Mothering › Groups › May 2013 Due Date Club › Discussions › circumcision?

circumcision?

post #1 of 41
Thread Starter 

So, for those of us who know we are having boys, or are possibly having boys, what does everyone think of circumcision?  

 

I'm totally aware this is an emotionally loaded topic.  I'm curious to gather perspectives, as we have not made our decision yet.

 

At first, I was totally against it.  We are not observant Jews, have no religious or medical imperative to do so, and I don't want to inflict needless pain on my child.  Also, it's not all that "normal" to be circumcised anymore - studies indicate about 60% of baby boys are now circumcised.

 

BUT, then a friend sent me a very legit study just put out by the CDC that circumcision does in fact greatly reduce the chances of infection and certain diseases.  Read it here: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/malecircumcision/

 

So, what do you think?  Is there a medical reason to circumcise?  Will you do it? 


Edited by pastormama - 1/29/13 at 10:52am
post #2 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by pastormama View Post

So, for those of us who know we are having boys, or are possibly having boys, what does everyone think of circumcision?  

 

I'm totally aware this is an emotionally loaded topic.  I'm curious to gather perspectives, as we have not made our decision yet.

 

At first, I was totally against it.  We are not observant Jews, have no religious or medical imperative to do so, and I don't want to inflict needless pain on my child.  Also, it's not all that "normal" to be circumcised anymore - studies indicate about 60% of baby boys are now circumcised.

 

BUT, then a friend sent me a very legit study just put out by the CDC that circumcision does in fact greatly reduce the chances of infection, certain diseases, and especially homosexual transmission of HIV in males.  Read it here: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/malecircumcision/

 

So, what do you think?  Is there a medical reason to circumcise?  Will you do it? 

Wait....only homosexual male sex? Would that not also mean for a hetero male having sex with an infected female partner? 

 

If we have a boy, we're doing it. Jewish reasons. We're not religious but we are traditional. We would have a bris with close family and friends, a hired moyel (they are so expensive in NYC it is insane) and it would happen on the 8th day of the baby's life, not in the hospital. That is the day we'd also announce the baby's name, both English and Hebrew, or just Hebrew if they wind up being the same name. 

 

I'm not even going to bother reading up on the controversy behind it because I know I wouldn't consider not doing it. Kind of weird, since I read up on a lot, and like to be aware of different perspectives and opinions and research but for this it would be moot. If I weren't Jewish it would be something I'd be reading up on it and deciding on. I do think the whole thing is kinda barbaric. 

post #3 of 41
I do not believe there is a medical reason for routine infant circumcision and still don't see any compelling evidence to the contrary. Circumcision does not prevent STDS, practicing safe sex does. The article talks more about heterosexual transmission of HIV, what is said about homosexual HIV is

Observational studies have yielded mixed results in attempts to detect a protective effect of male circumcision among men who have sex with men (MSM). While some cross-sectional [22] and prospective [23] studies of MSM have shown statistically significant increases in risk of HIV acquisition by uncircumcised MSM, others have found no evidence that being circumcised was protective against HIV infection among MSM [24]. In a recent meta-analysis of 15 observational studies of male circumcision and HIV acquisition by MSM, a statistically nonsignificant protective association was found (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.65-1.13) [25].

Not exactly a ringing endorsement, especially when you consider how most people in the US contract HIV.



"More than half of all new HIV infections occur in gay men and other men who have sex with men (MSM), even though MSM represent only two percent of the U.S. male population. "-http://www.amfar.org/about_hiv_and_aids/basic_facts_about_hiv/#Are_some_people_at_greater_risk_of_HIV_infection_than_others?



Many of these studies have been roundly criticized as bad science, and the authors been accused of cherry picking data and actually skewing the study to get the desired results.

No medical association in the world recommends routine infant circumcision. Not even the AAP. They recently changed their stance and it basically says that there is not enough evidence to recommend routine infant circumcision, but there is enough evidence to recommend that insurance companies pay for the procedure....That is very telling. I find the Royal Dutch Medical Association standpoint very interesting as it is such a polar opposite of what doctors have (up until recently) been telling parents in the US.
http://knmg.artsennet.nl/web/file?uuid=579e836d-ea83-410f-9889-feb7eda87cd5&owner=a8a9ce0e-f42b-47a5-960e-be08025b7b04&contentid=77976

Even if there was some slight lessening of the risk of disease, I would not have this surgery done on my child. A female child would be much less likely to get breast cancer if you removed her mammary glands as an infant but we don't do that because they obviously serve a purpose and it does not make sense to do that to all children even though 1 in 8 women will develop invasive breast cancer. The foreskin serves a purpose too. It protects the glans. If it were so terrible, men would not have evolved the way that they have. My 5 year old is intact and the little boy I'm carrying will remain intact as well. When they get older, I will support their decision to modify their bodies for cosmetic reasons if they choose to do so, but right now my job is to protect their right to bodily integrity and make sure the choice remains theirs to make.

