circumcision yes or no

[morocco]

My 5 month old has a tight foreskin and doctors here recommend circumcision but Im really not keen. I spoke to docs in the UK and they said to wait and see but then I started worrying about whether it would be traumatic for him to be circumcised at say 4 or older and whether it might be better to just go ahead now. Has anyone been through this with a child of this age/older? All advice gratefully received

gosh is this discussion still going??
Monkey esp thanks for all your comments and sorry to hear you have been having similar trouble with your little boy. Should you want further info about having the op under la then perhaps I could put you in touch with a doc out here.
Bozza - will try to be less dramatic in titles for threads next time
sml2 thanks for all info about circumcisions for toddlers. I've spoken to more friends out here about the op and have heard some positive stories which has been reassuring so if in the future it should be nec I will be much less apprehensive about the whole thing
Everyone else too numerous to mention - do you realise the bad effect this site has had on my marriage - my hubby is now convinced I am having an internet affair I spend so long on the computer

morocco, hope you have found some useful info on this thread. good luck with whatever you decide.

btw aloha, i'm guilty of child abuse according to your definition. i have deliberately caused pain to my much loved ds. i'm talking about vaccinations. i'd much rather he had the pain and fear of a vaccination that suffer the complicatons of a preventable disease. i do think there is a parallel with this situation with those parents who choose to have their boys circumcised for religious reasons.

if i were jewish or muslim, i'd be very offended by your comments.

i think your eloquence is misplaced on this occasion. there is no comparison between male and female circumcision in terms of the devastating effect on the child in later life.

the comparison between circumcising a boy and stoning a woman for adultery is so wide of the mark it undermines your arguments imo.

No, aloha, I don't understand. To me it's worse to kill someone than to maim someone. So yes, it's different. Yes, different. I fully respect your decision to condemn circumcision. But I think it's wrong and disrespectful to compare it to women who have been stoned to death.

Both my boys have been circumcised. I don't consider myself a child abuser and I don't think that I've caused them undue pain (it didn't hurt while healing and they both had anaesthetic). That having been said, I'm not sure I'd do it again. But truthfully, I feel worse about the arguments my son and I have in the morning while getting him dressed.

'Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean its wrong'.

WELL SAID MEGG. Can't believe some of the comments and analogies being made on this thread. And I'm really disappointed, Aloha, in your suggestion that parents who opt for circumcision must not really love their children. It's fine that you feel strongly about this but everyone else also has a right to their own opinion without being accused of something as serious as child abuse.

I find this comment so strange. I hardly had an opinion about circumcision except that it would never cross my mind to do it to a son. But to imply that those who do it don't really love a child is absurd. That's a large proportion of the world's population.

Only America, alone in the Christian world, is still attached to this surgery. While 60% of American males are circumcised (down from 90% in the 1960s) only 17% of Canadian males are; among Britons, 5%.
Under the pressure of argument, ten states have stopped Medicaid coverage for circumcision. These states - Arizona, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, California, Mississippi, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon and Washington - are expected to be followed by others this year.
The American Academy of Paediatrics in 1999 and the American Medical Association in 2000 withdrew their recommendations for circumcision as a routine neonatal procedure.
The Australian Medical Association stated in 1996 "The Australian College of Paediatrics should continue to discourage the practice of circumcision in newborns".
In the last few years there have been various legal cases in the US and Australia, mainly relating to botched operations - excessive skin removed resulting in bleeding during adult erections; deformity of the penis due to incompetence; death of infants. Legal actions relating to circumcision being an assault are in preparation.
Judge Rothe-Seeger, who presided over a recent trial in Cass County District Court (parents suing for alleged lack of information prior to their consent for infant circumcision) suggested that the boy could sue his parents some day if he could show that they failed to act in his best interests.
Female genital mutilation is illegal in the West (and Britain is extending the law to cover anyone taking a child out of the UK for the operation). In parts of Africa, FGM is arranged by a girl's mother or aunts "out of their love for her". Around the world, male genital mutilation is still legal.
Footbinding is incomprehensible to most people but it was once accepted cultural practice in the East, and people there could justify it amongst themselves. Up to a few years ago, it was possible to see African people in the UK who had had their faces mutilated (stripes cut into their cheeks) as children in Africa. Doubtless their elders had thought this was culturally desirable.
If there are genuine health reasons for the operation then it makes sense, but to use the prophylactic argument is nonsense. Would a girl routinely be given a double mastectomy if there were a family history of breast cancer?
The saddest part of this issue is seen in the number of men attempting foreskin restoration by surgical or non-surgical methods.
If you have a son and are considering circumcision please delay until you've viewed these websites

