A little early but circumcision question

argonne · February 2014

kleMcK said:

argonne said:

kleMcK said:

argonne said:

Also, from the AAP article linked saying their are benefits to circumsion there is this line right in the first paragraph:

"New scientific evidence shows the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks of the procedure, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all newborn boys..."
That's from 2012. The AAP updated their stance last year to this:

"Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks; furthermore, the benefits of newborn male circumcision justify access to this procedure for families who choose it. "

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/e756.full?sid=bd9574fb-4575-4d35-a46e-a63394e68331

This is the technical report the article I quoted from is in reference to. It's from August 2012. I don't care whether a family chooses to circumcise or not. It's their choice, but the AAP hasn't seen enough of a benefit to recommend routine circumcision.

It's not like we all just automatically have an appendectomy because of the chance that we might get appendicitis at some point in our lives. Though you could say that the benefit outweighs the risk. I mean, the appendix doesn't do anything and it's a relativey non-invasive surgery (laproscopic) plus there is risk of death of you do get appendicitis. Same with tonsils. There is a reason doctors don't remove tonsils willy-nilly anymore.
You're right. My sources are a little wonky. Based on the reading I've done at aap.org, however, they neither advocate nor oppose routine circumcision, but recommend parents make the decision themselves.

Routine is being used in the wrong context here. They don't have enough compelling evidence to recommend routine (every case/every family) circumcision. If you actually read the study they did not find increased amount of diagnosed HIV/STD cases inuncircumcised males. All they found were increased risk factors (penile wetness for HIV/STDs, and bacteria for UTIs/STDs). Quite honestly, unprotected sex is the largest risk factor for HIV/STDs and that has nothing to do with circumcision.

RoxanneA · February 2014

It went well. He was gone for just a few minutes and when they brought him back to me he wasn't crying. They made us stay until the bleeding had stopped for 30 minutes or so and gave us these little mesh things to teepee over it after every change with lots of vasoline. If I remember correctly it healed pretty fast. I was a bit sqeemish at first but after a day or two it didn't bother me and more and it never seemed to hurt him.

sxymamakat · February 2014

We haven't made our final call yet in case we have a boy, but I will say that I've had two different sexual partners whose circumcisions were done poorly and there was significant nerve damage. For one, it was only partially done and there was some foreskin left and sensitivity issues, but for the other, apparently a few spare nerves were damaged (I have no idea WHY this wasn't more thoroughly addressed when it happened by his parents) and sex was- challenging. Oral sex was even worse and only very specific stimulation could get him erect.

My only contention is that parents should consider WHO will be doing the actual procedure- I was surprised to find out that some OBs will do the circ even though they generally don't at their particular hospital. I'd much rather have a pediatrician who has done hundreds of them rather than someone whose training is focused on my lady bits trying his/her hand at one (say if the ped isn't available). Some OBs do many, I'm not saying they're not qualified, but SOME of them are not. I wouldn't get surgery on me without knowing how often the doctor has performed the procedure, and I will ask those same questions if we have a son.

francined01 · February 2014

didn't even consider it for any of my 3 boys. Can't imagine why you would want to put your newborn through any unnecessary surgery...you wouldn't do it to a girl?

The rest of the world only does this procedure for religious purposes.

reils500 · February 2014

People brought up a lot of great points on both sides. Another piece that may play a role in some people's decision is the cost. I know my insurance does not cover the procedure & it costs about $600 out of pocket.
This really did not impact our decision to not circumcise DS, but cost may impact other people's choice.

argonne · February 2014

francined01 said:

didn't even consider it for any of my 3 boys. Can't imagine why you would want to put your newborn through any unnecessary surgery...you wouldn't do it to a girl?
The rest of the world only does this procedure for religious purposes.

Yes, agreed. We don't do anything to girl bits and they have many more folds and areas where bacteria can get trapped. In fact, we tend to look at the cultures who DO perform female circumcision (removal of the clitoris) as barbaric. No, maybehe foreskin isn't as sensitive as the clitoris, but it is still part of the penis and does have many nerve endings that may or may not play a role in sexual sensations.

littlesparrow602 · February 2014

I can see both sides of it. Really, having a foreskin is natural, but I also understand the belief for circumcision. I left the decision completely up to my husband. We had the procedure done. It was quick and simple and done in the hospital. It healed very quickly.

