about SIL and DS1's Bris (circumcision) ?

[imlikeaironingboard]

I'm Jewish (Liberal) and DH counts himself as secular Jewish (as does all of his family).
His DBro (my BIL) married out - not a 'big' thing with them due to the whole non practicing/secular thing.

I'm due to give birth to DS1 (DC2) in a week.

They do not have children and it is only DH and BIL as siblings. our DC1 is a DD.

Both DH and BIL are circumcised.

She told us tonight that she would not be coming to DS1 Bris. The idea of doing that 'disgusts' her.

AIBU to be really upset and to think that she should have realised that marrying into a jewish family secular or not would mean that these sort of things would happen?

This has really really upset me - I have never got a hint of her feeling like this before.

MrBloomsNursery- I'm a health professional; my colleagues (that I have worked with so far) and I have never reacted to anyone mentioning that a boy/man had been circumcised as an infant. It would be noticed, the patient or parent would be asked or might volunteer at what age it was done, it would be documented along with any medical history relevant to it if any (eg phimosis). It's not that shocking.
We deal with situations daily where people have been crushed by cars, drink 10 pints a day, have debilitating addiction to heroin, etc etc - that would indeed shock us.

I'm a HCP - Circumcisions were done in the children's hospital under GA with pain relief given for afterwards. I'm Muslim and I don't know anyone who got their son circumcised without a GA and that's here and abroad.

Prima, and I posted that the 117 deaths were not reported on some random website but in an academic peer reviewed journal. The publisher had never posted a correction. The report you linked to was conversely posted on a pro-circumcision website and has not been published in the scholarly literature as far as I know.

And kipper, did you read Annie's account from a friend of hers who said her son's bris will haunt her for the rest of her life? I would be interested to read any academic peer review study that states categorically this is not a distressing experience for a newborn.

Kipper - Baby On Board, a popular baby book in Australia, which is written by an obstretrician, says the safest time for a circumcision would be around the age of one. It says the idea new babies feel less pain is "a spectacular piece of self-delusion" and says the medical evidence suggests infants feel pain more acutely, not less.

Kipper there are similarities between MGM and FGM, both procedures are carried out with no medical need, the most important and sensitive receptors are removed from the genitals which affect sensation and therefore sexual pleasure is significantly reduced.

To say that circumcision might have 'therapeutic' effects is akin to removing tonsils or appendix 'just in case' scenarios.

Prima. Noone ever believed the world was flat.

However I struggle to think that an academic paper would indeed publish a report about babies dying that wasn't true.

kipper I wasn't comparing circumcision to child sacrafice I mentioned it in relation to someone suggesting that we should critisise religious practices.

Kipper. Considering the fact the 117 deaths are caused by circumcision and 32 men die of penile cancer, that are circumcised every year (both in the US), and men still contract HIV, HErpes and so on regardless of circumcision (and yes we know rates are moderately reduced but not completely so kind of negates any benefit touted by supporters) I struggle to think why anyone is both stupid and cruel enough to do it.

kipperandtiger I will help you out with the links you want.

Here's the one (scroll down to ANALGESIA) from the AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS

"There is considerable evidence that newborns who are circumcised without analgesia experience pain and physiologic stress. Neonatal physiologic responses to circumcision pain include changes in heart rate, blood pressure, oxygen saturation, and cortisol levels.36-39 One report has noted that circumcised infants exhibit a stronger pain response to subsequent routine immunization than do uncircumcised infants"

As you say they are quite well-established medical and surgical facts and just saying "oh the baby won't notice' as many do won't change that.

There is no excuse for cutting into the flesh of a helpless child.

FGM is not a therapeutic procedure and does not serve to cure or relieve anything that circumcision can

That's true. Apparently parents do it to please the community - just like circumcision.

Can we stop with the pretending that the religious people who do it are doing it for health reasons. I asked if they would support a ban if it turned out that it had negative health effects and got a deafening silence. It would still be God's law if it killed 50% of babies and they'd have to do it.

Posies, the 'journal' that published it is the 'journal of boyhood studies', which is an activist publication -hardly the NEJM.

Bollinger estimates 9 deaths per 100,000 circs. The AAP estimates the figure at 1 in 500,000. So 45 times less frequent than Bollinger says.

"Reading this thread has made me understand that if your bought up in a religion where this is normal and being around men who have all had it done and see no problem with it will make you feel differently than I do"
Basically yes - that is one of the things I trust in G-d with.

I'm sorry if someones friend was distraught about seeing Bris - but woman (at least in my background - which comes from orthodox) don't watch.

