or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Understanding Circumcision › "They circumcised my son on the delivery table"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"They circumcised my son on the delivery table"

post #1 of 41
Thread Starter 
I was reading a birth story today. The woman gave birth in 1976 and was an RN at the time. She talked about the birth (which is a rant in and of itself), then at the end mentioned that her son was born, they circumcised him RIGHT THERE ON THE DELIVERY TABLE, then took him out to her mother.

I've only heard of this once before, where a baby was taken right from the mother (her body, not her arms!) to the warmer and the OB immediately walked over and circumcised him before leaving. Was this a common practice in the 70's? I can't believe that a minutes-old baby would be circumcised, not even old enough for the second Apgar!
post #2 of 41
Sickening. :
post #3 of 41
Poor baby and mama.
post #4 of 41
I'm not sure, but when my MIL talked about her labor and delivery she made some off handed comment about how "They didn't even circumcise him until I asked!"... Like it should have been standard procedure.
post #5 of 41
my dh was circ'ed immediately after birth. so were both his brothers. :-( His mother wasn't even consulted. 1940's and 50's. One could think there's no where but up left to go...
post #6 of 41
Miller RL, Snyder DC. Immediate circumcision of the newborn male. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 1953:65(1):1-11.

"It is the purpose of this paper to endorse a possibly more suitable time to perform this operation, immediately after the birth of the newborn."

From a list of 9 reasons given in support of immediate circumcision:

"Convenience: Prior to this new plan the circumcisions were performed between the third and seventh days and a line-up on Sunday mornings was routine. It meant an extra trip hospital trip, a good deal of uncomfortable delay between cases, and the resulting traffic problem in the birth rooms was prodigious. Under the present regime, the obstetrician finishes his episiotomy, walks across the hall and circumcises the infant, and is finished with the whole business. The time thus saved for both the physician and the nursing staff is considerable."

"Stimulation of the baby: Frequently following a general anesthetic the newborn is depressed and various stimulants are employed; circumcision unfailingly produces an excellent response in a sleepy baby."

"Pain: Although the pain sense is present at birth, it is much less intense than in later infancy."

Conclusions: "The convenience and time saving afforded both physicians and nurses are considerable; we have not been able to find a doctor who would consider doing it at any other time. The mother signs the circumcision permit when she is admitted to the labor room, the doctor finishs the operation after he has completed his delivery, there is no conflict in the scheduling of cases, and no babies are forgotten and left uncircumcised.

"During 1950 there were 2480 immediate circumcision performed in Akron City Hospital with no demonstrable ill effect on the weight curve, temperature, feeding, healing process, or general well-being of the infants... For these reasons, as well as those of economy, convenience, safety, rapidity of healing, and close hospital observation we feel that immediate circumcision of the newborn male infant might well be more universally adopted."

Gillian
post #7 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by glongley View Post
Miller RL, Snyder DC. Immediate circumcision of the newborn male. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 1953:65(1):1-11.

"It is the purpose of this paper to endorse a possibly more suitable time to perform this operation, immediately after the birth of the newborn."

From a list of 9 reasons given in support of immediate circumcision:

"Convenience: Prior to this new plan the circumcisions were performed between the third and seventh days and a line-up on Sunday mornings was routine. It meant an extra trip hospital trip, a good deal of uncomfortable delay between cases, and the resulting traffic problem in the birth rooms was prodigious. Under the present regime, the obstetrician finishes his episiotomy, walks across the hall and circumcises the infant, and is finished with the whole business. The time thus saved for both the physician and the nursing staff is considerable."

"Stimulation of the baby: Frequently following a general anesthetic the newborn is depressed and various stimulants are employed; circumcision unfailingly produces an excellent response in a sleepy baby."

"Pain: Although the pain sense is present at birth, it is much less intense than in later infancy."

