Piercing baby's ears at 4 months

[Magic69]

I am not comfortable with this but I am Asian and in my culture all girls get their ears pierced before 6 months, some as young as 4 weeks. It is the norm and I myself had it done when I was 9 weeks.

I don't remember it and I have had no repercussions from it but I have my own daughter now and something which did not seem a big deal at the time, seems a big deal now.

She is 10 weeks and when she got her jabs and she started crying it broke my heart. My parents are planning to have her ears done when she is 4 months on a spiritual day and I am dreading it.

I have told my parents that I am not comfortable with it and listed my reasons, 1) the pain, 2) possible infections 3) I am not really a girly girl and don't see the need for earrings 4) feel better if she chose to get them done....etc

But my mother is a doctor and she dismissed all my concerns under the umbrella that I am being ridiculous and as a medical professional in the field for 40 odd ears she has never seen anyone come in with infections from pierced ears (in all fairness, her speciality is radiology). She said people will laugh at us and will think something was wrong and I will bring shame to the family.

This may also have something to do with my DS who loves dressing up, tutus and prefers girls toys- I let him do what he wants and wear what he likes and she sees my permissiveness as an inability to control my children and letting them 'go the wrong way'.

My DH says I am being silly and has dismissed my concerns as being over bearing. He says it is what Asian women do and we will have a lot of explaining to do if we choose not to get it done.

AIBU?

The point is not to compare these procedures per se but to point out that "tradition" is not a valid reason to subject a baby/child/woman to a painful, non beneficial, cosmetic practice just because it's become customary over a period of time

Agreed. Tradition isn't an excuse for anything you don't want to do. But using hyperbole to make that point dilutes the message and trivializes actual abuse and injustices.

I haven't pierced DD's ears. We toyed with the idea since it's the done thing around here, but ultimately decided against it. Earrings are fun and I'd rather her experience the nervous excitement of picking out her own first set of earrings and proudly showing them off when she's done. There's a mix of girls with and without earrings at the play ground, no one cares either way. It wouldn't have been a big deal if we had decided to pierce them either. We simply chose not to.

An earring is either such a non-deal that a child (who cannot legally give consent until they're 16) can "decide" to get one, or they are such a big deal that the age of ear piercing should be moved to 16 when they can consent. But it can't be abuse until they're 3, 5, 10, 12, or whatever age they decide they want them at because they lack the ability to consent to an earring then as well.

The problem with this whole scenario isn't the earrings. It's the fact that they are not listening to the mother and are completely discounting her feelings and giving her no voice when it comes to raising her child. What else are they going to ignore her wishes with? She should have an equal say with what goes on with their daughter, and as always decisions need to default to the non-consenting party's wishes.

I've not read the whole thread, just want to offer you support.

My DH's culture pierce their daughters ears as early as possible too. I didn't want to make that decision for dd, and luckily he supported me. I did and do get a lot of negative remarks for that side of the family. This heightened even more when we had DD's hair cut into a short bob, because she wanted 'prince hair.' In my mind I am showing her that I value her opinion over her appearance. I loved her having long hair, but that was my preference not hers and she is the one who needs to live with her hair.
She is now 6 and I asked her would she like to have her ears done. She said 'no way!' In her mind she can't see how having holes in your ears makes you a better person, her own opinion not one that I forced upon her as I have pierced ears myself. I am now glad I stuck to my guns. She knows no matter what I'll value her for who she is not as a symbol of who society wants her to be.
Good luck

I don't believe I used any hyperbole at all

The rejection of the OP's wishes is indeed a significant issue I agree, one grounded in tradition establishing cultural norms that thus become "unquestionable". The ear piercing is symptomatic of that and whilst it is far from the worst act undertaken in the name of the identification of gender and supposed female cosmetic enhancement, it's still a totally unnecessary practice that is painful and carries risk.

OP, look at the law on assault. There is no exemption for ear piercing. I have always wondered why we don't prosecute for this. That would soon stop it! Nor is there a 'cultural norm' defence for ear piercing. I really hope you win on this, because you will think of it every time you look at her ears. On a lighter note, your typo about '40 ears experience' was one of my favourites ever.

senpai although you may regard earrings as removable, the holes often remain. You are at risk of infection. As outlined you are at risk if pain and scaring.

Why on earth do you think we gain consent for medical procedures? And yes we do gain consent for temperature taking. Implied usually!

In fact Drs are not allowed to surgically remove a tumour from a person if they come accross whilst doing surgery for something else even though it would be arguably of benefit. In this country consent is seen as a vital prerequisite.

if a husband held his wife down to enforce ear piercing on her, would you have a problem with it? If so why? Or why not?

if a husband held his wife down to enforce ear piercing on her, would you have a problem with it? If so why? Or why not?**
**
This pretty much sums it up for me.

Why the hell its ok to do this to a baby because "they won't remember" or "tradition" is just a shitty argument.

As parents we do make choices that hurt our children - vaccinations are the best generic example - because the pain and risk has an overwhelming benefit.

Seeing my son scream as he was put under anaesthetic before surgery at 2 is still a deeply painful memory. I didn't then think "it's only a needle and he won't remember".

