My feed
Premium

Please
or
to access all these features

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

General health

Circumcision - have you had your ds 'done'?

168 replies

monkeygirl · 13/09/2004 11:57

My dh wants to follow the family tradition of having ds circumcised (for non-religious reasons) but I'm not sure if I want him to go under the knife. If you've had your ds done, why and at what age? And do you think it's made a difference (ie health and hygenically-wise)?

OP posts:
Report
aloha · 13/09/2004 12:09

There are no health benefits at all. It's a myth. As for cleanliness, there is nothing that washing can't handle.

Report
jellyhead · 13/09/2004 12:13

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Tania2 · 13/09/2004 12:22

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

aloha · 13/09/2004 12:24

This is from netdoctor. Personally, as you have overwhelming cultural/religious pressures on you, I hope you stick with your natural instinct to protect your healthy son from pain and pointless surgery. Sorry it is so long. I will learn to do proper links one day.

Circumcision to prevent future disease.

Prevention of disease is the second most commonly given reason for circumcision after religious reasons, although the evidence that it has any beneficial effect on future health is very poor. The practice is, more likely, rooted in cultural traditions, although western societies may find this an uncomfortable conclusion.


Penile cancer

Cancer of the penis is an extremely rare disease and, in the early part of the last century, was almost unheard of in circumcised men. However, there is some evidence that circumcision may only offer protection from penile cancer if done in childhood, and adult surgery may not offer any protection. Poor personal hygiene, smoking and exposure to wart virus (human papilloma virus) increase the risk of developing penile cancer at least as much as being uncircumcised. Circumcised men are more at risk from penile warts than uncircumcised men, and the risk of developing penile cancer is now almost equal in the two groups. Therefore, routine circumcision cannot be recommended to prevent penile cancer.




Sexually transmitted diseases

Sexually transmitted infections that cause ulcers on the genitals (syphilis, chancroid, herpes simplex) are more common in uncircumcised men. However, urethritis or inflammation of the tube that carries urine through the penis (caused by gonorrhoea and non-gonococcal urethritis) is more common in circumcised men, as are penile warts. Yeast infection (caused by candida or thrush) is equally common in circumcised and uncircumcised men, although circumcised men are less likely to have symptoms with this infection so they are more likely to unknowingly pass on thrush to their sexual partners.

Far more effective and reliable methods than circumcision exist to reduce the risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases, such as the use of condoms and adoption of safer sexual practices. Thus circumcision cannot be recommended to prevent these infections.




Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection

Views conflict on whether circumcision can prevent HIV infection. A recent review in the British Journal of Urology concluded that there is no link between having an intact foreskin and HIV infection, whereas another paper in the British Medical Journal takes exactly the opposite view. Circumcision may be appropriate as a routine preventive measure only in regions that have a high rate of HIV infection, such as sub-Saharan Africa. The existing evidence is inadequate to recommend circumcision as an HIV-preventive measure in the UK.




Cervical cancer

A study in 1947 reported that Jewish women rarely developed cervical cancer and the author attributed this finding to the fact that their sexual partners were circumcised. Further studies over the past 50 years have had contradictory conclusions, with experts enthusiastically championing the case for and against circumcision. The evidence is inadequate to recommend it as a preventive measure against cervical cancer.




Urinary tract infection (UTI)

Since 1987, several studies have suggested that uncircumcised male infants are up to 10 times more likely to contract a UTI. One in 100 uncircumcised infants will develop a UTI, compared with 1 in 1000 circumcised infants. A UTI is not usually a great risk to health, so it does not seem reasonable to perform a surgical procedure on 100 infants to reduce the risk of one developing UTI.


Circumcision as an act of religious dedication

The circumcision of male children is a central feature of both Judaism and Islam. It is also important in many African and New World cultures. An increasing number of committed Jewish and Muslim people reject circumcision on ethical grounds, although they are certainly the minority at present. Attitudes to circumcision may provoke fierce hostility within families and among communities. In the past, wars have been fought, and thousands have died, to preserve the right to circumcise when rulers from other cultures forbade it.


Judaism

In the book of Genesis (17: 10-14), circumcision represents the covenant made by God with Abraham and his descendants.

