To be stunned....babies feel no pain statement.

[salsmum]

I work as a carer and a lovely lady who I work with told me that her grandson was circumcised a week ago (part of their religion) at 4 weeks old, by a priest and although hes still a bit sore its better to have it done when they are little because babies don't feel pain .
Having 2 kids who are now adults I'm afraid I'm inclined to disagree with her.
I'd like to clearly state that I'm not against circumcision for what ever reason I just find it strange that she should think that babies dont feel pain .

diddle, as is is possible. I know people who have had their baby boys circumsised shortly after birth at private hostpitals. I always presumed it was straight after birth, but I'm not sure.

Yeah that will be why..I have a massive issue with his penis. That is the thing with the internet and chat forums its often full of narrow minded and culturally parochial people who want to argue about things that they have very limited knowledge of. I am not wasting any more of my time on this as I can see it is totally futile as you do not listen you just want to score points with glib and highly immature comments. Enjoy the rest of your life with your blinkered outlook.

It lowers the transmission of HIV..an indisputable FACT..and the primary reason why I will protect my son because I cant be there ensuring he always wears a condom but this is something I can do for him.

www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

So if you have fantastic reasons (as you seem very sure that you have) he will want it done at twelve, won't he?! So waiting will not have harmed him in any way.

No because it is a bigger procedure at 12 and healing time is much longer. When done between 1-12 weeks it takes 7 days to heal as opposed to weeks if he was 12. Its a minor day case procedure under local when he is tiny.

"That is the thing with the internet and chat forums its often full of narrow minded and culturally parochial people"

You said it

I have nothing further to add except what when I said 'I fought' in my previous post I wasn't saying I had a fight with.. I was an iPhone correction for thought. Honestly!

But he will have had a choice. He will have had a say in what gets done to his penis. Don't you think that it's important not to remove parts of someone's body before they have a choice in the matter?

Male Circumcision and Risk for HIV Transmission

Several types of research have documented that male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex.

Biologic Plausibility

Compared with the dry external skin surface, the inner mucosa of the foreskin has less keratinization (deposition of fibrous protein), a higher density of target cells for HIV infection (Langerhans cells), and is more susceptible to HIV infection than other penile tissue in laboratory studies [2]. The foreskin may also have greater susceptibility to traumatic epithelial disruptions (tears) during intercourse, providing a portal of entry for pathogens, including HIV [3]. In addition, the microenvironment in the preputial sac between the unretracted foreskin and the glans penis may be conducive to viral survival [1]. Finally, the higher rates of sexually transmitted genital ulcerative disease, such as syphilis, observed in uncircumcised men may also increase susceptibility to HIV infection [4].

International Observational Studies

A systematic review and meta-analysis that focused on male circumcision and heterosexual transmission of HIV in Africa was published in 2000 [5]. It included 19 cross-sectional studies, 5 case-control studies, 3 cohort studies, and 1 partner study. A substantial protective effect of male circumcision on risk for HIV infection was noted, along with a reduced risk for genital ulcer disease. After adjustment for confounding factors in the population-based studies, the relative risk for HIV infection was 44% lower in circumcised men. The strongest association was seen in men at high risk, such as patients at sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinics, for whom the adjusted relative risk was 71% lower for circumcised men.

Another review that included stringent assessment of 10 potential confounding factors and was stratified by study type or study population was published in 2003 [6]. Most of the studies were from Africa. Of the 35 observational studies in the review, the 16 in the general population had inconsistent results. The one large prospective cohort study in this group showed a significant protective effect: the odds of infection were 42% lower for circumcised men [7]. The remaining 19 studies were conducted in populations at high risk. These studies found a consistent, substantial protective effect, which increased with adjustment for confounding. Four of these were cohort studies: all demonstrated a protective effect, with two being statistically significant.

Ecologic studies also indicate a strong association between lack of male circumcision and HIV infection at the population level. Although links between circumcision, culture, religion, and risk behavior may account for some of the differences in HIV infection prevalence, the countries in Africa and Asia with prevalence of male circumcision of less than 20% have HIV infection prevalences several times higher than those in countries in these regions where more than 80% of men are circumcised [8].

