I'm starting to question my initial "no" decision. But if it's really so great for health though, why does the Internet say hardly anyone in Europe does it? I'm confused about how much of it is for cultural reasons and how much is for actual health reasons. I need to read some scientific articles on this....
I'm starting to question my initial "no" decision. But if it's really so great for health though, why does the Internet say hardly anyone in Europe does it? I'm confused about how much of it is for cultural reasons and how much is for actual health reasons. I need to read some scientific articles on this....
You'd get very side eyed in Europe for choosing to circumcise. They're currently talking about banning it in Denmark. I've stayed out of this topic as I feel very strongly about it and I don't want to turn it into a discussion about whether circumcision is right or wrong. I've been with both intact and circumcised men and all I can say is that intact men have a far more pleasurable sex life in my experience. The hygiene is not a very relevant argument imo as you'd teach your children to clean themselves.
I knew a guy who got circumcised at the age of 22 and he regrets it every day. DH is circumcised as well and blames his parents for doing it without his consent and same is the case with several of my friends who are circumcised. That is why I will not be doing it to my son and let him chose it in case he wishes to. DH feels the same regarding this so it wasn't really a discussion, more "we're gonna get a lot of crap from our parents about this"
I just can't get behind hygiene as a reason to circumcise a baby boy. Girls get yeast infections/UTIs/BV and yet we don't chop off the labia to help lessen the chances of infections. I understand needing a circ in cases where it is medically necessary, but not using it as a preventative method.
I'm a Christian, and as far as a religious viewpoint, Christians are no longer held under the Old Testament covenant but rather by the New Testament where we are delivered from our sins by our faith in Christ. This of course is merely my opinion/view on the religious aspect of it, and others may feel differently and that's okay!
My other reasoning behind not wanting a circ done, is that a brand new baby knows nothing yet, his only instinct is "Mama." He won't understand what is happening when he is strapped down and he won't understand the pain he feels. Personally, I don't want to put my infant through that. I'm his Mama and I feel like I need to protect him from anything scary or painful. I also don't like that he would have a surgical procedure done and unlike the rest of us, he can't take medicine to help alleviate his pain while he is healing. I realize this may be a bit irrational, but I can't help that I feel this way.
Please note that this is my personal reasoning for not wanting it done, and I don't judge other people for the decisions they make for their own children.
Just reading this thread... I am wondering what is the rationale behind refusing eye ointments and vitamin k shots? The eye ointments are certainly a lot less critical today than they were 100 years ago, but still, it's innocuous and if you treat the population you are bound to end up preventing several cases of blindness. For the vitamin k shots, I believe the rates of vitamin k deficiency are around 1%, so the number needed to treat is high but it's also innocuous and several cases of severe hemorrhage will be prevented by prophylaxing the entire population.
Not trying to stirr the pot, just curious about why ppl would refuse such simple prophylactic measures. (When it comes to health and Medicine in general, I'm 100% on the prevention camp).
@thaisac1 You are Canadian and in medicine, right? (Or maybe I'm getting people mixed up...) Can you opine on whether the CPS is a legitimate organization?
For me, the thing is that I don't want to cut off my nose to spite my face. For a minuscule upside (potentially, for at-risk populations in particular, with circ) or perhaps no upside (for folks with no STDs, with eye ointment), I'm going to at least question the procedure, and potentially take a pass. But my research on the pros and cons of eye ointment has just begun and I know nothing yet about the Vit K. Before the fists start flying, I'm not anti-vacc. But like most everybody here, I make a living on critical thinking--and I can't turn it off when I come home (sometimes, even when I want to...Netflix marathons aside).
@thaisac1 You are Canadian and in medicine, right? (Or maybe I'm getting people mixed up...) Can you opine on whether the CPS is a legitimate organization?
For me, the thing is that I don't want to cut off my nose to spite my face. For a minuscule upside (potentially, for at-risk populations in particular, with circ) or perhaps no upside (for folks with no STDs, with eye ointment), I'm going to at least question the procedure, and potentially take a pass. But my research on the pros and cons of eye ointment has just begun and I know nothing yet about the Vit K. Before the fists start flying, I'm not anti-vacc. But like most everybody here, I make a living on critical thinking--and I can't turn it off when I come home (sometimes, even when I want to...Netflix marathons aside).
Nationality-wise I am Brazilian, but you are correct that I am a physician and I live and work in Canada. The Canadian Pediatric Society is legit.
