article in local paper letter to editor post#20

[dnr3301]

anyone want to help me write a letter to the editor?

http://www.startribune.com/1244/story/616023.html

[Galatea]

no, but i'll vomit with you

[mysticmomma]

Originally Posted by Galatea

no, but i'll vomit with you

:
:Puke

[mysticmomma]

And why DO their penises have to match... I think I'd be more concerned if they did.

[dnr3301]

it's a step. it acknowledges that the only real reason to do it is cultural, but at the same time it says there are health benfits, like reducing UTIs. It kinda reminds me of the Dr. Drew response that went around a couple of weeks ago, managing to hit every point in a really surface-y kind of way.

I'm thinking of starting my letter with something like, "Thank you for drawing attention to RIC." and then saying that the "Pros" side was all wrong, but I am not all that great at writing in a way that doesn't expose my passions. I'll probably get dh to help me. He's really good at that kind of thing, especially when he knows he's right.

[hakunangovi]

Good for you for deciding to write to the paper and raise the public's awareness and knowlege of this issue.

I'm sure you will get lots of good ideas from the members here. A few points spring to mind:

1. As far as I know the rates in the U.S. are continueing to decline, and are currently just below 50%, although I don't have a source at hand. However, you could point out that over 85% of the world"s males are intact, and that the vast majority of those that are circumcised are either jewish or muslim. The rate in Canada is now 11% (2005). and is lower in Australia. So, basicaly, as a cosmetic custom it has died out everywhere except the U.S.

2. The being "different" argument is rediculous, as the last quote in the article points out. Very few fathers and sons are going to be standing around comparing their penes, and it is usualy size and hair that a child will notice. But I am willing to bet that lots of people have no idea of the circ status of their fathers.

3. No mention was made of what is lost to circumcision. The 3.5" x 5" piece of nerve laden skin that is the most sensitive part of the body. Or of the impaired sexual function that results from circumcision and affects BOTH partners.

4. The risks. Some real tragedies have happened. i.e. the John Riemer story where he lost his entire penis to a botched circumcision that was not required in the first place. The same thing took place in Atlanta to two babies on the SAME DAY. Or the child in Penticton B.C. who bled to death last year, or was it the year before? Why take the risk?

There is a mountain of info at www.cirp.org that will be more specific and provide references.

Good luck, and let us know how it goes.

Howard.

[dnr3301]

my dh's letter to the ed (he's swift, huh?)

I was pleased that your article on circumcision presented it's history and different viewpoints. I understand why parents wish to have their son grow up to be "just like Dad". It's unfortunate that the backwards mentality of previous generations leaves as it's legacy the unnecessary harming of babies. When can we get off of this wicked merry-go-round?
----------------------------------------------------------


Howard- the artile mentions the rates have INCREASED since 199-something, so what's up with that? I thought they were dropping.:

I think I'll focus on the "being different is a ridiculous reason to cut off parts of a baby" aspect.

On the other hand, this article reminded me to call my insurance carrier and inquire about circ coverage, and if they cover it (which I'm sure they do), look into how to get it stopped.

[frog]

Actually, I was pleasantly surprised to read an article from a Midwestern paper that presented the idea of leaving boys intact as something other than a freak show (and, yeah, I get to say that: I'm Midwest born and raised, and have never lived anywhere else).

I'm also thrilled that MN is finally going to quit covering routine circs on their state health plan. It's a start, and I'll take it!

[Quirky]

I actually think it's pretty good.....doesn't claim any medical benefits, emphasizes that it's purely cosmetic, talks about the rates dropping, ends on the note about how eye color may be different, why should penises match...overall I would give it a B.

[Revamp]

Originally Posted by Quirky

I actually think it's pretty good.....doesn't claim any medical benefits, emphasizes that it's purely cosmetic, talks about the rates dropping, ends on the note about how eye color may be different, why should penises match...overall I would give it a B.

And the last word was pro-intact...

[dnr3301]

I thought overall it was pretty good too. There is a "pros and cons section" touting the UTI and penile cancere bs, and in the cons side says that there are claims that it interferes with sexuality later in life, but that hasn't been proven. And I think it doesn't really challenge the "look like dad" agruement enough, but it's possible I've been hanging out here too much and that's clouding my vision. I guess it's hard to read anything that says there are benefits period.

My letter will thank them for addressing it. Anything that gets people talking about it is good.


MN stopped covering circs back in September.

[frog]

Originally Posted by dnr3301

MN stopped covering circs back in September.