Traditional religious circumcision is performed by a mohel (pronounced mo-hell in Hebrew or moyle in Yiddish). It is usually carried out on the eighth day after birth, unless there is a danger to the child's health, in which case it should be delayed until that danger has passed. In the UK, mohelim attend 40 to 50 circumcisions and have to pass practical and theoretical examinations during their training before performing circumcision alone.




Islam

The divine law or sharia defines every aspect of Muslim life. It is based upon the Holy Koran, the hadith (the sayings of the Prophet Mohammed) and the sunnah (Prophet's tradition). All Muslims agree that these are the three sources of Islamic law, but different groups interpret their application in different ways. Circumcision is not mentioned in the Koran, but has the status of sunnah. Only the Shafiite school of law regards circumcision as obligatory (wajib), while the Hanafite, Jafarite, Malikite, Hanbalite and Zaidite regard it as only recommended, because it is sunnah.

Even those who consider circumcision an obligatory duty for themselves do not see it as an essential requirement for others to become a Muslim. However, the procedure is very commonly practised and is certainly seen as an important external symbol of submission to God's will.


Should we avoid circumcision?

The foreskin is not simply a useless piece of skin, to be disposed of without careful thought. It forms the covering of the head (glans) of the penis in men and the clitoris in women. It is very rich in nerves responsible for touch and the movement of the foreskin backwards and forwards over the glans provides some of the pleasurable sensation experienced during sex.

Adult males that were circumcised as infants do not usually report sexual problems linked with their circumcision, perhaps because they have never experienced sexual sensation with a foreskin. However, men circumcised as sexually active adults quite frequently complain of sexual problems arising from either reduced or altered penile sensation.


How is circumcision performed?

Although religious and cultural circumcision is frequently performed without anaesthetic as part of an important ritual act, it is an intensely painful procedure, even in newborn babies. Adults can testify to the pain for themselves and can give informed consent to the procedure. Infants, however, cannot. Physiological research has repeatedly shown bodily responses that indicate infants experience severe pain during circumcision.

It is difficult to justify subjecting infants to this experience when pain could be avoided with a brief general anaesthetic. Anaesthetic injections that numb the penis or the whole genital region are not a reliable substitute for general anaesthesia. If circumcision is important for religious or cultural reasons, then the mohel, or other ritual circumciser, can still perform the procedure and prayers with the assistance of an anaesthetist and surgical team at hand. This practice may not be the traditional family gathering associated with circumcision, but would fulfil religious obligation without causing unnecessary suffering.

When circumcision is necessary for an immediate medical reason, the surgeon would be prudent to try to preserve as much of the foreskin as possible, through some form of preputioplasty (a plastic surgery procedure that alters the shape of the foreskin but minimises the amount of skin removed). Preputioplasty may preserve sexual sensation, although its advantage over circumcision is not yet established.


Complications of circumcision

Happily, complications of circumcision are relatively rare, although they may be under-reported following religious or cultural circumcision. For this reason, figures on the rate of complications may not be reliable. Complications include:


  • reduction in penile sensation (an almost universal experience)


  • bleeding


  • damage to the urethra (urine tube in the penis)


  • amputation of the glans (rare)


  • infection in the blood or septicaemia (rare).



    Can circumcision be reversed?

    Attempts have been made to restore the foreskin following circumcision since ancient times. Unfortunately, no procedure had satisfactory results. Modern surgical procedures may have more success, but they are still experimental and the long-term results are unknown. If foreskin restoration is being considered, a urologist should be consulted.

    Female circumcision is not required by any religious group and is a traditional practice prevalent in Africa, Southeast Asia and South America. It is far more disfiguring, disabling and potentially dangerous than male circumcision so cannot be viewed in the same light. The author fully supports the World Health Organisation's policy that this procedure should cease throughout the world.


    Conclusions

    Circumcision remains a controversial procedure, as it has been for thousands of years.

    Male circumcision is vitally important to some religious and cultural groups. Hopefully, the use of general anaesthesia for infant circumcision will increase. Medical and religious authorities should work together to promote this change.

