Doctors: Is it true that less and less males are getting circumcised at birth in!


Question: Doctors: Is it true that less and less males are getting circumcised at birth in America now?
Answers:

my dad is a doctor in the detroit suburbs and he tells parents that it is not highly recommended any more and leaves it up to the parents.. he says less parents are making their sons get it done now. i think it is declining



Yup, it's true. The USA circumcision rates peaked at 90%, and now they are down to 33%. So the majority of baby boys are left intact. No medical assocation in the world routinely recommends infant circumcision, and nowadays a lot of doctors are refusing to perform it. We know now that the foreskin is a healthy functioning body part, that circumcision is risky and unnecessary, and that cosmetic genital surgeries aren't something we should be able to choose for someone who is unable to consent.


@ Adam - Your answer is full of BS.
It's true that a several decades ago the majority of American males were circumcised - but *not* due to lack of hygiene. In the 1960s, most baby boys were circumcised due to false notions about circumcision and the foreskin.
"too many guys were getting penile cancer" - Uhm, yeah, that's because of the high rates of smoking at the time. It has nothing to do with the foreskin.
It was NEVER decided to circumcise baby boys to prevent foreskin problems. Are you aware that non-religious circumcision started to deter boys from masturbating? (we know now that didn't work).
Men have lived for millions of years with a foreskin - and only in the past 100 years in the USA has circumcised been common (it was never common in most other parts of the world).
There has not been a massive increase in foreskin infections. There has been a decrease because now pediatricians know that the foreskin on a baby should not be forced back.
Penile cancer has nothing to do with it. Foreskin problems are very uncommon, and even when they do occur, they can almost always be easily treated without circumcision. A baby boy is far more likely to get a complication from circumcision, than to get a foreskin problem if he is not circumcised. The risks outweigh the negligible benefits.
Note that worldwide 85% of men are *not* circumcised, and that first-world countries who don't practice circumcision actually have LOWER rates of penile cancer, STDs, and infections than the USA.

You sound like a circumcised man who's desperately trying to convince himself that his circumcision was a good thing.

History of circumcision: http://www.icgi.org/medicalization/#Page…



Yes back years ago nearly every boy was circumcised because too many guys were not keeping under the foreskin clean by pulling it back and washing there at least once a day. A lot of homes in the past had no or poor plumbing and many people bathed only once a week. This resulted in lots of under foreskin infections and also too many guys were getting penile cancer. It was decided to circumcise baby boys to stop the large number of these medical problems which happened for 30 years or so. It was then decided that in these modern times that as all homes had good bathrooms with baths or showers that there was no longer a problem for guys to keep their penises clean and therefor it was decided to phase out most circumcisions.
The problem that doctors have now is that many young uncircumcised guys still are not pulling back their foreskins and washing with soap and water and then drying there and rolling the foreskin back over their knob. There has been a massive increase of these under foreskin infections and even worse they are seeing too many cases of penile cancer with many doctors calling for circumcision to become the norm again for baby boys. The parents of boys that have been circumcised know that this problem occurs too often and don't want their sons to ever suffer from these medical conditions so have their sons done.



Yes, it was down to 33% in 2009 in America and continues to decline.



True : it's even illegal in San Francisco.



It all depends on 'which' or 'who's' statistics you are reading at any given time.
I have not read that one.



i believe so



no




The consumer health information on answer-health.com is for informational purposes only and is not a substitute for medical advice or treatment for any medical conditions.
The answer content post by the user, if contains the copyright content please contact us, we will immediately remove it.
Copyright © 2007-2011 answer-health.com -   Terms of Use -   Contact us

Health Categories