I think it's a pretty damn barbaric practice tbh and why anyone would do this to a baby/small child is beyond me. When I see a baby with pierced ears I do make a judgement and its not about how it looks, it's about what parent could possibly intentionally hurt their child and what kind of person they are.

There, I've said it. I tried to be polite but actually i don't believe there is any reason at all that can justify piercing the ears of a child who is unable to participate in that decision.

if a husband held his wife down to enforce ear piercing on her, would you have a problem with it? If so why? Or why not?

An adult can give informed consent and is an equal to a husband. An adult hold another adult down is saying "I do not view you as an equal and see you as being unable to think for yourself".

This is different to a child who is not an equal to a parent the first 18 years of their life.

Again...

An earring is either such a non-deal that a child (who cannot legally give consent until they're 16) can "decide" to get one, or they are such a big deal that the age of ear piercing should be moved to 16 when they can consent. But it can't be abuse until they're 3, 5, 10, 12, or whatever age they decide they want them at because they lack the ability to consent to an earring then as well.

But to answer your ridiculous question with a questions...

If a man had sex with an underage girl, is it ok because she said yes and consented? If so why? Or why not?

If not, then why would you allow a child to decide to pierce her own ears if it's such a big deal?

See? We can both ask questions out of context. :)

Ummm and you raised the issue of hyperbole

You are drowning in your own "logic" on this one....

Not really. I'm simply making a point that asking ridiculous questions that don't compare has nothing to do with a baby getting their ear pierced. In short, I am fitting into the parameters you established to show the illogical aspects of your post. Since you have recognized hyperbole, I can only assume you recognize it in your own post as well.

You can't sit there and compare two adults forcing control over each other to a mother making a choice for her baby. It's simply not the same thing, as much as you wish it to be so.

So first we must establish:

Can a child give consent? The answer is a resounding no.

Do earrings need consent? Well, if you feel it is ok to pierce the ears of any child under 18, then the answer is again no. You do not need informed consent to get your ears pierced, therefore, a baby is perfectly fine from a moral standpoint. If you feel the answer is yes, then we must raise the piercing age to 18 (or 16 in your country).

Parents are allowed to raise their children in the culture they choose. The problem is once again, the mother is not choosing this. A point that you are deliberately missing and getting hung up about on whether an earring is ethical or not.

One could argue religion is harmful, and yet we respect the parents decision all the same. That's the point, the mother is not choosing this, therefore we should not respect that culture is a valid reason for the ear piercing based on that, not the piercing itself.

The day DS arrived, he became my no 1 priority and yes, to me that includes overruling family members of they make a decision I don't agree with.
For example, infant baptism. My family is religious and there was the assumption DS would be baptised. I made it clear that my family wouldn't be the ones to make that decision for me/us and DH and I would choose for ourselves if it was going to happen.

Perhaps half the problem is that people just go along with 'traditions' regardless of feeling bad inside about them but let's face it, if people stood up for what they believed a bit more we could change these traditions for the better. Every big change that's happened has started with one person willing to fight!!

Things you do without your child's consent for purely cosmetic reasons:
Hair cuts
Outfits

Dressing children and putting clothes on them do not cause severe pain, injury or permanent scarring. To cause a child any of these things by dressing them or cutting their hair would absolutely be abuse.

If you could pierce a child's ears without causing pain, injury or permanent scarring, it would not be an abusive practice.

If a man had sex with an underage girl, is it ok because she said yes and consented? If so why? Or why not?

If not, then why would you allow a child to decide to pierce her own ears if it's such a big deal?

It isn't OK to pierce the ears of a child who gives consent but isn't old enough to understand the full implications of that consent. That is abusive. The same applies to having sex with them.

The law says that children under 16 aren't old enough to be able to give consent to sex. Being a simpler concept with less serious potential repercussions and without an adult involved with such a degree of self interest, it perhaps is reasonable to accept consent from a child to have their ears pierced at a younger age but the law does not stipulate one at the moment.

At what age should a child be able to give consent to ear piercing?

Can a child give consent? The answer is a resounding no.

Yes, a child can give consent and it is sought from children for all sorts of procedures every day, depending on whether it is developmentally appropriate to do so.

I am slightly stunned by these doctors who think this is a good thing. I wonder what else they think is acceptable?

To the posters who think it's OK to pierce a baby's ears would you also think it's OK for them to be given a small tattoo, say one on each ear lobe? Just a small dot, about the same size as the hole that would be left behind after piercing.

And if it's such a big deal that your female child must have adornments to their ears, why don't you just get clip-ons for them? Punching holes into the ear lobes of screaming babies who neither want or need them is not the only option.

It's against the law to tattoo under 18s in this country, and consent cannot be given for that, other than in a few specific medical circumstances.

It is not illegal to consent to ear piercing for a child of any age.

I doubt many people are actively in favour of it in the very young, BTW. It's quite possible to think a comparison to FGM is so out of proportion it's risible, based on the extremity of said comparison alone. Nothing whatsoever to do with personal views on appropriate age for earlobe piercing.

