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?

Sorry going round in circles ! Always happens on this website.

I NEVER said the BMJ comes out in favour of circs. I referred you to ONE particular piece of research done by the BMJ which says that there is ovwerwhelming evidence that uncircumcised men are more prone to HIV infection beacuse of the bilogical makeup of the foreskin. Please read the article.

The BMJ does in fact favour neonatal circumcision in high risk HIV countries, mostly in Africa, where the spread of HIV has led to thousands of deaths.

You might say what does this have to do with my DS born in UK, not Africa. Fair point. I just found the research extremely interesting and wanted to share it because of the many individuals who have claimed that circumcision is not more hygenic. In fact in some parts of the world it may be an absolute necessity.

Just to be pedantic (and I'm asking because I am not sure), is it the editorial of the BMJ that is putting forward the proposal, or someone that has been published in the BMJ? the two things are not the same

It appeared under "Education and Debate", hmb. I can see no evidence that such articles are peer-reviewed. Indeed, the full discussion is extremely enlightening. It's a bit selective (to put it mildly) to quote the original piece without any of the follow-up. I don't know if it's open access, but it's here . The follow-up comments have titles such as "Nature has not made a design error" and "Some science would not have gone amiss" (my personal favourite). I'l gladly paste some of th follow-ups if anyone wants to read them and can't access the whole thing.

Since someone asked here's a link to one of the foreskin restoration sites.

Juicychops - we know your opinion, you've explained it quite well. What's your son's opinion?

OK, I just have to cope and paste this bit from one of the responses:

"Szabo and Short's article on male circumcision and HIV places them in splendid solidarity with Victorian notions of sex and hygiene, together with tribal initiation rituals. They are completely isolated from their major peer medical organisations, not one of which endorses routine infant circumcision as a prophylactic measure despite over 100 years of pressure brought to bear by circumcisers."

happymerry - that's a fair point. I don't know the answer to that.

However, the article says that at the time (2000) there were over 40 studies which showed that male circumcision provides significant protection against HIV (i.e. it is not just this ONE research published in the BMJ).

This is a quote from the BMJ article I have referred to:

"there is now compelling epidemiological evidence from over 40 studies which shows that male circumcision provides significant protection against HIV infection; circumcised males are two to eight times less likely to become infected with HIV.2 Furthermore, circumcision also protects against other sexually transmitted infections, such as syphilis and gonorrhoea, 3 4 and since people who have a sexually transmitted infection are two to five times more likely to become infected with HIV,5 circumcision may be even more protective. The most dramatic evidence of the protective effect of circumcision comes from a new study of couples in Uganda who had discordant HIV status; in this study the woman was HIV positive and her male partner was not.6 No new infections occurred among any of the 50 circumcised men over 30 months, whereas 40 of 137 uncircumcised men became infected during this time. Both groups had been given free access to HIV testing, intensive instruction about preventing infection, and free condoms (which were continuously available), but 89% of the men never used condoms, and condom use did not seem to influence the rate of transmission of HIV. These findings should focus the spotlight of scientific attention onto the foreskin."

Please refer to the article for details of the authors and their references.

I've already explained about the status of the article koolkool. There's a very interesting link at the end of the article to a review by a surgeon. Here's his last two paragraphs:

"Is circumcision an assault? Surgery would be close to the legal definition of assault if no consent was given and no anaesthetic or analgesia was used. Circumcision done this way is still common place in many parts of the world where five to ten year old boys are held down on the kitchen table by their uncles while another male family member cuts off the foreskin. This is physically cruel and potentially dangerous and must leave major psychological scars. Neonatal circumcision, if done without an anaesthetic, is not far removed from this practice. If doctors agree to perform circumcision on babies and small boys they need to be the advocate for the children and to protect their life and welfare as much as is possible.

CONCLUSIONS
Circumcision does offer some health benefits to babies, boys, and men, but only in a small percentage of the population. All surgeons know that circumcision, albeit a simple operation, is still dangerous and carries potential risks to the patient. As surgeons, we need to weigh up these risks carefully against the possible benefits of any surgical intervention. The surgical argument for circumcision of all neonatal males at present is very weak, and with rising public health standards in the developed world, is likely to remain weak. These issues raise numerous ethical questions about surgery used as a social or religious custom, and as a potential preventive measure for possible diseases far into the future."

It's just an opinion, but quite an informed one I would say.

At the very least, these articles that are being quoted MUST introduce reasonable doubt into the minds of mothers wondering whether to get their sons circumcised for prophylactic reasons?

At the end of the day, all things considered, if you are convinced that this is what you what for your son, of course you will do it regardless, I imagine.

