Mothering › Forums › Health › The Case Against Circumcision › to circumcise or not to circumcise?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

to circumcise or not to circumcise? - Page 5

post #81 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by beep View Post
So for me this decision is about determining whether there is any good enough reason to circumcise--i.e. would/could it be life-saving or life-improving--that might make it worth the risks and pain for my son.
That is very rational, and very easier to answer. For a healthy baby, the ONLY "benefit" to circumcision is that it could reduce the risk of UTI from 1% to 0.1% for the first year of life only (after that UTI is equal for circ vs. uncirc boys.) However, the risk of serious lifelong complications from the procedure itself far outweigh a slightly lowered risk of UTI for one year of life.

Any other alleged benefits of circumcision apply to adult males only so it would be up to your son as a young adult to decide if he wants to be circumcised for those reasons; you would only want to do it to a baby if there are clear benefits for him WHILE he is young. Otherwise it can be done later at his own discretion.

HTH

Jen
post #82 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by phrogger View Post
My 12 year old son said to me while I was pg with my newest son (2 months old), "MOM, step away from his penis, it is HIS, not yours, you can't decide what should happen to it, that is REALLY messed up if you do". My oldest two boys are intact but my step son is circ so dh and I were debating what to do with the new baby. My oldest son said it perfectly.

I was never worried about the pain so much. I did use that with my DH as a reasoning to not do it and made him watch a video of it being done, that freaked him out. The pain though, to me, isn't really a consideration. Pain meds can be used etc. My issue has always been, I would NEVER want someone to remove parts of my body for no reason, why would I ever do that to my child. We are looking into getting my son's tongue clipped, I am sure that is painful, BUT it will serve a purpose if there are speech issues due to being tongue tied. There are no medical purposes to cut off an infant boys penis. And just because it is called foreskin doesn't mean it isn't still his penis.
There's no comparison between the surgery to fix a tounge tie and circumcising your son.

Having the tounge be tied is a defect, the foreskin is not a birth defect. Therefore, getting surgery to fix a defect isn't on the same level as performing surgery on a healthy, functioning part of the body.
post #83 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by jenP View Post
That is very rational, and very easier to answer. For a healthy baby, the ONLY "benefit" to circumcision is that it could reduce the risk of UTI from 1% to 0.1% for the first year of life only (after that UTI is equal for circ vs. uncirc boys.) However, the risk of serious lifelong complications from the procedure itself far outweigh a slightly lowered risk of UTI for one year of life.
This is not actually factual. The study that this information comes from was comparing intact premies to circumcised full term infants. This would skew the results in so many ways that it becomes laughable. Lets start with the fact that premies very likely have less developed UT systems and end with the fact that they are much more likely to have had to be cathed (which greatly increases the likelyhood of a UTI)

They were comparing apples to oranges and the whole study should be discounted in it's entirety.

From the AAP's own policy statement:
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org...rics;103/3/686

Quote:
Few of the studies that have evaluated the association between UTI in male infants and circumcision status have looked at potential confounders (such as prematurity, breastfeeding, and method of urine collection) in a rigorous way. For example, because premature infants appear to be at increased risk for UTI,75-77 the inclusion of hospitalized premature infants in a study population may act as a confounder by suggesting an increased risk of UTI in uncircumcised infants.
post #84 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fyrestorm View Post
From the AAP's own policy statement:
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org...rics;103/3/686
Very true, and thank you for that quote, I had not seen that particular one before. Also, the studies were flawed because at the time they were done, forced retraction and vigorous cleaning with soap at every diaper change was the norm. That alone could account for increased rates of infection!

I only mentioned the "benefit" of decreased risk of UTI to demonstrate that EVEN IF you ignore the ethics of surgery on a healthy baby, and EVEN IF you take as absolute fact all of the supposed "benefits" of circumcision, those benefits STILL don't outweigh the risks.

Jen
post #85 of 92
Also, I think it's something like 110 circumcisions need to take place to prevent 1 UTI (this is based on the numbers from those flawed studies) So even if it were true, what ever happened to ABX?

Girls are MUCH more likely to get a UTI and I don't see anyone suggesting genital cutting...the just prescribe ABX!

OT- JenP- Are you the Jen from the Genital integrity board on best births?
post #86 of 92
nobody has the right to cut you or to remove part of your body without consent! Don't you think we owe our sons the same respect and right of genital integrity?

CIRCUMCISION DECISION Hosted by Dr. Dean Edell
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...65256830319025

DOCTORS OPPOSING CIRCUMCISION
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_lis...354EC34E141BD3
post #87 of 92
This video will tell you better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcmiodKUs6U

She said, paraphrasing: "It is a crime to cut a man. If you walk up to a man and cut him, you've done something wrong. Consensual cutting is out of the evaluation. Except: Life saving in the event of an emergency if the man is incapable of consent. By saving his life you are securing his right (right to live). Let's change the statement: It is a crime to cut a baby, though we are obligated to act in case of an emergency."

Is Infant Circumcision an emergency? NO.

I blogged about it here
http://enithhernandez.blogspot.com/2...-of-child.html

We cannot remove part of your body w/o consent when it is perfectly functional, normal and healthy, or can I?
post #88 of 92
Hi, posts have been removed that were in violation of the forum's guidelines or quoted a post that was removed. Please remember that we do not host the advocation of routine infant medical circumcision. PM me with any questions. Thanks!
post #89 of 92
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SunShineSally View Post
Have you figured out what you are going to do yet?
I'm still leaning against it, but just sitting with my tentative decision and slowly making my way through some medical research papers. There's time still, since the baby isn't due until December.

Thanks to all of you here for your inputs and for following up with me.
post #90 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by beep View Post
I'm still leaning against it, but just sitting with my tentative decision and slowly making my way through some medical research papers. There's time still, since the baby isn't due until December.

Thanks to all of you here for your inputs and for following up with me.


Let us know when you figure it out! I am due at the end of November and lurk in the December DDC!
post #91 of 92
First, kudos to you for having the good sense to investigate this bizarre custom. Previous posters have offered a lot of information which will allow you to realise that the reasons most often given in support of circumcising an infant are pure myth.

Ask yourself what other body part you would be willing to have amputated from your son for prophylactic reasons? What about your daughter?? When framed in this context, the notion of circumcising of a newborn baby suddenly becomes totaly rediculous.

Then ask yourself, that if you did consent to have his foreskin removed, what would you say to him when, some years later, he confronts you, demanding an explanation why you did it. I asked my mother twice. I got the same answer both times, and I realised that she was the victim of some very erroneous advice. I really wish she had used a bit more common sense, but she believed what information she had. You, in contrast, will not have that excuse. Since the advent of the internet information is readily available to almost everyone.

Finaly, as others have pointed out, is this a decision that any parent can make, in good faith, on behalf of their child? Since there is no immediate health risk, the answer has to be a resounding NO. It is his penis - it has to be his choice.
post #92 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papai View Post
There's no comparison between the surgery to fix a tounge tie and circumcising your son.

Having the tounge be tied is a defect, the foreskin is not a birth defect. Therefore, getting surgery to fix a defect isn't on the same level as performing surgery on a healthy, functioning part of the body.
That was my point. The pain could very well be the same, so pain on my son is not the issue surrounding my not circumcising. I kept my sons intact because it their body and there is no reason what so ever to do it. If we clip his tongue, it will be because there is a legit reason as it would be causing problems with his eatting or speech.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Case Against Circumcision
Mothering › Forums › Health › The Case Against Circumcision › to circumcise or not to circumcise?