Going back to US for circumcision

[Anonymous]

hhgust wrote:YOU PEOPLE ARE SO MEAN. There is no reason to be disrespectful and rude to someone just because they have their own opinions and wishes about circumcision. What is it about this website that makes people think they can be so snarky and rude? I am incredibly offended just reading this. How about giving the original poster a little common-sense advice and letting her make up her own mind instead of brow-beating?

I disagree and think (between the circ/uncirc debate) that MANY good points have been raised (including but not limited to: air-travel with a young child - germy, wanting to avoid anesthesia - let's not pretend cutting off skin won't hurt, etc).

[Anonymous]

OP here. I'm not getting into the circ/non-circ debate--this is our choice. This thread is about options for having the procedure done in country vs. flying back to the US.

As for the anesthesia question, beyond a week or two post-partum, more than a local numbing agent is needed for the procedure. The greatest risk for the baby's immediate health comes from complications with general anesthesia. Of course, I want to minimize the risks with any procedure.

I've considered the mohel route but, in this country, Mohels usually won't do non-religious circs. And the procedure used by Mohels is slightly different method than I would prefer to have done. It can leave what OBs call "dog ears" on the sides of the penis. There are private docs in the UK who will do them but they don't do many and, as with any surgery, it's best if the surgeon regularly does the procedure.

I am very concerned with the infectious disease risk of flying with a brand new baby. However, the infectious disease risk of flying with a young baby is much lower than the lifetime risk of infection if the baby is left uncircumcised, or the risk of anesthesia if we waited until the baby is older. With regards to flying, I'm more concerned with the logistics part of this and wear and tear on my whole family.

Thanks to those of you who offered the on-point advice!

[Anonymous]

You can bite it off with your teeth and dab it with placenta an it will be fine.

[Anonymous]

You can't fly with a 2 week old baby!

[Anonymous]

Yes, you can fly with a 2wk old, per airline regulations, and younger with a Drs note.

[Anonymous]

Check regulations for individual airlines. Between that and passport requirements, getting this done before 2 weeks isn't likely. Are you really going to drag a few-days old baby (and postpartum mama!) to Snappy Snaps for a passport photo then to the US Embassy for hours to get your report of birth abroad and a passport? Then through an airport with all the fun that is airline travel? I was feeling great and resumed activity too quickly after my 2nd and was surprised at the toll it took (exhaustion, passed golf-ball size blood clots).

You cite the risk of infection from early travel as less than the infection risk of not circing. Is that true? I have no idea where you'd get that data to compare. This particular plan doesn't seem healthy for your baby or you.

FWIW, our American friends who had boys while we were in the UK all left their boys intact and decided they'd cross that bridge when they came to it (either if circ was medically necessary or son wanted one later).

[Anonymous]

PP here, I got curious and found some data (you may be using something more recent, OP).

http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/clinical/clinicalrecs/children/circumcision.html

Is infection risk of staying intact greater than risk of circ complications + risk of newborn travel? Ask other expats with boys for recommendations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I'm not getting into the circ/non-circ debate--this is our choice. This thread is about options for having the procedure done in country vs. flying back to the US.

As for the anesthesia question, beyond a week or two post-partum, more than a local numbing agent is needed for the procedure. The greatest risk for the baby's immediate health comes from complications with general anesthesia. Of course, I want to minimize the risks with any procedure.

I've considered the mohel route but, in this country, Mohels usually won't do non-religious circs. And the procedure used by Mohels is slightly different method than I would prefer to have done. It can leave what OBs call "dog ears" on the sides of the penis. There are private docs in the UK who will do them but they don't do many and, as with any surgery, it's best if the surgeon regularly does the procedure.

I am very concerned with the infectious disease risk of flying with a brand new baby. However, the infectious disease risk of flying with a young baby is much lower than the lifetime risk of infection if the baby is left uncircumcised, or the risk of anesthesia if we waited until the baby is older. With regards to flying, I'm more concerned with the logistics part of this and wear and tear on my whole family.

Thanks to those of you who offered the on-point advice!

Wow, you are completely ignorant about circumcision. And, you are going to stick your head in the sand and pretend that it is so necessary for reasons that have no basis in reality. For the record -- you are totally, 100% wrong. Obviously you can circumcise your baby if you want to, but at least don't fool yourself that there is some huge medical benefit.

Just for kicks and giggles, why not have a chat with a local pediatrician and tell him about your beliefs about the risk of infection with an intact penis? You will be laughed all the way home.

