View Full Version : Circumcision Deaths
http://www.cirp.org/library/death/
Not an easy thing to think about, but something to consider in relation to the topic of non-therapeutic circumcision.
It's disappointing that a true figure is not available. Though IMO the stated deaths are enough to decide the benefits do not outweigh the risks.
So anyway, I was wondering how many people die from not being circumcised...
From historyofcircumcision.net (http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/historyofcircumcision.net)
There are no proven cases of an infant, child or adult becoming sick or dyng because he had not been circumcised; but here are thousands of recorded cases where infants, children and men have been seriously injured, become sick or have died as a direct result of circumcision.
sockstealingpoltergeist
11-09-2009, 14:48
Even if the risks of death are one in a Billion, I don't understand risking your childs life for an unecessary cosmetic procedure.
WorkingClassMum
11-09-2009, 14:50
There are two comments that I find to be particulary interesting in that piece.
Sydney Gellis believed that "there are more deaths from complications of circumcision than from cancer of the penis.11 (http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=4066303#n11)
and
Many African tribes have initation ceremonies in which a youth or young man is initiated into manhood
Interesting reading
firsttimemumvmr
11-09-2009, 21:11
Okay, I was trying to see if I can get some figures but in terms of penile cancer -v- death through circumcision is hard because they would have to be taken in the same historical period, the figures running for a constant number of years, in the same sort of environment and so on.In fact, although I understand that statistics give us something to go on, they can be pretty misleading because for instance the sample has to be large enough to be scientific, also the socio-economic circumstances of the location. One criticism of the Uganda trials that prompted WHO to recommend circumcision as a preventative measure against HIV and so forth is that condoms aren't as accessible there and in other countries, their sexual practices may be a bit different to the west and so on. Although I'm more on the for than against side of the fence, I totally accept that this is true.My understanding nonetheless is that death from any procedure can happen, but it is extremely rare. Now cancer of the penis is rare also, I doubt if as rare and death from circumcision but still. Of course, this reference may have taken into account procedures practiced by people who might be neither qualified not experience, perhaps. Or done on males who had underlying medical issues.Now, in terms of it being just a cosmetic procedure, I think most parents who consider it don't look at it that way. I'm not solely talking about religious or cultural considerations either. There are a lot of studies that point to the fact that it can help prevent (albeit not completely) HPV which in turn is linked to a variety of cancers, not just penile. For instance cervical and prostate are much more common. Yes, of course condoms are surely the way forward but as I posted in another thread, whereas most people would use those for casual sex, many will chose a different contraception method once they feel confident with their only partner. Unfortunately HPV is often asymtomatic and can go undetected for years. The fact that one partner has it doesn't mean that they are being unfaithful. In view of that I would estimate that is safe to say that circumcision is bound to have contributed to saving some lifes, how many is impossible to determine.Of course any procedure entails some risks but I would certainly not go as far as to say that it has no benefits or that it's done purely for cosmetic reasons.It's my personal view that it's not just done to prevent cancer or HIV but more common infections which although they are treatable without surgery can keep recurring and making people's life a misery. After all, not all surgery is done solely to prevent death but often to increase quality of life. Okay, then comes the argument of loss sensitivity and so on but that has been covered at lenght elsewhere in this forum so I won't repeat myself etc.
firsttimemumvmr
11-09-2009, 21:22
Oh, one thing I forgot to mention re this article is that it presumes that the reported causes of death in various instances are secondary and a sort of cover up conspiracy. It is not clear to me why doctors would actually take the risk of omitting information on a death certificate, since they probably could be sued regardless of the cause of death if there was negligence.I found that the whole article was based primarily on supposition. Of course in ancient times mishaps must have happened a lot more often since the level of hygiene must have been much lower and so were medical developments. Same goes for the earlier 20th century, which is mentioned. Most operations are much, much safer now than they were then.However, I would certainly urge anyone considering this to check the credentials of the person who is to carry out the operation and ensuring that they are sufficiently capable of performing this safely.
Fellow Traveler
11-09-2009, 21:52
There are a lot of studies that point to the fact that it can help prevent (albeit not completely) HPV which in turn is linked to a variety of cancers, not just penile. For instance cervical and prostate are much more common.
Except we now have not one but two vaccines which prevent HPV infection of the kind most often associated with these cancers. Its use has just been recommend for boys in the US too. If it's not available yet for boys in Australia it will probably be soon. Interestingly though most of the Drs noted that these conditions are so rare sales to boys would not likely be very high.
That is interesting because everyone makes such a fuss about circumcision and HPV (to name one) when at most it was shown only to be 33% effective as compared to a vaccine which is in excess of 90% effective and they're not too excited about its use in boys. Kind of makes you say hmm doesn't it. :rolleyes:
Yes, of course condoms are surely the way forward but as I posted in another thread, whereas most people would use those for casual sex, many will chose a different contraception method once they feel confident with their only partner. Unfortunately HPV is often asymtomatic and can go undetected for years. The fact that one partner has it doesn't mean that they are being unfaithful.
