My feed
Premium

Please
or
to access all these features

AIBU?

To have zero sympathy with this mother who lost her baby

192 replies

ReallyTired · 27/11/2012 23:42

Allowing someone to circumcise a baby with a pair of sissors at home is child abuse.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-20518046

Surely the mother could have taken the child to A and E if it was bleeding so much.

I think that both women deserve to go to jail for child cruety and manslaughter.

It needs to be made a criminal offence for someone to carry out a circumcism who isn't a doctor. I also feel that circumcisms need to be carried out in a hospital enviromnent with proper pain relief and emergency facilties. Anything else is child abuse.

It is a point less waste of life what happened to this little baby.

OP posts:
Report
BegoniaBampot · 01/12/2012 17:00

because it's not the norm here we tend to not understand or think circumcision is wrong. If you were brought up in a country like the US where it's seen as the norm then you probably wouldn't have a problem with it.

Report
mathanxiety · 01/12/2012 22:31

That is very true. You certainly wouldn't see comments thrown about along the lines of 'barbaric', and 'devastating consequences'.

To put it in the same category as FGM trivialises FGM, which has devastating consequences for women, and is truly barbaric. There is absolutely no comparison and women who claim there is should wind their necks in. Scroll down to 'complications' and compare with the forum I linked to earlier.

Report
SirBoobAlot · 02/12/2012 09:06

Circumcision does NOT prevent HIV. Its utter bollocks. Think about it logically for a second, and then just do some research. The WHO have now acknowledged that it does not. Its an out of date excuse for assault.

And no, I don't think any of the men who are living with the endless consequences of circumcision would feel that they are suffering any less that those sufferers of FGM. In fact there are a lot of FGM victims that are part of the inactivist movement, to protect all babies. Botched MGM can lead to full amputation of the penis, and death. Babies die in the USA every year because of circumcision. The fact that this is in the UK is the only reason it has been given any press.

Report
lovebunny · 02/12/2012 09:59

sounds very sad, to me. right or wrong in choosing circumcision, they didn't expect to lose their child.

Report
waltermittymistletoe · 02/12/2012 12:21

because it's not the norm here we tend to not understand or think circumcision is wrong. If you were brought up in a country like the US where it's seen as the norm then you probably wouldn't have a problem with it

I find this very patronising. Like the only reason people have strong views and certain principles about circumcision is geography!

Report
SirBoobAlot · 02/12/2012 13:14

And I know plenty of people where circumcision is common who are disgusted by the practice as well. There is a huge movement within USA and Canada to get circumcision reconsidered. Its currently not covered by some insurance companies, which is big progress.

Report
BegoniaBampot · 02/12/2012 13:47

It's not patronising. Unless you have been brought up in the states or a country where it's the norm and have still formed an opinion against it then you can't honestly say you wouldn't have any sons circumsized if you lived there. I've read forums where Americans think uncut penis are horrible as they are used to most penis being cut. Some men choose to get cut because they don't like the look or being different from the norm. I think it's easy for us in the UK to feel outraged or think it's weird and that other countries have got it wrong. There seems to be a feeling that we are superior and more civilised than those that close to cut. That's a bit patronising as well.

Report
SirBoobAlot · 02/12/2012 15:10

No I don't think I'm superior, I think there is a shocking lack of education. And lets remember that as later as the 1980's, FGM was still being suggested; one article was entitled "Female circumcision: the kindest cut".

You can still think it is a horrific unnecessary breech of the human rights of newborn babies when you don't live in a country that it happens routinely in. I am grateful for that every day.

Report
waltermittymistletoe · 02/12/2012 15:18

I'm not in the UK.

I don't think I'm superior but I wouldn't choose to have my son's bodies mutilated for no real reason.

Report
BegoniaBampot · 02/12/2012 15:55

And nether would I, don't see the point in changing the natural way or inflicting unnecessary pain with possible complications. Just have no idea how I would feel if I lived in the US. I might still be against it or might just go with the flow.

Report
mathanxiety · 02/12/2012 16:09

SirBoob -- there have been plenty of studies showing that circumcision does in fact prevent HIV infection. Iirc, one study was halted because the evidence was so compelling it was considered unethical to continue while there were men in the community who could benefit from a full blown programme.