www.cirp.org
www.noharmm.org
www.mothersagainstcirc.org

These are detailed websites and I'm certain that some of the information will surprise you as much as it surprised me.

Terrific post, StuartC.

Aloha, people like you make it hard for people like me to add anything to a debate. You have put it so well.

"There are people posting on this thread talking cold-bloodedly and totally callously about getting their babies operated on for no good medical reason. So this is Ok and posting against it isn't? "

That is it in a nutshell. FOR NO GOOD MEDICAL REASON is the crux. Why oh why would anyone do that? Why is is not ok to speak against such religious/cultural practices, when there are religious/cultural practices we are ALL agreed are abhorent and noone minds us speaking out against them?

Aloha I hope you stick around. Your eloquence is NOT misplaced.

fallala, do you really think circumcising a boy is the equivalent of stoning a woman to death?

Tonsils were routinely removed a few short years ago, does anyone remember that?!!! Talk about removing a body part for no good reason - people who hadn't had any problems with them still had them removed. But was everyone up in arms about that? NO!! Amazing how circumcision gets mentioned and all hell breaks loose, it's just ridiculous.

Fallala, you may agree with Aloha but I found some of her comments quite offensive, so obviously not everyone thinks the same way as you do.

bossykate no of course I don't.
You seem to be missing the point. The fact circumcision is an intrinsic part of some cultures does not exempt it from rational discussion.
Libby65 I WOULD most certainly be up in arms if a doctor suggested removing my kid's tonsils if there was absolutely no medical reason,I'm sure you would too, so thanks for offering a good analogy.

fallala, i think comparing male v. female circumcision, and male circumcision v. stoning a woman for adultery brings the debate outside the bounds of rational discussion. apologies if my point went over your head.

I am astounded by the utter arrogance of you people here who accuse parents of not loving their children.

Leaving stoning people out of it. How would you describe people who allow their children to suffer with dental pain caused by the diet their parents provide (good old ribena, bikkies and sunny delight etc). and have sleepless nights for weeks and end up having to have GA for multiple extractions. Many of them under 5's. Are the parents abusing the kids by
i) providing conditions for disease
ii) not seeking treatment earlier for this preventable disease (dental decay that is) until it needs surgery, GA, needles, lots more blood than circumcision, post-op pain and possible long term implications (admittedly mostly cosmetic).

This is a mildly absurd comparison, but I wonder if by your definitions it could be 'abuse' and lack of love. In actual fact, it is down to socio-economic status of parents and marketing ploys of food/drink industry. If it is abuse, then from what I have seen then 10-30% of parents in an average area practise it.

My apologies for the very dull post but pleeeese stop considering yourselves the best parents out there and give people a break.

I agree with your comments Bossykate.

Libby65, tonsils were removed quite regularly a few years ago, not for "no good medical reason" but to prevent infections, in patients who had recurrent tonsillitis. No-one advocated removing tonsils in patients who didn't have problems with them. We now know (as a result of research) that this is not necessary. This is completely different from removing a foreskin that is, and is likely to remain healthy, for reasons of cultural or religious tradition or, even worse, the aesthetic appeal of one or both of its parents. Sorry, but you have cosen a bad analogy

bk you STILL misunderstand me, your point didn't go over my head at all.
I am not comparing male and female circumcision.

