we want to get our son circumsized but don't know if we should. any advise?

[juicychops]

the doctor has tried to advise us not to as it is an unnecessary surgical procedure. My partner is circumsized and we both agree it is much cleaner and hygenic but don't know if we should do it or not. has anyone had their young son circumsized? and advise?

yes and I answered it at 10:10:59 PM

Did anyone see my question at 10.35?

Sorry - had missed it
Thanks

As a new mother I remember the horror of the midwife pricking DD's heel to get some blood out of it to test her bilirubin levels for jaundice the thought of someone hurting my precious bub although it was helping her was horrible hearing her cries. I cannot imagine taking my little boy bub and letting someone chop off a bit of him even with pain relief.

That's just my opinion at 16 if he wanted to be circumsized then fair enough he's old enough to make the decision.

Sorry I'm not getting at anyone's choices for their children it's just my opinion.

Sweet
I agree. You've been hanging around N. America too long - 'circumciZed' and apologising excessively .

My dd1 had to have oads of blood tests during he rfirst week, in teh end her little hands were black and blue and they had to start on her feet . No wonder she screamed so much for months afterwards . I really believe that if there is any choice in the matter at all then babies should be spared pain.

I respect anyone's views but the person whose opinion matters the most is the person who cannot answer for himself yet.

Hunkermunker, I was just about to mention FGM. IMO, MGM is absolutely no different whatsoever. I don't have a son, but I would absolutely not ever consider FGM reasonable or necessary under any circumstances for my DD's, so am absolutely certain I'd feel the same about MGM for a baby boy.

I think that FGM differs in that it involves cutting away pretty much everything and stitching the vagina almost shut - but surely a light trim of the labia is similar to circumcision? Any takers for their newborn DDs? Thought not...

HM, to cut any baby girls or boys 'bits', to any extreme for asthetic or (doubtful) hygeine purposes, just doen't make sense to me either.

Talking of which (hygeine), girls bits secrete (as we all know) but for some reason, I don't think anyone would fling that about as a valid reason for a labia trim!

I'd never have considered circumcision for our ds's (except for medical reasons) and have found the idea pretty shocking since seeing my friend's newly-circumcised 3wk old baby rushed to hospital saturated in his own blood.

they don't do that in the hospital, before the baby comes home? yuk!!! that is torture after a child gets bigger.....!!!!!!!! my sister had her ds done when he was like four.....poor baby.....how old is your child?

HM, discussion of FGM is where the other thread really got heated. There are many types, one of which is the one you mentioned where there is cutting away of virtually everything and stitching almost closed. I believe they insert a straw during the healing process so that there is an opening large enough for menstrual flow. Then there is the procedure where they do a ritual cut just deep enough to draw blood. IMO, the point of it all is that all forms of FGM are ritual in nature with absolutely no medical necessity at all. I think everyone agrees with that. The place where it gets sticky is when one applies the same reasoning to male circumcision. There is still this disinformation that it is "healthier", "cleaner", and "more hygienic". It is also a ritual procedure, plain and simple. It was started in order to proclaim the ultimate sacrifice to God. It was revived amongst the general population in the Victorian era by Dr. Kellogg (of the cereal family) in the states as a means to stifle masturbation and there was also a less successful attempt at the same time to "circumcise" females. I am very happy that we left ds intact, but since I am pagan there was no reason for us to consider it for religious purposes.

Tissy, lets' talk medical research shall we ?

I quote from the British Medical Journal, 10 June 2000:

"There is conclusive epidemiological evidence to show that uncircumcised men are at a much greater risk of becoming infected with HIV than circumcised men".

Another quote in the same article:

"Neonatal circumcision is easy to perform, and has a low incidence of complications" (please read the aricle for references for this).

Sorry to everyone who says it's not more hygenic to be circumcised, but the medical evidence indicates that the foreskin is more susceptible to infection (not just HIV infection, all kinds of infection).

Here is a link to the full study plus other research on the matter. have a look at this
Medical practitioners are now recommending neonatal male circumsicion to prevent the spread of HIV in high risk countries. The UK may not be as high risk as parts of Africa, but it's pretty good medical evidence I think why a parent may want their child to be circumcised (irrespective of religion).

