A new Johns Hopkins study warns of the billions added to health care costs if infant male circumcisions are outlawed.
Johns Hopkins experts say the added expense stems from new cases and higher rates of sexually transmitted infections and related cancers among uncircumcised men and their female partners. . . .
The Johns Hopkins team’s analysis showed that, on average, each male circumcision passed over and not performed leads to $313 more in illness-related expenses, costs which Tobian says would not have been incurred if these men had undergone the procedure.
The evidence here, it seems to me, at least as striking as that supporting the Mayor’s recent initiative on nudging NYC women in the direction of breast feeding. So it’s difficult to see why the power of the city shouldn’t be mobilized to require or at least strongly encourage or incentivize circumcision. And certainly free circumcision, the evidence shows, should be part of any health care mandate.
August 23rd, 2012 | 10:06 am
Does this mean that if we support a “circumcision mandate” (that is, requiring health insurance to cover circumcision as an elective procedure without co-pay, not requiring circumcision itself) opponents will drop their objective to the “contraceptive mandate”? If so, I approve. Nobody would be forced to have their baby boys circumcised. I also see nothing wrong in encouraging mothers to breast feed, as long as mothers who choose not to (or simply can’t) are not made to feel like bad mothers.
August 23rd, 2012 | 10:33 am
$313? That’s really nothing, especially compared to the costs of unwanted pregnancies. And if you want to make this practice free, why for babies and not adults? Why object to people being allowed to themselves to choose when they are adults? I’m pretty sure that even if you instituted a fine of $313 for anyone refusing this procedure at the age of 18, few would choose it for themselves. Like Margaret Thatcher said, it’s much easier to spend other people’s money, and it’s much easier to do this to a baby, rather than to oneself.
It’s interesting, how pro-lifers and people with objections to contraception do not want to have to pay for it – and many people who do not object to contraception agree with them. Seeing that the number of people who have moral objections to paying for contraception are so few, I daresay more people object to this practice. So where is the consistency? Why force people who object to this practice to pay for it – and not even on adults, on babies.
August 23rd, 2012 | 11:41 am
Do the numbers, Maximilian. Roughly $300 alone is nothing but over half the males in the U.S. are currently circumcised. Compare to no identified “unwanted” pregnancies that the contraceptive mandate would solve, given that contraceptives are already fully available. I’m sure there are some pregnancies that could be presented but I suspect access to contraceptives, free or otherwise, would not be the problem.
But then the point is the ridiculousness of both proposals. At least David Nickol gets that part and responds in kind.
August 23rd, 2012 | 11:55 am
Mike Melendez,
Exactly, the proposal is intentionally ridiculous to show 2 things.
1. How stupid the HHS “contraceptive mandate” really is.
2. That framing circumcision is merely an antiquated religious custom with no benefits or reason to be tolerated (much less encouraged) is not only wrong-headed, but intentionally, closed-mindedly ignorant.
I see no reason to force people to circumcise boys, but to actively discourage it is horrible public policy from any angle.
August 23rd, 2012 | 2:33 pm
To even consider the practice of circumcision as a required insurance benefit is ridiculous. Talk about inflating health care costs? Why should all taxpayers have to bare any of the costs of an “elective procedure” that is ritualistic!
For those who want their children circumcized, let them pay for it. For goodness sakes parents of the same child can’t even agree on whether to have it done or not on their son. Some have it done to the child and regret it. Are we going to pay for a procedure to possibly reverse it when the kid grows up and he regrets it? How can this “rite” be compared to contraception? Silly rabbits! Get real. Enough is enough.
August 23rd, 2012 | 2:41 pm
Steve: That framing circumcision is merely an antiquated religious custom with no benefits or reason to be tolerated (much less encouraged) is not only wrong-headed, but intentionally, closed-mindedly ignorant.
Thank you for the name-calling. That makes your lack of argument so much stronger. You can assert these things all day long, but that still will not make it true. The fact that it is an antiquated religion custom, a relic of a time when children were basically the property of their parents, is made evident by the persistent inability of its supporters to provide good arguments for it. Your post is a fine example of this.
“but to actively discourage it is horrible public policy from any angle.”
Basically, what we hear is that the law is subordinate to the whims of what people think is their religious obligation. And indeed, in 1974, Congress passed a law mandating that states exempt from homicide laws followers of Christian Science and other religions that oppose medicine, so that if their children die of perfectly treatable diseases, they could not be prosecuted. Fortunately, lately, the idea that children have rights, and that parents should not have the right to make martyrs of them has gained currency, and no such Congressional obligation exists at the moment. What a violation of religious freedom, is it not?