The main issue at hand here is that even though "Personalized Medicine" is the medical term du jour, it's still far from reality. When it comes to preventative measures, the healthcare system has to apply them to the whole population at risk in order to prevent the perhaps rare but potentially devastating target illnesses. A doctor doesn't have the ability to say "I'll apply a vitamin k shot on baby X because he's high risk and not apply one one baby Y because he's low risk". Just an example. Personalized medicine like this would be awesome (and as a field we are making daily strides towards individualizing recommendations so it will be a reality in the future), but as of today the medical field just cannot make these distinctions. Thus, especific measures that have been robustly shown to be safe for most, and effectively prevent bad illnesses need to be applied in mass. So we need to look at it from the healthcare perspective right now.
If a specific preventive measure had significant risks, it would not be widely recommended. In my mind, vaccines, vitamin k, ABT ointment, etc, while being very very very very VERY low yield for me and my baby, are important for society, and who knows, maybe will be important for us too if we have one of the rare conditions... So if there is a societal recommendation for a specific preventative measure, I will accept it. These are my thoughts.
@thaisac1 Thank you--that was a really well-thought-out post. A couple of follow-up questions from a non-doc....
Unless I misunderstand the CPS's stance, I thought they don't recommend the eye ointment for everyone? It's totally possible I misunderstood.
I am embarrassed to admit that I don't fully understand how "herd immunity" works, but am I right that it doesn't have anything to do with the eye ointment? Are the arguments for universal application based on the idea that at-risk people might otherwise opt-out?
@thaisac1 Thank you--that was a really well-thought-out post. A couple of follow-up questions from a non-doc....
Unless I misunderstand the CPS's stance, I thought they don't recommend the eye ointment for everyone? It's totally possible I misunderstood.
I am embarrassed to admit that I don't fully understand how "herd immunity" works, but am I right that it doesn't have anything to do with the eye ointment? Are the arguments for universal application based on the idea that at-risk people might otherwise opt-out?
Thanks in advance for sharing your knowledge!
I honestly do not know the CPS position on oiitment - I've never looked it up. I learned about the need for ointment in medschool and haven't looked again. Since I don't plan on declining any of the recommended preventative measures, I never really bothered looking up - my plan is to just do what my docs recommend and go from there, understanding that they will know what is the latest recommendation of their field.
You are right that immunity has nothing to do with the ointment (or vitamins k shots) at all. This concept only applies to vaccines. The need for ointment is based on the fact that some babies may pick up chlamydia or gonorrhea (or, less importantly, other bacteria like E. coli) as they pass through the birth canal, which can cause blindness - which is in turn prevented with the ointment. Now mind you, in our part of the world gonorrhea is rare; chlamydia not so rare, but most women get screened for it at some point during gestation anyways. My understanding is that the reason ointment may still recommended, it is because there is no way to be absolutely sure that mom didn't acquire these infections between the screening test and day of delivery.
I'm still undecided on the eye ointment, but geez medicine is fascinating....I don't think I would've liked being a doc, but I love reading about it!
See, I didn't even know about that! Basically I'll just do whatever they recommend to me; based on the above statement they may not even recommend the ointment... At the end of the day, I trust my doctors to know and recommend what is best; the point is that I don't plan on declining anything if a doctor does recommend it for prevention of whatever condition.
Like @thaisac1 mentioned, STD infection is definitely the highest risk (blindness) but isn't the only potential infection baby comes into contact with at birth. DD ended up on an extended rx of the eye ointment even after the dose in the hospital because of a conjunctivitis infection that was causing her eyes to crust closed. She got gooped 2x a day for 2 weeks (ps, squeezing that stuff in a newborn's eye is way scarier than learning to do eyeliner on yourself) and it definitely didn't hurt our ability to bond etc. If it was only STDs that it protected against I would skip it too, but it's not that straight forward.
Just reading this thread... I am wondering what is the rationale behind refusing eye ointments and vitamin k shots? The eye ointments are certainly a lot less critical today than they were 100 years ago, but still, it's innocuous and if you treat the population you are bound to end up preventing several cases of blindness. For the vitamin k shots, I believe the rates of vitamin k deficiency are around 1%, so the number needed to treat is high but it's also innocuous and several cases of severe hemorrhage will be prevented by prophylaxing the entire population.
Not trying to stirr the pot, just curious about why ppl would refuse such simple prophylactic measures. (When it comes to health and Medicine in general, I'm 100% on the prevention camp).
I will admit I am very skeptical of doing unnecessary medical preventative measures, HOWEVER, a lot of doing research into individual decisions has made me change my mind for a lot of them.
Vit K shot: I was completely against this when I first learned about it because I don't believe that we are born at any more of a disadvantage at birth than any other mammal, and we have exactly what we need to survive. BUT I just discovered I have lower than average Iron and Hemoglobin levels, so the likelihood of my child being born with an adequate amount of Vitamin K is less than perfect. I've done research, and changed my mind. We're doing it.