That's great! I had no idea (moved away from MN in 95).

[nd_deadhead]

I didn't think it was that bad either - at least it didn't tell us that circumcision would prevent HIV!!!

I still think it's worthwhile to write the letter, though, now that the topic has been brought up. I would start with a sentence like this:

Thank you so much for your article about infant circumcision. I certainly agree that there is no medical reason to do it, and it is no more than cosmetic surgery performed on unconsenting minors.

The trouble with this particular cosmetic surgery - especially on little babies - is that the benefit is minor (after all, won't the boy wear pants most of the time?), and the risks can be severe. Some babies even die from circumcision complications, which is a pretty high price to pay for a penis that "matches" Dad's.

The generation that started the trend of infant circumcision in the US didn't worry about circumcised sons matching their intact fathers. Why should today's fathers worry about it? It is very easy to explain to a boy that his father had an operation as a baby and he didn't. If a boy/man seriously wants to be circumcised later in life, that option is always open to him; once the foreskin is cut off, it can't ever be put back again.

[myfairbabies]

Well it reminded me to write to HBO and tell them how disgusted I am with their episode.

[dnr3301]

Originally Posted by notyetamommy

Well it reminded me to write to HBO and tell them how disgusted I am with their episode.

of Sex and the City? already off the air and into syndication where millions of people without cable can view it on whatever channel chooses to run it.

[dnr3301]

Originally Posted by nd_deadhead

Thank you so much for your article about infant circumcision. I certainly agree that there is no medical reason to do it, and it is no more than cosmetic surgery performed on unconsenting minors.

The trouble with this particular cosmetic surgery - especially on little babies - is that the benefit is minor (after all, won't the boy wear pants most of the time?), and the risks can be severe. Some babies even die from circumcision complications, which is a pretty high price to pay for a penis that "matches" Dad's.

The generation that started the trend of infant circumcision in the US didn't worry about circumcised sons matching their intact fathers. Why should today's fathers worry about it? It is very easy to explain to a boy that his father had an operation as a baby and he didn't. If a boy/man seriously wants to be circumcised later in life, that option is always open to him; once the foreskin is cut off, it can't ever be put back again.

do you mind if I use this?

[paminmi]

As far as mainstream midwestern opinion on circumcision, I thought it was a pretty good article. Other than my disagreement with the past/current circumcision rates, I felt it leaned almost heavily in the "intact" direction. There were some idiotic parental/doctor comments but the cool thing is they were pretty much disputed by rational folks who didn't agree with circumcision at all.

The British couple states non-religious circumcision is just not done nor paid for since the 1950's in England. How many people may think about that one? And don't miss the "it's cosmetic and totally unnecessary" comment from the Dad-to-be. Just the fact that they put that in this article makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

A doctor in the article admits, "The writing is on the wall" when it comes to insurance companies discontinuing circumcision coverage... Hmmm, going the way of the British?

It talks about circumcision in the US used as a treatment for practices that were considered sexual problems, such as masturbation. I would bet you won't read this too often in mainstream publications.

The article mentions that leading medical organizations have said there is no clear cut benefit to circumcision.

It leaves people with the final thought that the idea of matching penises is ridiculous.

Overall, a pretty useful article IMO.

[nd_deadhead]

Please do!!!

[bugmenot]

Originally Posted by dnr3301

of Sex and the City? already off the air and into syndication where millions of people without cable can view it on whatever channel chooses to run it.

Can they talk about circumcision?? Some communities might consider that too-offensive (even if they ARE pro-circ) and complain to the FCC as the program being too indecent.

[dnr3301]

only letter to the editor so far. I wrote one, my dh wrote one, maybe their get in eventually.
http://www.startribune.com/563/story/623189.html

UNNEEDED CIRCUMCISIONS

Risk outweighs reward

The purpose of HMOs is to reduce health care costs while still providing clients with quality health care. Male neonatal circumcision is a medically unnecessary nontherapeutic operation that exposes infant boys to risks such as surgical accident, hemorrhage or life-threatening infection, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (Star Tribune, Aug. 16).

Dr. George Isham, medical director of HealthPartners, which continues to expend health-care dollars on this injurious procedure, violates the trust placed in him and raises health-care costs for all by wastefully continuing to cover an outmoded and contra-indicated operation.

GEORGE HILL, SEATTLE; VICE PRESIDENT,
BIOETHICS AND MEDICAL SCIENCE,
DOCTORS OPPOSING CIRCUMCISION