Also, your assumptions about when circs can be done, anesthesia used, and time frame are also incorrect. If you are so hell bent on traveling around the world to perform cosmetic surgery on your newborn son, why not call the pediatric urologist team at Children's Hospital and ask them what they recommend in terms of time frame and anesthesia? My understanding is that they will perform circs up until the baby is a particular weight, even if the baby is 1 or 2 months old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:However, the infectious disease risk of flying with a young baby is much lower than the lifetime risk of infection if the baby is left uncircumcised

Please cite your sources, because I am calling absolutely bullshit on this. Do you realize that only 40% of boys in the US are now circ'd? Worldwide only 30% are circ'd, and do you think the 70% suffer a HUGE risk? Hardy! The foreskin is there to PROTECT the head of the penis. Even back in 1999 the American Academy of Pediatrics stated: "Circumcision has been suggested as an effective method of maintaining penile hygiene since the time of the Egyptian dynasties, but there is little evidence to affirm the association between circumcision status and optimal penile hygiene." The American Medical Association supports the AAP's 1999 circumcision policy statement with regard to non-therapeutic circumcision, which they define as the non-religious, non-ritualistic, not medically necessary, elective circumcision of male newborns. They state that "policy statements issued by professional societies representing Australian, Canadian, and American pediatricians do not recommend routine circumcision of male newborns." OP you REALLY need to do some research before you start spouting words out of your ass!

[Anonymous]

Don't bother arguing with OP. She is willing to drag a newborn and two small children back to the US for this circumcision. This kind of insanity cannot be reasoned with. The baby is going to be cut no matter what reasonable argument you come up with

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, you can fly with a 2wk old, per airline regulations, and younger with a Drs note.

Hey smart ass, tell us how you can get the birth certificate and either 2 passports or 1 passport and 1 visa down in less than 2 weeks. please don't run away. Come back and tell us your secret!

[Anonymous]

Do you disapprove of ALL mohel circs? It seems like it would be cheaper and less crazy to fly someone in who'll do it "right" (by whatever your definition is) than to fly two parents, two preschoolers, and a newborn across the Atlantic, not to mention the bureaucratic hoops to get a passport that fast (which likely mean you'll also be dragging a newborn through a crowded embassy waiting area for hours).

[Anonymous]

If we have a son (will find out next week), and IF we decide to circumcise, I will ONLY let a mohel touch my child. They are far more knowledgable about this type of elective surgery, cause less pain, have less complications, and overall do a far better job than a rushed surgeon. If you really are going to do this to your son, find a mohel around your location.

I find it ridiculous you want to cart your newborn overseas for this one little surgery. One that's 100% elective, and really, completely silly. Without getting into the debate, your child will be at a higher risk of contracting god knows what if they are on a crowded flight (that's what, 6+ hours long) than if you wait to circ until they are a bit older (or just avoid it all together).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:However, the infectious disease risk of flying with a young baby is much lower than the lifetime risk of infection if the baby is left uncircumcised

Please cite your sources, because I am calling absolutely bullshit on this. Do you realize that only 40% of boys in the US are now circ'd? Worldwide only 30% are circ'd, and do you think the 70% suffer a HUGE risk? Hardy! The foreskin is there to PROTECT the head of the penis. Even back in 1999 the American Academy of Pediatrics stated: "Circumcision has been suggested as an effective method of maintaining penile hygiene since the time of the Egyptian dynasties, but there is little evidence to affirm the association between circumcision status and optimal penile hygiene." The American Medical Association supports the AAP's 1999 circumcision policy statement with regard to non-therapeutic circumcision, which they define as the non-religious, non-ritualistic, not medically necessary, elective circumcision of male newborns. They state that "policy statements issued by professional societies representing Australian, Canadian, and American pediatricians do not recommend routine circumcision of male newborns." OP you REALLY need to do some research before you start spouting words out of your ass!

Not the OP, but the latest CDC figures show that while circumcision rates are falling in the U.S., they are still, nationally, over 50 percent. It was 56.9 percent in 2008 for hospital circumcision, which of course does not capture those who have it done for religious reasons outside the hospital. The rate is slightly lower in states where Medicaid does not cover the cost.
http://healthland.time.com/2011/09/02/cdc-why-are-u-s-circumcision-rates-declining/

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6034a4.htm?s_cid=mm6034a4_w

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:However, the infectious disease risk of flying with a young baby is much lower than the lifetime risk of infection if the baby is left uncircumcised

Please cite your sources, because I am calling absolutely bullshit on this. Do you realize that only 40% of boys in the US are now circ'd? Worldwide only 30% are circ'd, and do you think the 70% suffer a HUGE risk? Hardy! The foreskin is there to PROTECT the head of the penis. Even back in 1999 the American Academy of Pediatrics stated: "Circumcision has been suggested as an effective method of maintaining penile hygiene since the time of the Egyptian dynasties, but there is little evidence to affirm the association between circumcision status and optimal penile hygiene." The American Medical Association supports the AAP's 1999 circumcision policy statement with regard to non-therapeutic circumcision, which they define as the non-religious, non-ritualistic, not medically necessary, elective circumcision of male newborns. They state that "policy statements issued by professional societies representing Australian, Canadian, and American pediatricians do not recommend routine circumcision of male newborns." OP you REALLY need to do some research before you start spouting words out of your ass!

Not the OP, but the latest CDC figures show that while circumcision rates are falling in the U.S., they are still, nationally, over 50 percent. It was 56.9 percent in 2008 for hospital circumcision, which of course does not capture those who have it done for religious reasons outside the hospital. The rate is slightly lower in states where Medicaid does not cover the cost.
http://healthland.time.com/2011/09/02/cdc-why-are-u-s-circumcision-rates-declining/

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6034a4.htm?s_cid=mm6034a4_w