The circumcision rate would plummet if...

[pdx.mothernurture]

1. Parents had to watch a video of a circumcision before consenting.
2. Parents were told about circumcision putting their baby at a 10% risk of meatal stenosis (usually requiring additional surgery, often under general anesthesia) and a 71% risk of penile adhesions.
3. Parents had to wait until baby was 6-8 weeks old.
4. Mom was required to personally restrain/strap down her son, and apply the the first wound dressing. (So the care provider knows she can do it properly, of course)
5. Both parents had to be in the room for the entire procedure.

IMO, the more involved the parents-especially mom-are forced to be, and the more bonded they are to the baby through time the less likely they are to actually go through with it.

Maybe these 'reluctant circumcisers' could institute these requirements?

Jen

[trmpetplaya]

If only those were the requirements Hopefully someday they will be (right before it's outright illegal!).

love and peace.

[MommytoB]

I would definetly agree and I would say it should be 'required' to have both parents in there as in mom/father .

Because if a father is just alone in there and he's in the 'pro-circ light as in belief that it has to be done 'depending ' on what he was told from parents/peers then he could end up view it as a 'gross neccessary surgery' like some other people may because if he was in the 'pro-circ light how could he see 'something wrong when parents/ppl told him it was neccessary especially when 'he went through the 'same thing' so I do not think in most cases if it's just a father there - he might lie to his wife like say not that bad, slept through the whole thing because some of us wives may get baby blues.

[pdx.mothernurture]

Yep, if the mother is resistant and the father is insistant he is unlikely to admit to her that it was really painful, bloody, baby screamed his head off, etc because that would a.) Make her furious with him. b.) Make her resentful of him having demanded it be done. c.) Make her more likely to resist-or refuse-circumcising any future sons.

Jen

[sandals]

I think another way to bring down the cric rate would be to open the minds of Americans the world outside american borders (not to say that there aren't a lot of Americans with minds already open!). Instead of looking at circumcision as normal, if we could open the eyes and make it a world question, Americans might begin to see how abnormal we are. Not really sure how to do this...but it would help other areas too..like child lead weaning, cosleeping, etc.

[pdx.mothernurture]

Originally Posted by sandals

I think another way to bring down the cric rate would be to open the minds of Americans the world outside american borders (not to say that there aren't a lot of Americans with minds already open!). Instead of looking at circumcision as normal, if we could open the eyes and make it a world question, Americans might begin to see how abnormal we are. Not really sure how to do this...but it would help other areas too..like child lead weaning, cosleeping, etc.

I agree with this too, although I think there's a generalized, arrogant attitude of, "We're rich, we're advanced, we do things this way because we can, and many other (poorer, more primitive) societies/countries aren't so lucky."

Of course, this is utterly rediculous because we are the ONLY country that still circumcises routinely for non-religious reasons, and even our rate is approaching 50/50 nationwide...

Jen

[enstar780]

I think these are excellent ideas. Perhaps it should be a law that would require this. Also require both parents consent, and the doctor to recite a statement which discusses the unnecessary nature of MGM, and prohibit all insurance company coverage for routine circumcision. The MGM rates would fall very quickly I would think, after this.

[bugmenot]

Originally Posted by pdx.mothernurture

3. Parents had to wait until baby was 6-8 weeks old.

I'd rather have the minimum age be at least 12. Give the parents a nice long time to realize there's nothing wrong with it, give the foreskin some time to seperate on it's own (nullifying that excuse), and making sure the child will remember any unnecessary pain, as well as enough time to remember life with a foreskin.

[~Megan~]

It would be simple and so much better if doctors told patients that there is no reason to do it and advised them against it.
Our FP says she does that an no one ever wants to have it done once she's talked to them

[Teensy]

I imagine it would also decrease somewhat if insurance no longer paid for it and parents had to pay out of pocket.

[Just_Isabel]

Originally Posted by Teensy

I imagine it would also decrease somewhat if insurance no longer paid for it and parents had to pay out of pocket.

This is something that totally amazes me. Why would insurance pay for elective cosmetic surgery on a baby? : Maybe it sounds totally to me because I'm European?

[njeb]

Originally Posted by Teensy

I imagine it would also decrease somewhat if insurance no longer paid for it and parents had to pay out of pocket.

:

[DocsNemesis]

I totally agree. Not only are a lot of parents just too cheap to pay for a circ (like me!! lol) or cant afford it, but it would raise a big red flag to those parents who havent done any research and still think its medically necessary. After all, if it is so medically necessary, why isnt it covered??
I think they should require general anesthesia for all circumcisions. The fact that we have evidence to the levels of pain even with a local are still very high would give a good reason to require this. Insurance companies would stop paying for circ's because they wouldnt want to cover the general (which would make the surgery cost at least a couple of thousand dollars), parents wouldnt want to or couldnt afford to pay for it, and on top of that, they would have to wait until the child is older to do it. We are actually creating a bill for this as we speak. We will probably try other ways as well....

