or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Pregnancy and Birth Archives › Birth Professionals (Archive) › Doulas, do you discuss circ w/clients?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Doulas, do you discuss circ w/clients? - Page 2

post #21 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katielady View Post
4) With religious Jewish clients I don't discuss circ or include any info about it in my packets, although of course it's still up there on my web site. If invited to the bris, I politely make an excuse and don't attend.
Why? Do you think that your attendance would be anything other than a blessing to the family?
post #22 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midwife Kris View Post
Why? Do you think that your attendance would be anything other than a blessing to the family?
As someone opposed to circumcision, it's not something I want to be present for. So no, my presence would not be the right thing for the family either. It would be hard for me to hide how I feel, which could only upset them.
post #23 of 36
I don't necessarily agree with circumcision either but once I was invited to a bris and was totally overcome with the ceremonial aspect of the entire event, the care that went into it. The circumcision happened in the flash that it took me to wipe my eyes and I totally missed the whole thing. A polar opposite experience of the time I "witnessed" a medical circumsion in the hospital NICU. I didn't see it, but saw the prep and HEARD the screaming baby from my spot in another cubicle. As a result if the family chooses circumcision I will advocate they find a mohel who is willing to do it in a nonreligious home or office setting.
post #24 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midwife Kris View Post
I don't necessarily agree with circumcision either but once I was invited to a bris and was totally overcome with the ceremonial aspect of the entire event, the care that went into it. The circumcision happened in the flash that it took me to wipe my eyes and I totally missed the whole thing. A polar opposite experience of the time I "witnessed" a medical circumsion in the hospital NICU. I didn't see it, but saw the prep and HEARD the screaming baby from my spot in another cubicle. As a result if the family chooses circumcision I will advocate they find a mohel who is willing to do it in a nonreligious home or office setting.
I can see your point of view. But for me personally, it's not whether or not the procedure is painful that makes it upsetting for me. It's the fact that the baby's body is being permanently changed without his consent. So for me, the setting and circumstances, and crying vs. no crying, doesn't matter much. But that's just my personal feeling on it.
post #25 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessjgh1 View Post
One of the pamplhets by Colorado NOCIRC says:
His parents education is his only line of defense
:

I have personally seen information make the difference. I am convinced that the vast majority of parents who would choose circ (esp. for non-religious reasons) don't have all of the information and simply do it because it was what was done to them (dads, brothers, uncles, etc.).

So, yes, I will talk about circ with all clients (though, I am a midwife, not a doula).
post #26 of 36
Thank you so much for that comprehensive list of resources.
post #27 of 36
Approaching this from a midwife's perspective, where the clients usually have to come to me to get the information of someone who will do the circ...

In my information packet, I have a section on circ. It says "Circumcision is an extremely painful and medically unnecessary procedure that I am morally opposed to. I urge you to look further into the issue before making the decision to circumcise your son. If in the end you decide to circumcise, I can offer you to names and phone numbers of pediatricians who will perform this procedure in office for home birthed babies."

If the conversation comes up in a prenatal, I always say that neither of my sons is circed, so they know where I'm coming from. That usually leads into the "well how has that worked for them" line of conversation and we go from there into how there's no extra work involved. Something that I have found remarkably effective when clients ask about the "extra cleaning" involved in an intact penis is to compare cleaning under the foreskin to scrubbing a daughter's insides with a test tube brush. Yes, they cringe, but the point is made very well.

I have only had one client decide to circ after their homebirth, and they were the most mainstream and uneducated family I've ever taken care of. Many of my clients start out thinking circ is probably something they'll do, and one has even scheduled the surgery only to cancel later. I think talking to someone who is actually knowledgeable about intactness does VOLUMES for an expectant couple.

I'm looking into taking more doula clients and doing more childbirth education, so I appreciate all of the information here about how to bring it up to hospital birthing families...my client who cancelled the surgery for her third son had circed her first two in the hospital. She said it was just so easy and she was so removed from it that she never thought about it. But when she had to take him in to a doctor she didn't know and be with him during the procedure after having bonded with him for a week at home, she just couldn't bring herself to do it. So I definitely think getting hospital birthing families to think through the issue is a harder task!
post #28 of 36
I have a very close friend who did not go with the same doula she had for her first birth simply because the doula said she no longer attends births with families who may circ. She felt it was not the doula's place.

I support doulas who set whatever limits they need. You just need to realize that you may alienate some folks.

I oppose circumcision. My son is intact. I told my DH from the time I was pregnant with DD that this was non-negoitable. I may at some point include information in favor of keeping your son intact, I'm not sure that I would refuse clients based on their decision to circ. But that is just me.

L
post #29 of 36
I feel alienated from them already when they decide to circumcise once they have seen all the research. So it's best for me NOT to attend births in those circumstances.
post #30 of 36
I bring it up during our birth preferences meeting. I feel that each parent needs to make informed decisions & it is a part of post partum care. WHAT they chose is their business. I don't influence them either way...I just present information & they make the decisions.
post #31 of 36
Wonderful to see midwives and doulas standing up for baby boys.