Here is another article people may find interesting:http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/fleiss.html
Edited by PhilsBabyMama - 1/28/13 at 11:38am
post #4 of 41

I personally would rather teach my son about safe sex (by means of selecting partners carefully and having open and honest discussions before acting on impulses, proper use of condoms, etc.) than rely on surgically altering him to decrease his potential for contracting a disease.  I don't believe there is enough medical reason to go ahead with the procedure.  

 

I have read the statistic a few times that states more infant males die from complications with circumcision in the first month of life than do from SIDS; it's probably statistically the same number, but I myself did ALL KINDS of things to reduce my son's chances of succumbing to SIDS, so why wouldn't I want to do the same for the equally risky circumcision?  That statistic alone is enough of a reason for me personally to avoid it with this baby-boy-to-be.  http://www.readperiodicals.com//201004/2026622071.html  and http://www.examiner.com/article/new-study-estimates-neonatal-circumcision-death-rate-higher-than-suffocation-and-auto-accidents

 

If you ever need any more convincing, google a video of the procedure.  I will never get those images out of my head; I can't understand how any parent elects to do it (I get there are religious and cultural reasons, but besides that) and can even stand by while it happens.  I sincerely hope I am not offending anyone who has chosen it or wishes to choose it, I simply do not understand and would not be able to do so myself.  I can't understand why it's so popular in this country.

post #5 of 41
We are not religious at all, but I do have several Jewish friends who have opted for a Brit Shalom. There is actually a growing movement among Jews to move away from circumcision. Like I said, though, I'm not religious so that was not a consideration for us. http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/brisshalom.htm
post #6 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsBabyMama View Post

A female child would be much less likely to get breast cancer if you removed her mammary glands as an infant but we don't do that becaue they obviously serve a purpose and it does not make sense to do that to all children even though 1 in 8 women will develop invasive breast cancer. ... If it were so terrible, men would not have evolved the way that they have.

thumbsup.gif

 

The idea of surgically removing a body part from my baby sickens me.  Also, it would imply that I find his natural body flawed, which I cannot wrap my head around.

post #7 of 41

My oldest was done. It was not an issue on my radar, so I hadn't done any research at that point. Being Scottish it never was an issue as it is not done routinely in the UK, only for religious (Jewish & Muslim) or genuine medical reasons. So it never entered my head that DH had such a strong opinion. Since we don't find out the gender until birth we never really talked about it, then when DS1 was born DH expressed very clearly that it was happening. We were a hospital transfer from a home birth where I eventually had a c-section after a long 37 hour labor (contractions started only 5min apart.) So I didn't fight it.

 

However DS1 has also had several infections around the scar tissue, one that got so bad we were sent to a Urologist to see if it needed further corrective surgery. It was less an month later that DS2 was born, this time at home. DH was still wanting it done, but by now I was against it. He knew I didn't want it done, but he tried to find a Dr to do it anyway. Fortunately for DS2 DH couldn't find anyone willing to do the procedure since they hadn't been involved in the birth. So DS2 is intact. DS2 has also had NO infections in that area.

 

Even DH has come around to agreeing with me, after seeing the huge difference between our boys in their health while still in diapers. So if this one (or any future babies) is a boy he will be staying intact.
 

I totally understand the religious reasons and support the freedom to make that choice on religious grounds. We won't personally do it again though after our experience of problems with DS1.

post #8 of 41

I won't be circing and don't believe there is a medical reason to. I work in clinical trials for a living and reading that article caused me to ask tons of questions about the populations these studies were conducted in, and how could they apply to me. Without going into too much detail (although I am sure I will), I wouldn't trust a study to apply to me unless the population were in American males (preferable all white, because that is what I am), 50% circed and 50% not, also stratified equally in both groups between homosexual and heterosexual, socioeconomic status and of a younger age. The reason for this is mainly cultural, the cultural standards for personal care and sexual activity are very different in different countries/backgrounds/times - we also have a lot more available to us now than we did 50 years ago in terms of protection/education/risk.

 

Just because these studies show a correlation, does not mean they show a cause. What about the culture of the subjects? The first hole I saw was that most of these studies were conducted in Africa, where there is a huge AIDS epidemic. Is there one here? No. Why? Because our culture is one that has increased awareness, education, protection and a different sexual culture. If the same amount of men were exposed to an STD, but the circumcised ones tended to have/pass the infection more often, why do you think that is? Because the foreskin is retaining the disease longer, right? Because we know circed men can carry/pass diseases too. OK, well bring that to a culture who has running water in every home, a culture of showering on a daily basis, and availability of STD education and protection, then do this study. I'll bet you don't see the same results. Sure, the foreskin is harboring disease if you are exposing yourself to it and not taking care to wash thoroughly, you could apply that to the female labia as well. But our culture doesn't have the same factors in terms of health that are also negatively affecting the spread of disease. When you look at the numbers in the US, there is a slight disparity across race, which can also indicate different cultural and/or socioeconomic norms.

 

Anyway, that is my top-line opinion of this article. I don't think the main studies take enough into account for it to apply to us. The US data is thin, and doesn't seem very well distributed - the sample size doesn't give us a good comparison, nor does it take into account other important factors for preventing the spread of disease. I think this issue is very similar to the HPV vax in girls. Exposure is #1, you can prevent (or at least minimize) that, and a circ or vax won't guarantee protection. Education and personal care are of utmost importance to keep yourself healthy in millions of ways - just think of how far we have come since hand washing became the norm - that to me is more important. I think our culture has gotten used to circing and keep looking for reasons to continue doing it, none of which I personally see holding much water.