International Clinical Trials

Three randomized controlled clinical trials were conducted in Africa to determine whether circumcision of adult males will reduce their risk for HIV infection. The study conducted in South Africa [9] was stopped in 2005, and those in Kenya [10] and Uganda [11] were stopped in 2006 after interim analyses found a statistically significant reduction in male participants? risk for HIV infection from medical circumcision.

In these studies, men who had been randomly assigned to the circumcision group had a 60% (South Africa), 53% (Kenya), and 51% (Uganda) lower incidence of HIV infection compared with men assigned to the wait-list group to be circumcised at the end of the study. In all three studies, a few men who had been assigned to be circumcised did not undergo the procedure, and vice versa. When the data were reanalyzed to account for these occurrences, men who had been circumcised had a 76% (South Africa), 60% (Kenya), and 55% (Uganda) reduction in risk for HIV infection compared with those who were not circumcised. The Uganda study investigators are also examining the following in an ongoing study: 1) safety and acceptability of male circumcision in HIV-infected men and men of unknown HIV infection status, 2) safety and acceptability of male circumcision in the men?s female sex partners, and 3) effect of male circumcision on male-to-female transmission of HIV and other STDs.

Male Circumcision and Male-to-Female Transmission of HIV

In an earlier study of couples in Uganda in which the male partner was HIV infected and the female partner was initially HIV-seronegative, the infection rates of the female partners differed by the circumcision status and viral load of the male partners. If the male?s HIV viral load was

Cost-Benefits and Ethical Issues for Neonatal Circumcision in the United States

A large retrospective study of circumcision in nearly 15,000 infants found neonatal circumcision to be highly cost-effective, considering the estimated number of averted cases of infant urinary tract infection and lifetime incidence of HIV infection, penile cancer, balanoposthitis, and phimosis. The cost of postneonatal circumcision was 10-fold the cost of neonatal circumcision [37]. Many parents now make decisions about infant circumcision based on cultural, religious, or parental desires rather than health concerns [38].

Some persons have raised ethical objections to asking parents to make decisions about elective surgery during infancy, particularly when it is done primarily to protect against risks of HIV and STDs that don?t occur until young adulthood, but other ethicists have found it an appropriate parental proxy decision [39].

Considerations for the United States

A number of important differences from sub- Saharan African settings where the three male circumcision trials were conducted must be considered in determining the possible role for male circumcision in HIV prevention in the United States. Notably, the overall risk of HIV infection is considerably lower in the United States, changing risk-benefit and cost-effectiveness considerations. Also, studies to date have demonstrated efficacy only for penile-vaginal sex, the predominant mode of HIV transmission in Africa, whereas the predominant mode of sexual HIV transmission in the United States is by penile-anal sex among MSM. There are as yet no convincing data to help determine whether male circumcision will have any effect on HIV risk for men who engage in anal sex with either a female or male partner, as either the insertive or receptive partner. Receptive anal sex is associated with a substantially greater risk of HIV acquisition than is insertive anal sex. It is more biologically plausible that male circumcision would reduce HIV acquisition risk for the insertive partner rather than for the receptive partner, but few MSM engage solely in insertive anal sex [40].

In addition, although the prevalence of circumcision may be somewhat lower in U.S. racial and ethnic groups with higher rates of HIV infection, most American men are already circumcised, and it is not known whether men at higher risk for HIV infection would be willing to be circumcised or whether parents would be willing to have their infants circumcised to reduce possible future HIV infection risk. Lastly, whether the effect of male circumcision differs by HIV-1 subtype, predominately subtype B in the United States and subtypes A, C, and D in circulation at the three clinical trial sites in Africa, is also unknown.

Summary

Male circumcision has been associated with a lower risk for HIV infection in international observational studies and in three randomized controlled clinical trials. It is possible, but not yet adequately assessed, that male circumcision could reduce male-to-female transmission of HIV, although probably to a lesser extent than female-to-male transmission. Male circumcision has also been associated with a number of other health benefits. Although there are risks to male circumcision, serious complications are rare. Accordingly, male circumcision, together with other prevention interventions, could play an important role in HIV prevention in settings similar to those of the clinical trials [41, 42].

Male circumcision may also have a role in the prevention of HIV transmission in the United States. CDC consulted with external experts in April 2007 to receive input on the potential value, risks, and feasibility of circumcision as an HIV prevention intervention in the United States and to discuss considerations for the possible development of guidelines.