August 23rd, 2012 | 3:31 pm
Maximilian,
So Johns Hopkins Medical School and the WHO (which was referenced in a different thread) are just unwitting tools of some antiquated religious conspiracy?
Comparing a religious practice which discourages medical treatment to the detriment of children with a practice that (at least in the eyes of many medical experts) has a demonstrable health benefit is not a fair comparison. I am not claiming (and I haven’t seen anyone else claim) that religious liberties are absolute. The refusal of medical treatment for minors and violence such as honor killings or something such as human sacrifice are perfectly legitimate examples of limits to religious practice. But it is incumbent upon a government to show that it has a compelling reason to do so. And circumcision of infant boys, particularly if it is done in a medical competent way, does not rise anywhere near to that level.
I can name another medical procedure that “violates the dignity and body of a child” that is inflicted upon a child without their consent. If you have ever been in the room while an infant or toddler screams bloody murder while they are receiving a vaccination then you would have a pretty good idea that bodily integrity is being violated. As someone whose boys were both circumcised and later received vaccinations, I can say that the vaccinations were significantly more traumatic experiences. There are also some medical professionals who aren’t fully on board with vaccination and for a small minority there is a risk of significant side effects (up to and including death). Should we prohibit vaccination? Is it just because there isn’t a religious background or element out in front of this practice that it should be allowed?I am aware that some medical professionals aren’t in favor of circumcision. But there are many (including those referenced above) who definitively are.
For someone to harbor concerns about or to choose not to have their boys circumcised is understandable to me. But to treat it as simply some barbaric ancient custom with no possibility of medical benefit and to be in favor of prohibiting it is not a valid line of reasoning or argumentation to me, particularly when there is not attempt to deal with the body of evidence that favors such a practice. It is invincible ignorance and in the case of the potential litigation and/or prosecution in Germany is concerned – it is at best incredibly insensitive and at worst thinly veiled anti-Semitism.
If that is name-calling to you, so be it. But I haven’t seen the medical element of this addressed at all, just repeated assertions. Pot, meet kettle.
August 23rd, 2012 | 4:53 pm
I am waiting for Kathleen Sibelius to come up with a plan to have the government remove all foreskins and replace them with condoms. Free.
August 23rd, 2012 | 6:38 pm
My biggest problem with the “free contraceptives” is that the drug manufacturers will just massively increase what they charge and rake in tons of profit. All insurance will have to pay for all contraceptives no matter how much drug manufacturers charge, so why wouldn’t drug manufacturers start charging absurd amounts? It’s not like the patient will ever know what the insurance company is being charged.
I just wish people understood how expensive “free” is when it involves the government.
August 23rd, 2012 | 8:50 pm
What this country needs is universal healthcare, like every other civilized country in the world. Healthcare for profit does not work, plain and simple, not to mention that it’s immoral and unchristian. The quality of care we get for the money we pay is a disgrace if you compare it to countries like France, Japan, etc… and besides, I don’t recall Jesus charging anyone for healing him.
As far as the John Hopkins study, it patently ridiculous because it assumes that circumcision prevents STD’s, something that we know from real world empirical data that it doesn’t. HIV is more common among circumcised men in 10 out of 18 African countries studies. After a circumcision campaign in Zimbabwe the health data showed that the foolish men who put their faith in the three completely discredited African HIV studies, have a higher rate of HIV than the men who stayed intact. The rate of all STD’s is lower in uncircumcised Europe, including six times lower for HIV. Cervical cancer in women is lower than in the US and Israel in several of those countries, and penile cancer rates are the same as in the US, 1 in 100,000.
The people who published the John Hopkins study, and those who did the three famous “African studies” have an agenda… protect circumcision because of their religious faith. I really hope that’s the main reason, and not because they hope to keep making an easy $500 dollars from a completely useless procedure.
August 23rd, 2012 | 9:11 pm
This is a ridiculous article. Let’s cut off part of a man’s penis which is there for a reason to save $300 when a condom and education are just as effective.
While we are at it, why not cut off women’s breasts to avoid the chance of them getting breast cancer.