And stop interjecting FGM into the discussion. The two are not comparable.

'I find this very patronising. Like the only reason people have strong views and certain principles about circumcision is geography!'
Not so much geography but the echo chamberish culture associated with being an island perhaps? Some of the statements here wrt circumcision are nothing short of hysteria and appear (1) never to have been seriously challenged, and (2) to have been formulated from half baked ideas that have been spread using the method of the children's 'telephone' game -- barbaric? akin to FGM? devastating consequences? Seriously? A little more exposure to men who have been circumcised, a little more questioning of the UK zeitgeist, a little more reading of scientific studies would result in a lot of toning down of comments, if not a complete change of mind.

The 'huge movement' mentioned is a very small fringe group. US society and culture is very fractured and doesn't get gripped en masse by huge movements of any sort.

Report
waltermittymistletoe · 02/12/2012 16:41

Why presume though that the only reasons people are against it are because they don't know enough about it?

I researched it in the not too distant past for personal reasons. IMO there is no compelling reason, aside from medical if necessary, to do this to a baby who can't speak for himself.

Report
SirBoobAlot · 02/12/2012 17:13

Myth: Circumcision prevents HIV/AIDS.

Reality check: Three studies in Africa several years ago that claimed that circumcision prevented AIDS and that circumcision was as effective as a 60% effective vaccine (Auvert 2005, 2006). These studies had many flaws, including that they were stopped before all the results came in. There have also been several studies that show that circumcision does not prevent HIV (Connolly 2008). There are many issues at play in the spread of STDs which make it very hard to generalize results from one population to another.

In Africa, where the recent studies have been done, most HIV transmission is through male-female sex, but in the USA, it is mainly transmitted through blood exposure (like needle sharing) and male-male sex. Male circumcision does not protect women from acquiring HIV, nor does it protect men who have sex with men (Wawer 2009, Jameson 2009).

What's worse, because of the publicity surrounding the African studies, men in Africa are now starting to believe that if they are circumcised, they do not need to wear condoms, which will increase the spread of HIV (Westercamp 2010). Even in the study with the most favorable effects of circumcision, the protective effect was only 60% - men would still have to wear condoms to protect themselves and their partners from HIV.

In the USA, during the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s and 90s, about 85% of adult men were circumcised (much higher rates of circumcision than in Africa), and yet HIV still spread.

It is important to understand, too, that the men in the African studies were adults and they volunteered for circumcision. Babies undergoing circumcision were not given the choice to decide for themselves.

Link

Circumcision does not prevent HIV spreading. Condoms do.

Report
SirBoobAlot · 02/12/2012 17:17
Report
Frontpaw · 02/12/2012 17:31

AIDS is a red herring. Its only really been on the radar since what, mid 80s, when circumcision has been around a lot longer.

There has been no study that has proven that it reduces transmission of AIDS. Condoms do, but the catholic church frowns upon it, and there is another can oif worms.

Report
SirBoobAlot · 02/12/2012 17:46

And we only want to think there is not similarity between FGM and MGM because MGM is still seen as socially acceptable. This chart is a very good - and fair - comparison between the two.

I hope that twenty years down the line we have the same gut wrenching reaction to MGM as we do now to MGM. Neither are okay, and both are horrific.

Report
mathanxiety · 03/12/2012 04:10

In the US, the largest group currently experiencing exposure to HIV is the African American community, both men and women. aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/statistics/

There is no fair comparison between FGM and circumcision.

From my earlier link:

'De-Infibulation at time of marriage:
The closure of the introitus must be reopened at the time of marriage so that the woman is able to have sexual intercourse. The opening up of the infibulation occurs as part of a ceremony and in the presence of female members from the bride and groom?s families to verify that the bride is a virgin at the time of marriage. The opening of the infibulation is performed by a senior female member of the community, a TBA, or in a hospital by medical staff. Occasionally, the husband forcibly performs penetration and bursts through the scar of the infibulation.'

'The Dangers of FGM:
FGM puts children at risk of life threatening complications at the time of the procedure as well as health problems that remain with her for life. They may suffer bleeding at the time of the procedure or develop severe infection, both of which can lead to death if not treated promptly. Those who do not develop life-threatening complications will still suffer from severe pain and trauma.