As CDC proceeds with the development of public health recommendations for the United States, individual men may wish to consider circumcision as an additional HIV prevention measure, but they must recognize that circumcision 1) does carry risks and costs that must be considered in addition to potential benefits; 2) has only proven effective in reducing the risk of infection through insertive vaginal sex; and 3) confers only partial protection and should be considered only in conjunction with other proven prevention measures (abstinence, mutual monogamy, reduced number of sex partners, and correct and consistent condom use).

References
Alanis MC, Lucidi RS. Neonatal circumcision: a review of the world?s oldest and most controversial operation. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2004 May;59(5):379-95.
Patterson BK, Landay A, Siegel JN, et al. Susceptibility to human immunodeficiency virus-1 infection of human foreskin and cervical tissue grown in explant culture. Am J Pathol. 2002 Sep;161(3):867-73.
Szabo R, Short RV. How does male circumcision protect against HIV infection? BMJ. 2000 Jun 10;320(7249):1592-4.
Weiss HA, Thomas SL, Munabi SK, Hayes RJ. Male circumcision and risk of syphilis, chancroid, and genital herpes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sex Transm Infect. 2006 Apr;82(2):101-9; discussion 10.
Weiss HA, Quigley MA, Hayes RJ. Male circumcision and risk of HIV infection in sub- Saharan Africa: a systematic review and metaanalysis. AIDS. 2000 Oct 20;14(15):2361-70.
Siegfried N, Muller M, Volmink J, et al. Male circumcision for prevention of heterosexual acquisition of HIV in men. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(3):CD003362.
Gray RH, Kiwanuka N, Quinn TC, et al. Male circumcision and HIV acquisition and transmission: cohort studies in Rakai, Uganda. AIDS. 2000 Oct 20;14(15):2371-81.
Halperin DT, Bailey RC. Male circumcision and HIV infection: 10 years and counting. Lancet. 1999 Nov 20;354(9192):1813-5.
Auvert B, Taljaard D, Lagarde E, Sobngwi- Tambekou J, Sitta R, Puren A. Randomized, controlled intervention trial of male circumcision for reduction of HIV infection risk: the ANRS 1265 Trial. PLoS Med. 2005 Nov;2(11):e298. Erratum in: PLoS Med. 2006 May;3(5):e298.
Bailey RC, Moses S, Parker CB, et al. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in young men in Kisumu, Kenya: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2007 Feb 24;369(9562):643-56.
Gray RH, Kigozi G, Serwadda D, et al. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in men in Rakai, Uganda: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2007 Feb 24;369(9562):657-66.
Gray R, Wawer MJ, Thoma M, et al. Male circumcision and the risks of female HIV and sexually transmitted infections acquisition in Rakai, Uganda [Abstract 128]. Presented at: 13th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections. Feb 5-9, 2006; Denver, CO. Accessed Jan 24, 2008.
Wawer MJ. Trial of male circumcision: HIV, sexually transmitted disease (STD) and behavioral effects in men, women and the community. Accessed Jan 23, 2008.
Wiswell TE, Geschke DW. Risks from circumcision during the first month of life compared with those for uncircumcised boys. Pediatrics. 1989;83(6):1011-15.
Christakis DA, Harvey E, Zerr DM, Feudtner C, Wright JA, Connell FA. A trade-off analysis of routine newborn circumcision. Pediatrics. 2000 Jan;105(1 Pt 3):246-9.
Kigozi G, Watya S, Polis CB, et al. The effect of male circumcision on sexual satisfaction and function, results from a randomized trial of male circumcision for human immunodeficiency virus prevention, Rakai, Uganda. BJU Int. 2008 Jan;101(1):65-70.
Nguyen DM, Bancroft E, Mascola L, et al. Risk factors for neonatal methicillinresistant Staphylococcus aureus infection in a well-infant nursery. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2007;28:406-11.
Sorrells ML, Snyder JL, Reiss MD, et al. Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis. BJU Int. 2007 Apr;99(4):864-9. Erratum in: BJU Int. 2007 Aug;100(2):481.
Krieger JN, Bailey RC, Opeya JC, et al. Adult male circumcision outcomes: experience in a developing country setting. Urol Int. 2007;78(3):235-40.
