Literature DB >> 3615091

Circumcision decision: prominence of social concerns.

M S Brown, C A Brown.   

Abstract

Despite policy statements against routine circumcision of newborns by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology more than 10 years ago, there has been virtually no change in circumcision practices in the United States. In addition, controlled trials of programs to educate parents about the lack of medical indications for routine newborn circumcision have shown that parental education has little impact on the circumcision decision. We hypothesized that parents based their circumcision decision predominantly on social concerns rather than on medical ones. We prospectively surveyed parents of 124 newborns soon after they made the circumcision decision to learn their reasons for the decision. The strongest factor associated with the circumcision decision was whether or not the father was circumcised (P less than .0001). The survey also showed that concerns about the attitudes of peers and their sons' self concept in the future were prominent among parents deciding to circumcise. The circumcision decision in the United States is emerging as a cultural ritual rather than the result of medical misunderstanding among parents. In counseling parents making the circumcision decision, the health care provider should provide a knowledgeable and honest discussion of the medical aspects of circumcision. Until information is available that addresses parents' social concerns about circumcision, it is unreasonable to expect a significant change in circumcision customs in the United States.

Mesh:

Year:  1987        PMID: 3615091

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pediatrics        ISSN: 0031-4005            Impact factor:   7.124


  9 in total

1.  Value judgment, harm, and religious liberty.

Authors:  A M Viens
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 2.903

2.  A covenant with the status quo? Male circumcision and the new BMA guidance to doctors.

Authors:  M Fox; M Thomson
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 2.903

3.  Circumcision without tears.

Authors:  M S Katz
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1996-09-01       Impact factor: 8.262

4.  Management of foreskin problems.

Authors:  P M Lafferty; F B MacGregor; W G Scobie
Journal:  Arch Dis Child       Date:  1991-06       Impact factor: 3.791

Review 5.  Male circumcision: assessment of health benefits and risks.

Authors:  S Moses; R C Bailey; A R Ronald
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 3.519

6.  Attitudes and decision making about neonatal male circumcision in a Hispanic population in New York City.

Authors:  Gabriela M Bisono; Lisa Simmons; Robert J Volk; Dodi Meyer; Thomas C Quinn; Susan L Rosenthal
Journal:  Clin Pediatr (Phila)       Date:  2012-04-17       Impact factor: 1.168

7.  Neonatal male circumcision after delisting in Ontario. Survey of new parents.

Authors:  R E Walton; T Ostbye; M K Campbell
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  1997-07       Impact factor: 3.275

Review 8.  Neonatal circumcision revisited. Fetus and Newborn Committee, Canadian Paediatric Society.

Authors: 
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1996-03-15       Impact factor: 8.262

9.  Acceptability of neonatal circumcision by pregnant women in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.

Authors:  Rogerio Phili; Quarraisha A Karim
Journal:  Curationis       Date:  2015-03-30
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.