The procedure also permits the transmission of viral infections such as hepatitis which can lead to chronic liver diseases and even HIV. The women may suffer complications such as recurrent infections, pain and obstruction associated with urination and they are at higher risk of painful menstruation and intercourse, pelvic infection and difficulties in becoming pregnant. Retention of urine and recurrent infections often require repeated hospital admissions and some women carry a risk of developing nephritis. The development of cysts and keloids at the site of the scar are very common, often causing embarrassment and marital problems, and usually require surgery for removal.

During pregnancy there are many further complications that may occur as a direct result of the FGM. Labour may become obstructed and if early medical intervention is not provided this may lead to the death of both baby and mother. WHO estimates that many women giving birth die in the process, simply as a result of FGM 19. If the mother and baby survive there is the risk of damage to the vagina leading to the formation of fistulas into the bladder or bowel, which cause constant incontinence as a result of a vessico-vaginal fistula or recto-vaginal fistula. Women in this condition are often rejected by their family and become social outcasts. During the seven years that the Edna Adan Hospital has been functional, the fistulae of over 100 women have been surgically repaired. Apart from the many physical complications, the girls and women experience considerable psychological problems including depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. These psychological problems are exacerbated at the time of marriage and often lead to increased distress and fear of intercourse. If de-infibulation is performed the woman is again exposed to the life threatening complications of sepsis and bleeding, and the transmission of chronic infections such as HIV and Hepatitis and also damage to the urethra if, as is common, the operator makes an error when performing the cut.
Complications

Considering the clumsy and un-hygienic conditions under which female genital mutilation is usually performed, complications are frequent and numerous and can be classified in the order in which they are likely to occur.
Immediate

Shock
Fear
Pain
Hemorrhaging
Other lacerations: in addition to the intentional cuts on the clitoris, labia minora and majora, there may be accidental lacerations inflicted on the child as a result of her struggles.

These cuts may involve the vagina, urethra, anus and thighs.

As a result, quite a few children are taken to hospitals for the control of hemorrhage, or for the repair of severe lacerations.

Within the first 10 days:

  • Infection: infection to the wound and septicaemia are often encountered and tetanus is not uncommon.

Retention of Urine: (5 possible causes)
  • Post-Traumatic Oedema of the vulva resulting from the damages inflicted on the clitoris and labia impedes or obstructs the passage of urine through the swollen urethra;
  • Obstruction of the urethra by a blood clot or by the thorns that were inserted to hold the sides of the labia majora together;
  • Accidental suturing of the Urethra itself;
  • Over-tight application of the binds that were used to keep the thighs and legs together
  • Psychosomatic urine retention out of fear and pain
  • Failure to Infibulate: when the two sides of the labia majora fail to fuse, it necessitates that the child undergoes a repeat operation at a later date.


At the onset of menstruation:

  • Dysmeorrhoea: when the post-infibulation vaginal whole is too small there is a constant stagnation of menstrual blood and other vaginal secretions, causing bacteria to spread into the vaginal and uterine cavities. This is likely to increase the risk of chronic pelvic inflammation that might cause the severe abdominal cramps experienced by infibulated females during menstruation;
  • Recurrent Urinary Tract Infection: because of the flap of skin obstructing the urethra after infibulation, urine does not jet out during micturition. Instead, it hits the flap of skin obstructing the vulva and is then sprayed back into the vagina and then trickles out in drops. This obstruction also prevents proper vaginal hygiene and drainage and causes urinary stasis which is likely to cause recurrent urinary tract infection;
  • Possible Second FGM: because the small artificial opening that had previously permitted the passage of urine becomes insufficient to permit the drainage of the more viscous consistency of menstrual bleeding, doctors often have to convince the parents of these girls that the small vaginal opening be enlarged to permit the flow of menstrual blood.


This the families resist because they fear that if the opening is too wide it may not be sufficient proof that their daughter is a virgin when her time comes for her to get married.