    Very few absolute medical reasons exist for circumcision, and no reasons exist to justify routine circumcision of infants outside areas with a high rate of HIV infection. Far too many circumcisions are performed without good reason in Europe and the USA. The best advice is 'if it isn't absolutely necessary, don't circumcise'.
Report
frogs · 13/09/2004 12:27

Eeek, no! In the absence of health problems or compelling religious reasons, why would you want to cut off a part of your son's body?

Little willies are very low-maintenance anyway, they only need a quick wash in the bath with a bit of soap. If your ds later feels he's missed out by not being circumcised, he can always go for the op as an adult, while the reverse is clearly not possible.

Report
frogs · 13/09/2004 12:31

This is what's involved. Not for the squeamish.

Report
Blu · 13/09/2004 12:44

No. There are no religious beliefs between us which would support it, and, personally, I feel very strongly that it would be an infringement of his human rights unless done for an actual existing problem or condition.
I just can't see why (absolute adherence to religious belie aside) you would cut bits off healthy babies - and if it is simply to confirm to a cultural habit, well, we have done away with lots of those for the better, haven't we?

My empirical and attentive research into the subject also leads me to believe that there are opportunities for uncircumsised men to enjoy a greater variety of sexual pleaseures than uncircumcised men And for those women who prefer circumcised penises - how far do you think that is responding to 'the norm' and putting unnecessary pressure on men/boys and their parents?

Report
geekgrrl · 13/09/2004 12:51

have a look at NOCIRC for all sorts of information on circumcision - including pictures which should put any loving parent off the idea instantly.
There really is no need to chop off a healthy, normal part of your baby's body.
As for the cleanliness argument - you could apply the same to little girls - surely it must be easier to clean them if the labias have been removed? Or how about washing behind ears - removing the outer ears would get rid of that hassle too? Just because it is accepted in some cultures does not make it right.

Report
acnebride · 13/09/2004 12:51

We had ds circumcised because dh is Jewish and ds is going to be Jewish once I've done the course (I'm not converting).

The guy we got to do it was very good and all was well but I DREADED it from the moment we knew he was a boy and i would STRONGLY advise that unless there is an overwhelming religious reason you do not do it.

Of course, many would regard the religious reason as the worst reason to do it! To me it was just awful, like getting a baby tattooed or (sorry) ears pierced - unnecessary pain for the bub. I believe that the body is generally well designed and all prophylactic operations like tonsil removal which used to be thought so necessary have generally fallen out of fashion, and quite right too.

Report
Tissy · 13/09/2004 12:55

I would agree that circumcision is NOT necessary for health/ hygeine reasons (except in the case of recurrent infections, for example), but that liknk I think is to an "Anti-Circ" site. If a child in this country is circumcised for non-religious reasons, by a surgeon, there is NO WAY it would be done without any kind of anaesthetic. It is just untrue that "GA never used on young babies because of the risk of breathing problems". A GA can be used if the child is otherwise healthy. Clearly it is better to wait until the child is a few months old, to reduce the risk of a GA. Local anaesthetic can be given into the base of the penis, which numbs the whole thing,it can cause a bit of swelling, but not enough to interfere with the surgery. BUT giving a local anaesthetic itself causes a bit of pain, so GA is preferred.

Report
Turquoise · 13/09/2004 13:00

My dp insisted on following family pressure (he's not jewish, but his eldest brother had a split foreskin in his teens so the gparents insisted on all boys born being done) and I have never forgiven him, or myself for allowing it. For some reason it was done by a rabbi, not in a hospital, I was not allowed near but could hear ds scream, and dp had to hold him down so hard there were bruises on his thighs. I think he was about 4 or 5 weeks. Reading that back and remembering it I still cant believe it. My only excuse was that I was a zombie at the time, I had pnd and my father was dying, but there is no excuse. It makes me sick and cry just thinking about it.

Report
geekgrrl · 13/09/2004 13:05

I find it very hard to believe that an anaesthetist would agree to perform a GA on a baby for a totally unnecessary, cosmetic procedure. My dd has had all sorts of health problems requiring surgery under GA, and apart from the most serious ones which were done asap, the minor ones (which treated problems that caused her pain and discomfort) were all performed when she was around a year old or older because of the GA.
The circs done here (we live in N. Yorks. near a US military base) are done without anaesthetic, I've asked a mum who had her boys 'done'.