Collins S, Upshaw J, Rutchik S, et al. Effects of circumcision on male sexual function: debunking a myth? J Urol. 2002;167:2111-2.
Senkul T, Iseri C, Sen B, et al. Circumcision in adults: effect on sexual function. Urology. 2004;63:155-8.
Masood S, Patel HRH, Himpson RC, et al. Penile sensitivity and sexual satisfaction after circumcision: are we informing men correctly? Urol Int. 2004;75:62-6.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, 2005. Vol. 17. Rev. ed. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; June 2007:1-54.
Kreiss JK, Hopkins SG. The association between circumcision status and human immunodeficiency virus infection among homosexual men. J Infect Dis. 1993 Dec;168(6):1404-8.
Buchbinder SP, Vittinghoff E, Heagerty PJ, et al. Sexual risk, nitrite inhalant use, and lack of circumcision associated with HIV seroconversion in men who have sex with men in the United States. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2005 May 1;39(1):82-9.
Templeton DJ, Jin F, Prestage GP, et al. Circumcision status and risk of HIV seroconversion in the HIM cohort of homosexual men in Sydney [Abstract WEAC103].Presented at: 4th IAS Conference on HIV Pathogenesis, Treatment, and Prevention; Jul 22-25, 2007; Sydney, Australia. Accessed Jan 23, 2008.
Millett GA, Ding H, Lauby J, et al. Circumcision status and HIV infection among black and Latino men who have sex with men in 3 US cities. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2007 Dec;46(5):643-50.
Telzak EE, Chiasson MA, Bevier PJ, Stoneburner RL, Castro KG, Jaffe HW. HIV-1 seroconversion in patients with and without genital ulcer disease: a prospective study. Ann Intern Med. 1993 Dec 15;119(12):1181-6.
Warner L, Ghanem KG, Newman D, et al. Male circumcision and risk of HIV infection among heterosexual men attending Baltimore STD clinics: an evaluation of clinic-based data [Abstract 326]. Presented at: National STD Prevention Conference; May 8-11, 2006; Jacksonville, FL. Accessed Jan 23, 2008.
Xu F, Markowitz LE, Sternberg MR, Aral SO. Prevalence of circumcision and herpes simplex virus type 2 infection in men in the United States: the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 1999?2004. Sex Transm Dis. 2007 July; 34(7):479-84.
Risser JM, Risser WL, Eissa MA, Cromwell PF, Barratt MS, Bortot A. Self-assessment of circumcision status by adolescents. Am J Epidemiol. 2004 Jun 1;159(11):1095-7.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Trends in circumcisions among newborns. Accessed Jan 24, 2008.
Nelson CP, Dunn R, Wan J, Wei JT. The increasing incidence of newborn circumcision: data from the nationwide inpatient sample. J Urol. 2005 Mar;173(3):978-81.
American Academy of Pediatrics, Task Force on Circumcision. Circumcision policy statement. Pediatrics. 1999 Mar;103(3):686-93.
Mansfield CJ, Hueston WJ, Rudy M. Neonatal circumcision: associated factors and length of hospital stay. J Fam Pract. 1995 Oct;41(4):370-6.
National Conference of State Legislatures. State Health Notes: Circumcision and infection.
Schoen EJ, Oehrli M, Colby CJ, Machin G. The highly protective effect of newborn circumcision against invasive penile cancer. Pediatrics. 2000 Mar;105(3):e36. Accessed Jan 24, 2008.
Adler R, Ottaway S, Gould S. Circumcision: we have heard from the experts; now let?s hear from the parents.Pediatrics. 2001:107:e20. Accessed Jan 24, 2008.
Benatar M, Benatar D. Between prophylaxis and child abuse: the ethics of neonatal male circumcision. Am J Bioeth. 2003 Spring;3(2):35-48.
Koblin BA, Chesney MA, Husnik MJ, et al. High-risk behaviors among men who have sex with men in 6 US cities: baseline data from the EXPLORE study. Am J Public Health. 2003 Jun;93(6):926-32. Erratum in: Am J Public Health 2003 Aug;93(8):1203.
World Health Organization and UNAIDS. New data on male circumcision and HIV prevention: policy and programme implications. 2007 Mar. Accessed Jan 24, 2008.
Williams BG, Lloyd-Smith JO, Gouws E, et al. The potential impact of male circumcision on HIV in sub-Saharan Africa. PLoS Med. 2006;3(7):e262. Accessed Jan 24, 2008.

