a mom tells me her sons had "gentler, low-trauma" circumcisions

[woodnettle]

there are a lot of reasons that someone might choose to keep their child's genitals intact. do you find that there is a certain reason that tends to be more likely to convince people? unfortunately i've found that a lot of people do not share my opinion that this is a human rights/body autonomy issue.

so for a while i focused on the pain/trauma part but recently had someone tell me that if you go to a good doctor at a good hospital then circumcisions "aren't as bad as they used to be". (i'm cringing just thinking about someone saying that, by the way.)

i had someone tell me that their baby wasn't strapped down (they were allowed to gently swaddle the baby) and that the doctor waited for the anesthetic to work before starting. the mom was able to stay right next to her baby and talk to him and that their baby's cries were not the awful, gives-me-nightmares sort of cries that i've heard on videos but the baby also did NOT go into shock (which i know is responsible for lots of people mistakenly saying "my baby slept right through it"). obviously, i still think that it is absolutely unacceptable to cut off part of your baby's genitals regardless of how much or how little pain they are feeling but i also don't want to try to convince people using less than accurate information. anyone heard of this before- "gentler, less traumatic, less painful" circumcisions? or is this mom feeding me a bunch of baloney? i have no idea what "method" of circumcision was used but just that she went to a new-ish hospital in this area that has all the latest and greatest equipment.

[woodnettle]

oops, feel free to move this to The Case Against Circumcision general forum if that would be a better fit. i posted it in intactivism since this is something that i came across recently in my intactivism that i've never heard before and i always want to be doing the best job that i can in educating people.
 

[philomom]

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt. Seldom can doctors fully anesthetize an infant. It's dangerous to even try. The cutting hurts and after, the pee burns for weeks as the penis tries to heal. Add to that some feces and its a wonder we don't lose more cut boys to some sort of sepsis or infection.

No one has any right to alter another person's genitals without their consent. To do so is torture of the worst kind. Babies cannot give consent, therefore we should not cut them.

Perhaps she's just trying to rationalize her poor decision making to you?

[fairydustpink89]

I left my son "natural"/uncut (his body, his choice).

Just because the baby didn't freak out, doesn't mean he didn't feel it. Babies may "act" fine but the brainwaves clearly show pain, in every single study ever done. The only way to fully anesthetize, would be to use General Anesthesia, which doctors say is extremely dangerous unless absolutely necessary, AND to provide real painkillers (NOT just Tylenol which doesn't do anything when it's an organ that's been removed!) Circumcision is still the same procedure it was 50 years ago; forcefully open it, remove an organ, stitch it and then after-pains, which babies are essentially given nothing for (seriously, remove an organ from your own body using nothing but a local anesthesia and use only Tylenol post-surgery and tell me how you feel). 

Almost ALL circ'd  babies get infections. The foreskin is there to PROTECT from feces. The foreskin acts as a sphincter, like the anus (it'll only open to let stuff out, feces will never enter an uncut penis). Cut it away, and you've literally got an open hole (plus, you've got an open wound in a diaper, why???) It is extremely rare for a natural penis to actually have problems/infections.

I fought my partner of 5 years with this topic. It boiled down to this: It's the baby's body so let him decide. I also guilted my "snipped" partner by saying, "You didn't have a choice, but don't force him to go through it" and "just because you don't remember it, doesn't make it ok". Besides, here in Calif only about 30-40% of the population is cutting. And because I said the only person in this house getting a cosmetic surgery would be ME (I'd love to get my chest, butt, stomach and eyes done).

[woodnettle]

thank you both, i definitely agree!

i am disturbed that i find myself in this situation where i have to figure out the *most convincing* way to get someone to not have their child's genitals cut.

Quote:

Perhaps she's just trying to rationalize her poor decision making to you?

yeah, that is really what i'm wondering. she did say that both of her sons cried, but "not much". she definitely was talking to me about it like i was working off of incorrect/outdated information but i feel like maybe it's just that she doesn't want to have anyone question the decisions she made.
 

[htcmom]

I think that mom has just been told these new methods are "gentler" to make her feel better about what is happening to her helpless infant son.

[Mitchell756]

This information is taken from a statement issued last year by the Berufsverband der Kinder- und Jugendärtze, which is Germays equivalent of the American Academy of Peadiatrics.

As substantiated by the literature list given below (only a part of an extensive literature list), babies have a pronounced sensitivity to pain and a lasting memory of pain. This means that such surgery must only be carried out under full narcosis.....

 

EMLA® Cream, repeatedly mentioned by the supporters of the administration of an anaesthetic for newly born circumcision, does not nearly provide enough against a newly born's sensitivity to pain and must not get onto the mucus membrane of the genitals or be used for babies with methaemoglobinaemia or Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency (G6PD). This also a reason to strictly reject the government's draft bill.

You can read their entire report on circumcision here: http://www.intactamerica.org/german_pediatrics_statement

Adequate and safe pain relief does not exist for infants in regards to this surgery. Even if it did, you would still be depriving someone of what is the most important part of their sexual anatomy. It would be interesting to see what her view would be if they introduced gentler, low trauma methods of amputating parts of the genitals of girls in Egypt.

[sarafi]

I've always thought of posing the question: "what if you were in a coma, and your husband had a medical P.O.A? What if he decided that while you couldn't feel it, you should have your labia trimmed and maybe even your clitoral hood removed. The doctors could properly number the area, and you'd never remember it anyway. Also, you've actually had recurrent UTI's and yeast infections and this could be a good way to mitigate them in the future! How would you feel when you woke up? Even if you did not "remember" the surgery, would you be OK with someone else changing your genitals because they thought that it would be better for you?"
 

If we can't do it to adults without their consent, why can we do it to babies, just in case these rare and non-life-threatening things happen in the future? And why can't we do it to girl babies, who are vastly more likely to suffer from UTI's than boys who are intact or circumcised boys?

If only their was a good way to condense that argument, so the listener didn't zone out :-) Or maybe it's not a valid one after all, just my own private rantings.