Mums with circumcised boys

[WaitTillFebruary]

Hi,
I'm due in the second week of February and am expecting a baby boy. This will be our second boy and my husband and I have decided to have him circumcised as soon as possible after he is born.
We have gathered that circumcision is not available in the NHS unless for medical reasons. This leaves us going down the private route, which is a path we are unfamiliar with.
Does anyone have any advice as to where one can go (preferably in London) to have one's newborn baby boy circumcised privately?

You know, if you just wanted to know who you could pay in London to mutilate your child's genitals, that information is googleable.

Posting it on a public forum means that other posters, who think that this is a disgusting practice that should be illegal, can & will comment.

'rabid anti-circumcision fanatics'

Used to work at one of the LONDON private hospitals that did this. Barbaric. No other word for it. The babies would scream so hard they would go silent. Of course, the parents would only see them after they had calmed down and believe it's no biggie having your foreskin chopped off. As a nurse I will never witness that again- it's one of the reasons I moved back into the nhs.

I just find the language of these threads too emotionally charged to take them seriously.

DS1 had to have a circumcision, at 5yo as his foreskin was so tight that it had fused with the skin on the tip of his penis. We had to deal with many infections, issues with constant pain, issues with getting him out of nappies, having little bladder control, fear of going to the loo, etc. I hope for dear god that nobody will accuse us of mutilating our child, that he will not be stigmatised about this as an adult because of how people can misjudge individual circumstances and use unnecessary emotional accusations.

We also have a DS2 who is not circumcised and it never occurred to me to do it for a non-health related condition.

I hope for dear god that nobody will accuse us of mutilating our child, that he will not be stigmatised about this as an adult because of how people can misjudge individual circumstances and use unnecessary emotional accusations

Why would they? Do people do that when people have their tonsils or appendix out? No because it was medically necesary. You didnt take him at birth to have it off just because you could.

OP, my son was recently circumcised at the IMC circumcision clinic in Wembley. We were very happy with the treatment and option of after care (which we didn't need!). Pm me if you want to discuss further.

Strictly c but that's exactly what we're all saying - op's ds1 had a medical procedure due to need. The op has decided to mutilate ds2 for no reason.

Difference : circumcision if medically necessary is fine
Circumcision if not medically necessary is wrong

Reading about these 'clinics' and them boasting about having 40" LED TV's. Yep that's just what you need whilst putting your child through a pointless, barbaric procedure.

Oh and the comments from 'happy customer's I gave Dr Al-Ali and Mohamed a tea towel each of local county scenes as a thank you

I think op's reasoning isn't so that they will match but because ds1 needed it doing, she bizarrely figures she may as well lop ds2's off just in case he needs it doing at some point as a preventative measure.

Which obviously is ridiculously over the top and unnecessary. I will gladly be called 'rabid' for being disgusted that someone would decide to mutilate their baby with no medical cause.

Strictly-c. Medical reasons is a whole other issue, and of course it will benefit your baby and improve his quality of life.

The argument here is against putting a tiny baby through a painful procedure, and exposing them to infection risk etc, with no benefit to the child.

Amputate a dogs tail because it gets caught in doors/in bushes and risks the dogs wellbeing, fine. Amputate it because it's traditional for that breed = animal abuse and illegal.

My older son is circumcised, as is every male I have ever seen naked in the flesh. (I'm American). Well, strike that. Two little boys in my career as a nursery worker.

If Baby #3 (due in June) is a boy, I will not be having him done.

This terrifies me tbh. I know it's right but it's just seen as the done thing and I don't want him to feel strange or be stigmatized as he gets older. It's enough to make me hope for a girl. However, I'm not doing it. I was railroaded into it with my DS by the Dr when I was younger and dazed from birth.

That won't be happening again.

CheerfulYank good for you. It must be really hard for you going against the grain with what's been the 'norm' in your circles, but I really do think you're doing the right thing.

If all the language used to describe circumcision revolves around abuse, mutilation, etc then men who are circumcised will be judged by it, singled out, boys will be bullied, singled out, etc. Nobody will ask them 'was it for medical reasons? Then it's fine, we won't bully you'.

Yeah a lot of Americans like to cut things off. I had a bizarre argument about declawing cats the other night to protect a chair

I'm glad you're not having it done cheerful just tell the Dr in advance that you'll sue his arse if he's a pest about it or something.

Is it me or have there been some proper intense threads being posted the past few days?

A relative of my DP's tried to talk DP and I into having DS circumsised because he himself had it done as an adult due to a medical condition. In his idiot mind, he seemed to think that meant our DS should have it done because of the tiny chance he might develop a medical issue when older (it was nothing genetic and nothing to suggest he would). By that logic, we would have to remove all his body parts in case he did anything to them in the future.

Relative was told in no uncertain terms where to go and that we wouldn't be mutilating DS and cutting parts off his genitals for no good reason whatsoever.

CheerfulYank - I spend time on facebook groups where there's a big base in the US. They are largely anti-circumcision and they say they have to make it clear on birth plans and medical records and even say it every time they go to the paediatrician that no one is to retract the foreskin. They have sone horrible stories about sons having to have circumcisions because the foreskin has been retracted by the doctors and got infected or been damaged otherwise (torn stuff i expect)

rabid anti-circumcision fanatics

That'd be the vast majority of the UK population then.

DH was hopping when he saw the page about circumcision in the red book. He was pleased that it was made clear that it was not available on the NHS unless medically necessary, but thought it shouldn't even have been mentioned so as not to give people ideas. He stomped around muttering 'barbaric' for several minutes.

No, they wont strictly you are being quite over dramatic. Possibly due to fear which is understandable but misplaced.

Sorry for the responses op. I think you asked a v reasonable question and have had a barrage of abuse.

I post this as a Jewish person with a son who is not circumcised. What op chooses to do to her son is none of your business. Because I am Jewish many people have asked me about my son and whether he is circumcised. My response has always been 'when my son is old enough to decide whether he wants you to know about his penis he will decide whether to answer your obtrusive question.

If I were you op I would ask the local Jewish or Muslim community for recommendations. But I have a friend who had it done by a doctor at the hospital where their son was born - UCH - so you could start by asking your midwife whether there is provision for it to be done in the hospital where he is born by a doctor.

If all the language used to describe circumcision revolves around abuse, mutilation, etc then men who are circumcised will be judged by it, singled out, boys will be bullied, singled out, etc. Nobody will ask them 'was it for medical reasons? Then it's fine, we won't bully you'

Sorry but lets call a spade a spade. The removal of a body part for no reason is mutilation. If I went and chopped someone's arm off in theatre with no reason to do so, I would have mutilated someone. If someone gets said arm cut off because they've got necrotic tissue and it needs to be done, then that isn't mutilation it's a valid medical procedure - amputation.

What op chooses to do to her son is none of your business

Its her sons business. And he's too young to have a say.

And sorry but would you say that to a parent having their daughter's genitals mutilated? 'its not of your business'

What op chooses to do to her son is none of your business.

She is talking about it on a public forum. You dont want public opinion? Dont post in a public place.

Also, the mutiliation of children is very much everyone's business.

I don't think it's none of my business.
If a parent harms their child then society intervenes. This is harming a child and should not be legal.

Grey, you've just proved my point; if you think and believe that chopping someone's arm is equivalent to the removal of foreskin, then you live in cloud land. There is no credibility to your argument.

Should be able to find someone in the Jewish community (North London) who will do it for you at your house. X