Conclusions: "The convenience and time saving afforded both physicians and nurses are considerable; we have not been able to find a doctor who would consider doing it at any other time. The mother signs the circumcision permit when she is admitted to the labor room, the doctor finishs the operation after he has completed his delivery, there is no conflict in the scheduling of cases, and no babies are forgotten and left uncircumcised.

"During 1950 there were 2480 immediate circumcision performed in Akron City Hospital with no demonstrable ill effect on the weight curve, temperature, feeding, healing process, or general well-being of the infants... For these reasons, as well as those of economy, convenience, safety, rapidity of healing, and close hospital observation we feel that immediate circumcision of the newborn male infant might well be more universally adopted."

Gillian


This makes me want to cry and vomit. All at the same time. If only they knew how terribly that may have perpetuated a vicious cycle. :
post #8 of 41
I posted some time back a story from a dr who reported a surgeon doing the circumcision "free hand". In other words, he just took a scalpel, wrenched the little prepuce way out and whacked at it. Her point was that there were a lot of boys in that town with lopsided circumcisions. I agree, it's enough to make you throw up.
post #9 of 41
post #10 of 41
Thats sad. Welcome to the world, snip! :
post #11 of 41
:
post #12 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by christifav View Post
:
:

post #13 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by glongley View Post

there is no conflict in the scheduling of cases, and no babies are forgotten and left uncircumcised.
Yeah, wouldn't want to forget one! That could be a car payment right there, leaving the hospital unscathed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by glongley View Post
"During 1950 there were 2480 immediate circumcision performed in Akron City Hospital with no demonstrable ill effect on the weight curve, temperature, feeding, healing process, or general well-being of the infants...
No ill effects except they had an unnecessary amputation!! I guess a raw, seeping, oozing wound in your diaper getting stung every time you pee is not an ill effect either.

Thanks for posting that, Gillian, it is more proof that all hospital routines are set up for the convenience of the doctors, not the patients' best interests. Ugh.

Jen
post #14 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by glongley View Post
"Stimulation of the baby: Frequently following a general anesthetic the newborn is depressed and various stimulants are employed; circumcision unfailingly produces an excellent response in a sleepy baby."
post #15 of 41
Wow, that's terrible. :

I'm not sure how it went with my partner, but he was born in 1965 and adopted at 6 weeks. But, I'm sure it wasn't far off from these descriptions.
post #16 of 41
In the hospital I was born at in the early 80's, they did the circs right after birth in the delivery rooms. They told my mom they'd do it then if I came out a boy, & according to my dad, he knew I was a girl while he waited outside in the waiting area because the crying from my mom's delivery room wasn't the same as others who had boys. It didn't get "more high pitched" according to him.
post #17 of 41
Sadly, I'm not surprised. I remember hearing a story from that time period of a boy being born breech & being circumcised even before his head was born. :
post #18 of 41
Quote:
Sadly, I'm not surprised. I remember hearing a story from that time period of a boy being born breech & being circumcised even before his head was born.
That is truly sick. :
post #19 of 41
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devaskyla View Post
Sadly, I'm not surprised. I remember hearing a story from that time period of a boy being born breech & being circumcised even before his head was born. :
Sounds like a circ urban legend to me. Docs have to keep breech babies' bodies covered before the head comes out because the cold air will make them take a breath. If cold air is enough of a shock to make them breathe, certainly the pain of a circ would cause them to take a breath. If they breathe before their head's out, they can breathe in amniotic fluid.

Not to mention the fact that most (not all) breech babies will come out with their genitals facing the floor if the mother's on her back. That would make it pretty difficult for the doc to get to their penis to cut it.
post #20 of 41
I know that with my DH and BIL, my ILs discussed it in advance because my MIL made the whole big thing about "after we discussed it I decided that I would let my husband decide, because you know the man should decide things like this" : DH was not circumcised at birth because he had hypospadias, but BIL was pretty much right away.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Understanding Circumcision
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Understanding Circumcision › "They circumcised my son on the delivery table"