To be pretty uncomfortable with home circumcision

[EastofEast]

We get on very well with our neighbours and are pretty close but I was a bit shocked today, one of those moments where you find you really have opposing views on something quite fundamental.

Neighbour has a (gorgeous) two week old boy. She knocked on the door earlier to return my car keys (went to get a new battery for hers in my car) and I mentioned her new ds was unsettled for the first time ever; joking maybe he wasn't the perfect baby after all. My baby is demanding much more vocal about her needs. She said it was because he was circumcised today. I must have looked a little put off, I don't agree with it at all, as she then said 'oh he's doing really well. We were lucky the doctor came to house to do this one, all the others had to go to a clinic'. I was stunned, I'm amazed you're allowed to do such a thing at home in such an unregulated way. Frankly I wouldn't allow any deliberate harm to come to a child that wasn't medically necessary, but considering some people do do it I thought the rules would be tighter. We're both from (different) backgrounds which circumcise, although I refused to change my son, and I knew she'd do it after a related chat about whether fgm was that bad over a coffee one day but it's still upset me a bit the way it's done. The poor little thing is grumpy with loads of adults around to celebrate the event passing him round and round at 8.30pm.

I know the circumcision vs no circumcision has been done already, and not everyone shares my strong views, but at home? Should this be ok? I can't think of other similar procedures happening in a similar environment.

ears do NOT always heal....

I nearly died from an infection linked to ear piercing...

happily it happened under my own steam at 16 years old and not when I was baby under my parents decision....they would NEVER have forgiven themselves.

Here is the confusing thing for me. There is a baby, and I think that baby would like to grow up part of a particular culture which would (apparently) require irreversibly chopping off a bit of said babies anatomy. But what if the baby is not genetically related to me? It's just a baby I am say looking after for a friend?

Presumably you would get arrested for this? But why should that baby get any more or less choice of keeping bits of its anatomy intact than a baby I AM genetically related too?

Neither baby may actually wish to be part of that culture, either neither or one of each of the babies may grow to regret missing their foreskin. Why is it okay to remove the right to bodily autonomy of one baby and not the other?

Ice - Parents make health decisions for their children until they reach the age of consent. Not occasional babysitters.

Your hypothetical example isn't limited in scope to circumcision.

Try having your neighbour's child vaccinated and see what happens. You will possibly be prosecuted, but not because vaccination is inherently evil.

Oh and I'd love to hear you protest "But why should that baby get any more or less choice of not being stuck with a needle than a baby I AM genetically related to?"

"It is their penis. A bit has been taken away. They are fully entitled to be angry."

And yet the vast majority of circumcised me are NOT angry. 1/3 of the world's male population has been circumcised. Where is the popular revolt? Where are the tens of millions of signatures demanding it to be outlawed?

Do you personally know any circumcised men? Every single male member of my extended family, almost all of my male friends, and 9 out of 10 men I have slept with are circumcised. They are all perfectly fine about it, and have happily taken their own boys to be circumcised.

Ice - I don't find it confusing at all. How come I can take our neighbour's child to legoland, or have her round for a sleepover, but if I took her abroad, I'd be grilled by immigration officials. Some things require parental consent. Anybody can be circumcised with parental consent, though. Not just Jews and Muslims.

And I'd be extremely suspicious of any health professional willing to carry these procedures out.

You don't even need a health professional to do ear-piercing. You can take your baby to Claire's Accessories and have it done as a sideshow for passers-by.

Thecat, be suspicious all you want - top practitioners in London are charging around £1,000 for the procedure and their clinics are very full, so I don't think they are hankering for your practice. And if you knew about the modern methods, you would know that the infection risk is virtually nil.

The thing that gets my goat is the complete inability of some posters to weigh relative risk, and the ridiculously emotive language they use to guilt others into adhering to their views. It's like asking:

'Do you ever allow your baby in a car? Because if you do, that makes you a child murderer, considering the risk of accidental death. Who cares that the risk is small - there is still a risk, right? Besides, it's much safer to walk, and you can get anything delivered these days, so why do you need to take your baby in a car, ever? There's no tangible benefit to it. Many societies don't even have cars at all. You may think he will benefit from socialising with others, but frankly who would want to be part of a society that allows babies to get into cars?

If God created us perfect, why do we even need cars? Your baby is too young to give consent, so who are you to make that decision for him? What if he then develops car sickness, and can never become a coach driver, his lifelong dream? Maybe you think it helps him sleep, but (insert bogus pseudo-scientific reference) when you think he is asleep, he has actually gone into shock from the car ride, and is unable even to cry. So what kind of parent, other than an abuser, would ever bring themselves to do something so atrocious as get in a car with their baby? Imagine your baby after a car has smashed yours, slowly agonising, unable even to cry. Could you EVER forgive yourself? Why would you take that chance?'

