Orshe

The American Academy of Pediatrics is on the fence about circumcision for newborn boys: The group says there’s not enough evidence to recommend routine circumcision, and parents should weigh the risks and benefits of the procedure.

But a group of doctors from Johns Hopkins and the NIH argue this week in the Archives of Pediatrics that the AAP should update its recommendation because recent studies showed circumcision reduces the risk of catching certain sexually transmitted diseases. Some key recent data come from African men who were circumcised as adults, but the authors argue that observational evidence shows the procedure also lowers risks for U.S. men who are circumcised as infants.

Parents should still be allowed to decide what’s best for their baby, the paper argues. But a stronger stance by the AAP might lead to broader coverage of the procedure by state Medicaid programs, the health-insurance program for the poor. That could drive up circumcision rates among the poor and, ultimately, drive down the rate of sexually transmitted infections.

An accompanying editorial argues that the data on health benefits are “not yet clear enough” to recommend routine circumcision — but agrees that there’s enough evidence to merit Medicaid coverage for those parents who choose circumcision.

There are 16 states where Medicaid doesn’t cover the procedure, according to the Hopkins and NIH docs.

We wanted to hear what the AAP had to say about the subject. The group’s press office directed us to a doc who serves on the group’s circumcision task force, but we haven’t heard back from him yet. We’ll update this post when we do.

For further reading on the risks and benefits of the procedure, check out this patient information page that Archives published along with today’s papers.

Image: iStockphoto

See the rest here:
Should Pediatricians Recommend Routine Circumcision?