HPV is asymptomatic and in both males and females like 95% of the time causes no ill effects. That's another reason they're passive about the vaccination. By the time most people are 50% about 80% of them will have been infected with HPV at least once. Most of the time the body clears it without incidence.
In view of that I would estimate that is safe to say that circumcision is bound to have contributed to saving some lifes, how many is impossible to determine.Of course any procedure entails some risks but I would certainly not go as far as to say that it has no benefits or that it's done purely for cosmetic reasons.
I doubt it except I might agree in some specific situations such as Sub Saharan Africa and even there ethically they should only focus on older teens and men.
It's my personal view that it's not just done to prevent cancer or HIV but more common infections which although they are treatable without surgery can keep recurring and making people's life a misery. After all, not all surgery is done solely to prevent death but often to increase quality of life. Okay, then comes the argument of loss sensitivity and so on but that has been covered at lenght elsewhere in this forum so I won't repeat myself etc.
These cases are very rare if they weren't circumcision would be far more common than it is. Have you ever heard what the Sweeds or Finns say about it? The truth is it started for those reasons you stated and some others. They were for the most part exaggerations and now it is perpetuated because of social considerations. Put it another way, if we were innocent of circumcision in the west and discovered the benefits we talk about now there is no way it would be suggested especially for children.
Oh, one thing I forgot to mention re this article is that it presumes that the reported causes of death in various instances are secondary and a sort of cover up conspiracy.
They aren't lying so much it might be true the child bled out or died from systemic infection they generally don't mention that it was after a circumcision. Circumcision is a sacred cow and to my knowledge no one has ever really looked at the complication rate. Most figures are a guess. The RACP for example says 2% the AAP low balls it at 0.2%. Perhaps the RACP is including all complications and the AAP is only citing serious complications but who knows.
firsttimemumvmr
11-09-2009, 23:18
Except we now have not one but two vaccines which prevent HPV infection of the kind most often associated with these cancers. Its use has just been recommend for boys in the US too. If it's not available yet for boys in Australia it will probably be soon. Interestingly though most of the Drs noted that these conditions are so rare sales to boys would not likely be very high.
Yes, I have heard about the vaccine and I think it's also a very good idea. Yes, penile cancer is rare but it prevents warts and other stuff so I would personally go for it. However, the boys vaccine has only given the go ahead in the last few days. I'm certainly all for vaccines, but I understand that some people may want them to be in circulation for a while longer since on the odd occasion in recent history a common drug has had devasting effects; however, I do in the main trust that these days drugs are sufficiently tested before going into the market.
That is interesting because everyone makes such a fuss about circumcision and HPV (to name one) when at most it was shown only to be 33% effective as compared to a vaccine which is in excess of 90% effective and they're not too excited about its use in boys. Kind of makes you say hmm doesn't it. :rolleyes:
I think people will embrace this vaccine in a few years after they are satisfied that the tests were sufficiently safe. The problem I can see with a lot of the public is that there have been vaccines which have been marketed recently who have subsequently and relatively soon after come under strong scrutiny, the one for swine flu being one of them. We had a controversial one for babies in the UK recently also but that sort of proved safe in the end. I guess the media does affect people's perceptions, both for and against various things.HPV is asymptomatic and in both males and females like 95% of the time causes no ill effects. That's another reason they're passive about the vaccination. By the time most people are 50% about 80% of them will have been infected with HPV at least once. Most of the time the body clears it without incidence.
Granted and yes, thank God, most of the time these things aren't fetal but then again preventing HPV is paramount because a lot of cancers are directly linked to it. Again, I very much hope that the vaccine proves not to end up in a blunder. Again, I expect that they have researched this enough.I doubt it except I might agree in some specific situations such as Sub Saharan Africa and even there ethically they should only focus on older teens and men.
I don't think everyone in the western world practices safe sex 100% of the time or there would be no kids. lol As I said before due to the asymptomatic nature of these things a permanent partner could still carry the virus.These cases are very rare if they weren't circumcision would be far more common than it is. Have you ever heard what the Sweeds or Finns say about it? The truth is it started for those reasons you stated and some others. They were for the most part exaggerations and now it is perpetuated because of social considerations. Put it another way, if we were innocent of circumcision in the west and discovered the benefits we talk about now there is no way it would be suggested especially for children.
Well, with children it prevents things like constant infections etc but yes, not every kid gets these.They aren't lying so much it might be true the child bled out or died from systemic infection they generally don't mention that it was after a circumcision. Circumcision is a sacred cow and to my knowledge no one has ever really looked at the complication rate. Most figures are a guess. The RACP for example says 2% the AAP low balls it at 0.2%. Perhaps the RACP is including all complications and the AAP is only citing serious complications but who knows.
The problem here is that we don't know for a fact because it would entail going through every single medical record to see what really caused the infection, in which conditions the procedure was carried out and so forth.The problem I have with medical issues in general is that when the topic becomes popular people and even professionals polarise themselves one side or the other and there is a lot of conflicting info out there leaving the population rather confused and the issues get entangled with considerations such as morality (i.e. human rights argument), religion, custom and what not. All the sites I have encountered on this subject are decidedly pro or against. I'm yet to find one that finds positives and negatives, so it's hard to trust any specific sources when they look so agenda orientated.
firsttimemumvmr
11-09-2009, 23:35
firsttimemum, please have a look at the Royal Australian College of Physicians website. There are at least three threads from the last fortnight in this section about their recommendation. Their brochure for parents outlines the risks and benefits.