Hep B shot: When you are first presented with information about this shot it looks like it is only for the prevention of a sexually transmitted disease, which is why I was not ok with it. After discovering my state requires it for admittance into VPK and Elementary schools I started looking into the pro's of the vaccine. Yes Hep B is technically labeled as an STD, but it can be contracted easily from other children through any bodily fluid. So say LO doesn't go to preschool, but falls down and scrapes his knee at the playground, there is a serious risk of contracting it. (This is a far more common occurrence for children than I initially thought possible after looking over statistical data.)
They started giving this shot to help prevent AIDS, which sounds good in theory, but I figured "you better be using a condom anyway, idiots," and left it at that. I'm glad I looked further into it, although we will still be delaying it until LO has had the opportunity to establish an immune system. (Lumping it into the two month round of vaccines.)
Antibiotic Eye Ointment: I'm still not really ok with this one, but it is a law in my state to administer it within the first hour of life (and apparently DCF is called if you reject it all together??? Read that on an online forum) I don't have chlamydia, or gonorrhea, and the risk of something like E. coli becoming present are very low from what I've gathered. Not a necessary thing to me, but we're doing it reluctantly because we have to, and I don't want it to happen before breastfeeding because I don't want any distractions from that experience. (Last part is a little more selfish I guess)
Those are just the ones I've seen brought up on here. I don't want to make a thread because I'm not sure how to effectively put one together with the information we should discuss as far as all these things go, but I do think we should make one at this point.
I will admit I am very skeptical of doing unnecessary medical preventative measures, HOWEVER, a lot of doing research into individual decisions has made me change my mind for a lot of them.
Vit K shot: I was completely against this when I first learned about it because I don't believe that we are born at any more of a disadvantage at birth than any other mammal, and we have exactly what we need to survive. BUT I just discovered I have lower than average Iron and Hemoglobin levels, so the likelihood of my child being born with an adequate amount of Vitamin K is less than perfect. I've done research, and changed my mind. We're doing it.
Hep B shot: When you are first presented with information about this shot it looks like it is only for the prevention of a sexually transmitted disease, which is why I was not ok with it. After discovering my state requires it for admittance into VPK and Elementary schools I started looking into the pro's of the vaccine. Yes Hep B is technically labeled as an STD, but it can be contracted easily from other children through any bodily fluid. So say LO doesn't go to preschool, but falls down and scrapes his knee at the playground, there is a serious risk of contracting it. (This is a far more common occurrence for children than I initially thought possible after looking over statistical data.)
They started giving this shot to help prevent AIDS, which sounds good in theory, but I figured "you better be using a condom anyway, idiots," and left it at that. I'm glad I looked further into it, although we will still be delaying it until LO has had the opportunity to establish an immune system. (Lumping it into the two month round of vaccines.)
Antibiotic Eye Ointment: I'm still not really ok with this one, but it is a law in my state to administer it within the first hour of life (and apparently DCF is called if you reject it all together??? Read that on an online forum) I don't have chlamydia, or gonorrhea, and the risk of something like E. coli becoming present are very low from what I've gathered. Not a necessary thing to me, but we're doing it reluctantly because we have to, and I don't want it to happen before breastfeeding because I don't want any distractions from that experience. (Last part is a little more selfish I guess)
Those are just the ones I've seen brought up on here. I don't want to make a thread because I'm not sure how to effectively put one together with the information we should discuss as far as all these things go, but I do think we should make one at this point.
@thaisac1 the only reason I've even looked into the eye ointment is because DH is allergic and I don't know enough about allergies to know how likely or unlikely LO is to have a reaction or how bad that reaction would be in an infant. His reaction was not life-threatening, but I'd like the advice of a professional since my concerns are rather specific. I plan on discussing it with my midwife at my next appointment and will go with what she tells me. Otherwise, I am 100% for vaccinations, etc on-schedule because God only knows what DH and I have been and may continue to be exposed to in our travels. In general, the risk of adverse reaction is minuscule in comparison to the benefits of vaccination.
I will admit I am very skeptical of doing unnecessary medical preventative measures, HOWEVER, a lot of doing research into individual decisions has made me change my mind for a lot of them.
Vit K shot: I was completely against this when I first learned about it because I don't believe that we are born at any more of a disadvantage at birth than any other mammal, and we have exactly what we need to survive. BUT I just discovered I have lower than average Iron and Hemoglobin levels, so the likelihood of my child being born with an adequate amount of Vitamin K is less than perfect. I've done research, and changed my mind. We're doing it.