Do I think its medically necessary? Absolutely not. Look at all the countries all over the world who do not do it. I believe its purely a religious and/or cosmetic/generational procedure.

We're having a boy this time, too. Will we get it done? More than likely.

francined01 · February 2014

some European countries (like Germany) have made it illegal.

Also, mastectomy, which is the removal of certain parts of female breast tissue, may significantly reduce (by about 90 percent) the chance of developing breast cancer...but we would never remove a baby girls breast tissue at birth!!

francined01 · February 2014

I'm sorry - I seem to have missed the advice or pro's/con/s you're giving...

What I have responded with are FACTS not opinions.

francined01 · February 2014

seriously- you have too much time on your hands.

francined01 · February 2014

I have no "case". What's wrong with you?

Someone asked for advice/pro's/cons and I gave it - if you don't like it don't read it

I'm out

/

acciovino · February 2014

We will be circumsizing. I left it up to DH and he made the decision.

There are many scenarios where us as parents are going to have to choose one way or the other for our children who cannot yet make decisions for themselves. We just have to hope we make the right decisions for them. I would never judge another family for not circumsizing their child. That's their decision to make.

[Deleted User] · February 2014

francined01 said:

some European countries (like Germany) have made it illegal.

Also, mastectomy, which is the removal of certain parts of female breast tissue, may significantly reduce (by about 90 percent) the chance of developing breast cancer...but we would never remove a baby girls breast tissue at birth!!

Because the breasts serve no purpose, right?

michellexm · February 2014

sxymamakat said:

We haven't made our final call yet in case we have a boy, but I will say that I've had two different sexual partners whose circumcisions were done poorly and there was significant nerve damage. For one, it was only partially done and there was some foreskin left and sensitivity issues, but for the other, apparently a few spare nerves were damaged (I have no idea WHY this wasn't more thoroughly addressed when it happened by his parents) and sex was- challenging. Oral sex was even worse and only very specific stimulation could get him erect.

My only contention is that parents should consider WHO will be doing the actual procedure- I was surprised to find out that some OBs will do the circ even though they generally don't at their particular hospital. I'd much rather have a pediatrician who has done hundreds of them rather than someone whose training is focused on my lady bits trying his/her hand at one (say if the ped isn't available). Some OBs do many, I'm not saying they're not qualified, but SOME of them are not. I wouldn't get surgery on me without knowing how often the doctor has performed the procedure, and I will ask those same questions if we have a son.

Totally a great point. Any time you get a procedure done, ask how many the person does annually. You want somebody who does this regularly!

michellexm · February 2014

The comments about "this is a cosmetic procedure only" bother me on here. Why? Because they're disingenuous. Medical groups have said there are potential benefits to circumcision health wise, and stating otherwise only shows you would prefer to judge others and their personal choices.

kay anthony · February 2014

Part of the reason circumcision rates of newborns soared after WWII was the number of uncircumcised American soldiers who had to have emergency adult circumcisions during the war (because of unsanitary conditions). Those men came home and most decided to have their sons circumcised as newborns.

Until I read that (and someone else independently raised the issue of what might happen to my son as an old man unable to completely care for himself) I was pretty anti-circumcision. If I felt that it was only cosmetic, I wouldn't have it done. But I think that the pros outweigh the cons. Our little boy is going to be circumcised.

*LrCg* · February 2014

Another option that I haven't seen mentioned is if you choose to circumcise you can use a Mohel who is most of the time a Rabbi. You do not have to be Jewish nor should you feel uncomfortable contacting them if you are not. They are extremely friendly and willing to assist. I've never known them to charge its always your choice of donation. It does not have to be done on the 8th day if you are not Jewish but of course the Sabbath is out. There are many benefits to a Mohel vs a doctor. You can Google them but some are there are significantly less complications with a Mohel and there's studies that a Mohel can do it in half the time. The procedure is done via morgan clamp and the Mohel will ask your permission to have the baby suck on a gauze with Kosher wine prior then he is placed on a pillow vs strapped down on a board. Generally its placed on the father's lap. Both of your attendence is encouraged. The Mohel also comes to your house to do it.

