Statistics

In today's Parents magazine rant (I promise, I'm canceling this subscription), an article about whether or not to circumcise newborn boys talks about the "extremely rare" risk of complications (about 3% according to them). Not to be nit-picking, and it's not really the fault of Parents magazine, but women who want to have a VBAC get told that the 0.5% risk of uterine rupture is "too high" and often are told that they are risking the lives of their babies if they even go into labor, but here the 3% possibility that a baby boy's penis will become infected or disfigured as a result of a routine operation is presented as acceptable.

I'm not criticizing those who circumcise, but it would be nice if statistical risks were more accurately represented across the board. For the record, only a small percentage of those who do experience uterine rupture actually end up with severe consequences, so it's not just a matter of death vs. disfigurement. And yes, if it's you who had the horrible outcome in either situation, it's awful. I just want risks to be accurately represented and not blown out of proportion.