Hep B shot: When you are first presented with information about this shot it looks like it is only for the prevention of a sexually transmitted disease, which is why I was not ok with it. After discovering my state requires it for admittance into VPK and Elementary schools I started looking into the pro's of the vaccine. Yes Hep B is technically labeled as an STD, but it can be contracted easily from other children through any bodily fluid. So say LO doesn't go to preschool, but falls down and scrapes his knee at the playground, there is a serious risk of contracting it. (This is a far more common occurrence for children than I initially thought possible after looking over statistical data.)
They started giving this shot to help prevent AIDS, which sounds good in theory, but I figured "you better be using a condom anyway, idiots," and left it at that. I'm glad I looked further into it, although we will still be delaying it until LO has had the opportunity to establish an immune system. (Lumping it into the two month round of vaccines.)
Antibiotic Eye Ointment: I'm still not really ok with this one, but it is a law in my state to administer it within the first hour of life (and apparently DCF is called if you reject it all together??? Read that on an online forum) I don't have chlamydia, or gonorrhea, and the risk of something like E. coli becoming present are very low from what I've gathered. Not a necessary thing to me, but we're doing it reluctantly because we have to, and I don't want it to happen before breastfeeding because I don't want any distractions from that experience. (Last part is a little more selfish I guess)
Those are just the ones I've seen brought up on here. I don't want to make a thread because I'm not sure how to effectively put one together with the information we should discuss as far as all these things go, but I do think we should make one at this point.
Respectfully disagree with your opening statement - I don't believe the words "unnecessary" and "medical preventative measures" belong in the same sentence.
@thaisac1 the only reason I've even looked into the eye ointment is because DH is allergic and I don't know enough about allergies to know how likely or unlikely LO is to have a reaction or how bad that reaction would be in an infant. His reaction was not life-threatening, but I'd like the advice of a professional since my concerns are rather specific. I plan on discussing it with my midwife at my next appointment and will go with what she tells me. Otherwise, I am 100% for vaccinations, etc on-schedule because God only knows what DH and I have been and may continue to be exposed to in our travels. In general, the risk of adverse reaction is minuscule in comparison to the benefits of vaccination.
ABT allergy is not a heritable trait for most, as far as I am concerned , so I think you will be ok. Definitely run this by your provider though!
Being informed (and giving informed consent) is a really good thing. That's why I ask a lot of questions, even of processes that may seem routine. In reading the CPS report on the ointment, I already feel like I've learned a lot....
Now I know, for example, that even if I opt for the ointment, I will ask what antibiotic is being used (a shortage of erythromycin in the US in 2009 caused the use of another substance that caused some severe ocular reactions--who knew? And at that time, how many moms knew their babe got something different?).
I think the ointment may be one of those rare unnecessary medical preventative measures, and not just according to Internet crazies, but from the medical establishment at least in Canada--and my midwife.
And working in the legal realm, I also worry that some things aren't necessarily medically indicated, but rather, that a lawyer got their hands on policies. The ointment, Vit K, etc. aren't necessarily examples of that, but for example, a hospital in my area did away with birthing balls for liability reasons. And it may be that some of the sky-high c-section rates are attributable in part to liability concerns--with sometimes questionable medical necessity/efficacy.
Sorry if this comes across as defensive. Some responses to these discussions rub me the wrong way because they seem to suggest one should never question medical authority. But doing research using legitimate sources (including your doc/midwife) does not make a person crazy. For those who prefer not to do that, ok--different strokes! For my sanity, I have to feel informed and confident in what's happening.
Chiming in that I am enjoying how respectful and productive this conversation has been. Thank you to everyone who has provided insight and links - this FTM is learning a lot.
Still disagree. Hehe. Public health is way too expensive to recommend unnecessary things to the masses... Just think of it from this perspective. Medical and governmental agencies have teams of economists who do nothing but analyze cost effectiveness of everything health-wise. If costs don't justify benefits, it gets scrapped. This is only from an economic perspective, let alone the health perspective.
Just to add some support to the point @NOLA520 was making about the sources we trust, including doctors and midwives - many times they receive information from sources like pharmaceutical sales reps and companies pushing their own agendas.
I grew up interning, then working in pharma (both parents are in the field), and have worked in medical marketing. It's amazing, seeing what a doctor will push heavily one day at their practice, then switch a few months later. They receive a very condensed sales pitch, and while some fantastic doctors will do the due diligence that we expect them to ... Researching independent studies and reviewing clinical trials BEFORE recommending things to their patients, others simply will not.
I'm pro-vaccination, pro preventive measures, pro pretty much everything - but I really enjoy discussions like this that encourage a critical examination of WHERE we are getting our information.
but I really enjoy discussions like this that encourage a critical examination of WHERE we are getting our information.
And for the record a lot of the negatives I initially discovered about those three topics I specifically posted about were sourced from books, documentaries, personal homeopathic blogs, etc., so when I stepped onto the other side of it, it was an entirely different perspective on all three issues. My initial approach to medicine is "wait and see" and "how can we fix this before it becomes a problem."
