KHTS Radio Santa Clarita Radio – Santa Clarita News
Santa Clarita pediatrician Dr. Rochelle Feldman of Prima Pediatrics gave the top three medical reasons for circumcision during a recent appearance on KHTS AM-1220.
Sponsored Articles
“Aside from the religious reasons, which are quite separate, there are good medical reasons to circumcise your boys,” Feldman said.
The first reason is to reduce the risk of a urinary tract infection during the baby’s first year.
Related: Santa Clarita Pediatrician Encourages Residents Not To Believe Flu Shot Myths
“Not that many boys get urinary tract infections in their first year, but if you want to avoid it, that’s one way to do it,” Feldman said.
Secondly, Feldman noted circumcision helps prevent infections in the area.
“The foreskin is not retractable until usually at least age two or three, and in some boys not until they hit puberty, so they get sand and dirt and stuff like that up underneath,” Feldman explained. “Balanitis, which is an infection of the penis, is almost nonexistent in babies that are circumcised, but is very prevalent amongst kids that aren’t.”
The third reason, which Feldman called “the best one yet,” is that circumcision reduces infection in males when they’re older as well — particularly when it comes to HIV.
“The foreskin in a male tends to be, basically, the only area of major receptors for the HIV virus,” she said. “There are some who have said that if they circumcised every male in Africa, they would reduce the incidence of AIDS by approximately 70 percent.”
Feldman continued, “So I think it’s a pretty good reason to do that.”
Ed. Note: This article is a KHTS Community Spotlight based on a recent radio interview with Prima Pediatrics.
Santa Clarita pediatrician Dr. Rochelle Feldman of Prima Pediatrics is board-certified in both pediatrics and neonatal-prenatal medicine, and is affiliated with several nearby hospitals. She has been a pediatrician in Santa Clarita for 35 years, and is one of the only pediatricians in Santa Clarita who specializes in the treatment of mitochondrial diseases. Her personal philosophy is to “take care of the whole child, remembering that the parent knows the child best and at first do no harm. We use complementary medicine when appropriate and avoid medication in lieu of natural means when possible.”
18520 Via Princessa
Canyon Country, CA 91387
661-424-9000
Do you have a news tip? Call us at (661) 298-1220, or drop us a line at [email protected].
This is way out of line with what doctors in most developed countries think. Two national medical organizations (Sweden and Germany) have called for infant male circumcision to be banned, and two others (Denmark and the Netherlands) have said they’d support a ban if they didn’t think it would drive the practice underground.
“Most developed countries”??? One or two anti-circumcision activist doctors in these countries have personal issues with parents’ right to circumcise/religious freedoms. Certainly not a majority. And in Israel and Turkey, they have 100% circumcision rates.
One or two? Personal issues? “Right” to circumcise? Religious freedoms?
No, 38 top paediatricians have many issues with non-therapeutic infant male genital cutting. They are the heads and spokespeople for the paediatric associations of Austria, Britain, Denmark, England, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands, and senior paediatricians in Canada, the Czech Republic, France and Poland. They wrote in the AAP’s journal Pediatrics:
“There is growing consensus among physicians, including those in the United States, that physicians should discourage parents from circumcising their healthy infant boys because non-therapeutic circumcision of underage boys in Western societies has no compelling health benefits, causes postoperative pain, can have serious long-term consequences, constitutes a violation of the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child, and conflicts with the Hippocratic oath: primum non nocere: First, do no harm”
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/12/peds.2012-2896
Throughout the developed world, MGC is not offered and seldom asked for. In Israel and Turkey, the cutting is religious. And it’s not 100% Even in Israel there are at least 12 rabbis willing to name boys without cutting them: http://britshalom.info
Like that somehow justifies mutilating boys against their will..? You people will do anything to defend the right to butcher boys whether they like it or not. It’s disgusting. What about THEIR religious freedom?? Many Jews and Muslims grow up and decide they are not religious or convert to another religion altogether.
Just because YOU want religious freedom does not give you the right to permanently carve your religion into the genitals of your child. Performing your barbaric rietuals on the child will not guarantee they follow that religion or follow in your footsteps. That’s absurd.
