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?

LittleRedRidingHood - this is just in reply to your question.

To continue your very circular argument, breasts exists for breastfeeding babies, therefore they must be good ? (I am not convinced by the logic of this argument by the way, any philosohpy studens out there ?)

Yet, no one on this website would dare to dircetly criticise a parent who CHOOSES to give their baby formula from birth (Please, I am not talking about women who are unable to breastfeed for "technical" or medical reasons).

This is despite the fact that there is overwhelming scientific evidence that formula is NOT the healthy option for a baby. In fact beyond physical health issues, formula-fed babies as compared to breastmilk fed ones always fare worse on every single indicator: motor skills, intelligence, emotional development, etc.

Yet, people seem to think its ok to criticise a parent for removing a bit of foreskin which MAY in fact benefit a child (granted the science on this is still inconclusive and often controversial)?

Could someone please find evidence for me that the thousands of male babies who have been circumcised are less healthy either physically or emotionally than uncircumsiced ones, either as babies or adults ? If there was evidence for this (which there most certainly isn't) as there is in the case of formula milk, I would NEVER have had my child circumcised.

Koolkool - so natural is best? Good.

The BMA, after many years of study, say "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" and I'd believe them before I'd believe other people trapped by religious or other tribal rituals.

You've issued a challenge to provide examples of individuals damaged by circumcision. I'll provide those examples - it'll take a little time.

Sorry I still dont get it!
If a foreskin needs to be removed reasons why is there? - why do they exist??

*I can understand cirmcision for religious reasons but beyond that - IMHO its mutilation sorry

Oooooops Ive just outed myself!
Im now Littleredridinghood!

just google

here

StuartC - You are talking total bollocks about being trapped by tribal or religious issues. For one thing that statement is extremely offensive to people who do it for those reasons. I explained at the very beginning that my DH and I are totally secular and that we did it for health reasons.

You have also totally missed my point about formula-feeding, haven't you ? I was saying that what some parents do to their children (i.e. formula-feeding) is FAR FAR WORSE for a child's health than the removal of the foreskin. The removal of the foreskin MAY have health benefits. Formula-feeding has none and yet those parents who choose to do it do not get criticised for it.

I am NOT interested in anecdotes of 2 or 3 men being damaged by circumcision. Please don't waste your time. I have asked for overwhelming, conclusive medical evidence that it has harmed the millions of men who have had it done as children. I have to add I am NOT interested in anecdotes about a baby being pinned to a table and having it chopped off by his grandfather with a kitchen knife. I do not support this kind or procedure.

Again, not interested in ADULT circumcision, as the procedure is far more complex on an adult.

Find me a worldwide study. I am particularly interested in INDEPENDENT studies done on countries where this is done as a routine practice on babies as they would have the largest pool of circumcised men.

talking of offence ...

"I was saying that what some parents do to their children (i.e. formula-feeding) is FAR FAR WORSE for a child's health than the removal of the foreskin. The removal of the foreskin MAY have health benefits. Formula-feeding has none and yet those parents who choose to do it do not get criticised for it."

whoa there girl! just be very careful please!

I do actually think and make no apology for saying that formula-feeding done by CHOICE (again I emphasise that I do not include mothers here who can't breastfeed for technical or medical reasons) is the worse thing imaginable, and it is also (like the removal of the foreskin) done to a baby WITHOUT his or her consent, is it not ?

The big difference is that there is some evidence that the removal of the foreskin has health benefits. Again, parents who formula feed are not openly criticised for their choice, whereas parents who circumcise are. Where is the logic ? It is sheer hypocrisy in my view.

I'm not sure that formula feeding is worse than cutting a piece of a child's penis...

I'm sure you're comfortable with your belief that you know more than the BMA, also the other health authorities of the English-speaking parts of the world. Most of these authorities have changed their policies in the last ten years as a result of their research.

If you won't believe these experts and you don't want individual examples of physical and mental damage, I can't think of anything which will open your eyes to this mutilation of children.

Joolstoo ..is that not the point that poster was making though, about what it is ok to be offended by, you got offended at her making an analogy to breastfeeding / formula feeding

Waste not, want not. What happens to the foreskin after it's been sliced off the unfortunate child? In the US, it's sold to pharmaceutical companies - see the website for Skinmedica .
(Here's an extract - "SkinMedica?s flagship product called TNS Recovery Complex is a topical solution consisting of human growth factors derived originally from neonatal human foreskin at the San Diego biotech Advanced Tissue Sciences. ATS sells its own wound care product, but together with Fitzpatrick developed and then tested TNS, using growth factors to see if it would improve aging skin.")