I do support vaccines because of this. I also look at how conventional medicinal approach is not based on "What are you eating every day, how is your emotional life going," but rather "Oh you're getting headaches? Take this pill. Depressed? Take this one." And more like that. But I do agree with @thaisac1 (at least what I believe she means) by public health safety being more important than individual opinions. Could you imagine a polio outbreak in the US? I mean OMG how tragic????
Being informed (and giving informed consent) is a really good thing. That's why I ask a lot of questions, even of processes that may seem routine. In reading the CPS report on the ointment, I already feel like I've learned a lot....
Now I know, for example, that even if I opt for the ointment, I will ask what antibiotic is being used (a shortage of erythromycin in the US in 2009 caused the use of another substance that caused some severe ocular reactions--who knew? And at that time, how many moms knew their babe got something different?).
I think the ointment may be one of those rare unnecessary medical preventative measures, and not just according to Internet crazies, but from the medical establishment at least in Canada--and my midwife.
And working in the legal realm, I also worry that some things aren't necessarily medically indicated, but rather, that a lawyer got their hands on policies. The ointment, Vit K, etc. aren't necessarily examples of that, but for example, a hospital in my area did away with birthing balls for liability reasons. And it may be that some of the sky-high c-section rates are attributable in part to liability concerns--with sometimes questionable medical necessity/efficacy.
Sorry if this comes across as defensive. Some responses to these discussions rub me the wrong way because they seem to suggest one should never question medical authority. But doing research using legitimate sources (including your doc/midwife) does not make a person crazy. For those who prefer not to do that, ok--different strokes! For my sanity, I have to feel informed and confident in what's happening.
I can tell you one thing: There are no lawyers involved in medical guidelines. That I can assure you! So you can scrap that fear off your list.
And I agree with you 100% about being informed. We need to be! Absolutely. But I choose the things I want to seek more information about, and other things which I consider minor and I know I won't ever disagree (preventative recommendations being one of them) I don't bother researching. Life is way too busy for me to research every little aspect of healthcare. Perhaps I have a different point of view because I AM a physician. I'd hope my patients trust my recommendations, and for the same reason I trust my doctor's recommendations. Sure, I'm gonna look up the vaccination schedule for my own knowledge, but I won't argue whether vaccine X or Y is needed - I'll just take them if the doctor recommends. If a patient of mine has done independent research and wants to discuss something, I am always happy to give my point of view and re-direct their thoughts if I think they have been misguided. Before I went on vacation a patient of mine asked me about a new heart failure drug. She had done the right research, and found scientifically sound information about the new drug - no problems there, at all. But then I explained to her that she did not qualify for the drug because the clinical trial included patients much sicker than she is, and she didn't need it. She understood and case was closed. So at the end of the day, a good doctor/ specialist will ultimately know what is best for us. Note how I wrote the adjective GOOD; we all know that are bad docs out there, but hopefully none of us is under the care of a bad doc!
Buuuuuut there ARE lawyers involved in policy-making in both government (see the CPS link--ointment mandated by law even though the medical pros disagree) and in hospitals (like the one here that did away with birth balls), and most especially and maybe most importantly, in medical malpractice issues. And lawyers make mistakes (I am one, and I've made them!), as do docs. So educating yourself and being your own advocate is a plus, no matter what you decide to do.
And yes, I mean educating yourself through reputable sources.
Just to add some support to the point @NOLA520 was making about the sources we trust, including doctors and midwives - many times they receive information from sources like pharmaceutical sales reps and companies pushing their own agendas.
I grew up interning, then working in pharma (both parents are in the field), and have worked in medical marketing. It's amazing, seeing what a doctor will push heavily one day at their practice, then switch a few months later. They receive a very condensed sales pitch, and while some fantastic doctors will do the due diligence that we expect them to ... Researching independent studies and reviewing clinical trials BEFORE recommending things to their patients, others simply will not.
I'm pro-vaccination, pro preventive measures, pro pretty much everything - but I really enjoy discussions like this that encourage a critical examination of WHERE we are getting our information.
Just for the record, and not to disrespect any pharm reps who may be on the forum, but my assistant knows to decline all requests she gets from pharma reps to meet with me. They do push their drugs, give you samples, give you a pen…. We all think we are above it, and we can make our own decision, but the truth is that humans are humans - if you can use drug X or Y which are equivalent, but you just got a pitch on drug X so it's fresh in your memory, you're more likely to prescribe drug X next time. For that reason I don't meet with them at all.
I have a feeling I have hijacked the circumcision thread and made it into a medical thread. Sorry ladies! You can kick my butt. Maybe this discussion is better suited for the random thread.