Report
monkeygirl · 13/09/2004 15:48

Gosh, thanks for the info all. I personally am reluctant and agree that why should I put my little boy through the pain and risk just because generations of a family have had it done. I will go back to dh and try and dissuade I think.

OP posts:
Report
lisalisa · 13/09/2004 15:54

Message withdrawn

Report
prettycandles · 13/09/2004 16:06

My ds was circumcised at 8 days by a mohel, who instructed me to wrap ds's penis in an anaesthetic gel for several hours before and after the procedure. My father held ds during the procedure and my dh was present as well. I was not, I waited in another room. My df and dh both confirm that ds cried when his nappy was taken off (just as the mohel said he would) but didn't utter even a whimper during or after the procedure. He fed happily from me afterwards and went to sleep. He never cried when he wee'd afterwards, but I cried when I changed his nappy.

I know three men who had to be circumcised as children or as adults for medical reasons, and they have all said that they would circumcise any son they might have in the future during early babyhood, to prevent their child suffering the distress they went through.

My mohel said that it was better to circumcise during the first month, as after that the babies seem to suffer more, whereas if it is done well they don't seem to suffer at all when they are younger.

Report
lisalisa · 13/09/2004 16:08

Message withdrawn

Report
monkeygirl · 13/09/2004 16:10

Lisalisa - I'm not against circumcision for religious reasons, but didn't realise it would be a contraversial subject as I guess I'm used to living with someone who's very happy he's had it done (but guess you can't miss what you never remember having). But I would always worry about any medical intervention for either of my children. And actually I'm surprised more mns haven't had their dss circumcised as anectodal evidence I have encountered would suggest it's not that uncommon.

OP posts:
Report
aloha · 13/09/2004 16:13

I really don't want to an argument at all either! I simply think if there are no overwhelming reasons to do it - be they medical or cultural - and the mother doesn't want it, then it - like any medical procedure - is best avoided. Good luck Monkeygirl. Perhaps your dh has a few outdated notions? Is he American? Much more common in the US than the UK.

Report
aloha · 13/09/2004 16:15

The only people I know who have had their sons circumcised are Jewish, or not Jewish but married to Jewish men. I've always thought it's really quite rare apart from that. Being uncircumcised certainly won't mean that a boy is teased in the showers at school!

Report
Twiglett · 13/09/2004 16:15

message withdrawn

Report
monkeygirl · 13/09/2004 16:16

Thanks Aloha. No he was born in Scotland but has lived in England most of his life. Definitely think it's based more on his own - ahem - happy experience with the whole thing.

OP posts:
Report
KateandtheGirls · 13/09/2004 16:16

It's not uncommon in the US monkeygirl, more so in the UK I believe.

My husband was circumcised, as were all his friends growing up at that time. My US-born nephews were circumcised. They are catholic so it's a cultural thing, not a religious one. The father had it done so the kids will too...

Overall in the US I believe the percentage of boys being circumcised is dropping, but it's still above 50%. Here is the American Academy of Pediatricians policy statement. They do not recommend routine circumcision.

If we had had boys they weren't going to be circumcised because we didn't believe there was any reason too, and my husband wasn't vain enough to want his boys to look just like him!

Report

Don’t want to miss threads like this?

Weekly

Sign up to our weekly round up and get all the best threads sent straight to your inbox!

Log in to update your newsletter preferences.

You've subscribed!

Heathcliffscathy · 13/09/2004 16:17

shouldn't be done without massive reason (cultural/medical) and should always be under anaesthetic imo.

Report
maddiemo · 13/09/2004 16:24

My son had a medical cicumcision at 12 months. It was carried out under a GA and he suffered breathing difficulties during the op.
I don't think I could bear to see another child suffer the way my son did. Although GA is less painful for the child it does carry a small percentage of risk.

I would never put any child through medically unecessary surgery, local or GA.

Report
blossomhill · 13/09/2004 16:44

Personally I wouldn't dream of putting my ds through any kind of operation/general anaesthetic(sp) unil it was absolutely necessary. The ga scares the hell out of me. So in answer to your question no. I am obviously not in your position and everybody has the right to choose what they want to do for the best!

Report
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.