We all know what reaction we'd have if parents wanted to cut the genitals of a baby girl. We'd also have legislation to back us up in opposing that type of mutilation. Baby boys require the same protection from birth professionals and the law needs to be expanded to include boys.'
Baybee
post #32 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katielady View Post
I can see your point of view. But for me personally, it's not whether or not the procedure is painful that makes it upsetting for me. It's the fact that the baby's body is being permanently changed without his consent. So for me, the setting and circumstances, and crying vs. no crying, doesn't matter much. But that's just my personal feeling on it.
I agree completely. People who say "It's a personal choice for the parents" really bug me. I do NOT understand how this practice can still be legal. What gives parents the right to choose this for their sons?
post #33 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by SublimeBirthGirl View Post
Did your husband impregnate you against your will, then during labor tie down your arms and legs and force you to give birth without drugs? Very weak analogy. We're talking about a painful, invasive, disfiguring surgery for no medical reason on a tiny baby who can't consent. That doesn't compare to a man having a hard time with his wife, who is an adult woman willingly giving birth to his child, in pain.
post #34 of 36
Here's a good letter to deal with the HIV/Circumcision confusion that's rampant right now:

http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/459/595670

ABC, not circumcision, gives best defence against HIV
Monday, 5th November, 2007

By David J. Llewellyn

Dr. Myers Lugemwa is to be congratulated on his insightful article on
the attempt to circumcise Uganda by US doctors. It is so obvious that
Abstinence, Being Faithful and Condoms (ABC) are the only rational
defense against the HIV virus, that it is hard to believe that many
in the international health community have bought into the
ridiculous "circumcise to prevent HIV" theory.

The best way to prevent sexually-transmitted HIV and all other
venereal diseases is by ABC. It is that simple.

It appears that there may be more to the push for circumcision than
merely the improvement of public health. Some of those pushing this
strategy have their academic reputations and careers on the line.
Others have familial traditions that emphasise circumcision. For
example, Daniel Halperin, one of the foremost proponents of
the "circumcise to prevent HIV" movement, admitted in a newspaper
article years ago that his grandfather had been a part-time Jewish
ritual circumciser. He has also been quoted as saying that women like
circumcised men and that sex is better if you are circumcised — two
very subjective statements with which most uncircumcised men and
their wives would disagree. Others may feel the need to validate
their own circumcised status or academic theories by encouraging
others to be circumcised.

Two of the primary authors of the recent randomised controlled trials
recently have collaborated with long-time proponents of circumcision
on the formulation of a pamphlet encouraging women worldwide to push
their husbands to be circumcised and to circumcise their sons. One of
those proponents, a circumcised middle-aged Australian, the primary
author of the pamphlet, has written that circumcision is "an
imperative" for the 21st Century!

As the Trojans learned, one should always "beware of Greeks bearing
gifts," even if those "Greeks" are Americans. Ugandans should know
that one of the early proponents of medicalised circumcision in the
US, Peter Remondino, M.D., in the late 19th Century advocated
circumcising all black Americans to prevent what he called "the Negro
rape crisis."

Modern day Ugandans may wish to consider whether or not the US push
to circumcise them has any similar patronising, racist overtones or
overtones of colonialism.
We know that the foreskin is an integral part of the penis. A recent
study has shown that it is the most sensitive part of the penis.
Earlier unrefuted studies proved that it contains most of the fine
touch nerve receptors in the penis. It may well mediate the
ejaculatory reflex.
It makes intercourse easier and more enjoyable for both the man and
the woman. No rational man would give up his foreskin if he realised
the sexual consequences. It is immoral and unethical to remove
normal, sexually-valuable tissue from an infant or child, male or
female, without present medical necessity. Ugandans should think
twice about what they would be losing before agreeing to circumcision
for themselves or their sons.

That Americans may still circumcise the majority of their sons is not
an example to emulate.

As Dr. Lugemwa points out, circumcision began in the US in a vain
attempt to prevent masturbation. Of course, it did not work. But
Americans became invested with their circumcised penises and it has
proven challenging to change their minds. Nevertheless, Ugandans
should know that the rate of circumcision in the US has been dropping
slowly for the last 30 years as the public has learned of the value
of the foreskin. In California and some other western states, the
circumcision rate for newborn boys is below 35%.

Ugandans should also know that circumcision did not prevent HIV from
wrecking havoc in the US. The US has a much higher rate of HIV
infection and a much higher rate of circumcision than does Europe.
This puts the lie to the hypothesis that circumcision "prevents" HIV.
It is not a "vaccine," although its proponents would like Ugandans to
believe that it is. One might reasonably wonder what the real motive
is behind those who would try to sell a mutilating surgery to others
with such hyperbole.

Ugandans wanting more information about the controversy surrounding
male circumcision might wish to consult www.cirp.org or
www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org.

The writer is an attorney at Law Atlanta, Georgia, US
post #35 of 36
i would talk about it with them as i would any other aspect that they have questions about or are considering. i do not agree with it and would offer them resources supporting that. i would do the same for epidurals, pit drips, forceps, elective cesarean births, etc... there is so much as a doula that we are going to run into that we do not agree with and this is one more of those things.
post #36 of 36
Baybee just posted that the Midwifery Today article is now available on the website:

Foreskins for Keeps: An Idea Whose Time Has Come
LeMay, Gloria, “Foreskins for Keeps: An Idea Whose Time Has Come”
Midwifery Today, Issue 81, Spring 2007, pp. 32-3, 67-88
http://www.midwiferytoday.com/articles/foreskins.asp

Just wanted to pass this along here.

Jessica
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Birth Professionals (Archive)
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Pregnancy and Birth Archives › Birth Professionals (Archive) › Doulas, do you discuss circ w/clients?