Buuuuuut there ARE lawyers involved in policy-making in both government (see the CPS link--ointment mandated by law even though the medical pros disagree) and in hospitals (like the one here that did away with birth balls), and most especially and maybe most importantly, in medical malpractice issues. And lawyers make mistakes (I am one, and I've made them!), as do docs. So educating yourself and being your own advocate is a plus, no matter what you decide to do.
And yes, I mean educating yourself through reputable sources.
OK I get ya, you were talking policies, I was talking guidelines (sometimes I think of them interchangeably when they are not, necessarily).
The more I read this thread the more I think that I may see the world slightly differently because, in many instances, I have already been educated about several health topics - even if they are not in my specialty, at least I've read about them or took a test about them at some point in my life. Maybe this is why I'm a bit more hands-off, because I may not feel the need to seek more information about specific topics which I am already 'cool' about.
@thaisac1 That's great that you don't meet with reps, and you seem thoroughly educated with your patients best interest at heart. Where I live, money and shiny things can sway anybody, despite the FDA doing it's best to prevent unsafe medications in the marketplace in the first place. So it's refreshing to see ladies empowered, researching, asking the right questions, and reviewing where their information is coming from. I certainly don't mean to imply that ALL physicians all over the world are corrupt or quick to "bandwagon prescribe". It's just been my experience locally.
@thaisac1 That's great that you don't meet with reps, and you seem thoroughly educated with your patients best interest at heart. Where I live, money and shiny things can sway anybody, despite the FDA doing it's best to prevent unsafe medications in the marketplace in the first place. So it's refreshing to see ladies empowered, researching, asking the right questions, and reviewing where their information is coming from. I certainly don't mean to imply that ALL physicians all over the world are corrupt or quick to "bandwagon prescribe". It's just been my experience locally.
Money talks, unfortunately. No one is immune. I think I've been a bit sheltered because I've always been in academic hospitals - a lot less pharma rep presence other than sponsoring sandwiches for conferences... My understanding is that it's a lot heavier in private practices - could be wrong but that's my impression.
@thaisac1 That's great that you don't meet with reps, and you seem thoroughly educated with your patients best interest at heart. Where I live, money and shiny things can sway anybody, despite the FDA doing it's best to prevent unsafe medications in the marketplace in the first place. So it's refreshing to see ladies empowered, researching, asking the right questions, and reviewing where their information is coming from. I certainly don't mean to imply that ALL physicians all over the world are corrupt or quick to "bandwagon prescribe". It's just been my experience locally.
This is why when I hear about US health/medical standards or trials, I always seek out the research done by Canada and the EU on the same topics (esp the UK and Scandinavian countries.) Their standards are quite different and I feel they less often include 'shady' contributors because they are moderated/reviewed by impartial third parties. I'm not saying they are perfect either, but it's interesting to read, especially when the outcomes or standards set differ from the US.
To revive a long dead thread, DH finished his research and decided against circumcision. BTDT boy moms - is there anything I need to know about care other than don't forcibly retract?
To revive a long dead thread, DH finished his research and decided against circumcision. BTDT boy moms - is there anything I need to know about care other than don't forcibly retract?
Following... We just decided against it as well. Everything I've researched says to just wipe it off and that no extra care is needed. For some reason that doesn't seem like enough information haha
Following as well...we're still on the fence on circumcision. I'm leaning towards not doing it though. Our ObGyn just told us that she sees no medical reason to do it and it's mostly just a cultural thing, which living on the west coast it's becoming less and less common culturally to have it done. In terms of cleaning, it sounds like nothing different is needed for the first few years of their life until the foreskin detaches and can easily retract, then it's just teaching the boy how to retract and clean gently.
Re: Boy moms: have you and SO discussed circumcision yet?
I knew a guy who got circumcised at the age of 22 and he regrets it every day. DH is circumcised as well and blames his parents for doing it without his consent and same is the case with several of my friends who are circumcised. That is why I will not be doing it to my son and let him chose it in case he wishes to. DH feels the same regarding this so it wasn't really a discussion, more "we're gonna get a lot of crap from our parents about this"
I'm a Christian, and as far as a religious viewpoint, Christians are no longer held under the Old Testament covenant but rather by the New Testament where we are delivered from our sins by our faith in Christ. This of course is merely my opinion/view on the religious aspect of it, and others may feel differently and that's okay!
My other reasoning behind not wanting a circ done, is that a brand new baby knows nothing yet, his only instinct is "Mama." He won't understand what is happening when he is strapped down and he won't understand the pain he feels. Personally, I don't want to put my infant through that. I'm his Mama and I feel like I need to protect him from anything scary or painful. I also don't like that he would have a surgical procedure done and unlike the rest of us, he can't take medicine to help alleviate his pain while he is healing. I realize this may be a bit irrational, but I can't help that I feel this way.
