How does circumcision work?

[Anonymous]

I am having a boy and am non-religious. I understand it's completely our decision whether or not to circumcise. We've heard that it happens in the hospital while you are still there. Does the OB do it? or pediatrician? Is there a local anesthetic? Is it wrapped up and if so, for how long? Are the parents present for this or is it done elsewhere? When is it done?

[Anonymous]

We had our son circumcised after he was born a few months ago at Sibley. My OB did it the day before we left the hospital, using a local anesthetic. I was not present, nor was my husband (I'm sure one of us could have been if we'd really wanted to). The whole thing took about half an hour, most of which was waiting for the local to really take effect. For a few days afterwards, we had to use small gauze pads and vaseline with each diaper change to protect the area where the foreskin was removed (I think we stopped after he was checked out by the ped at his first appointment).

[Anonymous]

We did not have our son circumcised after we were told that it was hospital policy to not allow anyone but medical personnel present for the procedure. That was a deal breaker for us.

[Anonymous]

At our hospital, the parents were NOT allowed in. They gave my son some topical numbing medication and some sugar water to distract him. He was away from us for 30min and the doctor "claimed" that he did not even cry.

However, now that we are preggo with #2, not sure if I'd circ again. My son had no problems and I certainly don't regret it, however, now I really see that its unecessary. If hubby has a fit, then I'll just do it.

[dgahagan]

Our son was circumcised 2 says after I delviered him at Sibley. DS was given a numbing cream, the sugery was 1/2 later. DH was present and said the procedure took only a few minutes-DS didn't cry. At diaper changes, we had to use guaze and vaseline but if I'm remembering correctly, a week later it had healed. The ob that delivers your baby is usually the one who does the circumcision-and we loved her-but we asked the chief of staff, who was a man, to do the circumcision. For no reason really, only because we looked it at being a guy thing.

[Anonymous]

We did it on the 8th day in a peds office, with us and all the grandparents present. My son had a numbing cream, an anesthetic. [obviously, there's a religious component here]

The whole thing took three minutes. He was back on my breast within thirty additional seconds.

He certainly didn't holler, but he whimpered. He would have started hollering for sure if he hadn't gotten the boob.

I gave my husband 24 hours off diaper duty thereafter. It healed very quickly. It was only really tender looking for a day.

[Anonymous]

if you want details I can give you those since I have done quite a few. the circ itself only takes a few minutes.There is no blood loss. topical local is given before the procedure. most newborns tolerate it very well. in most states the OB does the circ and is usually done before discharge. there is a big debate right now in the medical community about the advantages and disadvantages of circ. a year or so ago some data came out with decrease risk of STD transmission with circ babies including HIV. if parents are able to clean properly and teach boys the same then usually "phimosis" which is a result of repeated infections in non circ babies is not an issue. It is really the parents call. hope this helps.

[Anonymous]

This is the OP. Thank you all so much for shedding light on this. I keep meaning to ask my OBGYN about it but forget everything but my name when I'm there. Our first is a girl so this never came up. We are delivering at Sibley so I'm glad some of you spoke specifically of Sibley. My OB practice is Foxhall. I guess my concerns were about pain for the baby and whether they can screw up and how common that is... A friend with two baby boys told me that most people decide whether or not to circumsize based on whether the dad is circumsized. I've thought about that and my thought was on how often realistically my son will see his dad's penis and will he really examine thoroughly enough to note whether or not it's the same. Also though, I can't help but think about comments from girlfriends over the years who have complained about circumsized penises and "turtlenecks"... TMI. Well, with too much said on my ponderings, again I thank you for your shared experiences.

[Anonymous]

FWIW, our's is an international marriage. DH is American and I am from India, where circs are not an option in our religion. DH is non-religious but was adamant that our son be circ'd since he would be growing up in this country and it seems to be pretty common here. I didn't have an opinion either way but I was sure I didn't want my son to be teased or have an impaired 'social' life in any way due to the way his penis looked (sigh!). So, he was circumcised. An OB did it at GUH 2 days after the birth. We were not in the room. I couldn't bear to be!! Apparently, they gave him sugar water and the procedure was performed without a topical anesthetic. He tolerated it very well, we are told. The wound also healed very well. We were instructed to put GOBS of vaseline on during every diaper change and to keep the area clean. That was it. It healed perfectly within a week.

[Anonymous]

So, some hosptials do anesthetic topical and some don't? How does a briss work? Do they apply anything first?

Sibley does do the topical anesthetic though, right?

[Anonymous]

Anesthetic is optional at a bris. Our mohel left it up to us if we wanted something, but he did not use anything. Although some mohels are doctors, many are not so they couldn't prescribe anything anyways.

Mohels are highly trained and perform a few brises every day, 313 days a year (none on Saturdays). The OBs at the hospital are not nearly as well-trained in this procedure, and in teaching hospitals, it is often a resident performing the procedure.

If you want a circ for your son but are not Jewish, many mohels will do the procedure without the religious ceremony and the insurance will cover it.

