Mothering › Forums › Health › The Case Against Circumcision › chart of all the risks?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

chart of all the risks?  

post #1 of 5
Thread Starter 
I'm wondering if there is any site that has ALL of the risks detailed and with the frequency where available. I'd like to see it in a graph form, or otherwise I could put it into a graph. The Canadian Pediatric Society site had a nice rundown of some of the risks, but didn't list them all. I'd like to put the graphs side-by-side: per 10,000 (or whatever many) boys circumcised, x will die, x will bleed excessively, x will have infections of the wound, x will have complications from anesthesia, x will aspirate vomit and wind up with pneumonia, x will rupture a gut from shrieking, x will have part of the glans amputated, x will have the entire penis removed and be raised as a girl, x will get MRSA, x will have painful erections as an adult, x will have to have the surgery re-done, x will have skin tags bridges and similar cosmetic problems, x will have urinary tract infections, all will have lost half their penile skin and 20,000 specialized nerve endings.
vs. Risks of not circumcising per 10,000 natural boys - possibly a couple more will have a UTI in the first year of life.

I realize stats are not available for all of those things but I'd like to see as much as possible especially with references. Any help pointing me in the right direction would be great!

I have neighbors who would circumcise a son for "cultural reasons... tradition" (In other words Dad is cut and would feel threatened/uncomfortable keeping a boy intact. The same old story... if we don't cut the boy that means there's something wrong with cutting... but there can't be anything wrong about it because it was done to me and I'm just fine, right? Right?? Please let's cut the boy so I can convince myself I'm fine...)
Anyway, when they said "for cultural reasons" I tried to tell them more about the procedure but they were all "Oh we can make an informed decision." (In other words our minds are made up we don't want to hear anything that would challenge our foregone conclusion) anyway in light of their stated desire to make an "informed decision" I will be giving them information. One important bit of information is the risk of the procedure. Undertake risk of death or MRSA or a ruptured gut for a "tradition"? Who would?

The sick thing is they are going to the same midwifery practice I went to and they sure won't tell them the whole story there. The midwives are all "supportive of whatever choice you want." They go so far as to say the procedure is totally unnecessary for medical reasons, but they never mention why and how it is BAD. Heavens, they wouldn't want to alienate any clients! In fact, after I went home from my birth center birth, I called them two days later to let them know we had finally thought of a name for our boy. And then the secretary asked if I wanted them to schedule a circ! So you know you're not going to get the straight story from these folks.

Jen
post #2 of 5
I did a spread sheet of the results from 5 different reviews of circumcision complications (Patel 1966, Leitch 1970, Gee and Ansell 1976, Kaplan 1983, Williams & Kapila 1993). PM me with your email address and I will send you the file.

There are other sources of data on complications besides this too numerous to list here, but you may have to dig to get more data on things like MRSA, or death.

Gillian
post #3 of 5
This would be worth compiling. Pretty much nothing mentions adhesions or meatal stenosis-- the stats for those should be available.
post #4 of 5
Adhesions: [All of these articles are available at CIRP]
Gracely-Kilgore 1984 - 15% (over age 1 - informal office survey)
Van Howe 1997 - 30% (consecutive pediatric clinical practice sample)
Ponsky 2000 - 71% (under age 1 - but this is from a sample of children who were referred to pediatric urologists, so may be a biased sample, i.e. may have been referred BECAUSE they had adhesions - therefore I stay away from claiming this number and use the 15-30% which is impressive enough))

Meatal Stenosis:
eMedicine article by C Angel lists 9-10%
Van Howe 2006 7.29% (older than 3 y/o) Van Howe RS. Incidence of Meatal Stenosis following Neonatal Circumcision in a primary care setting. Clinical Pediatrics. 2006;45:49-54

Gillian
post #5 of 5
How can it be phrased consicely to note that ALL the stats listed as risk on most sites (AAP, Canadian, etc.) only list the risks immediatly after the surgery, not these that show up later...
That just always boggles the mind.
And can anyone confirm for me that the stats listed for intactness ALWAYS include the lifetime risks- stating risk of penile cancer (which likely shows up in old age) etc.

So parents don't even get unbiased risks, or comparing apples to apples. Just always boggles my mind.


As for the 70% adhesions seen before age 1, I think its worth noting, using the 70% before age 1 and the other figures for over age 1. The study I've seen (not sure if its the same one or different one, baby naking now so I need to go) catagorizes the adhesions into severity, with probably 15-30 being rated as severe. And overall 70% seen.

For parents thinking that circumcision is supposed to be 'easier' 'cleaner' dealing with adhesions is a really common concern that comes up on pro-circ support boards and new-baby boards. Most are quite surprised that they have to do all this 'care' to prevent adhesions from forming, or prevent them once they have started happening.

Jessica
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Case Against Circumcision
This thread is locked  
Mothering › Forums › Health › The Case Against Circumcision › chart of all the risks?