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?

That's great that administering local anaesthetic prior to mutilating your son's penis makes for less hassle. I'm sure that your baby would fully agree.

I find it inexplicable that anyone can birth to a perfectly healthy baby boy and make the decision on his behalf that part of his body isn't necessary and that you will pay somebody to cut it off. What on earth gives you the right to decide that? What if you just decided that his nipples didn't serve any purpose and decided to slice them off with a scalpel? Fucking lunacy.

Oh gosh, Grays, when I said

Argh paste fail. When I said about the retractableness I meant that people should worry if their toddler's didn't. I meant don't force it, it isn't necessary, not that it must be done by age six.

Oh I know Rogan sorry if it came across that I was trying to say you said otherwise. Just wanted to add that it happens a lot later for some boys

The justification in many cases is that the religious teachings say so, isn't it? Quite why this practice is allowed to continue in the 21st century is beyond me, but the State is often very reluctant to interfere in religious matters so I imagine it's not going to disappear any time soon, sadly.

One change I have noticed in recent years. More and more religious people will now say that there are also health benefits to getting it done since they know people will disapprove of doing it just to please god.

This seems hypocritical because if the health advice changed - if it turned out that circumcision causes some terrible disease in later life - they'd still have to have it done wouldn't they. Because it's god's will.

Elphaba the AAP's official statement is apparently that the benefits outweigh the risks but that it's not enough to reccomend it done to all healthy newborns.

I'm sure it's worded that way to keep it covered by insurance.

I noticed the OP hasn't come back, can't say that I blame her, but just in case she's lurking on the thread, we had DS circumcised at the Portland and had no problems with the care or procedure.

From what I recall, if it's done prior to 6 months they'll use local anesthesia after 6 months they use a general.

Good luck and congratulations.

Oddly I have an anatomically correct baby boy doll that my parents purchased for me in the late 80s that is uncircumcised. Odd for America at that time, I mean. Also odd given what prudes my parents are. :o

Who would take the risk of putting their baby under a GA just to get their foreskin removed? I mean seriously! Is it really so important they would risk their baby dying for it?

It makes me sick, actually physically makes my stomach turn when I see parents and their babies in hospital through no fault of their own, going through painful procedures because something has gone wrong... then you get these idiots who have got physically perfect babies but STILL aren't happy.

Who would take the risk of putting their baby under a GA just to get their foreskin removed

Absolutely agree - or the pain of a local. If anyone has ever had a local anaesthetic you'll know just how painful that is - can you imagine having that injected into one of your most sensitive areas? And inflicting that willingly on your new baby?

Makes me feel physically sick too.

I don't really understand the reasoning behind it (beyond 'someone said that god said so'). The fact that the NHS don't do it for non-medical reasons is quite telling.

So I think it seems cruel to subject a baby to this. Like good old ear piercing in maternity wards in some places. I know 2 adults who had it done (one medical reason, one converting) and by all accounts it is one of the most painful things you can have done to you. A cousin had their son done (in hospital the US) and the poor mite got a nasty infection and was very sick as a result.

I don't think the OP really explained why the decision was made, and I'm sure it wasn't a whim, but she does need to consider the pros and cons and not get so defensive (yes, people in RL will ask).

If anyone has ever had a local anaesthetic you'll know just how painful that is - can you imagine having that injected into one of your most sensitive areas?

Yep i had one after childbirth so my stitches could be done. However it didnt take properly which apparently is quite common! And so i felt every stitch which i have to say was the most excruciating part of the whole childbirth experience. Thankfully they also gave me gas and air which helped somewhat. Those poor babies get none of that and i can only imagine having skin cut off is far more painful than having a needle put through it. Its fucking barbaric that anyone would choose to do that to their child for no reason.

I had stitches done after minor surgery and know how it feels to have flesh cut without it (the surgeon gave me anarsthetic jabs when I said 'ooooouch'). It bloody hurts like hell, and still hurts once the anaesthetic wears off.

I don't ever understand the religious reasons - because God said so.
In the Old Testament, an awful lot of very weird and wrong things are done, yet these are conveniently ignored. Why carry on cutting off a body part that is now found to not be useless and unclean?

I don't think the OP was having it done for religious reasons, or she would already have a contact to do the job.

Anyway it seems she has flounced off, and her poor little boy is going to be cut about.

No, I don't think she was - it was just something I had suggested as a reason for why many people choose to have it done

Although there is absolutely no justification for it whatsoever imo. HoHo is spot on - the various holy books say all kinds of things, many of which are conveniently ignored nowadays.

Poor wee mite. I wonder how many parents would be so up for it if they had to hold their baby during the procedure they don't actually need.

Gross.

Slicing baby's genitals for no good reason is not my idea of fun.

So I asked all my nurse friends who work with premature babies about pain relief during minor procedures. Nurses from Australia, New Zealand, Canada, London, Cambridge and Blackpool and they all used sucrose (sugar solution). The girl in Canada used emla cream but no one else. So I'm wondering if the poster upthread works there or in America, it's definitely not done here on new babies. I find people can be very argumentative on here because it's easy. Glad I have been backed up by friends working in other good hospitals.