This Reminds Me . . .

After GSI prep today, the professor had an interesting but short conversation with the head GSI as we were all walking out of the room.

Back-story: The head GSI was late to GSI prep today (and I'm usually the last one to make it to the meeting because I have to walk across campus). Her young daughter was having some "female problems" and wanted her mom (the head GSI) to bring her to the doctor's. Also, the Professor (who I'll call Professor C) is I think Eastern European . . . this'll be relevant later.

So here's the convo (I was on my way out the door and didn't catch how this convo ended):

Professor C: So how's your daughter?
Head GSI: Well, you know. She was having some girl problems, and wanted me to bring her to the doctor's, but once we got there she didn't want me around, and . . . yeah . . .
Professor C: Why is it that girls have these problems? How come boys never have these problems?
Head GSI: I don't know.
Professor C: Well, my boys are not circumcised, and my one job is to make sure they clean down there and that's it . . .

I thought this was an interesting exchange. And it reminded me of several things I read while purusing the news on the internet. Oh yeah, for the record, the vast majority of Europe doesn't circumcise.

Some public health officials have latched on tightly to a new study that came out (and completely ignored an equally valid study refuting it published last year) and is pushing the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) to revise their currently neutral stance on circumcision in favor of the procedure. And they blame the economy and thus lack of Medicaid reimbursement in 16 states for the decline in circumcision rates. Article here (this is only an example, almost all other US news articles on this topic say the exact same thing).

It's clear that the link to the economy is ludicrous because rates have been declining for decades in the US before the current economic woes, and even before Medicaid decided to (rightfully) drop coverage of an unnecessary (and almost entirely) cosmetic procedure on infants. On this note, it's refreshing to see both a US article and a UK article countering this, or at least bringing it back into perspective.

The thing about most US articles on circumcision is that they always praise the potential benefits, but barely even pay lip service (if that) to the potential risks and harms. There have been recent incidences of complications in the US, but these stories haven't achieved the same level of press as the ones "praising" circumcision. From a cost-benefit perspective, how many infants must suffer complications, or even die, for it to outweigh potential benefits decades down the line - benefits that may be achieved with simply good hygiene and condoms? Can infant lives be put on a cost-benefit scale/analysis? Or would that be unethical? I wonder . . .

Here are the articles (not for the faint of heart):

Botched job
MRSA infection
Bled to death (bleeding is a "common" complication that, if not caught early, could become quite severe)