Apologies for the vivid imagery, but that's pretty much on par with the anti-circ discourse on here.

I also find it incredibly patronising when people assume the decision to circumcise is made out of ignorance. How funny, then, that studies have shown the better educated and higher-earning families in the US have a higher circumcision rate. Must be the studies that were biased, right? It couldn't possibly that ignorance is in the eye of the beholder...

Getting in the car isn't painful to the baby. I agree with you it's higher risk than circumcision though my objection to circumcision isn't about the risk. It's that it seems like an unnecessary and painful procedure inflicted on a baby. It's hard not to be emotive about it because I think back to my own brand new baby boy and the thought of handing him to someone for them to chop off a piece of skin horrifies me and goes against all my maternal instincts. Upthread HomeHelp described how shocking and distressing she and her husband found it and none of the arguments put forward here make me understand why it would be worth it.

Excellent comparison with cars, prima facie.

"God created us perfect" is a particularly ridiculous claim. Why give Vit K or any other injections, in that case? The natural neonate death rate is probably around 10% - why interfere?

This is going round and round.

... but it's painful.
So many other procedures done to a child are painful. Parents do what they feel is best for their child.

... but it's dangerous.
Not really. 1/3 of global male population is circumcised and only a handful seem to have had problems. That is a vanishingly low complication rate. (About as low risk as death by ear piercing, it seems - not zero, but pretty close)

... but it's done for no good reason.
You are wrong. There are health benefits.

... but it impedes sexual performance/pleasure.
No it doesn't. See previous links.

If you have anything else to bring up, feel free. But please don't rehash old arguments that have been answered more than once on this thread.

I wouldn't say that we were created perfect and life-saving interventions are a wonderful thing. I don't see the foreskin as an imperfection, however, and as previously stated on the thread it is not recommended practice here so really not comparable to vit K.

You haven't answered a number of those concerns. Cote you really do come across as such a condescending person it's difficult not to get thoroughly pissed off trying to discuss this with you.

It is painful for the baby. This pain isn't just at the time of the procedure, it persists during the recovery period too, which posters on this thread have informed you about, although you really don't seem to care.
There is some research to suggest there may be health benefits. There is also research to suggest otherwise. As I've said twice now and no one has answered, if the research into the benefits was robust and convincing then it would have informed practice, which it has not, as there are no major leading medical organisations worldwide who recommend it. Including the WHO, (apart from in certain areas in sub Saharan Africa). Also including the NHS, who don't fund it for non therapeutic reasons.
You've also been told by other posters that their reasons for circumcising their son's are more often than not cultural/religious ones, not for the supposed health benefits.

Ellebelly, how many newly circumcised babies have you looked after, that you can talk about the after-op pain so authoritatively? Because I know of countless examples where the baby was not bothered one jot by it. No crying, no disruption, no bleeding, nothing.

And if you think the NHS is a 'major leading medical organisation worldwide', then surely so are the American Association of Paediatrics and the American College of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, both of which have taken the view that the health benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks, as per my post, and links, yesterday.

I'm quite cynical about the NHS, which I will readily admit colours my views. But fwiw (admittedly not a lot) I can easily think of cost-saving, public image and political reasons why the NHS wouldn't be keen to support circ. I don't think it would play out well in the Daily Mail, for instance.

Well I'm a nurse, so more than you would think. Which has also brought me into contact with those that have been unwell after complications following circumcision. The AAPA still hasn't gone as far as recommending it either, despite their statement about benefits vs risks. In any case, the British Medical Association take the view that on balance the evidence is inconclusive.

As a paediatric nurse I have looked after countless babies who've had circumcisions (for medical reasons obviously) and I can quite confidently say that it is very sore and very painful afterwards. In the situations I have been involved in it has been generally distressing for the parents, especially when the post-OP babies need to have a wee and they are screaming out. Needless to say they are discharged home with ample analgesia which is definitely needed. Circumcision is not a painless procedure.

it's not your body so not your choice.

it's an irreversible painful mutilation carried out for generally spurious reasons.

so it's wrong.

Cynical about the NHS but not cynical of US healthcare systems???

US healthcare is underpinned by commercial principles. Why would those organisations go against something which makes them money and keeps their members in jobs?

