or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Understanding Circumcision › Infant circumcision causes over 100 deaths per year
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Infant circumcision causes over 100 deaths per year - Page 2

post #21 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by So-Called View Post
What I'm not understanding is the numbers and how they derived them.

I wish they had citations for this information, and went into more depth about how it was acquired. I don't see how anyone will take it seriously otherwise.
This is a very good point. I was perusing www.acroposthion.com last night, and that website stated a number of around 250 deaths per year from circumcision.

Also, if you check out the index in the top left corner and go to the section entitled "the circumcision mafia", they have quite a detailed account of the commercial side of circumcision. I was aware of much of this previously, but the extent and money involved is staggering!! I ,personaly, feel that the ethics involved are very questionable also.
post #22 of 36
I bet some of the parents don't talk about it b/c that would require them to acknowledge that their unnecessary choice of circumcision caused their son's death. That is a big thing to accept, and it is easier to not discuss it and blame it on other causes in a roundabout way. This also is easier for the doctors, too.
post #23 of 36
Horrible. It blows my mind why a parent would do a cosmetic procedure on a newborn anyway, but if they had these stats in front of them would they think twice? Anyone know exactly what kind of forms or consent is necessary for a circ?
post #24 of 36
The ones who haven't circ'ed or pg with a boy whose on the fence it may more likely push them into the route of researching circ or ending up not circ'ing.

The ones who have already circ'ed they would be still continue to circ their son's because that death rate hadn't happened to them and they could likely have up to 3-5 son's .

So I wonder actually what changes a person way to change tradition after having 4 circ'ed sons then leaving next one's intact .
post #25 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by MommytoB View Post

So I wonder actually what changes a person way to change tradition after having 4 circ'ed sons then leaving next one's intact .
Intellectual and emotional honesty and courage that is rarely found.
post #26 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by lotus.blossom View Post
Horrible. It blows my mind why a parent would do a cosmetic procedure on a newborn anyway, but if they had these stats in front of them would they think twice? Anyone know exactly what kind of forms or consent is necessary for a circ?
Cosmetic for sure!

What really baffles me is when a parent is willing to risk death for a cosmetic appearance to which resembles a congenital defect known as aposthia (born with an incomplete penis, the prepuce organ never fully developed).
post #27 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anastasiya View Post
We need a bumper sticker to this effect, or something: SIDS kills 115 US infants a year. Circumcision kills 117 US infants a year.
That's good, and how about:

1 in 10,000 American circumcisions kills a healthy baby.
post #28 of 36
Although I am a positive that boys die from circumcision, and probably more than more doctors would like to admit, and although I am not a statistician, I think we have to be somewhat careful with the numbers in this study. There may be mistaken assumptions made in the calculations that could alter the ballpark of the estimation. The point is that deaths do happen, and that there has been no serious attempt to gather or promulgate information on the incidence by the CDC or other powers that be in the health care world - all of which parents need to be informed of for valid consent. The other point is that whether its 1/10,000 or 1/1 million, no death is justifiable for a unnecessary cosmetic procedure on a nonconsenting individual. This study may not be the be the final word, but at least it takes an honest look at the issue, and gets the discussion into the scholarly literature.

Gillian
post #29 of 36
Quote:
That's good, and how about:

1 in 10,000 American circumcisions kills a healthy baby.
This figure is not so different than the 1 in 5600 figure that Gairdner found in his UK study in 1948 (or 1949?) which led to the end of funding for circ and a drop in the rate to next to nothing.
post #30 of 36
So, the AAP wants everyone to know how dreadfully dangerous chicken pox can be (before routine vax, it killed about 100 a year...), and pushes the vaccination on all little kids. Yet, they consider circumcision, which apparently kills at least as many as chicken pox used to, beneficial? How does anyone have faith in them?
post #31 of 36
I found a copy of the full article from Thymos. (I have a PDF copy--if anyone would like to read it, PM me and I'll pass it along.) It's a pretty interesting read, and definitely an opinion paper recommending systemic policy changes, not merely a report of statistical data. I'm curious about how it has been/will be received in academia (if anyone even takes notice of it)--I'd never heard of the journal, which is printed by a publisher in "men's studies," and I know academia can be very dismissive of research outside of the mainstream journals and disciplinary areas.

As far as the 117 deaths figure, I do think the number is a rough one (due to inaccurate reporting of cause of death), but the full article explains how it was calculated and includes all citations. Someone better at scientific research than me would have to examine the logic, but it makes sense from a layperson's perspective. (And as someone said above, the SIDS rate quoted is for boys in the first month of their lives--the article has the SIDS rate for the first year as well, which is much higher).
post #32 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by glongley View Post
The other point is that whether its 1/10,000 or 1/1 million, no death is justifiable for a unnecessary cosmetic procedure on a nonconsenting individual.
This.
post #33 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pirogi View Post
I wonder what the incidence of non-lethal complications is? (Other than the obvious 100% of circumcised males have healthy tissue removed. )
I've read that it is as high as 50%.

The problem with most studies on complication rates are that they only look for complications for 48 hrs after the procedure. But one study found that of 8 infections due to circ, only 1 was diagnosed in 48 hrs. I've had 2 friends over the years who had to have surgery on their 2-3 year old sons to correct narrowing of the penile opening--a complication of circumcision--and I actually dated a guy who admitted to having had that surgery as well. I wonder how many guys I've known who *haven't* admitted to having the surgery? Or perhaps don't even know they had it because they don't remember it?
post #34 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by knitted_in_the_wom View Post
I've had 2 friends over the years who had to have surgery on their 2-3 year old sons to correct narrowing of the penile opening--a complication of circumcision--and I actually dated a guy who admitted to having had that surgery as well. I wonder how many guys I've known who *haven't* admitted to having the surgery? Or perhaps don't even know they had it because they don't remember it?
Or perhaps they don't realize it is related to circumcision.
post #35 of 36
Meatal Stenosis is VERY common. It wasn't until my DH's 3rd surgery that I made his urologist admit that it is totally related to his circumcision. If he was intact, he never would have had this problem.

Doctors don't want to admit that because that means less $$$ for them when these men know the damage was circ related and choose to leave their boys intact. (but then I'm jaded)
post #36 of 36
bump
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Understanding Circumcision
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Understanding Circumcision › Infant circumcision causes over 100 deaths per year