There are special consent procedures for children in hospitals. Children can consent (gillick competence) or withhold consent. Obviously that applies to older children. Babies have special consent procedures also, the benefits must outweigh the risks, as agreed by the team and parents. If one parent disagrees it can go to court.

The issue is that it has potential for harm, as stated, infection, scaring. We have been protected in society by antibiotics for quite a while, but they will eventually cease working. The concept in informed consent relatively new in medical circles, but certainly, you do need informed consent for any procedure.

Although we do allow a mother to make a risk benefit judgement for children, increasingly they are subject to scrutiny. In this case the mother doesn't seem to want the earrings.

Just because we can do something (take a child to have their ears done) doesn't make it right. There is not legislation for everything - legal highs are legal, but nevertheless dangerous.

Years ago it was tolerated that adults sometimes had sex with children. It didn't make it right, but a blind eye was turned. Years ago DV was tolerated and so was rape within marriage. Things change, views change. Whereas once it might have been acceptable, people start to object and then legislation usually follows public opinion.

Drs used to use patients who were under a GA to practice examining the patients private areas. The patient did not consent, as could not, and the practice became outdated and seen as morally unethical.

Yes, I know it's illegal to tattoo children and babies, rightly so imo. Do you think it should be legal to put tattoo small dot onto the earlobes of babies, just because the family want to though or do you think the law is right on this?

I think this would be very similar to piercing, both would leave a very small permanent scar, can cause medical complications, would be very painful for the child when done and are both completely unnecessary.

It's an interesting debate but very small holes in your ears seems somewhat trivial compared with losing your foreskin.

It's an interesting debate but very small holes in your ears seems somewhat trivial compared with losing your foreskin.

So does a bruise from corporal punishment but it's still defined as abusive and against the law.

When my dd was 9 weeks old, doctors picked up a heart murmur during a check up which we later discovered was caused by a hole in heart. My dds cardiologist has advised against piercings and tattoos for the rest of her life. They're just a pointless, unnecessary risk to her health so for your mum as doctor to pressure you is disgusting.

hmm. argy some people have it worse so why complain?

FGM parallels:

I can't remember exactly who I'm replying to now as this thread had got pretty big....

I'm sure nobody would say that ear piercing is 'as terrible as FGM', but I think the point is that there are a range of body modification procedures which are practiced around the within different cultures which have varying degrees of acceptability.

For example

• Cutting hair and nails. I doubt anyone objects to this, except in religions which stipulate not to cut various sections of hair.
• Piercing ears.
• Piercing other body parts, I imagine mostly noses in children from some Hindu cultures??
• Tattooing. there are a few cultures which tattoo children.
• cosmetic medical procedures eg. Removal of a harmless growth
• non medical circumcision
• FGM

Some are (I'm sure most of us would agree) fine and should be done, some utterly barbaric (FGM). Drawing a comparison between FGM and ear piercing in no way implies they are within the same realms of acceptability, it merely says that both are about changing the body without consent when done in children.

Guardian article on ear piercing in children.

www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jun/10/thousands-sign-petition-calling-for-ban-on-childrens-ear-piercings

I'd say what you feed your child in early years has much more impact on their long term health and wellbeing and on their enjoyment of life than ear piercing, and may well be as irreversible.

Or how about frenotomy? It is relatively frequent in the UK, but almost unheard of in other countries with a similar healthcare system (eg Canada - indeed the Canadian paediatric society's recent position statement is generally opposed to frenotomy in babies with tongue tie, and in the rare occasions where it should take place, the CPS clearly supports the use of anaesthetics : Statement). Compare this with NICE guidelines, which say anaesthetics are not necessary for infants, and frenotomy should be performed whenever the baby has difficulty BFing.

Are the mothers of babies who get a frenotomy also child abusers, Needa? The baby could easily be bottle fed instead. How about the parents of children who eat no vegetables and go on to develop obesity? How about parents of babies who are made to wear baby shoes when they're not even walking yet, do you call SS on them?

BTW not everyone in Asia belongs to 'some Hindu culture??' And nostril piercing remains popular among a wide variety of ethnic and religious groups, not just Hindu. Likewise when you say you 'doubt anyone would object to cutting hair', actually Sikhism strictly forbids any hair removal - not just of 'various sections of hair' but any hair at all.

Honestly, you don't seem well informed about other cultures. The fact you disapprove of something does not mean that thing is automatically abusive. I'm sure there are things you do that millions of parents around the world would find surprising/incomprehensible but that does not mean you are a child abuser.

And here is the position of the Royal College of GPs on ear piercing, as quoted in the link you posted:

Dr Tim Ballard, vice-chair of the Royal College of GPs, said: “Piercing the ear lobes of babies and toddlers, in the vast majority of cases is unlikely to cause lasting damage, but that is not to say it does not cause the child pain during and after the piercing.

“We would suggest that having your child’s ear lobes pierced should remain the choice and responsibility of parents and indeed, in some cases, culture will impact on this decision. However, we would strongly advise against having your child pierced anywhere else than on the ear lobe.

“If a parent does decide to have their child’s ear lobe pierced, it is essential that this is conducted properly, in hygienic conditions, by a suitably qualified person and that proper aftercare guidance is followed.”