or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Understanding Circumcision › Latest circumcision stats from 2008
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Latest circumcision stats from 2008 - Page 2

post #21 of 44
...oops...that was meant for a pm...
post #22 of 44
Boo, my current state MI and home state OH are outrageous. We have a large Latino population here, but I guess all their babies are getting cut now. What a shame. I asked my mom about the Amish communities in OH, she had many Amish clients over the years, and out of all only 1 father wanted his child circumcised. Probably because he happened to be born in a hospital and was compulsory cut. It didnt seem to be prevalent in that particular community. Altho I dont think Amish communities really share many ties with one another, so it is possible that circumcision could gain popularity in isolated communities, though it holds no traditional heritage.
I am very surprised Hawaii is so High!
post #23 of 44
Originally Posted by minkajane View Post
I live in Ohio and I am sad to say that I am not surprised at all at the 85% rate. I don't know of anyone but me IRL that has not had their son circ'd. Not one person.
I'm in ohio and I'm not surpised either. They actually told me it was required for him to be circ'ed before we were discharged from the hospital. I do know better of course, and he did NOT get circ'ed. I'm thankful to know a few people in my area who leave their boys intact.
post #24 of 44
Why are my tax dollars still paying to mutilate the babies in my state? WTF MA???? UGHHH. Its lower than I though though.
post #25 of 44
I have also wondered what the "real" numbers are since 3 of 4 families I know circ status for had their babies circumcised AFTER discharge from the hospital. And this is in the low-circ rate Pacific Northwest. Maybe our higher home birth rates contribute to the lower hospital circ rates?
post #26 of 44
holy crap. It's so weird to think this happens to 76-100% of babies in so many states
I have made the right decision for my own ds, thank GOD!, but I am starting to feel the need to stand up for all the other baby boys.
post #27 of 44
Originally Posted by ElliesMomma View Post
i think CA's was 22 percent. what makes Nevada's so low, and Florida's too?

can anybody who's in the know summarize why the vast desparity between, say Michigan 85 percent and Florida, 39 percent?
My friend who has dual citizenship told me that most Mexicans don't circumcise, and Florida obviously has a lot of immigrants.
post #28 of 44
BOOOOOOO Ohio! Although i should have guessed it. I really did think it was more like 70%, not 85% though!
post #29 of 44
Originally Posted by anony View Post
If a hospital discourages 87% of parents on it, I doubt 1/5 of those are unreceptive enough to that disclaimer to go have it done at a clinic somewhere and I doubt there's a rate of circ's done in the first few years after birth that more than equals the rates at birth. Doesn't add up. Knowing older, married-with-kids friends of mine and the locker room, it seems rarer than 31% (no I don't look but sometimes you do notice I'm afraid).
I agree with you on this. I was under the impression that our rate in Canada was much lower. My children are grown up now, and it seemed that when DS was born it was about 50/50 in Alberta. A few months ago I was talking to our family doctor about this, and she said that she has noticed a marked decrease in the last five years, so hopefully today, in 2010, it is much lower than those stats suggest.
post #30 of 44
Wow, really interesting statistics. I was surprised to see my state (NY) was 58%. I thought it would be higher...good for you NY, but you still have a long way to go!

I see someone mentioned that these stats wouldn't reflect a a post-hospital private circ (like a bris), but they also wouldn't reflect a baby boy born at home, would they? I would have to imagine that the majority of homebirth boys would not be circ'ed...
post #31 of 44
I wonder where I could find NM's stats.

My 3 boys were born in CO, though, where it states the rate is 64% That sounds accurate to me among people with little boys born there in the past decade.

Thanks for the link!
post #32 of 44
I'm not sure I believe the stats exactly. I hate to be a Debbie Downer but I know the stats for my state (Texas) are much higher than stated. Even if they are 26 - 50% in the border towns they are much, much higher in the major cities and even rural towns. I'd guess the true percentage is closer to 75 - 80% for the whole state.

I've been looking at trends in my own hospital over the past 3 years or so. I'd say at least half of our immigrant moms circ their boys, including those who traditionally don't. We'll get mamas in town from Mexico working the farms or just traveling through back to Mexico and many of them who deliver go ahead and circ. I'm not sure why. And we have a huge Bermese population now and they circ without fail. They can't speak any English and I'm hoping the details of the procedure aren't getting lost in translation. But anywho...lost of circs in North Texas. I'd guess that 95% of non-immigrant boys in my area are circed too.
My friend who works in another part of the state said about 75% of boys there are also circed.

