Originally Posted by asunlitrose
"A local anesthetic can and should always be used. Painless circumcision should be a birthright. I have used a local anesthesia in nearly a thousand babies over the past twenty years. It is a safe procedure and it works. Sometimes the anesthetic will not remove all the pain, but it certainly helps."
I don't understand him. He uses the word "intact," he says there's no medical reason a few times in the section, and talks about how teasing, "look like the father," and disease make no compelling arguments.
An INTACT penis should be a birthright.
He also says anesthesia works but in the next sentence says it might not.
He's circumcised over a 1,000 babies.
Sears, William, M.D., and Martha Sears, R.N.. The Baby Book: Everything you need to know about your baby from birth to age two.
2nd ed. New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2003. Pg. 33
Full disclosure-- I like Dr. Sears
, so I'm inclined to give him more credit than i would probably give otherwise...
I have read this book, too, but my understanding is that the wording of this section (which I believe is also in Christian Parenting and Childcare?) has not changed in 15 years. Maybe he doesn't actually perform them anymore but keeps the "I have used anesthesia" segment so that parents who are determined to circ will demand this from their doctors. Just saying, "Circing is very bad, do not do it" would certainly appeal more to me and most of those on this board, but it might be alienating to most main-stream parents. I believe that Bob uses similar tactics in his vaccine book... i.e, he doesn't disclose what he himself does with his own children so to be more middle-of-the-road (and I think there was a rumor which circulated here that his younger children are not vaxed? I have no source for that at all).
The whole Sears family may have mercenary motives for this middle-of-the-roadness (and I am a bit more extreme myself), but in any case, it works. They have done SO much to make AP more common and more "acceptable." I have a good friend who is considering natural childbirth, baby-wearing, etc, and it's almost entirely because of Sears and the fact that he is not frighteningly fringe. I also have friends who do not circ because of what they read in Sears. So even if, yes, he could have come out and been more clear and perhaps less hypocritical (and I do agree with PPs who have said that a doc who knows that circing is wrong and does so anyway is the worst of the circing offenders), this passage in the book is not enough proof for me that he is currently performing medically unnecessary circumcisions.
But hey-- it can't hurt to write a letter to the office and get some direct information from the source!
ooh-- and Catholic74-- I completely agree with you!