Its just an option most people don't realize. Lastly don't let someone pressure you into one decsion over the other. Its a decision for BOTH parents to make just because a mother doesn't have a penis doesn't make her voiceless. Make a decision that feels right for your family and what you're comfortable with and that will be the right decision.

[Deleted User] · February 2014

michellexm said:

The comments about "this is a cosmetic procedure only" bother me on here. Why? Because they're disingenuous. Medical groups have said there are potential benefits to circumcision health wise, and stating otherwise only shows you would prefer to judge others and their personal choices.

I agree. To me, a purely cosmetic procedure is piercing an infant ear's for which there are truly no health benefits.

We also plan on clipping any tongue ties should any of our children be born with one even though it's not guaranteed it will have a negative effect on feeding or speech. DH has a tongue tie that still bothers him now that he's in his 30s (and makes him self conscious about his speaking, even though it's not anything noticeable) but he won't do anything about it now.

littlesparrow602 · February 2014

So I talked to my husband about this... just to see if he still wanted to circ our son and he said yeah. I also learned that his was botched when he was a baby, and he still has some foreskin left and it drives him nuts, but doesn't want to go through getting it fixed.

I didn't have any idea... he's the only guy I've ever been with. Interesting.

[Deleted User] · February 2014

The user and all related content has been deleted.

JKM416 · February 2014

I have two sons, neither of which are cut (also have a daughter and then a July Team Green on the way...just got this app and am checking out this board. Promise I'm not a troll!). My DH is circumcised, so his instinct was to have it done. I said maybe - but no way without thorough research first. We looked into it enough to have big enough doubts that we didn't do it. Also, we had a variety of OBs, pediatricians, and midwives over the course of their care, and none promoted circumcision...the only input we got was from those who told us to think long and hard (no pun intended) first (so they were clearly not advocates of it but didn't want to pressure us). Now, the only reaction any medical professional has given us when they provide care is surprise, and then approval (I know other people have had different experiences and advice; I can only share mine). The AAP is not the be-all, end-all of medical consensus. Every day, and the more I learn, the greater my relief is that we didn't cut them.

I could write a longer response than anyone would ever read, so I won't. And I'm always skeptical of statistics and studies and other things people on any side of any issue quote to support their belief, so I won't throw those in. I'll just say to use common sense. The vast majority of men throughout history were not cut. Most men in the world today aren't. There are some countries trying to get it banned. No obvious health benefits have been proven beyond things that can be taken care of through (1) basic hygiene you'd teach your son anyway or (2) education (example: I hope you'd tell him to use a condom regardless of the state of his penis). While purely anecdotal, 100% of the boys I know of who've had "issues" with their genitals that required further medical attention are those who were cut (someone just posted on my regional board today about complications with adhesions and pain, actually). The foreskin has practical, sexual (for both the man and his partner), and hygeinic purposes...it's there for many reasons. If being uncut really was the "danger" it's made out to be, there would be indisputable proof present throughout all cultures/religions/countries, comparing cut vs. uncut men. The evidence just isn't there. And the trend in our country is definitely changing (that was my DH's biggest concern: the "locker room" issue...once he learned that rates had been decreasing, he felt better about it).

There are also risks involved in circumcision that lots of people brush off. Immediate things like bleeding, blisters, long healing time, too much / too little cut, etc. And there are long term consequences like scarring, painful erections, decreased function during aging (aka, Viagara effect), "pulling" to one side, decreases sensation, etc. Lots of men think "that's just the way a penis is" and don't realize something is the result of their circumcision. Think about it: you cut this tiny little body part that will eventually develop into a much larger one...how does it make sense that what was done when it was so small will have no anatomical effect on it once has changed so much? Again, common sense.

While it's a pro-intact site, I found drmomma.org to be a thorough, factual resource that's not all militant. Please give this a lot of thought and educate yourself before you make a permanent change to your son's body that can never be taken back. It's a decision too many people take too lightly.

Want a personalized experience?

A little early but circumcision question

Re: A little early but circumcision question

Choose Another Board

Search Boards