Mothering › Forums › Health › The Case Against Circumcision › We saved one!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

We saved one!

post #1 of 10
Thread Starter 
I'm a nursing student who has been doing OB/L&D clinicals this month. I posted about it on a previous thread asking for help to come up with a pamphlet for my classmates for a presentation we had to do. That was yesterday and it was recieved well. I think I made them think. I talked about how the rate is only 59% now, and that surprised a lot of them. I talked about the care of the intact baby/child, and also how to care for the circed child and to watch for infections, adhesions, etc. I had to be kinda neutral but I wanted to inform of the risks.

One of my classmates who doesn't have kids yet but is leaning towards natural parenting practices attended the birth of a baby two days ago. The man was an Asian immigrant and his wife was white American. She left the decision of the circ up to her husband. The husband was undecided and asked the nurse in charge of the birth what she thought. The nurse said that she had circed all of her boys. Then after the nurse left the room, the husband asked my friend what she thought. My friend talked about how many people are not doing it anymore due to the population shift and education, there are risks because it's a surgical procedure, and that her classmate (that would be me ) was against it because it was not a medically necessary procedure, and it was something that boy should decide because it was his body. The man then thought a minute and decided he would NOT do the circ because of the risks and the fact that it was not medically necessary.

I'm just so happy-- there are a few of my classmates who have sons who did circ, but the ones I hope to reach are the ones who have not had kids yet- that they at least think about it and educated themselves about it.
post #2 of 10
Great going!

If your classmates paused to think about 59%, their eyes really would have popped out if you had told them the CDC used a 2009 figure of 32.5% last month at an international conference for 25,000 attendees. Whatever the real number is, it seems to be dropping faster than anyone imagined. Yet not inconsistent with the fiscal austerity everyone is dealing with.
post #3 of 10
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by brant31 View Post
Great going!

If your classmates paused to think about 59%, their eyes really would have popped out if you had told them the CDC used a 2009 figure of 32.5% last month at an international conference for 25,000 attendees. Whatever the real number is, it seems to be dropping faster than anyone imagined. Yet not inconsistent with the fiscal austerity everyone is dealing with.
Wow I wish I had known that statistic! At least I got them thinking.
post #4 of 10
The new numbers are from a more recent study. We've been using the 59% from 2006 for a while, but the 33%, from 2009 IIRC, one came out just a few weeks ago.
post #5 of 10
Yes, the CDC-commissioned review, by a private company, of hospital discharge records and procedure billing codes came up with figures like:

2007 56%
2008 44%
2009 32.5%

for a last-3-years average of 43%.

It did not capture out-of-pocket circumcisions, circs coded as something else or rolled into general maternity codes, or those performed more than 28 days after birth.

The CDC stresses that this was not a survey to determine accurate circumcision rates or trends, but to help them identify complications.
post #6 of 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by brant31 View Post
It did not capture out-of-pocket circumcisions, circs coded as something else or rolled into general maternity codes, or those performed more than 28 days after birth.
Some of this will be off set by hospitals that just automatically billing it if you have a boy and only taking it off if the error is pointed out at discharge by the completely exhausted new parents making a special trip to the billing department.
post #7 of 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by brant31 View Post

It did not capture out-of-pocket circumcisions, circs coded as something else or rolled into general maternity codes, or those performed more than 28 days after birth.

The CDC stresses that this was not a survey to determine accurate circumcision rates or trends, but to help them identify complications.
Considering that they only looked at the 90 days following circumcisions, I don't think it was a very effective study of complications.

OP, yay for making a difference!
post #8 of 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by eepster View Post
Some of this will be off set by hospitals that just automatically billing it if you have a boy and only taking it off if the error is pointed out at discharge by the completely exhausted new parents making a special trip to the billing department.
If I had to pay my own hospital bill and insurance wasn't picking everything up, best believe I'm going over that bill with a fine-toothed comb!
post #9 of 10
Great news USAmma and those new circ numbers are very encouraging.
post #10 of 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2lilsweetfoxes View Post
If I had to pay my own hospital bill and insurance wasn't picking everything up, best believe I'm going over that bill with a fine-toothed comb!
So often though, people just pay their pre-set co-pay and everything else goes to the insurance company. I often don't even see a bill from various Drs, it all just goes straight to the insurance company.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Case Against Circumcision
Mothering › Forums › Health › The Case Against Circumcision › We saved one!