At the time of Marriage:

  • De-infibulation: The infibulation opening that had until then permitted the passage of urine and vaginal secretions is no longer able to permit intercourse. This will require that the husband make a forcible penetration to burst the skin obstructing the entrance to the vagina, or the opening will have to be cut open with scissors or a knife to allow the consummation of marriage;
  • Dyspareunia: the scar tissue that surrounds the vaginal orifice may be rigid and inelastic and can cause pain during sexual intercourse;
  • Infertility: because of the constant stagnation of menstrual blood and other vaginal secretions that have accumulated in the vaginal cavity, the resulting pelvic inflammation may obstruct the fallopian tubes and block the normal travel of the ovum along the tubes, preventing it from becoming fertilized by the male spermatozoa;
  • Vulval keloids and dermal cysts: apart from their unaesthetic appearance, these may interfere with consummation of marriage or with childbirth during delivery.


During Pregnancy:

  • It is not uncommon for an infibulated and pregnant woman to attend the antenatal clinic for follow up of the pregnancy or for a pregnancy related complaint and find that the opening of the infibulation will not admit the introduction of even one finger into the vagina for diagnostic and exploratory purposes. Such women will require a de-infibulation during pregnancy if complications are to be avoided at the time of delivery


During Labour and Delivery:

Caesarian: Some women arrive at the maternity hospital in labour with a very small infibulation opening. If the vagina is seen to be too rigid and scarred, and thought to be a possible cause of severe vaginal lacerations or third degree tears, it is likely that and elective caesarian section will be decided upon. If keloids have formed and are too large, a Caesarian section might be the best option to deliver this woman.

Prolonged second stage of labour: because the vagina, perineum and the labia have all undergone mutilation that has left extensive scar formation, the vaginal canal becomes inelastic and the pelvic floor muscles rigid. Thus preventing the normal and gradual dilation of the vagina as well as the descent of the presenting part of the child during the second stage of labour.

Foetal Complications:
Large caput formation;
Excessive molding of the head;
Intra-cranial hemorrhage;
Hypoxia;
Foetal distress;
Intrauterine death.

Maternal Complications:
Obstructed labour;
Extensive vaginal and perineal lacerations;
Third degree tears;
Uterine inertia;
Uterine rupture;
Impacted foetus;
Maternal distress;
Maternal death.

Post-natal Complications:
Infection of the lacerations;
Delayed healing of the repaired perineum and vaginal tissues;
Sloughing of the vaginal wall, resulting in Vessico-vaginal fistula and/or recto-vaginal fistula;
Anemia;
Puerperal infection;
Cystocele and Rectocele: because of the prolonged labour during each delivery, there is added stretching of the vaginal wall muscles.
This causes a prolapse of either the bladder or rectum to bulge into the vagina.

Other Complications:

In recent years and since the HIV/AIDS pandemic, likelihood of transmission of the AIDS virus has become added to the long list of complications associated with female genital mutilation. The risk is made real because the traditional healers who perform circumcisions do not know the dangers of using unsterilized instruments that have previously been used on different individuals who might have been carriers of the AIDS virus.'

Seriously, this is comparable to an operation that leaves the vast majority of the millions of men who have had it done perfectly healthy and able to enjoy a full sex life?

Your chart is bollocks, issued by a group that doesn't know its arse from its elbow where FGM is concerned.

'It is important to understand, too, that the men in the African studies were adults and they volunteered for circumcision. Babies undergoing circumcision were not given the choice to decide for themselves.'

Babies don't volunteer for innoculations either, and other decisions that ultimately benefit them are also taken on their behalf by their parents despite risk. Circumcision on the whole does no harm and is a really, really benign procedure with no adverse effects. If there were adverse effects adult men would not volunteer for it.
Report
CheerfulYank · 03/12/2012 05:12

That poor baby. :(

How would you feel if you lived in the US, you ask? Well...I've lived in the US for my entire life. Every single penis I've ever seen (and I've seen some Blush was circumcised.) Wait, no, I remember two uncircumcised little boys when I worked in day care, out of hundreds. I remember being really confused when I changed one of their diapers at first...sort of a "what's wrong with...oh!" I honestly had never seen a penis uncut before.

When I found out I was having a son, I went back and forth about it. When he was born I said I wasn't sure, and the terrifyingly sure and competent and slightly patronizing pediatrician told me it was much safer for many reasons, and in my drug and pain addled state I allowed him to be whisked away and done.

He never had any ill effects and I really don't think about it much...when I do, I feel guilty and wish I had been stronger. I have been adamant to DH that any further sons we have will not be cut. However, I know this is possibly setting them up for a lifetime of locker room ridicule. :(

Report
CindySherman · 03/12/2012 09:12

Why are so many guys in the US cut?