Please note that this is my personal reasoning for not wanting it done, and I don't judge other people for the decisions they make for their own children.
Not trying to stirr the pot, just curious about why ppl would refuse such simple prophylactic measures. (When it comes to health and Medicine in general, I'm 100% on the prevention camp).
For me, the thing is that I don't want to cut off my nose to spite my face. For a minuscule upside (potentially, for at-risk populations in particular, with circ) or perhaps no upside (for folks with no STDs, with eye ointment), I'm going to at least question the procedure, and potentially take a pass. But my research on the pros and cons of eye ointment has just begun and I know nothing yet about the Vit K. Before the fists start flying, I'm not anti-vacc. But like most everybody here, I make a living on critical thinking--and I can't turn it off when I come home (sometimes, even when I want to...Netflix marathons aside).
The main issue at hand here is that even though "Personalized Medicine" is the medical term du jour, it's still far from reality. When it comes to preventative measures, the healthcare system has to apply them to the whole population at risk in order to prevent the perhaps rare but potentially devastating target illnesses. A doctor doesn't have the ability to say "I'll apply a vitamin k shot on baby X because he's high risk and not apply one one baby Y because he's low risk". Just an example. Personalized medicine like this would be awesome (and as a field we are making daily strides towards individualizing recommendations so it will be a reality in the future), but as of today the medical field just cannot make these distinctions. Thus, especific measures that have been robustly shown to be safe for most, and effectively prevent bad illnesses need to be applied in mass. So we need to look at it from the healthcare perspective right now.
If a specific preventive measure had significant risks, it would not be widely recommended. In my mind, vaccines, vitamin k, ABT ointment, etc, while being very very very very VERY low yield for me and my baby, are important for society, and who knows, maybe will be important for us too if we have one of the rare conditions... So if there is a societal recommendation for a specific preventative measure, I will accept it. These are my thoughts.
Unless I misunderstand the CPS's stance, I thought they don't recommend the eye ointment for everyone? It's totally possible I misunderstood.
I am embarrassed to admit that I don't fully understand how "herd immunity" works, but am I right that it doesn't have anything to do with the eye ointment? Are the arguments for universal application based on the idea that at-risk people might otherwise opt-out?
Thanks in advance for sharing your knowledge!
You are right that immunity has nothing to do with the ointment (or vitamins k shots) at all. This concept only applies to vaccines. The need for ointment is based on the fact that some babies may pick up chlamydia or gonorrhea (or, less importantly, other bacteria like E. coli) as they pass through the birth canal, which can cause blindness - which is in turn prevented with the ointment.
Now mind you, in our part of the world gonorrhea is rare; chlamydia not so rare, but most women get screened for it at some point during gestation anyways. My understanding is that the reason ointment may still recommended, it is because there is no way to be absolutely sure that mom didn't acquire these infections between the screening test and day of delivery.
FWIW, here's the link to the CPS thing: https://www.cps.ca/en/documents/position/ophthalmia-neonatorum
I'm still undecided on the eye ointment, but geez medicine is fascinating....I don't think I would've liked being a doc, but I love reading about it!
Vit K shot: I was completely against this when I first learned about it because I don't believe that we are born at any more of a disadvantage at birth than any other mammal, and we have exactly what we need to survive. BUT I just discovered I have lower than average Iron and Hemoglobin levels, so the likelihood of my child being born with an adequate amount of Vitamin K is less than perfect. I've done research, and changed my mind. We're doing it.
Hep B shot: When you are first presented with information about this shot it looks like it is only for the prevention of a sexually transmitted disease, which is why I was not ok with it. After discovering my state requires it for admittance into VPK and Elementary schools I started looking into the pro's of the vaccine. Yes Hep B is technically labeled as an STD, but it can be contracted easily from other children through any bodily fluid. So say LO doesn't go to preschool, but falls down and scrapes his knee at the playground, there is a serious risk of contracting it. (This is a far more common occurrence for children than I initially thought possible after looking over statistical data.)
They started giving this shot to help prevent AIDS, which sounds good in theory, but I figured "you better be using a condom anyway, idiots," and left it at that. I'm glad I looked further into it, although we will still be delaying it until LO has had the opportunity to establish an immune system. (Lumping it into the two month round of vaccines.)
Antibiotic Eye Ointment: I'm still not really ok with this one, but it is a law in my state to administer it within the first hour of life (and apparently DCF is called if you reject it all together??? Read that on an online forum) I don't have chlamydia, or gonorrhea, and the risk of something like E. coli becoming present are very low from what I've gathered. Not a necessary thing to me, but we're doing it reluctantly because we have to, and I don't want it to happen before breastfeeding because I don't want any distractions from that experience. (Last part is a little more selfish I guess)
Those are just the ones I've seen brought up on here. I don't want to make a thread because I'm not sure how to effectively put one together with the information we should discuss as far as all these things go, but I do think we should make one at this point.