I don't understand the claims that it isn't particularly painful -.if you cut off a piece of skin, especially in a sensitive area, of course it would hurt both at the time and while healing. An injection - a choice many parents make for their baby - is not a comparable amount of pain.

This thread makes it clear to me that the two sides of this debate will never understand each other. The only post on the pro-front that resonated with me was HomeHelp's words about the Jewish tradition and the persecution and suffering endured to maintain the right to continue their traditions. I still don't understand circumcision but that made more sense to me than the negligible health benefits and, at worst, the 'he should look like his dad'/'uncut penises are gross' arguments.

Shortfuse, actually the public health costs of declining circumcision rates in the US are into billions, according to a US study here. If everything is profit driven in the US, then surely it would be more profitable for the health care industry to let circumcision steadily decline, and just deal (more profitably) with the higher cancer, UTIs and STD rates? in which case, why did the APA and ACGO issue a statement saying that the benefits outweigh the risks last year?

On the other hand, if circumcision is such a profitable industry that it biases all US research, how come the AAP was neutral about it for 14 years until it issued its benefits > risks statement last year?

I am not disputing that health care is a highly political issue in the US, but you have to be wilfully blind not to see that so is the NHS.

*so is it in the UK, within the NHS.

Another point id like to bring up:

A lot of years ago women in childbirth were given drugs and locked in rooms to have their babies. They were shackled. The drugs they gave them didn't prevent pain, they just made the forget afterwards. They COMPLETELY forgot the pain and couldn't imagine it.

Just like the babies.

Ill leave this here then hide the thread:

1. Circumcision Causes Pain and Stress: An infant’s foreskin has more than 240 feet of nerves, 20,000 nerve endings, and 3 feet of veins, arteries, and capillaries – circumcision removes all of them, causing the infant tremendous pain.4 Research has conclusively demonstrated “that circumcision has significant physiologic impact on newborns, mainly due [to] pain.”5 Serum cortisol (a hormone released in response to stress) concentrations increase during and after circumcision,6 and “[h]eart rate, respiratory rate and blood pressure increase, and oxygen saturation decreases, during and shortly after circumcision.7

After circumcision, the penis has a raw, open wound. The newborn’s surgically exposed glans is re-injured by abrasion and contaminants because it is encased in diapers (including the baby’s own feces and urine, which breaks down into ammonia). Disposable diapers themselves are also often irritants, because they are laden with chemicals, dyes, and fragrances that cause further pain.

1. Circumcision Interferes with Breastfeeding: Circumcision negatively affects breastfeeding, regardless of whether infants are given Acetaminophen (Tylenol) to help manage pain immediately after circumcision. Some circumcised males are unable to suckle at all after the procedure. Mothers who leave their sons intact have a better chance at establishing a healthy breastfeeding relationship.8

1. Circumcision Disrupts Sleep: After circumcision, babies’ normal sleep patterns are disrupted. Researchers believe this may be a mechanism to cope with the stress of the procedure.9 Infants who do not get enough sleep or enough quality sleep are at risk for additional significant stress.10

1. Circumcision Can Interrupt Normal Bonding and Causes Emotional Trauma: Lamaze recognizes that “[i]nterrupting, delaying, or limiting the time that a mother and her baby spend together may have a harmful effect on their relationship and on breastfeeding success.”11 The significant stress, disrupted sleep patterns, and breastfeeding problems experienced by circumcised babies all have the potential to interrupt the normal, healthy bonding with their caregivers. Bonding is interrupted because “the circumcision procedure frequently causes the newborn to withdraw from his environment[,]” including his mother.12

Moreover, circumcision causes emotional trauma to parents. Over 80% of parents regret their circumcision decision in the first six months of their sons’ lives. 13

Protect Your Newborn: Leave Him Intact

Unless there is a medical reason to circumcise, you and your son can only benefit by deciding to keep him safe and close to your side after birth. The newborn period is so beautiful and fleeting. There is no reason to traumatize your baby or jeopardize your breastfeeding relationship by exposing your son to needless pain and stress.

If, after thoroughly researching, you feel that the decision to circumcise is one that you must make, please wait until after those fragile newborn days. Remember, you can always decide to circumcise, you can never decide to take it back.14

There is no way a foreskin, infant or otherwise, has 240ft of nerves! Where does this kind of rubbish come from???

Considering the length in the whole body is literally miles I'm not sure.

I am bemused by the comments that lots of middle class high earning Anericans have their babies circumcised so that somehow makes it ok? or legitimate.??

there is no race,creed,religion.social class or ethnicity that has the high ground on ignorance or even child abuse.