Did you get your son circumcised?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By any chance are you two slappy mom and anti-slappy mom?

I'm Miss Anti-Circ and I'm not. Are they from the very long "slap in public" thread? I found that boring and didn't read.

You know who I am, though? Dolphin-riding-while-pregnant Mom! May be a bit esoteric a reference, given the old age of that thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know what people are talking about concerning deaths. See below. The only way I can conceive of it is if a doctor used a non-sterile instrument, the baby got an infection, and the parents ignored it and never brought the baby back into the doctor. Rather like getting a girl's ears pierced.

Dr Tom Wiswell, a respected authority in the USA was a strong opponent, but then switched camps as a result of his own research findings and the findings of others. This is what he has to say: "As a pediatrician and neonatologist, I am a child advocate and try to do what is best for children. For many years I was an outspoken opponent of circumcision ... I have gradually changed my opinion" [Wiswell, 1988; Wiswell, 1992]. This ability to keep an open mind on the issue and to make a sound judgement on the balance of all available information is to his credit ... he did change his mind!

Wiswell looked at the complication rates of having or not having circumcision performed in a study of 136,000 boys born in US army hospitals between 1980 and 1985. 100,000 were circumcised and 193 (0.19%) had complications, mostly minor, with no deaths, but of the 36,000 who were not circumcised the problems were more than ten-times higher and there were 2 deaths [Wiswell & Hachey, 1993].

A study by others found that of the 11,000 circumcisions performed at New York's Sloane Hospital in 1989, only 6 led to complications, none of which were fatal [Russell, 1993]. An early survey saw only one death amongst 566,483 baby boys circumcised in New York between 1939 and 1951 [National, 2003].

There are no deaths today from medical circumcisions in developed countries.

Very similar to the study by Wiswell above, it was found that of 354,297 infants born in Washington State from 1987-96, only 0.20% had a complication arising from their circumcision, i.e., 1 in every 476 circumcisions [Christakis et al., 2000]. Most of these ‘complications’ were minor and readily treated. It was concluded that 6 urinary tract infections could be prevented for every circumcision complication, and 2 complications can be expected for every penile cancer prevented [Christakis et al., 2000].

Problems involving the penis are encountered relatively frequently in pediatric practice [Langer & Coplen, 1998]. A retrospective study of boys aged 4 months to 12 years found uncircumcised boys exhibited significantly greater frequency of penile problems (14% vs 6%; P < 0.001) and medical visits for penile problems (10% vs 5%; P < 0.05) compared with those who were circumcised.

That's an incredibly old study.

I suggest you read this link.

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/GenitalIntegrityStatement.pdf

And here's an excerpt:

This observation prompted Wiswell et al. to produce retrospective studies regarding UTI in
circumcised infant males as compared with uncircumcised males. The studies all have serious
methodological flaws, including failure to control for confounding factors, which include maternal
infection, perinatal anoxia, high or low birthweight, prematurity of birth, rooming in, method of urine
sample collection, type of hygienic care, and breastfeeding. The Fetus and Newborn Committee of the
Canadian Paediatric Society (1989) examined data provided by Wiswell et al. and reported that they
found Wiswell’s data to be “not sufficiently compelling to justify a change in their existing policy that
circumcision is unnecessary and should not be performed."

[Anonymous]

I have a 4 week old and didn't do it. I was on the fence for much of my pregnancy, but in the end didn't have the stomach for it and couldnt think of a really good reason to do it.

[Anonymous]

We didn't. It is an unpleasant thing to inflict on a small baby. if he wants to do it as a teenager he can make his own choice to do so.

[Anonymous]

I gave birth to my son at a hospital in the dc area. I had a c-section. When I was in the recovery area, my husband was with our newborn son while he was getting his first bath. The nurse asked my husband if we were going to circumcise him. My husband said no. She looked really surprised. She said that most parents she comes across in the hospital, gets their sons circed... she said it was nice to finally come across somebody who wasn't going to circ. Then she looked at my husband and said, "You know why they still circumcise boys?" Before he could answer, she said, "It's all about the money."