And I haven't questioned the reliabilty of studies done on HIV and circumcision, I am questioning why you don't feel it's necessary to give your son a say in what you remove from his body. It's not a toenail clipping, it's a whole body part!

Miasma yes I did say it..because given I am a white woman who was brought up Catholic I am still able to look past my own narrow scope in order to benefit my child.

I am currently trying to pick my jaw off the floor where it has landed after dropping during my reading of this thread.

People actually, seriously, truly think that a good reason for lopping off a part of a child's body is that the child's mother prefers sex with a circumsised man? Is it just me or is it a bit weird to make this decision based on a child's future ability to sexually please his partner? That kind of reasoning has no place in a decision about a medical procedure which will cause pain to a child.

It's a no brainer for me - if it isn't necessary or beneficial in a medical sense, don't do it. I am honestly gobsmacked.

As regards the OP, my understanding is that newborns don't have fully developed nervous systems so while they can feel pain (as they would following a bit of their body being chopped off) their reaction to pain stimulus is delayed. So if a child was accidentally put in a bath that was too hot, there would be a slight delay before the child started screaming, meaning that the child could be badly scalded before the parent realised.

I don't think you've got anyone convinced that your doing it for your son Lennon.

Coldtiz..for exactly the same reason you dont give your child a choice about what vaccinations they have. I bet you argued for the choice women made over the MMR and for them to decide NOT to have their children vaccinated didnt you?

I'm sorry, I genuinely, not-being-awkward-, did not understand your very last sentence - something about the MMR?

Your vaccination argument is completly flawed.

Most of the diseases we vaccinate children against kill children.

Children do not get aids from unprotected sex.

oh there you go again Miasma..cant find a suitable retort so resort to suggesting I am a pervert because I want to circumcise my son..what kind of backward warped person are you?

Oh no thats right your just some fool on mumsnet who cant articulate themselves properly or does not have a clear definitive argument and so resorts to insults.

Oh dear oh dear I don't even know where you are getting that from love, it must be in your mind, not mine!

Lennon - you haven't responded to anything that's been said to you in a measured manner, so your hissy fit at miasma is a little hypocritical.

I get where you are coming from on the vaccines thing now. but vaccines against childhood illnesses have to be given during childhood. Circumcision against aids can be put off until the child is somehwat approaching a sexually active age, as although a child might catch measles at 3, he certainly won't catch aids with his penis before he is twelve.

Um, I think it was actually me, not Miasma, who pointed out that the mother's sexual preferences should have no place in a decision about a medical procedure in a child.

Miasma..I am not providing a vaccination argument I am using it as a comparison. You are too much of a fuckwit to deal with so I am not going to reply to your posts any more. You clearly cannot follow the thread and its all too confusing for you.

Colditz..Basically I was making the point that it is a preventative measure and like vaccinations as my previous post stated it is a decision which is viewed by many ethicists as being an appropriate parental proxy decision.

Re MMR I was asking you your feelings/position about women refusing to give their children the vaccine?

And last time I checked, you can protect against STDs by wearing a condom, but no-one has invented a full-body measles-proof condom.

Oh, I didn't realise it was THAT sort of thread. Call people fuckwits and fools if they don't agree with you.
I'll close the door on my way out.....

No but like I said at 12 its much more healing time.

Actually I have answered everything that has been said in a measured way and that is totally unfair to suggest I havent..go back and read the posts. I do take offence at the real attack here from people who are not reading or comprehending what is being said..I mean now someone else has jumped on and is banging on about mothers sexual preference again..wtf?

Says she who hasn't answered one question that's been put to her and is how resorting to name calling because she's not getting her own way.

Boo hoo

Toys out the pram !

kungfupanna...if I was suggesting that you trying to protect your child in the way you thought best from many hours of research into peer reviewed research papers then actually was all about your sexuality and tried to suggest you were perverted..you too would become rather angry and if you choose to look back at the thread you will see I have been ganged up on and verbally insulted by numerous people on this thread and I am getting totally sick of it now.