I'm impressed by Planned parenthood - Page 5

[Fi.]

Do they have hand outs that they give to patients expecting a baby boy? I'd really like to know more about this "statement".

Possibly if it's requested. PP generally only gives out what you ask for. And most don't do prenatal care - those who do generally only do it up to 28 weeks. However I do remember that we did refer women to the website to read more about pregnancy issues and options *shrug*

[Revamp]

Hmm... Well do you know what sort of advice they would give on this issue if asked?

[Fi.]

Hmm... Well do you know what sort of advice they would give on this issue if asked?

Honestly they'd probably say it's your decision but there's no medical benefit and it's only done for cosmetics/cultural reasons. I'm sure there are crappy clinicians out there who promote it - but in general it seems to be more progressive clinicians working there.

[Revamp]

Originally Posted by Fi.

Honestly they'd probably say it's your decision but there's no medical benefit and it's only done for cosmetics/cultural reasons. I'm sure there are crappy clinicians out there who promote it - but in general it seems to be more progressive clinicians working there.

Seems sound to me.

[A&A]

Originally Posted by Revamp

Hmm... Well do you know what sort of advice they would give on this issue if asked?

Good question. I guess we could all walk into our local PP's and ask them as an experiment.

[A&A]

So, I finally got around to looking at the website myself, and here's the full Q &A:

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2...rcumcision.xml

A lot more wishy-washy then the OP led me to believe. "Penises with foreskins require a little extra care" "Some boys do need to be circumcised later," UGH. Really nothing to be proud of there, I'm sorry to say.

[Peppermint]

Originally Posted by A&A

So, I finally got around to looking at the website myself, and here's the full Q &A:

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2...rcumcision.xml

A lot more wishy-washy then the OP led me to believe. "Penises with foreskins require a little extra care" "Some boys do need to be circumcised later," UGH. Really nothing to be proud of there, I'm sorry to say.

I kept wondering what everyone else here was reading. I admit my distrust of PP made me go seek out exactly what the OP was talking about, and I was not impressed, but I think other's blind trust of PP made them jump to some conclusion that this was great.

[Revamp]

Originally Posted by A&A

Good question. I guess we could all walk into our local PP's and ask them as an experiment.

I can not, what with not living in America.

Those who do certainly should though! Please do so and give us the response given, perhaps even just phone them up to ask.


As for their actual Q&A stance, well, ugh, not what I had hoped for but this:

"Today, routine circumcision is considered elective surgery without medical benefits."

was very good. Although what do they mean about intact penises requiring more care? Last time I checked they do not need to be wrapped up in bloody gauze or have vaseline applied to them to stop the faeces of their diapers giving them penile infections...

[LavenderMae]

Oh well I actually think their Q&A about circ is quite lacking and still spreading myths about circ. :

Another bad quote from the Q&A on PP:

and he must be taught to pull back and wash under the foreskin. Until he can do this for himself, you can gently pull back the foreskin for him and wash under it during bathing.

[Revamp]

Originally Posted by Sheacoby

Oh well I actually think their Q&A about circ is quite lacking and still spreading myths about circ. :

Another bad quote from the Q&A on PP:

Well it did help combat that retraction myth and say this: "Although rare, complications include excessive bleeding, infection, scarring, and damage to the penis."

And its comment about some requiring circumcisions later on in life was, techically, correct. If its wording had been something more along the lines of "A tiny, minute and virtually negligible number might need it in later life" then I would be happier.

Try emailing them, I already have and a concentrated effort might have some effect.

Oh and please give them a call and pretend to ask for advice on the issue!

[Sijae]

Originally Posted by Peppermint

I kept wondering what everyone else here was reading. I admit my distrust of PP made me go seek out exactly what the OP was talking about, and I was not impressed, but I think other's blind trust of PP made them jump to some conclusion that this was great.

: :

[A&A]

Originally Posted by Revamp

And its comment about some requiring circumcisions later on in life was, techically, correct.

In the US., boys tend to "need" later circumcisions more often than those in lower-circing countries, such as those in Europe. (Because US. docs are ignorant about the foreskin.) So PP is perpetuating those myths. The actual number of boys/men NEEDING a circ is SO tiny that it really doesn't need to be mentioned at all.

And to those I was arguing with previously on this thread, mea culpa.

[Revamp]

Originally Posted by A&A

In the US., boys tend to "need" later circumcisions more often than those in lower-circing countries, such as those in Europe. (Because US. docs are ignorant about the foreskin.) So PP is perpetuating those myths. The actual number of boys/men NEEDING a circ is SO tiny that it really doesn't need to be mentioned at all.

And to those I was arguing with previously on this thread, mea culpa.

Hence the word technically...

[Sijae]

Circumcision is a minor surgical procedure in which the foreskin (a fold of skin which covers the glans or head of the penis) is removed. The surgery takes little time and is usually done at the hospital or in the doctor's office within the first week of life.
Why is it done?

Religious reasons--practiced by both Jews and Muslims.
Hygiene--some people believe that the circumcised penis is easier to clean.
Social reasons--so father and son's penis look alike.
Possible medical benefits--circumcision may help prevent urinary tract infections and cancer of the penis (though very rare).
Sexual performance--NOT affected one way or the other by circumcision.

http://www.planned.org/site/PageServ...S_circumcision

From the teen PP website:

Q "Im not circumcised and I wanted to know what the difference was between being circumcised and not being circumcised. Which is better?"