And you’re wrong about the majority opposing circumcision. You need to look up facts before saying “no” and getting defensive. Over 90% of Europe (yes all of Europe not just some countries) have intact men and the countries mentioned above by Mark have had it banned or are actively trying to. Not just one or two doctors. Most Asian countries do not fathom it or perform this barbaric act either. Europeans, Australians, and Asians alike become shocked with disbelief when they hear what America does to their boys. And most sensible Americans react that way too, especially when they’re not brainwashed into thinking amputation is “beneficial” like the woman in the interview above.
I totally agree with Mark Lyndon above. The practice is medieval and barbaric. Any doctor that recommends it is stock in dark ages. Quick research will show that all reasons that she brought up are not supported or factual to many many studies done regarding the subject.
I am afraid the doctor is very biased and influenced by maybe her religious affiliation and her personal beliefs.
Jewish and a woman, kind of like a man supporting female circumcision. Cutting children is sick, making excuses for it is insane.
NOT ONE national medical association on earth endorses universal circumcision.
Forced genital cutting is unethical. Informed adults decide for themselves.
Even in Rochelle’s fantasy world where everything goes as intended, circumcision alters sex dramatically.
This privilaged female doctor just said she wants to circumcise all African males so therefore we should all believe what she says. Insert eye roll here. Hey off your soapbox and remember that you said “first do no harm”.
From the Canadian Paediatrics Society:
“It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys … would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.”
“The number needed to treat to prevent one HIV infection varied … with an average in all males of 298.”
http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision
Rochelle should come to my clinic and have her labia removed, along with some other skin. I’ll explain. It is much cleaner, sand can’t get caught in her folds, and the AIDs virus has less area to grow and multiply. She should have had this done in her youth, against her will and without her consent while she screamed and writhed in pain, but we can still make things much better than they are now with some simple snips. It will hurt, but it will be better for her.
I agree whole heatedly with the above comments. There is just no real science to support her opinions, and I would expect any news outlet would fact check and correct any misconceptions prior to publishing views so out of line with medical consensus. Citing a debunked study about circumcision reducing HIV infections, is akin to citing the paper that claimed a link between autism and vaccines – the scientific community already emphatically denied these claims.
Got any evidence to support your claim that “the scientific community already emphatically denied these claims”?
Circumcision is a religious procedure looking for a medical excuse. It has no place in modern medicine. It is damaging. It is dangerous. Thousands of boys suffer botched circumcisions every year here in the U.S. and then suffer the lifelong consequences, usually in shame and silence. There is no good medical reason to circumcise the normal newborn. [The excuses just don’t fly in the real world – intact Europe has far less STDs and HIV than the circumcised U.S.] Intelligent and forward looking parents are just saying “NO!”
Circumcision is Male Genital Mutilation.
Her reasons to deform the male penis are half truths, or all out urban myths.
Parents please look into the research done on infants who have undergone the removal vs. Infants who have not. It is incredibly painful, traumatizing, and completely unnecessary.
If you’re against genital mutilation in women please please open your eyes to MASs genital mutilation of our boys and stop it today!
“Her personal philosophy is to “take care of the whole child, remembering that the parent knows the child best and at first do no harm. We use complementary medicine when appropriate and avoid medication in lieu of natural means when possible”.”
LOL! Looks like her social conditioning is over riding her so called professional principles. Even the lead author of the AAP’S statement on circumcision admits it’s really just a cultural practice. Disgusting child abuse.
There is plenty of scientific evidence to support what the author claims.
Unfortunately, there are fanatics against circumcision who can’t be convinced about
the health benefits of circumcision no matter how compelling the evidence.
Sure, you can cherry-pick the evidence to support what she claims, but there’s plenty of evidence to contradict that, and this was never about “health benefits”. Infant male genital cutting is a stone-age sex/blood/magic/fertility ritual that entered medicine by stealth when scientific medicine was in its infancy, under the guise of “moral hygiene” (thwarting and punishing masturbation), which then got confused with real hygiene. As each new excuse was debunked, it found another, always the most feared disease of the day, so inevitably it latched on to HIV/AIDS – as Dr Feldman says “the best one yet”. Yet in 10 out of 18 countries for which USAID has figures, more of the cut men have HIV than the intact.