I am saying that the fact any practice is done for cultural/religious reasons ( which those from other cultures might not understand )does not exempt it from debate.

Tissy, I happen to know that tonsils were removed in quite a few people who hadn't experienced any problems with them. Tonsils were thought to 'serve no purpose' years ago. I don't think it was such a bad analogy, that's just your opinion.

Sorry but people on this thread have gone over the top in their comments about circumcision, and I have to agree with clucks' observation about people considering themselves to be 'better parents' just because they don't believe in circumcision.

I think the key word here is 'rational'.

"I am saying that the fact any practice is done for cultural/religious reasons ( which those from other cultures might not understand )does not exempt it from debate."

fallala, i agree with this point. i just don't believe that sensationalist comparisons contribute to rational debate.

I'm not going to get into a huge debate about tonsillectomy, I haven't the time or inclination to find papers to back up my opinion. However, tonsils were removed to prevent a theoretical risk of infection (whether real or supposed), not just because they were there and served no purpose. Ritual and "aesthetic" circumcision of boys is not intended to prevent any real or supposed infection, but to make the boy look like his father, whether for religious reasons, or otherwise.

"Cultural" circumcision may be intended to improve hygiene and reduce the risk of infection, but in fact we know that it is in most cases possible to keep the penis clean without circumcision. I am not opposed to circumcision in older boys where scarring (phimosis) makes it impossible to retract the foreskin, as long as it is done as painlessly as possible, by someone who is qualified to do the operation, and deal with any complications that occur.

BTW, I am deliberately using the word "operation", that's what it is. Even the plastibell method can go wrong if not performed correctly.

I am opposed to circumcision in boys for whom there is no sound medical reason. I am not accusing anyone of being a bad parent, and not claiming to be a better parent than anyone, just stating my reasons for my view.

Aloha, fallala, Mum2Toby and Stuart C, serious question....can we take it as read that you feel as disgusted about ear-piercing as you do about circumcision? or does this not revile you so much as it is part of 'your' culture?

Ear piercings heal. You can't regrow a foreskin.

Ear piercing is usually (in western cultures) done by choice of the person being pierced. Newborns don't choose. Don't think there is much analogy at all.

Sorry, I'm not on the list above (below), but to respond...

I disapprove of ear-piercing done to babies (yes it is done around here quite often, but I'm not sure if I really consider SW Scotland as my culture ).In these cases it is being done because the mother wants it, not because the child does. It also carries risks of infection if not carried out correctly ( and even if it is carried out correctly, sometimes).

I had my ears pierced, for aesthetic reasons, when I was 18 (one of the first things I spent my student grant on ).I wouldn't let my daughter have her ears pierced until she is at least 16, and I would make sure she knew what could go wrong, and that goes for any other sort of piercing, as well. Ear piercing is nothing like circumcision, btw, it is over in an instant, and only momentarily painful, unless infection sets in. That is not, however, a reason to do it to children.

People do not shun me beause I do or do not have my ears pierced- I am accepted as a member of my Church with pierced ears, even though the majority of communicants are unpierced. Its different.

Lil - strange question!! But Yes. The thought of putting my newborn through an ear-piercing also sends shivers down my spine. It revolts me. Ear piercing is a matter of choice for the individual.

Quite frankly I think the comparison is flippant.

I knew it..how dare I question a Western cultural act? ..interesting reaction eh? its the best analogy so far (certainly better than stoning ): Here in the UK babies and young children have a needle driven into the tender skin of the earlobe to create a hole - this is done without their consent with to no medical purpose. Sometimes this is done with an aneasthetic cream and sometimes with no pain relief at all. A foreign device is put into this hole to stop the skin healing back. Instead scar tissue forms to enable a parent to insert ornaments in said hole.

I am NOT being flippant, there are stark similarities between this and circumcision..at least admit it, even if you don't like it!