 

If people have strong beliefs based on religion or culture to circ, that is totally different, but medically, I haven't seen anything to convince me that it is necessary.

post #9 of 41

DS is not circ'd, and if this baby is a boy he will not be either.  The only reason I would circ were if it became medically necessary.

 

My reasons not to is because I don't see any evidence that it is medically necessary or beneficial.  If a medical issue arises in the future, I'll deal with it then.  I wouldn't have my newborn's tonsils removed to prevent tonsilities or apendis removed to prevent apendecitis in the future, same goes for his forskin.  Also, circumcision creates the risk of infection, not to mention the pain for babe.  I just can't see any reason to circumcise.

 

Also, removing the forskin apparently reduces sexual pleasure as well.  Less of a serious parenting consideration I suppose, but I'm sure my son(s) will be thankful for that in the future.

post #10 of 41
I still need to discuss with DH, but our boy will not be circumcised. I haven't seen any evidence that it gives any but the slight possibility of smaller chances of UTIs (already very rare in men & boys) and STI transmission (and I'm not depending on circumcision for that, safe(r) sex practices are where its at for preventing those) and most of the studies seem like they have been skewed by the bias of those completing/compiling the studies. Because I don't see any medical advantage to it (or slim at best), it isn't a decision I want to make for my son and a painful procedure with potential side effects I would rather skip. If he decides down the line he wants it done, that is his choice, but I don't want to make it for him when it can't be undone later. If a medical issue arises necessitating it, then I'll make the call then, but those are also very rare.
post #11 of 41

I only know of 1 medically indicated circ. I have a friend who had it done for medical reasons when he was 12. The medical reasons were linked to his Muscular Dystrophy, although I don't know the actual details.

 

I do think medical reasons are rare, and usually not present in infancy.

post #12 of 41

the more you know, the worse it is... I know DH would prefer to have him circ because it is the "norm", but he agrees with my "argument" and knows that I'm the only one who legally gets to decide, so we're fine either way.

post #13 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by aHikaru View Post

the more you know, the worse it is... I know DH would prefer to have him circ because it is the "norm", but he agrees with my "argument" and knows that I'm the only one who legally gets to decide, so we're fine either way.

But it's not even the norm anymore....

post #14 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by nstewart View Post

But it's not even the norm anymore....

i know, it's the norm to him because he's in the military and has never seen an uncirc'd guy. i'm personally aware of the percentages of actually circs that are presently done. regardless, he doesn't care either way, that was just his rebuttal when I told him people don't do it anymore.

post #15 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by aHikaru View Post

i know, it's the norm to him because he's in the military and has never seen an uncirc'd guy. i'm personally aware of the percentages of actually circs that are presently done. regardless, he doesn't care either way, that was just his rebuttal when I told him people don't do it anymore.

Gotcha. In fairness to him, I'm sure it IS the norm for his entire generation, in the U.S. and Canada at least.  I know my DH only new one guy who was not circumcized in all the years he played hockey and other sports, etc.  But times they are a'changin.

post #16 of 41
Thread Starter 

This is a great conversation!  Thanks for your opinions!  I guess my question becomes one of motivation.  Why does the CDC seem to have such a strong opinion that males need to be circumcised?  Does money talk here?  Or just because its convention?  I'm glad to see people who are more medically-minded take exception to some of the data collection.  Seemed a bit off to me too.  

post #17 of 41

Am I in the minority if I have never seen an uncirc one before? Meaning....all the guys I ever hooked up with....(making myself sound slutty in the meantime)

post #18 of 41

My oldest son is circ'd he is 4 1/2 now and has lots of issues...when it "strectches" it hurts him, he cant use soap near it because it burns it and we use shaklee products...no chemicals.

 

my youngest son is NOT circ'd he is almost 2, never have and any problems at all.

 

future boys will NOT be.

 

Dh is circ'd didnt matter in our decision. God makes us all different. I wish parents would look into WHY its actually don and used common sense. We didnt w/ our oldest. but wont make that mistake again.

post #19 of 41

Interesting....I never here about these issues in the Jewish community. I'm sure they exist though. But I wonder if there's a difference in the after math if a Dr. performs the circ verses a moyel that does it for a living.

post #20 of 41
I don't know that I've read anything specifically comparing the complication rates, but while doctors perform many other services, circumcision is the most common surgical procedure performed in the United States, so I would think they would have a fair amount of experience doing them and yet we still have a high rate of complications.

I have heard about an issue with herpes during ritual religious circumcision ceremonies, but only when a metzitzah b’peh is performed. It doesn't sound like that is the norm, but a ritual really only practiced by ultra Orthadox folks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/nyregion/infants-death-renews-debate-over-a-circumcision-ritual.html?_r=0
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: May 2013 Due Date Club
Mothering › Groups › May 2013 Due Date Club › Discussions › circumcision?