[enstar780]

This is an excellent idea too. It would no doubt discourage it even further. It would require the procedure to be deferred for several months or longer to when it is safer to give general anesthetic. I do think the infant, even with the injection of lidocaine or other local anesthetics, can still suffer as a result of circumcision. I think studies show a reduction in heart rate and such, but it is still elevated much above normal. Of course, there is no right way to do what is a genital mutilation and essentially a criminal sexual assault of a child, the ultimate and only truly adequate objective is to completely illegalise routine MGM and FGM, these efforts are only meant as an interim solution, perhaps to knock down the MGM rate, which may make it eisier to pass a complete ban later on.

You can give general anesthetic to a newborn, but it takes a great amount of care to do so, there is risk involved but it is necessary risk since subjecting any conscious being to great pain should be unconscionable. But I think it is not something you would do for elective, non-essential surgeries. Thus the only surgeries you would want to do in the newborn period are those of the most necessity and which cannot be deferred.

[AntoninBeGonin]

The circumcision rate would plummet if parents knew how many of those newborn "infection" deaths are secondary to circumcision.

~Nay

[Just_Isabel]

Originally Posted by AntoninBeGonin

The circumcision rate would plummet if parents knew how many of those newborn "infection" deaths are secondary to circumcision.

~Nay

This is interesting. Is there a discrepancy between the % of male infant deaths caused by infection compared to the female infants? Does anyone have stats? I tried to google but didn't find anything.

[Mountaingirl3]

It would plummet if OB's didn't tell their patients that the circ rate is 90%. (Happened in Virginia and New York City, summer 2006).

It would plummet if Medicaid (our tax dollars) stopped paying for it. What Medicaid does, private insurance follows. Go to the link below and see if your state has stopped paying. If not, write your representatives to the state government!http://www.icgi.org/Medicaid_Project/index.htm

Go here to find addresses for your state legislators:

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/...ficials/?lvl=L

It comes up in my state every year, and they've always voted it down (CO). Maybe next year!

[Cherries10700]

Geeze, too bad that's not the way it works. Good ideas though!

About the insurance... I bet if they stopped paying for it some doctors would be offering to do it free somewhere. Because so many people are too pro-circ! :

[mamabadger]

I agree that having to pay out of pocket would probably have an effect. When our provincial health insurance stopped covering RIC, the rates dropped significantly.

I've been thinking about how pro-circ or indifferent people might respond to your suggestions. For example:

Originally Posted by pdx.mothernurture

1. Parents had to watch a video of a circumcision before consenting.
(Skip)
5. Both parents had to be in the room for the entire procedure.

I think this would have some effect, which is why a lot of CBEs show infant circ videos in their prenatal classes. However, some might argue that this is unreasonable, since a baby might well need surgery of some kind, which would be horrible for parents to watch on video, but which they should nevertheless consent to. They might well ask, should parents have to watch a film of infant heart surgery before consenting to the procedure for their baby? The same would go for parents being in the room. I must admit I've often longed to force insistent fathers to observe the circumcision they'd pushed on their newborn son.

3. Parents had to wait until baby was 6-8 weeks old.

This seems very practical. I think a lot of parents who were ready to have their baby done while in the hospital might not bother if they had to arrange an appointment just for the surgery. Which shows how much thought they've given it, I suppose, but I think it's true. Also, by this time they would have gotten used to their baby the way he was, and may change their minds about having him "altered" surgically. It's also something doctors could get behind, because I'm sure it would be safer to do surgery on a 6-8 wk old than on a newborn.

4. Mom was required to personally restrain/strap down her son, and apply the the first wound dressing. (So the care provider knows she can do it properly, of course)

Also effective, and showing the mother how to change the wound dressing would get through to her that there would be a wound involved.

2. Parents were told about circumcision putting their baby at a 10% risk of meatal stenosis (usually requiring additional surgery, often under general anesthesia) and a 71% risk of penile adhesions...

This is something parents should be told anyway, as part of arranging for informed consent to their child's surgery. How "informed" is the consent if they aren't told beforehand about the risks?

All good ideas!

Interesting question about the % of infections in male/female procedures. One thing I think is very effective in changing people's mindset is including female circ in any discussion of RIC, as though they were just two sides of the same coin. Because most North Americans are horrified by the idea of baby girls being circumcised, lumping them together forces them to rethink their assumptions.

[AntoninBeGonin]

Originally Posted by Just_Isabel

This is interesting. Is there a discrepancy between the % of male infant deaths caused by infection compared to the female infants? Does anyone have stats? I tried to google but didn't find anything.

I don't have stats but I've read in several places that there are appx 200 circumcision deaths in the US each year.

~Nay