Sorry, the link I provided does not seem to work. Copy and paste this and it should work:

www. www.circumcisioninfo.com/circ_stdhiv.html

Here, as hyperlink .

Wow ... I hadn't known there were pro-circumcision websites. They seem about as balanced and reasonable as the antis.

By which I mean, not at all.

Not Quite - are you suggesting the British Medical Journal is not balanced and authoritative ?

It isn't a stranger to controversy either (see Autism research, early work of H Pylori etc)

Argument and debate is the normal state in academic research in all areas. It is how research works. The BMI is undoutibly a highly regarded, peer review journal. It doesn't mean tht everything published in it is 100% right either. Science isn't a religion. (and I'm a scientist!)

oh wow! What a heated debate. I opted not to have our ds1 'done' because I simply could not bear the thought of him being in pain. DH is 'done' and in Canada it was standard procedure for babies born in the 70's so DH's mum didn't really make a decision it just happened. Shortly after our ds1 was born DH was still uncertain about how to proceed but as soon as the GP asked if we wished to have him circumcised DH promply answered, "NO!" His reason was that he found it hard enough to hear his son cry in the bath and would not be able to justify a surgical procedure in order for his son to look the same as himself.

This is where our story takes an interesting turn: DS1 is nearly 8 and his foreskin is very tight so he may need to be circumcised yet. ds2 who is 3 has a similar 'shaped' foreskin and I fear that he may need the surgical procedure as well. I feel heart-sick to think that they will both remember this painful event for the rest of their lives but still stand firm that I made the best decision at the time. I would certainly not be able to remove my daugter's breats at birth even though she faces a far greater risk of breast cancer than my sons do of complications with their foreskins.

happymerryberries - I accept what you say. I don't follow medical research blindly. For example, despite the fact that medical evidence subsequently indicated that there is no link between autism and the old baby vaccines, I delayed my babies 2, 3 and 4 month vaccines until the arrival of the new 5 in 1 because these vaccines are supposed to be far safer. Medical research may one day say otherwise again. We don't know. All we can do is make decisions on current research. The overwhelming medical research on baby circumsicion at the current time, is that it is an extremely safe and uncomplicated procedure which causes little pain if any, if done under proper medical supervision. If someone could provide me with EVIDENCE that this is not the case, I will shut up.

Many people on this website seem to just come up with anecdotes and I find it extremely irritating. I would rather read the research and come up with my own well-thought, logical conclusion, then go by someone's ancedotal story.

Apart from giving funnyonion my own anecdote about my beautiful son, I thought it might be useful for her to read the medical research in order to make her decision. Of course she should read the anti-circumsicion research as well. No one said she shouldn't.

no evidence of the link between autism and the old jabs. You shoulud see my little stimmy boy shrieking next to me at the moment, (and then read Hornig et al 2004) 9Incidentally the old jabs were withdrawen fairly rapidly after publication of Hornig et al's work).

Back to circ. Knew this would get heated- although I don't think its quite reached the levels of last time.

FWIW I have 3 sons, all intact, although I suspect that ds2 may need something done to it in the future. Seems a bit tight to me (and he doesn't play with it nearly enough, whereas ds1 has stretched his beyond belief).

I don't buy the hygeine argument, but I do understand why someone with strong religious beliefs would get it done. And I kind of understand Twiglett's reasoning.

Another one here whose DP is (born in US, Muslim dad), but whose DP didn't even think about it if we'd had a boy - when I asked him if he'd want it, he looked quite perplexed and said 'no, why?'

kookool, I don't think the BMJ comes out in favour of circumcision, they've published papers in favour of it, I'm sure they've published papers against.

I'm anti-circumcision, but find the anti-circ sites a bit hardcore ... as you'd expect from people who've devoted significant amounts of time arguing either side of this argument.

Jimjams. Dh has what is called (I think) a frenectomy (sp?). The part of the foreskin that attaches it to the base of the glans was too short. It was loosened with a simple cut (one stitch needed) and now it retracts with no probelms at all. A full circumcision isn't always needed even if there are problems with retraction. Initialy the docs thought that dh would need a circumcision, but in the end it wasn't needed.