August 23rd, 2012 | 9:38 pm
Promoting circumcision to prevent HIV makes less sense than cutting off ear lobes to prevent frost bite. HIV is already completely preventable. Norway(where almost every man is intact) has an HIV rate that pales in comparison to us. To ignore this violates the principle of least invasive means.
August 23rd, 2012 | 10:03 pm
Richard,
Avik Roy makes the case here that you are right to be worried:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/the-biggest-beneficiary-of-the-contraception-mandate-drug-companies/254048/
August 24th, 2012 | 12:36 am
There’s a huge difference between contraceptives and circumcision. Women have a choice of whether they wan’t to use them while baby boys have no choice when it comes to their foreskin.
August 24th, 2012 | 10:06 am
Nicole: HIV is already completely preventable. Norway(where almost every man is intact) has an HIV rate that pales in comparison to us. To ignore this violates the principle of least invasive means.
It is also ironic that a lot of the promoters of this practice steadfastly oppose the Gardasil vaccine, which prevents HPV. Even though (1) HPV is near perfectly preventable with Gardasil (2) it is not invasive (3) HPV cannot be avoided with protection (4) the vast majority of women get HPV at some point in their life. On the other hand, a very tiny portion of the population gets HIV, this invasive procedure does not even prevent it (only reduces the chance somewhat), and it easily can be prevented with protection. Now that’s interesting.
August 24th, 2012 | 1:19 pm
http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/110165/leading-pediatric-group-endorses-circumcision
August 24th, 2012 | 2:46 pm
From the same organization:
In a controversial change to a longstanding policy concerning the practice of female circumcision in some African and Asian cultures, the American Academy of Pediatrics is suggesting that American doctors be given permission to perform a ceremonial pinprick or “nick” on girls from these cultures if it would keep their families from sending them overseas for the full circumcision. [yeah, giving legitimacy to the practice does this sort of thing]
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/health/policy/07cuts.html
Oh, what a worthy, learned group! They can’t be wrong!
August 24th, 2012 | 6:20 pm
Notice it is highly conditional (if it would keep their families from sending them overseas). Sounds like to me they are trying to save girls from a horrific experience.
BTW, what is your stance on vaccinating infants? It can be quite painful and traumatic for them.
So, by all means let’s outlaw circumcision…abortion, no problem – circumcision, the horror!!!!
August 25th, 2012 | 6:11 am
More misinformation by people trying to defend cutting parts off babies’ genitals. Despite almost no-one in Europe except for Jewish and Muslim families circumcising, Europe has *lower* rates of HIV.
Even in Africa (from a USAID report):
“There appears no clear pattern of association between male circumcision and HIV prevalence—in 8 of 18 countries with data, HIV prevalence is lower among circumcised men, while in the remaining 10 countries it is higher.”
It is unclear if circumcised men are more likely to infect women. The only ever randomized controlled trial into male-to-female transmission showed a 54% higher rate in the group where the men had been circumcised.
Women have “skin folds” too, but we don’t cut parts off baby girls. Think how much money we could save by removing their breast buds too (breast cancer affects about 12% of women, and kills about 3%).
August 25th, 2012 | 8:40 am
Steve: Notice it is highly conditional (if it would keep their families from sending them overseas). Sounds like to me they are trying to save girls from a horrific experience.
It sounds like you’re just repeating their propaganda. Negative, which is why they reversed their position in a few weeks, after withering criticism. That just shows you how political they are. In my judgment, the decision was made because they are huge cultural relativists and leftists, who will ritually sacrifice the integrity of the sacrosanct bodies of little children on the altar of cultural relativism and political correctness.
“Why, it’s their culture, who are we to judge? Let’s compromise!”
Steve: BTW, what is your stance on vaccinating infants? It can be quite painful and traumatic for them.
Addressed elsewhere already. But let me tell you, I have never seen a more ridiculous comparison to genital cutting. Well, one. One person actually compared it to cutting hair.
Steve: So, by all means let’s outlaw circumcision…abortion, no problem – circumcision, the horror!!!!
Third-trimester abortions should be treated just like murder – and I dare say what you probably do not, that if there be no issue of life, physical health or fatal fetal deformity, both the mother and the doctor should be treated as murderers. Do not expect me to die on a hill for fertilized eggs or frozen embryos, but I defend the defenseless.
I also believe that people should control their own body. Pro-lifers pay lip service to this, and say that they are merely opposed to abortion because they believe that a fetus is a human being who should have rights, but in this case, you (individual) clearly stand opposed to it.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact