GP not being very helpful regarding Circumcision

[Debster7808]

I went to see the GP recently at the first check-up after DS2 was born, and I said that because DS1 was circumcised (-he was born in US, where it kind of gets done as a routine just after boys are born-), we wanted to get DS2 done as well, while he's still a newborn. I was really surprised when the GP tried to talk me out of getting it done, which means that I'm a bit lost as to where next to turn to get this done. I can understand that circumcision isn't available on the NHS, which is fine, but if I want to go private, don't I need a GP referral? Should I just seek a second GP's opinion?
Anyone have any experience of getting their boys circumcised in a culture that generally doesn't do it?

MrsPotter I had my perfectly legitimate opinion deleted as well. There certainly wasn't any insults or offensive language in it. What you learn at this site is that there are powers that be who will delete posts and ban people if you disagree with them...tragic, but true.

Termination affects no one but the woman carrying the foetus.

Circumcision affects another human being. FOR LIFE. Possibly against their wishes. Given them no choice in how they look. Given them no opportunity to decide.

A mother who circumcising her son is deciding what is best for him.
A woman terminating a pregnancy is deciding what is better for her.

Your question really has no place on this debate as it is not even really comparable. Now stop asking & stop missing the point!

Oh and regarding it not hurting - I think it does, both immediately and in the following few weeks/months.

I've posted about it before but there was a classic psychology experiment done in the US that was looking at the differences in behaviour between baby boys and girls. Amongst other results, it found a really significant difference between boys and girls and the amount they cried - boys cried significantly more.

When somebody tried to replicate the results in the uk they could - everything apart from the cring where boys and girls were the same.

They tried again in the US - again boys cried much more.

Finally somebody realised the main difference between British and American baby boys is that American boys had been circumcised. When they looked again they found that girls and un-circumcised boys cried pretty much the same amount.

Circumcised boys on the other hand cried significantly more for a period of weeks or months beyond when they had the operation. The conclusion was that the circumcision caused the boys to cry more over that time period because it caused them pain for that time. :(

Another Yank here. I lived in the US till I was 26, saw my fair share of penises, all circumcised. An uncircumcised penis was like some mythical being, whispered about among my friends, but no one had actually ever seen one.

Till the exchange student from Germany. . .

My experience is that in the (ahem) aroused state, it doesn't really look that much different. Honestly had been expecting a foreskin to be, well...a bit more of a big deal. I mean, why else would everyone have had to have it lopped off at birth? That encounter started me on a path to questioning why it was so common in the U.S. and vowing I'd never do it to my future children (a promise that was much easier to keep living here).

Point being, for something that makes such minimal difference to appearance, but such a huge difference to sensation, why on earth would anyone EVER slice off a bit of a baby's genitals if not medically necessary?

Don't think it is true everyone in Canada does it. A quick google suggests that it has been advised AGAINST by the Canadian Paediatric Society since 1975!

www.cirp.org/library/statistics/Canada/

This statistic is also interesting (Canadian article but about the UK):

"When circumcision was categorized as cosmetic surgery by England's health system in 1948, and the system no longer reimbursed physicians, circumcision rates fell to below 0.5%--without an increase in infections or corresponding increase in cervical cancer among women"

www.canadiancrc.com/Circumcision_Genital_Mutilation_Male-Female_Children.aspx

OP, which other parts of your new born child's body are you planning to have sliced off for no good reason? I wish that the law treated this as assault at least, or even better GBH.

OP, which other parts of your new born child's body are you planning to have sliced off for no good reason? I wish that the law treated this as assault at least, or even better GBH.

I agree with all the people saying it is pretty horrible to lop off part of your child UNLESS medically neccesary. Any other reason is wrong unless the child is choosing for himself. Some arguments are plain silly. Wanting a child to look like his father for example! I have heard that before. Are you going to change the hair colour etc too if they have different? Changing the genitalia of boys or girls is WRONG unless it is NEEDED medically. PLEASE rethink.

Me too MrsPotter wasn't offensive - and certainly not as offensive as mutilating a child because you want something 'different'.

Certainly not as offensive as most of you on here

Absolutely do not agree with this procedure but this may be of help.

And frankly I fail to see how anyone can think abortion is more acceptable than circumcision.

ANd that is likely to spark a few more pages of ignorant nonsense

Well if you don't post Pocksrule it probably won't.

Pocksrule it's apples and oranges, isn't it? The circumstances around deciding whether to have a termination, and the consequences of that decision, whatever it is, are totally different. The consequences of not having a circumcision are - well, are there any?

I have posted this on a similar thread some time ago.

I worked in a hospital in USA in the 80s. Baby boys were routinely circumcised, by the obstetricians, for a fee. The paediatricians, on the other hand, would have nothing to do with it.

Babies were strapped onto things called "circ boards". A sort of plastic baby shaped jelly mould with vecro straps to hold them down. In most cases no anaesthetic was given. It was the most distressing and barbaric thing I have ever seen in my life.

The babies initially screamed, but rapidly went into a state of shock. They suffered pain and distress every time they wet their nappy for the next few days.

In my opinion it is entirely a money making excercise. It still distresses me today when I remember it. It was one of the reasons I came back to the UK.

OMG that is horrible 3littlefrogs

"Babies were strapped onto things called "circ boards". A sort of plastic baby shaped jelly mould with vecro straps to hold them down. In most cases no anaesthetic was given. It was the most distressing and barbaric thing I have ever seen in my life.

The babies initially screamed, but rapidly went into a state of shock. They suffered pain and distress every time they wet their nappy for the next few days."

bloody hell

a 'Circ board'

My friend, a midwife in an area with a high muslim population, says that the babies scream and then go ridgid with shock, gasping for breath.

That think looks like a torture instrument. I don't see how anyone in their right mind would put a baby through such a dreadful thing. If ds had had to have it done (when he was about 3) it would have been with an anaesthetic.

Indie your friend's description is spot on. Wish I hadn't clicked on the link. I never want to see one of those things again.

I think it is the part of doing it without anaesthetic that I don't understand. It was bad enough watching ds being jabbed a number of times a day and in the end not bothering to cry that I found difficult to cope with. I had no choice as he was seriously ill. I couldn't live with myself if my choice of having his willy 'look nicer' (to quote the OP) was the reason for his pain.