Hospitals make a shit ton of money off of circumcisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Before he could answer, she said, "It's all about the money."

Hospitals make a shit ton of money off of circumcisions.

Plus in most other healthcare operations they don't get to keep the tip.

Thank you...thank you....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Before he could answer, she said, "It's all about the money."

Hospitals make a shit ton of money off of circumcisions.

Plus in most other healthcare operations they don't get to keep the tip.

Thank you...thank you....

LOL! Well done.

[Anonymous]

Nope. We are not religious, it is not in our culture, and no health benefit, so ... no, we did not.

[Anonymous]

No. My son is 18 months so don't know how he'll feel about it yet. I will say that every pediatrician and nurse we've seen has lauded us for NOT circumcising him. Our main ped says he spends a lot of time fixing botched circumcisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't have to think my son will never have unprotected sex to understand that the risk/benefit ration calculated by WHO does not apply to him.

Fine. At least you acknowledge that there is a medical benefit to circumcision. Whether your child ends up living up to your plans for him is your own affair.

Well, if you cut off any body part, you can be sure that you will never have any problem with it. If this is considered a "medical benefit" of amputating a healthy newborn body part, than so be it. By that logic, you could make quite a case to amputate male breast buds, ears, toes, fingers, gallbladders, appendixes, labia, etc etc.

My question for you would be: what makes you think that there is no value to the foreskin? And what makes you think that the foreskin is SO susceptible to trouble, that it is better to remove it at birth? U.S. culture gives us the (false) impression that the foreskin is an especially troublesome body part, and also that the foreskin has no real value (again, false). The so-called medical benefits of circ simply do not hold up to rigorous scrutiny when you consider that it is a healthy, functioning body part that serves a real purpose. Countries that do not practice routine circumcision do not find the same supposed benefits that the United States seems to find. You seriously have to ask yourself why this is (one hint - $$$$$$). No other first-world country in the world recommends this procedure; in fact most recommend against it and many would refuse to do it even if a parent requested it.

OP, I'm sure you know where this is headed......NO, none of my three boys are circumcised. Yes, we vaccinate and sometimes even spank (!). For us it was not about the pain the baby would endure (though yes, that part would have been awful) but instead we made our decision based on our unwillingness to make a permanent, non-indicated, surgical alteration on their newborn bodies. For what it's worth, about 80% of my friends in the DC area did not circ their young boys, although this did not factor into our decision at all (by the way, DH is circed and was very supportive of not doing it to our sons). All of my 5 nephews (not in DC area) did get circumcised. Either way you choose, your DS will be in good company, except if he ever travels to Canada, Europe, South America or California, where all the girls will think he is gross and the boys will mercilessly tease him.

[Anonymous]

What's with all these cultural references?

In our culture we like to have nice furniture that's not scratched up by a cat, oh but people will have a fit if you talk about declawing it. Animals get more protection than people!

In some cultures, female circumcision is the norm. So does that mean it is okay?

Just admit that you want your son to have the option of being a whore, or a streaking pervert if that is what he decides. Since you care so much about peer pressure, you would hate for any little lady whores or streak watchers to laugh at his penis.

[Anonymous]

No, and we didn't bob their ears, either. Our sons are 13 and 10 and it is a non-issue.

I think the circ rate in this area is about 50% now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No. My son is 18 months so don't know how he'll feel about it yet. I will say that every pediatrician and nurse we've seen has lauded us for NOT circumcising him. Our main ped says he spends a lot of time fixing botched circumcisions.

Well that's not a scare tactic is it? Sounds like your ped feels strongly about
not doing it but inflicting fear is completely irrational. That's bullshit!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By any chance are you two slappy mom and anti-slappy mom?

I'm Miss Anti-Circ and I'm not. Are they from the very long "slap in public" thread? I found that boring and didn't read.

You know who I am, though? Dolphin-riding-while-pregnant Mom! May be a bit esoteric a reference, given the old age of that thread.

I am Placenta Mom.

[Anonymous]

DH is wildly anti-circa. So we did not. Personally, I don't have an opinion. Some religions have been doing them forever. In the world of body modification it seems to pale in comparison to what is done with women's bodies.