[Anonymous]

Also though, I can't help but think about comments from girlfriends over the years who have complained about circumsized penises and "turtlenecks"...

OP, I'm not really sure what you meant by this. Sorry if I'm bringing up TMI for anyone! But honestly, I don't understand. Do you mean that they had boys who had loose circs? Or that they had personal experience [ie, sexually] with men who had bad circs? Or with men who were intact?

Either way, I will say that circumcision rates in the US have dropped dramatically in the past few years. In many states the medicaid and other insurance companies will not pay for the surgery at all. I think in this area the stats are that about 60% do, 40% don't circumcize. So the culture of fear/misunderstanding about non-circumcised penises will be gone with the next generation. As more and more people realize that it is simply a cosmetic surgery, and that there are indeed benefits to having a forskin, parents will leave their sons alone, and I believe that ultimately we will wind up with statistics similar to all the other industrialized nations of the world.

[Anonymous]

We're about to have a little boy and we are opting to circumcise him because of all the reports on AIDs and STDs. I'd rather circumcise my son and hedge his bets on later not getting a STD. It's totally a personal choice, but with the current information out there, I'd rather be safe than sorry.

[Anonymous]

but with the current information out there, I'd rather be safe than sorry.

Except there really is no "current information" out there that is anything different or new at all. The debate about whether or not circumcision can help reduce the transmission of STD's has been going back and forth for decades. What IS new, is a media frenzy about a couple of recent studies...which were ALSO inconclusive, just as the research for decades has been inconclusive.

Ask yourself: if circumcision can help protect against HIV, then why does the United States -- the only circumcising developed nation in the world - also have the highest HIV rate of the developed world? If circumcision helps prevent against HIV and other STD's, why did we, as teenagers and college students, learn over and over AND OVER how important it is to use condoms to prevent these things? Did you ever in your life hear "oh, 90% of you are circumcised so you're pretty safe." Have the "new studies" changed our recommendations about safe sex practices in any way at all? Will you ever think your child is safe or even safer from STD's because of his circ stats? Were you yourself (if you are a circed male) safer because of your circ status? Of course not. The only thing that can truly prevent HIV is excellent condom use. Countries that really teach their children this have extremely low HIV and other STD infection rates, even though they do not circumcise. And, this information is not hard to find. Go look at the World Health Organization website if you don't believe me.

The most recent study out of Africa only tracked men for six or eight weeks following thier circumcisions. Why do you think their HIV rates were lower? The answer: because their penis's were healing from a painful wound and they had much less sex during that time. The studies were flawed. No one else IN THE WORLD has taken these studies to mean anything at all. No health organization IN THE WORLD recommends routine infant circumcision, not ever in the past and not now. The foreskin helps protect against infection, and every other medical institution in the world recognizes this. The only reason this gets any airtime at all here in the United States is that circumcising is a multi-billion dollar industry, in addition to the fact that we have a cultural preference for circ'ing which is suddently under some scrutiny. So, until the tide turns (as it recently has in Canada where circ rates have plummeted to around 9% and most hospitals won't even allow circs within their walls), we will continue to hear the pro-circumcising camp fight to maintain their business.

[Anonymous]

but with the current information out there, I'd rather be safe than sorry.

Except there really is no "current information" out there that is anything different or new at all. The debate about whether or not circumcision can help reduce the transmission of STD's has been going back and forth for decades. What IS new, is a media frenzy about a couple of recent studies...which were ALSO inconclusive, just as the research for decades has been inconclusive.

Ask yourself: if circumcision can help protect against HIV, then why does the United States -- the only circumcising developed nation in the world - also have the highest HIV rate of the developed world? If circumcision helps prevent against HIV and other STD's, why did we, as teenagers and college students, learn over and over AND OVER how important it is to use condoms to prevent these things? Did you ever in your life hear "oh, 90% of you are circumcised so you're pretty safe." Have the "new studies" changed our recommendations about safe sex practices in any way at all? Will you ever think your child is safe or even safer from STD's because of his circ stats? Were you yourself (if you are a circed male) safer because of your circ status? Of course not. The only thing that can truly prevent HIV is excellent condom use. Countries that really teach their children this have extremely low HIV and other STD infection rates, even though they do not circumcise. And, this information is not hard to find. Go look at the World Health Organization website if you don't believe me.

The most recent study out of Africa only tracked men for six or eight weeks following thier circumcisions. Why do you think their HIV rates were lower? The answer: because their penis's were healing from a painful wound and they had much less sex during that time. The studies were flawed. No one else IN THE WORLD has taken these studies to mean anything at all. No health organization IN THE WORLD recommends routine infant circumcision, not ever in the past and not now. The foreskin helps protect against infection, and every other medical institution in the world recognizes this. The only reason this gets any airtime at all here in the United States is that circumcising is a multi-billion dollar industry, in addition to the fact that we have a cultural preference for circ'ing which is suddently under some scrutiny. So, until the tide turns (as it recently has in Canada where circ rates have plummeted to around 9% and most hospitals won't even allow circs within their walls), we will continue to hear the pro-circumcising camp fight to maintain their business.