Just to address a few things others have mentioned in this thread...Texas does still fund Medicaid circs.
Yes, the stats wouldn't include boys born at home but don't assume most of them escape RIC either. At least in N. TX, many homebirthed and birth center born babies are still circed. I'm a member of a homebirth group in my area and half of the moms report they still circ.

The Utah rates seem too low to me. But I do believe RIC is decreasing somewhat and that is encouraging.
post #33 of 44
I thought Texas would be high, too. I lived in San Antonio when my first was born. At the large company for which I worked, I got a lot of pressure to "just do it". "It's no big deal, my OB did it." (As if OBs doing it makes it less of a deal, since they are unskilled? They only occasionally save lives by performing surgery to remove babies from wombs or stop hemorrhaging.) Anyway, I finally found a male coworker whose brother grew up intact in Texas. The intact brother said his status wasn't an issue. Just about everyone else I talked to had circed or would circ. I did find two people who wouldn't if they had it to do again because of complications. I found two people who didn't circ.

Now, I'm in Colorado, and our numbers are higher than Texas? I just find that astounding.

post #34 of 44
Originally Posted by Night_Nurse View Post

The Utah rates seem too low to me. But I do believe RIC is decreasing somewhat and that is encouraging.
Personally I've talked several Utahns out of circ'ing!!
post #35 of 44
I think I remember reading it was discouraged by the Mormon religion. At least the old-school Mormons were opposed to it.
post #36 of 44
I live in Florida and I never would have guessed it's "only" 36% here. I don't know anyone else here who didn't circ.
post #37 of 44
I'm in Cinci, Ohio, and shocked at the numbers. When I was in the hospital after ds was born, the very young female pediatrician who did the initial exams at the hospital came in and asked "you didn't circ?"and I told her we weren't going to and she smiled and very quietly said "Good for you". I was shocked at this but pleasantly surprised!!!!! So maybe there's hope for ohio yet
post #38 of 44
Yeah, I'm in OH too and not the least bit surprsied at the 85 or 86 or whatever percentile it is. I too know *no one* else with an intact boy - and I have lots of friends with little boys. And all of them are circ'd.
post #39 of 44
Originally Posted by glongley View Post
The 9% vs. 31% rate in Canada does indeed reflect the difference between rates at hospital discharge, vs. the number of boys who are ultimately circumcised within the first year of life. It may be that circumcisions are not performed in hospitals in Canada much any more due to lack of reimbursement and general recognition of lack of medical necessity, but that post-hospital circumcision providers are picking up the slack for those parents determined to have it done.

Relaize that the numbers given for the US are also hospital discharge figures. Certainly a number of circumcisions are performed for religious reasons after hospital discharge or in doctor's offices instead of the hospital for whatever reason. So the 55% national circ rate usually quoted only reflects hospital discharge figures and the rates for all circumcision in the first year of life are undoubtedly higher. I believe there was a study in the last few years looking at data in Maryland that showed perhaps 10% higher rates for post hospital infant circs than were reflected in the discharge stats. (I may not be remembering the exact numbers right).

Though the stats do miss post discharge circs, they also miss homebirthed boys who get to remain intact, so there is some balancing out and the %s may not be that far off.
post #40 of 44
I'm in Ohio, the state with the highest percentage, and proud to say that I have three intact boys! (two of them born in this state, one not)

I had no issues at birth with my two that were born in Ohio, but I hung up signs with huge bold red letters that made my preference quite clear

I have, though, had issues with Dayton Children's Hospital. They haven't ever suggested a circ is necessary, but they are woefully uninformed on the proper care of an intact penis. I sent a nasty gram to the head of Radiology after a nurse tried to retract my son to cath him for a VCUG.

My oldest son was born overseas at a military hospital, and I fended off circumcision numerous times, it got a little ridiculous! Then I asked one of the nurses "what the rate is here for circ?" and she said "oh, it's free, is that why you're declining?" No, I meant the percentage. She estimated it at about 80-85%. Then she stood there waiting for me to say yes, and I just smiled and looked at my son and said "well, you're a lucky one!"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Understanding Circumcision
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Understanding Circumcision › Latest circumcision stats from 2008