Nice to know what some old ladies are slapping on their faces...

StuartC - this is my last word on this thread.

You said that you do not agree with tribal or religious reasons for circ. That's fair enough. So why bother looking for the "fig leaf" of medical evidence when your entire belief is premised on prejudice and lack of understanding for other people's culture ? My assertion re. formula-feeding on the other hand is not based on prejudice. It is based on a scientific fact.

I have to emphasise that I am not part of the pro-circumcision or pro-breastfeeding or another pro- or con- lobby and have absolutely no interest in becoming part of one. I am interested in scientific arguments, whether it's to do with how you feed a child or whether you choose to circ. or not. I admit that the article I referred to below, has been criticised by other well-known researchers and I am glad someone pointed it out. I didn't know, and I have learned something new. I will not refer to that particular article again.

If you are interested in scientific evidence, well then that's something quite different. The medical research on circ. is incomplete. Even the BMA should be ready to admit that. I am not convinced by the evidence I have seen against circ. You ARE convinced by it. That is a fair and logical position to take.

My question to you was this: Is there an independent and authoritative study undertaken in countries with the largest pool of circumcised men ("the English-speaking world" as you put it does NOT have the largest pool of circumcised men), where the overwhelming conclusion was that it has harmed those men either physically or psychologically. If there were such a study then I would be convinced that circ. should NOT be undertaken.

The evidence against formula feeding as the first choice of food for a baby is readily available and Irrefutable. So I don't need to dig it out for you.

the foreskin protects the tio if the penis before birth. thereafter there is no protection necessary.
i rmember watching a horizon programme many years ago which investigated why circumcised men were less likely to get the hiv virus than uncirucumcised men. their research pointed to cells in the foreskin which actively take up the virusand allow it into the bloodstream. no foreskin, no such cells. hence less casss of hiv infection in men.
when ds1 was born, there was no way i was going to let him undergo a surgical procedure unless it was lifesaving. but iwas convinced by the religous reasons. he had it doen at fourteen months, under general anesthetic. he also had an epidural for the pain after the op. the performing surgeon was a paediatric consultant, and it cost a bomb.
ds2 was 13 months. he also had it under the same conditions. we were advised against local anesthesia as some pain would still be felt by my baby.
both boys were up and running around a couple of hours later.they had no bleeding, no infections, for which i am very glad. the only thing was, i put ds2 in pampers rather than his real nappies, and chaned him the second he had done a wee. or every hour anyways. so nappies cost rather a lot initially!

kookool, the horison programme i am referring to ws looking at men in regions of africa. but the tests done on foreskin were in america, on living foreskin taken off adult males.

oh, and millions of men have been circumsised by barbers using a clean pair of scissors, and no anesthetic at all, except maybe some strong tea.
but lets not go there

Hi Beetroot
fgm = female genital mutilation = female circumcision
mgm = male genital mutilation = male circumcision

Hello again Koolkool
If you won't believe the BMA (and all the other experts) then I'm not going to be able to convince you.
I don't wish to be rude to you (e.g. I won't say you're "talking total bollocks") I think it's sad that, despite all the evidence, you'll cling to your beliefs.

I see circumcision (unless medically necessary) as child abuse and I will always oppose it.

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

Hello ? Is there an intelligent individual out there who can explain my reasoning to these people ! I give up !

Maybe that's b/c genital mutilation for cosmetic reasons isn't a very intelligent thing to do to a non-consenting individual.

kookool - do you mean 'these people' who are against unnecessary invasive surgery on infants without consent?

and I could say the same - cos you ain't listening either - so I give up too!

hiv
gosh what a "laughable fact" , maybe because circumcision is often a religious occurence, these people can be extremely devout and this would explain why HIV is less likely in those circumcised possibly - because the sexual acitivity HIV is associated with is not popular amongst such religions? this could be bollox (excuse the pun) simply my basic grasp of the facts.
I am not at all worried about my dh's festering knob end either.
I will stick and say I think it is unneccessary, but it is your decision, I wonder why if you truly believe it is right for your child to be circumcised - why you came on here to ask us what we thought?
We have simply told what we believe and replied to what we are asked...

Kookool, if you have a girl, will you have her labia trimmed?