A "Either way is normal and healthy — there is no "better" or "worse" option."

http://www.teenwire.com/ask/2004/as-...rcumcision.php
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Care Instructions

It's healthy and normal to be cut or uncut, but the two kinds of penises work a little bit differently.

Cutting to the Chase

Whether a boy is circumcised or not is no big deal. Every penis is a little bit different, and being cut or uncut is one of those things that makes every guy unique — there's no "right" way to be.

http://www.teenwire.com/infocus/2006...rcumcision.php
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, what's the big deal about circumcision? Circumcision is the removal of the foreskin — the retractable tube of skin that covers and protects the head (glans) of the penis....It's a known fact — bodies and penises come in different shapes and sizes. So, even if your penis looks different than other guys you know, remember, it's normal to be cut, and it's normal to be uncut!

http://www.teenwire.com/infocus/2002...rcumcision.php
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Circumcision

Are you cut or not? And most importantly, so what? Circumcision (or removal of the foreskin) is generally done shortly after birth. About 60 percent of boys in America are circumcised at birth (which means that 40 percent are not circumcised), making both cut and uncut penises almost equally common. They both work the same way; they just look a little different. But guys who have uncircumcised penises need to pull the foreskin back when they urinate, put on a condom, and wash themselves

http://www.teenwire.com/infocus/2001...010301p092.php

I'm so glad PP is teaching all those teenagers who "have no where else to go" all about healthy intactness and encouraging non-circumcising. I guess I was wrong about PP, they really are pure gold.

:

[LavenderMae]

Laura, I'll never agree with you about PP being evil for the services they provide but I do believe you are right about this issue. I am very disappointed. They are NOT giving out the truth about circ. The info that you just quoted is really bad and full of crap.:

[Revamp]

They are certainly not evil, that is the sort of classification that should be reserved for organisations such as NAMBLA and the Gilgal Society. Their line over this issue is a good deal weaker than I would have hope for though.

[pdx.mothernurture]

If we all want to call our local PPs, I'm more than willing to call mine and see what 'phone advice' they offer. When I gave it more thought, my guess is they'll ask if I'm receiving prenatal care somewhere and then suggest I talk to my ob/midwife.

The reason being, PP (at least our local one) doesn't offer prenatal care nor do they (from what I understand) treat pregnant women. Back when I had a few abnormal paps, and went through a phase where I was uninsured I was looking for somewhere that could do a pap and a colpo if necessary on a sliding scale/cheaply. We went round and round because I was pregnant at the time, and they had to check with their docs and I think they finally decided they could do a pap for me if I didn't have any other options.

Do some PPs provide prenatal care? For those PP clinics that don't, and only interact with pregnant women at the earliest stages of pregnancy when they're finding out/deciding how to proceed really offer information on newborn testing, vaccination, circumcision, etc?

Jen

[Islay]

Originally Posted by Fi.

Really? I was treated very poorly in an English hospital on two seperate occations. In fact, I couldn't even get the problem sorted out until I was back in America and I was miserable for almost the rest of my vacation.

Yes, really. Even those who are not UK residents. In an emergency NO ONE is refused the best medical attention - even if it transpires that they cannot pay for it. Surely the same is true in America?

Understandably, non-emergencies are treated differently for non-residents. You say you had medical insurance but it was no help. Why? Did they not pay up? If you were covered you would have received the same standard of care as any UK citizen. If that was the case and you were 'treated poorly' nonetheless, then it begs the question: "What does 'poorly' mean?" Did the doctors have access to your medical notes(?), because this could be significant. Was your problem the result of an accident, perhaps? I'm searching in the dark, here, for a plausible reason why you would have received such poor treatment. We have had friends to our home from America, Canada, Trinidad, Burma, New Zealand, France, Belgium and the Philippines (in no particular order). All, except a girl from Belgium on a school exchange and my wife's nationalised New Zealand brother, had cause to be treated for varying degrees of ailments/injuries at a hospital or attached clinic (not simply a doctor's surgery) during their stay. I have to say that all spoke glowingly of their care - not least because they were treated first, then asked for details about their eligibilty.

Again, that isn't to say that there aren't exceptions - of course there are. I doubt that every hospital in any country can boast exemplary standards.

I'm sad that your experience was so disappointing.

Christopher

[mamanurse]

I Planned Parenthood!!!!


Been in trouble with the mods before.....so, for now, I'm just going to :

[Frankly Speaking]

Originally Posted by Sheacoby

I actually don't agree with PP about the HPV vax but I do agree with their stance on many other issue. So I'd say well they mixed the ,ark on the HPV vax but they are doing a lot of other things right. But I'm not at all surprised on their stance in regards to HPV vax and I would actually be pleasantly shocked if they were against it.

I'm lost here and maybe you can explain your issue with the HPV vax. Here are a few facts that make it seem perfectly acceptable to me:

(1) Only 2% - 3% of the population will not develop a natural immunity to the virus.

(2) The vaccine will only be offered to those who are tested and have not developed a natural immunity.

(3) The vaccine has shown to be entirely safe and highly effective.

(4) Because of a cost of $350.00 - $450.00 for the vaccination, there is no chance of massive vaccination campaigns with this vaccine. Massive Vaccination campaigns would result in a cost up to $44,100.00 for each infection cured or prevented and that is not affordable.

I don't understand any resistance to the vaccine. Only persons who had been tested would be offered the vaccine and it would be their option to take or refuse it. It is not going to be pushed on children because of the cost. There are no known side effects that would have to be weighed against the possible outcome of cervical cancer. Where is the problem?



Frank