Actually, the study says that hospital circumcision rates are 24% lower in the 16 states where the procedure isn't covered by Medicaid.
But not in Missouri, right? "'We whack 'em all,' says Dr. Renee Stein, whose clinic at St. John's Mercy Medical Center in St. Louis offers payment plans for families on Medicaid."
Which is apparently the end game of the study, if the press release and conclusions are to be taken at face value. It's part of a push by the UCLA AIDS Institute in the wake of that African circumcision study, to increase the circumcision rate among Hispanics, who are less likely to have their kids cut even when it's covered by Medicaid.
"The Fate of a Million Foreskins is in their hands." [newsweek via dt reader alex]
Press release: Circumcision rates lower in states where Medicaid does not cover procedure
Lack of coverage puts low-income children at higher risk of HIV infection [newsroom.ucla.edu]
abstract: Determinants and Policy Implications of Male Circumcision in the United States [ajph.org]
I sometimes wonder if the entire pro-circumcision movement is based around a bunch of insecure doctors who are worried that one day they'll be in the showers at the country club, and they'll be the different ones.
That last line rocked.
Gahhhhh...For some reason the link above is making me crazy. "Lack of coverage puts low income children at higher risk of HIV infection" all this based on ONE study done in Africa. The lede for the article is horrible because it’s contradicted by this statement in the first graph, "...and this disparity could lead to an increased risk of HIV” Huh, will it or could it!?
After our son was born and circumcised I asked our OB about this study and she didn't mince words with her opinion. The African study is extremely difficult to draw conclusions to in the US, based on the vast differences in societal norms and the economic levels of the study group. Until a broad study is done in the US then you are doing a disservice to yourself if you’re basing your decision on this ONE study. Well, I guess I loose Dad of the Year because I sentenced my boys to sure death by HIV/AIDS if I follow the knee jerk header for the article from UCLA.
Woops...just realized this mistake..."After our son was born and NOT circumcised..."
Fixed
that might be the youngest case of foreskin restoration on record. and the easiest. congrats
Not that I'm trying to protect UCLA or anything, but I just gave birth at their hospital, and all medical staff who asked were very positive about the fact that I was not going to circumcise my son. Funny...
Isn't this more of a personal hygiene issue, I mean, truly? My husband and I talk about this frequently (expecting late summer) and if we spawn a boy, he'll be uncut like his dad. He'll learn proper hygiene.
If all the researchers are looking at this from a social class/economic perspective, they need to be upfront about this.
And, to talk about BASIC HYGIENE.
Jeezy-peezy.
Love the blog, BTW.
Well mow it is starting to make sense. I was wondering why UCLA would be obviously pushing circumcision by such flawed studies. I've had second hand knowledge that in New York hospitals non-english speaking Hispanics are tricked into signing circumcision consent forms by not knowing written english. The consent forms are handed to the mother with other papers, so they think it is just discharge papers.
Very sad. There is definitely something shady going on with the World Health Organization, the World Bank, and Bill Gates for pushing circumcision based on these same studies. I mean come on, confers a lifetime of protection. How can that even be when the studies stopped short ran for only 1 1/2 years? They cite Langerhans cell as the culprit. But again how is that possible when it is scientifically proven that Langerhans emits Langerin that kills HIV dead. Any article and the mentioned groups that do not mention this inconvenient fact is suspect. Support mgmbill.org for equality and body integrity. Doctors Opposing Circumcision. CircumcisionAndHIV.com sueeasy.com and Attorneys for the Rights of the Child (suing doctors and hospitals for incomplete consent information, etc.) Remember to save all related circumcision papers and info. given at the time to give the circumcised son so he can sue when he is 18 years old.