Report
LadyClariceCannockMonty · 03/12/2012 09:25

'We live in a developed country with excellent medical facilites. Most immigrants know this otherwise they would not have come here.'

This sounds very much like the 'they come here to take advantage' attitude, and for that alone I've got to say YABU.

Also, you don't know the parents' circumstances. You don't know how much and what level of English the mother (and any of family) has. You don't know if she has decent connections with the community or a real awareness of the fact that the overriding cultural norm in the UK is to have procedures done in hospital. You don't know how much knowledge/confidence she has about A&E/the NHS and other available medical support.

I can't imagine the suffering this woman is going through. Do you not think she feels terrible/stupid/guilty enough already without being judged by people who know nothing about the circumstances?

Report
bottleofbeer · 03/12/2012 10:20

FFS why is racism even being mentioned?

By far those most people I've had this debate with have been American, it's pretty much standard there. Although to be fair to the OP she did link the story where the family's race was mentioned so it wasn't just assumption about their race or religion.

The part about not prosecuting because it wouldn't being their baby back is rubbish, why prosecute anybody for anything? it won't undo the 'offence' committed. Yes I've got sympathy, to have a child die must be horrific, to know it was entirely preventable must make it even more unbearable but I'm sick of seeing ignorance or cultural differences as an excuse. It just screams of desperation to appear politically correct. Sometimes in people's determination to NOT be racist they're drawing lines in the sand that just highlight racial and cultural differences instead of just discussing the issue at hand.

I can still feel angry and think they were grossly negligent whilst having sympathy for them and unless I've missed something I never saw anybody saying they deserved their child to die. I think circ'ing is barbaric, pointless, cruel and maybe that's because it's not culturally normal to me but maternal instinct is universal. I can only imagine at how indoctrinated somebody must be to ever think cutting parts off their perfect child without anaesthesia is a good thing.

It should be banned, just like FGM is illegal here. Terribly sorry if it offends your sensibilities, please feel free to practice your culture in any way you see fit but no actually, we can't go along with and/or turn a blind eye to pointless, painful, potentially lethal procedures on babies who haven't chosen this for themselves and who haven't agreed for you to cut parts of THEIR bodies.

Report
OnwardBound · 03/12/2012 10:31

I have sympathy for the parents of this poor baby. I am sure they did not mean for their baby to perish.

But they were cruel. They allowed someone to cut their baby's foreskin off with scissors without any anaesthetic.

Even if the baby did not die I would still think what had happened was cruel, callous, negligent and barbaric.

It is a greater tragedy that the baby died.

I think the parents deserve some sympathy but also condemnation for their cruelty, whether this was fuelled by cultural demands or ignorance is irrelevant.

As someone else said upthread, it was something done to a defenceless baby. What sort of parent does that?

Report
Frontpaw · 03/12/2012 12:13

I am assuming that the parents were going to the usual doctor/hospital/midwife checkups in the UK. Do medical folk here ask - especially where parents are from a religion/culture/region/whatever where this is common?

Didn't the law change a while ago so that spouses had to have basic english skills (or did I mishear that on the radio)?

You can be sure as shit that if I were in another country and pregnant, I would learn related vocabulary (and I am really really shit at languages) and make sure that I knew what medical help there was. I suppose, sadly, they trusted this woman (was she from their community/home country/religion?) But who the hell would let a non-doctor go at their baby with a pair of scissor and no anaesthetic?

The whole 'tiny babies don't feel pain' theory was debunked years and years ago.

I can't begin to imagine their grief. The death of a child must be the worst pain ever - but to be responsible for his pain and suffering must be a million times worse. The baby underwent a medical procedure when he did not need to and died. How could a parent live with that?

Report
Queenmarigold · 03/12/2012 12:28

NHS money shouldn't be wasted on religious beliefs, it should be for medical reasons only.

Report
baublesandbaileys · 03/12/2012 12:30

the medical reason would be prevention of back alley circumcisions, just like abortions, a normal pregnancy isn't an illness, but NHS abortions prevent things like back street abortions plus can have a preventitive effect on mental health etc

Report
Please create an account

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