We believe and trust in the words of G-d on the topic of circumcision just as we do about pork and shell fish. For someone out the the culture taht can be a very hard thing to understand I get that and I accept that.

I spoke to SIL and said that her choice of words upset me (not the fact that she holds those beliefs) I apologised for the last few days and she apologised for her choice of words (and did then explain it not using the term 'disgusting' - she had no idea how that would effect me)

Look I turned my back on a lot of orthodox judaism (which my family are (and Conservative)) and she had not realised that bris was one of the things that I had not 'turned my back on' when I changed to Liberal Judaism. Which is perfectly fair enough.

Anyway thank you to who ever it was that suggested a bris and the alternative for the name part. I do like the idea will have to see if the logisics work.

Thank you

sorry to have been offline. Was helping to arrange a brit for next week. I was wondering separately which posters might appreciate an invite [note to the gullible - this is not meant seriously - you don't issue invitations to a brit].

Onagar -If it killed 50% of babies, my extended family would have been remarkably lucky so far, in that they've all survived. Obviously, if the health effects turned out to be materially negative, I would consider what to do with any future DS's, but Jewish law also requires it to be taken into account, and there would no doubt be revised guidance. It would have to be more than a few MN threads, however! The life chances of Jewish children in this country seem to be materially better by all accounts than those of the general population, so I suspect there are kids more deserving of help.....

AB - I'm not a human rights lawyer, but isn't it arguable that while circ might be considered within Article 3 if the state performed it compulsorily, where it is a non-state actor doing it with parental consent, the balance between Arts 3 and 9 may be a bit finer. If someone wanted to bring an action against states for failing to outlaw it, they could have done so already, presumably.

samG do you honestly think joking about inviting (yes i know you said invites aren't given for a mutilation) people on this thread is appropriate.? do you think that is funny?

Lessthanaweek, best of luck for the birth of your son.

I can't deny that I fervently wish and hope that you will consider waiting until your son is old enough to give his informed consent to circumcision but, whatever you decide, I wish you both all the best in life.

Yes, besha'a tovah. I'm really pleased it's come to a mutually acceptable conclusion.

I'm about to pull out my baby's toenails - it's therapeutic, you see, so he won't get a fungal infection later. Research has also shown that no toenails significantly reduces the likelyhood to have an ingrown toenail.
Without anesthesia, of course. You can all come and watch.

Any Mother or Father who knowingly hands over their baby for such an unnecessary act of butchery in the name of something completely unproven must be missing that fierce parental protection instinct.

That's not true, GalloweesG.

It is hard to believe that those who do this have the usual parental protection instinct, but it's probably more about priorities and getting things in order of importance.

1. What god wants. Or rather what some guy says that god wants.
2. What it will do to your social standing with others in your club. Will you be invited to coffee mornings and to watch them do things to their kids.
3. Welfare of the child.

I suppose that technically that makes non-believers who circumcise worse since they lack excuse (1) but then again they at least do it in a clinic with anaesthetic instead of with an audience.

Sam G, Artice 3 doesn't apply solely to things that the state does compulsorily. Yeah theoretically an action could be brought against state X for not banning it, perhaps by someone who has suffered complications from a ritual circumcision. But I think a way would be found for it not to work, iyswim. Even if the European courts made a ruling, the relevant state could refuse to apply it. I suspect that's probably what would happen. Nobody in charge wants to deal with that particular political hot potato. As this thread has demonstrated, there are plenty of hypocritical Princess Entitlements, such as yourself, who not only think they have the right to chop bits off babies without pain relief, but to be immune from criticism from so doing. Bans don't tend to work with things like this. That, rather than any balancing act, is the reason why I think a human rights based legal case for a ban wouldn't work- as Article 3 is absolute, it's not one of those where a balancing act is needed.

Anyway, Sam and OP, I hope something happens to prevent you doing what you are determined to do. Assuming it doesn't, I hope the babies involved are lucky enough not to suffer any complications, and get over their pain as quickly as possible.

Are you saying that these children didn't die. If you look hard enough you can find cases of children dying from circumcision, if you want to pretend it never happens go ahead.

Yes children will die of any medical procedure, especially if performed under GA. This is acceptable for a procedure which is carried out for bona fide medical reasons (either to treat an actual problem, or perhaps prophylactically in areas where HIV is rife, though in the latter case you could wait until the age of, say, 10). The APA gives a death rate for this procedure.
Like most of the people on this thread I would say that no level of deaths is acceptable in a procedure carried out purely for social reasons without the child's consent.

But that figure of 100+ deaths in the USA is ridiculously flaky, and by repeating it you are just weakening your case.