Most of the world manages very well without those “benefits”, and are the happier for having all of our bodies, with none of the downsides of having had (the best) part cut off.
Doing nothing, leaving babies alone, is a strange thing to say people are “fanatical” about. No, the fanatics are those who are so desperate to cut a normal, healthy, functional (erogenous) part off another person forever, before he can consent or resist.
You don’t have to cherry-pick the evidence. The AAP cited something around 240 quality studies showing reduced risk of STD’s. The ones doing the cherry-picking are the people against circumcision. Over and over again they point to discredited studies.
The current discussion _is_ in fact about the health benefits of circumcision.
And until you look at the scientific evidence and point out why it’s incorrect, your arguments
don’t hold water.
As for more cut men have HIV than uncut, you are once again cherry-picking the information
and ignoring the details that point out why. Here in the US, HIV is spread mostly by IV drug use and anal receptive sex. Neither of these groups of people will be protected by circumcision. If you look closer, you will find that there are much higher incidents of STI’s
in Hispanic and African Americans which have a much lower rate of circumcision.
In fact, I read that in Florida, Medicaid stopped funding circumcision. But after figuring out
that it was costing a lot more to fix the problems from having foreskin, Medicaid recently starting paying for circumcision again.
Foreskin is hardly “the best” part. I was one of the few guys I knew that had foreskin.
I couldn’t wait to get rid of it. At 25 I found a willing urologist. Almost 40 years later,
I have no regrets and only wish it had been done at birth.
I also read about a study that showed around 10% of circumcised guys wished they hadn’t been
but something like 30% uncircumcised guys wished they had been. And don’t bother arguing
that the 30% could chose to have it done now. It’s much riskier, requires sutures, and sexual downtime.
Foreskin has no function and it’s best removed at birth.
So.. they’re fanatics even though they oppose forced genital cutting..? They’re fanatics even though they want all girls AND boys to have the rights to their own bodies? They’re fanatics who want boys to grow up and make the decision themselves instead of parents forcing permanent alterations to them?
They are not the ones who want innocent children to be held down and permanently, painfully mutilated. You are. Think about that.
If your logic was sound then we should be cutting girls as well but we don’t. We don’t demand that their privates look a certain way or demand that they surgically alter their privates if too many infections occur (which occur far more often in girls than any intact boys).
Oh, Dr. Feldman, you admit at the beginning that circumcision is a ritual in Jewish and Muslim communities, so your bias is showing! Then, like the AAP and CDC, you go looking for medical reasons to justify it for those who don’t belong to those religions (it’s still genital mutilation in those religions).
Those admittedly rare first year UTI’s are treated with antibiotics, not surgery! You’re a physician! Why would use the last resort (surgery) when simple treatment is available?! What part of a girl’s anatomy would you cut for their 10x more frequent UTIs? And how do you calculate the narrowing, and sometimes closing of the meatus, caused by circumcision?
Balanitis? Again treatable without surgery! You’re a physician!!!
HIV? The African studies are wrong, are not panning out as planned, and you ascribe a 70% reduction, when that is a relative percentage, not an absolute percentage, which is negligible. It doesn’t protect male to female transmission, and both routes are prevented by condoms, which are necessary even after circumcision! You’re a physician! One might expect you would know the facts, be a critical reader of research, and not recommend genital mutilation for boys anymore than for girls – except for your religion!
Back to square one!
I had many UTI’s in my life including some as a baby, why wasn’t I cut to prevent infections? Oh wait.. I know why.. because I am a woman and protected under US law!! Oh and maybe because one round of cheap antibiotics was more than enough to treat me without removing the most sensitive parts of my genitals 🙂
I think I understand. You want to control a boy’s looks and sexuality because it’s still legal for some reason, but use the above reasons as excuses (all of which are highly invalid and dangerously outdated).
-HIV/AIDS is prevented through the use of condoms. Amputation DOES NOT prevent disease transmission.
