Whoo hoo... that is a tough one. I know how the mailing lists blow up so easily over these things- I am not sure that your pasting those large excerpts here was even in line with the mothering guidelines... I'm not sure, but you might have to paraphrase and edit what the other people said.
As for how you handled it- I think you did a very reasonable job without launching yourself and going for the major arteries of that nurse. (as I would have!)
How about you post a followup?- since she LIED...
and say, in a sugary sweet way.... (of course you will have to edit out all my judgemental rage!)
I wonder how it could be that as a nurse you seem to be unaware of the fact that the AMA and the AAP and the ACOG and the AAFP all recomend that newborns SHOULD be anesthatised for circumcision IF they are circumcised AT ALL.
Then give the medically backed up quotes: like:
AAP: "In summary, analgesia is safe and effective in reducing the procedural pain associated with circumcision and, therefore, adequate analgesia should be provided if neonatal circumcision is performed. EMLA cream, DPNB, and a subcutaneous ring block are options, although the subcutaneous ring block may provide the most effective analgesia."http://www.aap.org/policy/re9850.html
"Ordinary humanitarian sentiment prevents consideration of circumcision without anesthesia. ...
.... Despite the clear evidence that newborn males generate brisk pain responses during circumcision, and the availability of methods to reduce pain during the procedure, a recent survey of residency training programs found that 26% of programs that taught circumcision provided no instruction on the use of local anesthesia. In programs that taught circumcision, pediatric (84%) and family practice residents (80%) were more likely than obstetric residents (60%) to learn about anesthetic techniques to prevent pain associated with circumcision.62 Significant regional variation occurred within and across medical specialties.
Summary and Comment
Virtually all current policy statements from specialty societies and medical organizations do not recommend routine neonatal circumcision, and support the provision of accurate and unbiased information to parents to inform their choice. The recent policy revision by the American Academy of Pediatrics also states that analgesia (anesthesia) should be provided for the procedure. "http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/article/2036-2511.html
ACOG: From the standpoint of ACOG's Practice Activities Division, as a surgical procedure with concomitant pain, the use of analgesia during circumcision is advocated, but the preferred mode of pain relief is not specified (Stanley Zinberg, MD. Personal communication. September 1999).
AAFP: If the decision is made to circumcise, anesthesia should be used.http://www.aafp.org/x1462.xmlhttp://www.cirp.org/library/pain/
and be sure to direct them to the Taddio pain study on the long term effects of the damage that this "short" traumatic event does to children... it's linked off the above page.
then you can give the stats on the number of unanesthatized circs still happening (also included at the above link) Only 17 % of circumcising OBs use anesthetic!!
and you could encourage her to check out what Pain managment nurses say about brutally crushing the penis of a baby in a clamp:http://www.aspmn.org/html/PScircum.htm
The ethical principle of beneficence – the duty to benefit another – obliges healthcare
professionals to manage pain and provide humane care (Agency for Healthcare Policy and
Research [AHCPR], 1992). Unanesthetized circumcision violates the ethical principle of non-maleficence which is the duty to do no harm. "
but althought it is obviously unethical to do this to a person, physicians not only DO this... they do studies proudly outlining the numebr of infants they circumcised without pain relief... they actually brought in measuring devices to record the variations within the screaming horror panic of these genital torture victims... some of these studies (Lander's) have been shut dowwn because the children were suffering so terribly and a few almostt died of complication of their reaction to the pain voluntarily inflicted on them (meaning, they stopped documenting the suffering... not stopped INFLICTING IT) Here is an example of medically endorsed sadism: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=88195552
and then you can give the pain relief protocol just in case anyone still wants to strap their baby boy in!: http://www3.us.elsevierhealth.com/WOW/op043.html
and then you can tell her that she can access a new study about circumcision pain made just for nurses available to MEDSCAPE subscribers. because OBVIOUSLY she needs to update her advice. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/453637
I sure hope she does not encourage people in the hospital where she works to circumcise without anesthesia!!
I sure hope that she would not do that to her own CHILD!
As for the woman whose husband is falling for a disgusting type of Americanization... suggest that they get the book by Gollaher called "Circumcision: a history of the world's most contraversial surgery" I think it will help them to see what is going on in a very clear light. Also- tell him to pick up a copy of the "Men's Journal" this month.