Now I know, for example, that even if I opt for the ointment, I will ask what antibiotic is being used (a shortage of erythromycin in the US in 2009 caused the use of another substance that caused some severe ocular reactions--who knew? And at that time, how many moms knew their babe got something different?).
I think the ointment may be one of those rare unnecessary medical preventative measures, and not just according to Internet crazies, but from the medical establishment at least in Canada--and my midwife.
And working in the legal realm, I also worry that some things aren't necessarily medically indicated, but rather, that a lawyer got their hands on policies. The ointment, Vit K, etc. aren't necessarily examples of that, but for example, a hospital in my area did away with birthing balls for liability reasons. And it may be that some of the sky-high c-section rates are attributable in part to liability concerns--with sometimes questionable medical necessity/efficacy.
Sorry if this comes across as defensive. Some responses to these discussions rub me the wrong way because they seem to suggest one should never question medical authority. But doing research using legitimate sources (including your doc/midwife) does not make a person crazy. For those who prefer not to do that, ok--different strokes! For my sanity, I have to feel informed and confident in what's happening.
As long as the crazy ones stay in May, everyone else can migrate. I would!
I grew up interning, then working in pharma (both parents are in the field), and have worked in medical marketing. It's amazing, seeing what a doctor will push heavily one day at their practice, then switch a few months later. They receive a very condensed sales pitch, and while some fantastic doctors will do the due diligence that we expect them to ... Researching independent studies and reviewing clinical trials BEFORE recommending things to their patients, others simply will not.
I'm pro-vaccination, pro preventive measures, pro pretty much everything - but I really enjoy discussions like this that encourage a critical examination of WHERE we are getting our information.
I do support vaccines because of this. I also look at how conventional medicinal approach is not based on "What are you eating every day, how is your emotional life going," but rather "Oh you're getting headaches? Take this pill. Depressed? Take this one." And more like that. But I do agree with @thaisac1 (at least what I believe she means) by public health safety being more important than individual opinions. Could you imagine a polio outbreak in the US? I mean OMG how tragic????
And I agree with you 100% about being informed. We need to be! Absolutely. But I choose the things I want to seek more information about, and other things which I consider minor and I know I won't ever disagree (preventative recommendations being one of them) I don't bother researching. Life is way too busy for me to research every little aspect of healthcare.
Perhaps I have a different point of view because I AM a physician. I'd hope my patients trust my recommendations, and for the same reason I trust my doctor's recommendations. Sure, I'm gonna look up the vaccination schedule for my own knowledge, but I won't argue whether vaccine X or Y is needed - I'll just take them if the doctor recommends.
If a patient of mine has done independent research and wants to discuss something, I am always happy to give my point of view and re-direct their thoughts if I think they have been misguided. Before I went on vacation a patient of mine asked me about a new heart failure drug. She had done the right research, and found scientifically sound information about the new drug - no problems there, at all. But then I explained to her that she did not qualify for the drug because the clinical trial included patients much sicker than she is, and she didn't need it. She understood and case was closed. So at the end of the day, a good doctor/ specialist will ultimately know what is best for us. Note how I wrote the adjective GOOD; we all know that are bad docs out there, but hopefully none of us is under the care of a bad doc!
And yes, I mean educating yourself through reputable sources.
Just for the record, and not to disrespect any pharm reps who may be on the forum, but my assistant knows to decline all requests she gets from pharma reps to meet with me. They do push their drugs, give you samples, give you a pen…. We all think we are above it, and we can make our own decision, but the truth is that humans are humans - if you can use drug X or Y which are equivalent, but you just got a pitch on drug X so it's fresh in your memory, you're more likely to prescribe drug X next time.
For that reason I don't meet with them at all.
I have a feeling I have hijacked the circumcision thread and made it into a medical thread. Sorry ladies! You can kick my butt. Maybe this discussion is better suited for the random thread.
The more I read this thread the more I think that I may see the world slightly differently because, in many instances, I have already been educated about several health topics - even if they are not in my specialty, at least I've read about them or took a test about them at some point in my life.
This is why when I hear about US health/medical standards or trials, I always seek out the research done by Canada and the EU on the same topics (esp the UK and Scandinavian countries.) Their standards are quite different and I feel they less often include 'shady' contributors because they are moderated/reviewed by impartial third parties. I'm not saying they are perfect either, but it's interesting to read, especially when the outcomes or standards set differ from the US.