what to do...

[latinalonestar]

I just got an email from someone "important" stating that there are medical reasons for routine infant circumcision. Is there anyone I can contact from NOCIRC or someone that can send that person information that he is not correct?

[SleeplessMommy]

Does "someone important" mean a doctor or clergy or politician or government employee? Or does it mean a family member?

[latinalonestar]

Originally Posted by SleeplessMommy

Does "someone important" mean a doctor or clergy or politician or government employee? Or does it mean a family member?

The head of a major pregnancy organization.

[Fellow Traveler]

You can contact Marilyn Milos I'll PM you her email address. BTW, what reasons, if any, did they give?

[latinalonestar]

Originally Posted by jwhispers

You can contact Marilyn Milos I'll PM you her email address. BTW, what reasons, if any, did they give?

He just sent me another email saying that the health reasons are for adults but circ is done on infants since it is "safer to perform circumcision on infants than adults".

[perspective]

Originally Posted by latinalonestar

He just sent me another email saying that the health reasons are for adults but circ is done on infants since it is "safer to perform circumcision on infants than adults".

That would make sense if it was not for the fact that there are hundreds (maybe thousands) of surgeries performed on adults that have many more risks attached then circumcision.

So that argument does not really make any sense.

[Greg B]

Originally Posted by latinalonestar

He just sent me another email saying that the health reasons are for adults but circ is done on infants since it is "safer to perform circumcision on infants than adults".

I do not buy this statement without some references to back it up. The problem with this type of debate is that this "important person" is getting to say whatever he wants without having to back it up. He should be required to provide refernces backing up his statements. It would be just as valid for me to say circ done on adults is safer than RIC.

Regards

[Fellow Traveler]

Originally Posted by Greg B

I do not buy this statement without some references to back it up. The problem with this type of debate is that this "important person" is getting to say whatever he wants without having to back it up. He should be required to provide refernces backing up his statements. It would be just as valid for me to say circ done on adults is safer than RIC.

Regards

It also make no sense from an ethical point of view. Even if adult circumcision was legitimately a higher risk operation, though I can't see how that could possibly be, it becomes the adult's risk to accept or decline based on his evaluation of the pro-ported benefit. My guess is that they believe their are more complications because there is a competent patient who will complain. What is the infant going to complain about, by the time they realize there is a problem years have passed and some figured it's just supposed to be that way.

[MCatLvrMom2A&X]

I think the higher risk he may be refering to is the risk of General Anesthisia. I dont think they will circ a adult male with just a local so that would increase the risk in that respect.

But that by any means dosnt justify putting a helpless infant through a painful surgery without pain relief in most cases. To me that is a million times worse than going under GA.

[Fellow Traveler]

Originally Posted by MCatLvrMom2A&X

I think the higher risk he may be refering to is the risk of General Anesthisia. I dont think they will circ a adult male with just a local so that would increase the risk in that respect.

But that by any means dosnt justify putting a helpless infant through a painful surgery without pain relief in most cases. To me that is a million times worse than going under GA.

I agree and disagree. I think they will circumcise an adult under a local or regional. In fact I know it for sure, they say so on the AAFP website (warning graphic). An adult can chose to go under if they want. However, I am willing to bet if they circumcised a child (if he needed it) they would always opt to put him under since they would be more difficult to control.

[Yulia_R]

Originally Posted by latinalonestar

I just got an email from someone "important" stating that there are medical reasons for routine infant circumcision. Is there anyone I can contact from NOCIRC or someone that can send that person information that he is not correct?

I think I know who you are talking about, I've got that too yesterday :

[Claire and Boys]

Originally Posted by MCatLvrMom2A&X

I think the higher risk he may be refering to is the risk of General Anesthisia. I dont think they will circ a adult male with just a local so that would increase the risk in that respect.

But that by any means dosnt justify putting a helpless infant through a painful surgery without pain relief in most cases. To me that is a million times worse than going under GA.

Is this true? GA required for an adult circ?

Why? If a local is good enough for a baby (barf) why not for an adult?

[DocsNemesis]

GA isnt required, its optional in most cases. I know someone on the net, fairly well known and outspoken against RIC, who opted to be circ'd as an adult and told my dh the whole thing. He was given a local, checked for numbness before hand, when there was a spot he could still feel, they gave him more, and he didnt feel a thing, but was awake for the whole thing. I'd assume it'd depend partly on the doc (this was a cosmetic surgeon who does adult circ's the way the men WANT, not a urologist saying it needed to be done or something) and partly on the patient. If you couldnt handle being awake for surgery, then obviously you'd want to be put under.

However, I'm pretty sure if you compared the statistics, more infants die from circ than adults-even if adjusted for the greatly smaller number of adults who chose to get it done. GA is still very safe and an adult is able to handle infections, bleeding, and arnt sitting in a wet/poopy diaper with an open wound. An infant can die from a bleed out very very quickly; an infant isnt as well able to handle infections and the diapers would increase the risk of infection dramatically I'd think; and of course, there is the trauma of having part of their penis cut off and feeling it. Yeah, that makes no sense to me.

[Night_Nurse]

Originally Posted by latinalonestar

I just got an email from someone "important" stating that there are medical reasons for routine infant circumcision. Is there anyone I can contact from NOCIRC or someone that can send that person information that he is not correct?

That's so cute! Your important guy got "medical reasons" confused with "financial reasons". Please ask him what these reasons are and for non-biased research to back it up. Also please ask him about any medical reasons for circumcision females. He might think you're crazy, but certainly a labia can't get infected or cancerous or a herpes lesion if it's removed, kwim? So if there are medical reasons to cut off male parts, one would assume those same reasons would apply to female parts, no?

[Night_Nurse]

Originally Posted by Claire and Boys

Why? If a local is good enough for a baby (barf) why not for an adult?

Yet, the majority of infant circs performed today still are not with any local at all.
Sad.

[Fyrestorm]

Statistically this makes no sense whatsoever! Since in the intact world, only 1% of men ever need to be circumcised for medical reasons, then why put 100% of babies at risk for all complications when only 1% would have to face any risk (even if it's a higher risk) as an adult?

[ambivamom]

Hi,
If there is a compelling reason not to say who/what organisation this is from, could pp or someone else pm me with it?