Centers for Disease Control are considering recommending neonatal circumcision as public health policy in the effort to stem the spread of HIV/AIDS in the United States. I oppose this recommendation in the strongest possible way.
Neonatal circumcision has run into national grassroots opposition from a sizable and highly active group of people for at least the last 25 years. This opposition on human rights grounds has resulted in the major medical organizations gradually moving away from support of a marginal procedure that damages sexual response and violates the individual human rights of the infants on the receiving end.
Whatever marginal gain individuals may receive from male circumcision must be in the context of informed consent and voluntariness. Infants can provide neither. The variables involved in the effectiveness of such a procedure over the longer term are many, including the changing dynamics of the disease, changes in provision of healthcare impacting cost-effectiveness, the possibility of new treatments, prevention technologies, and eventually a vaccine. Male circumcision has not served the United States well heretofore in comparison with non-circumcising countries and regions where the HIV/AIDS rate is much lower, e.g. Japan, most of Europe, and Latin America.
I urge you to reject neonatal male circumcision as public health policy in order to safe guard your credibility with the American people and throughout the world. The United States can ill-afford another dubious policy with scant input from American stakeholders.
Very truly yours,
Maria Le
www.tuansprincess@yahoo.com
6 comments:
i LOVE LOVE LOVE those bumperstickers!
I think it should be up to the parents to decide the fate of their newborn baby boys male part. Both of my boys have been circumsised and I would also recommend it to every parent to have their newborn baby boy circumsised.
You said it yourself, Philip:
"newborn baby boy's male part" (I am going to assume that you meant to put that apostrophy there - unless you really do believe that you own your child's body.)
It is HIS body. It's called a penis and a foreskin. Knowing what you are asking a doctor to amputate unecessariy and for cosmetic reasons and what it's purpose is would be a good place to start.
Before recommending surgery on their infant I would suggest parents research this cultural tradition, it's roots and the many risks associated with it.
Actually, Lauren and I did quite a bit of research on circumsision before our first boy was born. And the reasons to circumsise were far greater than the reasons not to.
And you are right, my boys body is HIS, but until he is old enough to care for it on his own, he does what I say. I am pretty sure that when he does get older, he won't lose any sleep over this matter. I don't.
And, I didn't put any apostrophy.
This is very interesting. Please tell me what the many reasons to circumcise were.
Your first: "the reasons to circumsise were far greater than the reasons not to."
Are you aware that NO medical establishment recommends circumcision based on health merits? Not one!
Reasons not to circumcise - http://www.circumcisionquotes.com/complications.html
100% chance of scarring
complications including:
Adhesions to glans
Post-circumcision coronal adhesions
Untidy circumcision
Phimosis after circumcision
Post-circumcision phimosis
Meatal Stenosis
Narrow Stream meatal stenosis
Radical circumcision
Missing frenulum
Bleeding hemophelia
Post-circumcision fistula
Post-division of adhesions
Partial glans amputation
Dead penis
Death
Your second: "until he is old enough to care for it on his own"
Meaning circ is cleaner and easier to care for?
The intact peniss requires no care. You wipe it like a finger The newly circumcised penis is a wound that requires cleaning and help with healing. It is (if you use diapers) constantly in contact with urine and feces. How is this cleaner? How is creating a wound making his body easier to take care of?
"I am pretty sure that when he does get older, he won't lose any sleep over this matter. I don't."
Ah - but have you thought of his wife/partner? How will she/he feel about you interfering with their and your son's sex life? A circumcised penis is altered and simply put does not function as a penis is meant to fuction.
Post a Comment