Circumcision for hygiene reasons IMHO is the same as docking the tail on a dog or a sheep for hygiene or aesthetic reasons - seems totally pointless to me - after all sheep live in fields - dont have baths etc - Human boys at least have the opportunity to wash regularly - whether they do or not is obviously optional

If God didnt want boys to have foreskins - or dogs or sheep to have tails why create them that way - Just my opinion as a Christian
I can understand circumsion for Religious reasons though - tbh i am glad I am not Jewish otherwise i would feel compelled to have ds 'done'

For me circumsion is something God asked JEws to do as part of setting them apart - showing they were his special people - For Christians the coming of JEsus means that circumsion isnt necessary anymore

Just my opinion - Hope it doesnt offend

It is not just the Jews. Muslim circumcise for the same reasons as the Jews.

Oooooooops - TBH i dont know very much about Islam

tamum - what you quote is just one surgeon's opinion as you say. So we are back to square one. It's one opinion against another.

The best we can say then is that the research on the benefits of circ. is scientifically inconclusive.

For me the KNOWN benefits are in favour of circ. I know someone is going to say you can't compare circ. with the following, but for me there is a comparison: I breastfeed, vaccinate and put baby in a car seat to ensure his good health. That's why I circ. him.

That quote is just one person's opinion, but as you see from my other posts, there is a substantial body of evidence that goes against the very selective reference you cited. That was my point really.

KooKool - 2 Questions
How does circumcision ensure good health??????
Why are boys born with foreskins - Surely there is a point to them otherwise why do they exist?

I am genuinely interested in your opinion BTW - Not seeking to argue with you!

The British Medical Association (BMA link) changed their guidelines in March 2003 and now state -
In the past, circumcision of boys has been considered to be either medically or socially beneficial or, at least, neutral. The general perception has been that no significant harm was caused to the child and therefore with appropriate consent it could be carried out. The medical benefits previously claimed, however, have not been convincingly proven, and it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks. It is essential that doctors perform male circumcision only where this is demonstrably in the best interests of the child.

There's some good news - the rate of routine circumcision is the US (which has been slowly falling for the last twenty five years) is now dropping fast. In 2001 it was down to 63.1%, by 2003 it was down to 55.9% (here?s a link ).

One hundred years from now will anyone believe that parents in the 21st century routinely had pieces cut off their sons? penises. Barbarity.

Anyone's thinking on this is bound to be a mixture of the medical research they do, in the context of the cultural expectation around them, any religious allegiance, and an empotional response, so I don't think it's fair or productive to denigrate opinion or anecdotal examples.
I think, as Stuart says, the secular cultural approach has changed radically over the last 30 years - and for me, medical facts, philosophy and human rights thinking as well as a strong emotional response - not to mention sexual experience - would lead me to say a very strong NO to circumcision.
And I think it should be illegal to carry it out without a completely effective medically administered aneasthetic.

cheers hmb- I'm still hooping that nothing will be needed at all. ds2 is quite small and he needs everything he's got

One thing that struck me about tamum's piece (and I'm not arguing in favour of circ it just struck me) was that being pinned to the table to have a bit cut off may not necessarily be psychologically damaging if it was part of a cultural ritual to do with growing up, coming of a certain age etc. Not that I would want that to happen to my sons!

And dh was an adult when he had it done and it was all ok. And you know what men are like with pain!

As a matter of fact I have only ever seen one penin that was circumcised....a friend's little boy was 'done'. I had quite a surprise! Reading this thread make me realise that I have had a rather sheltered upbringing!

I'd say this is pretty thoroughly unlike using a car seat. If car seats have no benefit (which I doubt), and we're all wasting our time and money on them, well, that's not a lot of harm.

If we all subject our sons to unnecessary operations, with pain and/or the risks of anaesthetic, for something that has no benefit, that's a fairly significant harm, to undertake for no proven benefit.

I agree with StuartC if a foreskin wasn't needed then it wouldn't be there. I believe it is there for a reason and shouldn't be tampered with.

mmm .. and we have an appendix because???

Should every baby undergo an op to remove their appendix, just in case?

I am not actually discussing the whole circumcision issue TBH, I am just fed up of the all the rubbish that is spoken around emotive issues when there are fairly decent, unemotive pieces laying both sides of the argument down .. most of whom have already had the links put down

but if people want to go for groundhog day again, so be it

And there are any number of other things that you don't need. We have two kidneys, Lungs, testicles, ovaries, breasts. We can all 'do' with only one. But no-one would suggest that you lop 'em off. The the clitoris isn't 'needed'. Bloody good fun, but you could live without it. Not grounds for its excision though

For what it is worth I can understand people who have their sons 'done' for religious reasons (even though I'm agnostic myself). I just don't 'get' the hygene argument.