-Women are FAR more prone to infections than intact males are. And even if they do get infected, antibiotic cream or medication can treat it. Prevent infections through gentle washing with warm water. Surgery should never be involved in treating infection.
I cannot believe this physician didn’t also cover the risks..
You are doing ZERO favors for your son by amputating him. Stop being lazy parents, teach him proper hygiene, and he will experience the pleasure, sensitivity, and fun of foreskin. He will appreciate you giving him a choice and will most likely resent you by forcing this barbaric, painful surgery on him. Circumcision risks serious injury, infection, and even death. If he survives, he will be desensitized, have hardened/callous glans, and have less pleasure for both him and his partner in adulthood.
If he wants to remove it as an adult, then it will be his choice, NOT YOURS. His body his rights.
A very dangerous and ignorant woman. She’s effectively the equivalent of a dinosaur. None of those are valid reasons for performing unnecessary surgery on a non-consenting person, including the religious one. Further, an intact foreskin plays no part in HIV transmission. Anybody who has properly studied the virus understands this. Could Miss Feldman please articulate what sort of remedy she prescribes for the much more prevalent female urinary tract infections…
UTIs: You’d have to cut more than 100 boys in vain to prevent one boy getting a UTI, which can be readily treated without surgery, as they always are in girls of course (who get three times as many UTIs). And that’s by the cutting-advocates’ own figures!
Infections under the foreskin: Dr Feldmen doesn’t seem to understand what “non-retractable” means. The foreskin is firmly attached to the glans, like a nail to the nail-bed. They only way sand can get under there is if it’s forcibly torn away. Unfortunately many doctors who, like Dr Feldman, don’t understand this basic anatomical fact, do just that, causing the very problems they claim to prevent. And sand? No problem, you just wash it out, just as a girl would.
HIV? “There are some who have said….” Yes, and others who have said the reverse, that telling men genital cutting will protect them is a recipe for disaster. Even cutting were at all protective, it would only apply to female-to-male transmission, a very small proportion of HIV acquistion in the USA today. Women are at much more risk from transmission from men, and two studies have found that genital cutting men INcreases the risk to women.
I like Dr Feldman’s unique personal take on Hippocrates: “_At_ first do no harm”. So, just hold off doing harm for a bit, eh Doctor? Do harm later? No, what it actually says is, “First, do no harm” and what it means is, _above all else_, do no harm, and that is NOT how infant male genital cutting works. On the contrary, it does harm first, and throughout a man’s life, with the shaky promise that it might do a little bit of good some day.
No harm is done; only improvement…
“No harm is done”.
Codswallop. It is indisputable fact: 100% of the time, circumcision results in harm by permanently removing functional, innervated tissue and replacing it with a scar. Stop spreading FUD.
Not for me. I saw no loss of function.
Studies of guys circumcised as adults say the same thing. Do you have evidence
to support your belief?
“No harm is done”.
Codswallop. It is indisputable fact: 100% of the time, circumcision results in harm by permanently removing functional, innervated tissue and replacing it with a scar.
Professional and personal shame on Dr. Feldman!!
Dr. Rochelle Feldman please embrace modern medicine. If parents are listening to her that is scary. Time to retire or change your repertoire. Children need to be protected from genital mutilation.
This woman is an idiot.
No one in the rest of the world buys this kind of bull. She’s just an American doctor who has mutilated little boys and wants to feel better about it by trying to justify it with the same old insane rhetoric that American parents are spoon fed when they have baby boys.
This should definitely be marked as “Fake News”.
I am an intact man born in and currently living in the US and I will be 44 in May.
I have have experienced 0 (none) UTIs thus far in my life.
Dr. Feldman is a quack who clearly has no adequate training in research methods and statistics if she thinks that there is any medical justification for performing irreversible surgery on healthy infants that removes functional, erogenous genital tissue. She should be censured for misleading people. And shame on KHTS Radio for giving this charlatan a platform to vomit out her misinformation. Kids will be violated because of it.
Not one of you has addressed what Dr. Feldman said. You all attack her personally.
Is what she claimed right or not?
If not, present your evidence.