Thanks. Yes, that might be a better option because I have come across a lot of stuff that looks bias one way or the other.
Fellow Traveler
12-09-2009, 07:31
Yes, I have heard about the vaccine and I think it's also a very good idea. Yes, penile cancer is rare but it prevents warts and other stuff so I would personally go for it. However, the boys vaccine has only given the go ahead in the last few days. I'm certainly all for vaccines, but I understand that some people may want them to be in circulation for a while longer since on the odd occasion in recent history a common drug has had devasting effects; however, I do in the main trust that these days drugs are sufficiently tested before going into the market.
...
Granted and yes, thank God, most of the time these things aren't fetal but then again preventing HPV is paramount because a lot of cancers are directly linked to it. Again, I very much hope that the vaccine proves not to end up in a blunder.
It's not so much the people not picking it up it's how one or the other is presented. An example, back in March it had been announced to much fan fair and a media blitz that circumcision may reduce the chances of persistent HPV infection in males by 33%. The media was all over it and the researchers were patting themselves on the back. Saying things like, this is such an important piece of knowledge... ect. The same research also showed no benefit to syphillis but that was not mentioned in the news, you had to go read the paper to find that out.
Nobody mentioned that there was an effective vaccine, the research that should it was over 90% effective in males had already been published. Nobody mentioned how rare the cancers associated with HPV are in men. Nobody mentioned that women were already protected from HPV by the vaccine, which is on the high end of the efficiency scale (90-100%).
And now that the FDA advisory committee gave it a thumbs up, still no big talk. Instead they say, Ya well HPV isn't really a problem in men. But they sure thought it was a big problem when circumcision was the solution. So that is what I meant.
Another example of not good enough for the news (http://www.circumcisionandhiv.com/2009/07/circumcision-does-not-reduce-the-risk-of-three-stds.html). When do you think that will hit the front page, the research was published August 1st.
The problem here is that we don't know for a fact because it would entail going through every single medical record to see what really caused the infection, in which conditions the procedure was carried out and so forth.
The problem is that we don't keep the records we should and some of the complications don't even show up for years. Stenosis, skin bridges, tight erections, and more. Worst of all there is practically no benefit at all especially to an infant or a child. You could say to an adult, well you have 0.02% less chance of getting HIV. See how many takers there are.
The problem I have with medical issues in general is that when the topic becomes popular people and even professionals polarise themselves one side or the other and there is a lot of conflicting info out there leaving the population rather confused and the issues get entangled with considerations such as morality (i.e. human rights argument), religion, custom and what not. All the sites I have encountered on this subject are decidedly pro or against. I'm yet to find one that finds positives and negatives, so it's hard to trust any specific sources when they look so agenda orientated.
Morality and human rights are at the top of the list as far as I am concerned. This needs to be considered in equal context of benefit vs morality/ethics/human rights. Most doctors (particularly those in the US) don't even look at the latter issues. The see some small marginal benefit and they try and add it to the list. A post-hoc justification. Take that list and present it to an intact man in an intact country (I should add western first world where HIV is not rampant) and see if it's enough for him personally to go under the knife. Then you'll know.
What a stupid article. Your really clutching at straws when you have to include details like the deaths below.
Identified victims
Some victims of circumcision are known by name. They are:
Wandile Lwane, 21 (Dontsa's brother, by suicide after learning of Dontasa's death) Ezibeleni, Queenstown, South Africa, January 9, 2005
Patrick Hoho, 58 (hacked to death by Hoho's circumcision victim), Port Elizabeth, South Africa, July 3, 2006.
Sello Ntsie, 18 (beaten to death at a circumcision "initiation school" before he could be circumcised), Zuurbekom, near Westonaria, South Africa, July 5, 2006.
Siyabonga Radebe, 14 (beaten to death at a circumcision "initiation school" before he could be circumcised), Zuurbekom, near Westonaria, South Africa,July 5, 2006.
Looking at them from a more modern western perspective - ie. by doctors in a clean environment, I see 1 death (the last) in the last 7 years that looks legitimate. The first 10 look legitimate also, but they date back as far as 1910.
firsttimemumvmr
12-09-2009, 14:33
What a stupid article. Your really clutching at straws when you have to include details like the deaths below.
Identified victims
Some victims of circumcision are known by name. They are:
Wandile Lwane, 21 (Dontsa's brother, by suicide after learning of Dontasa's death) Ezibeleni, Queenstown, South Africa, January 9, 2005
Patrick Hoho, 58 (hacked to death by Hoho's circumcision victim), Port Elizabeth, South Africa, July 3, 2006.
Sello Ntsie, 18 (beaten to death at a circumcision "initiation school" before he could be circumcised), Zuurbekom, near Westonaria, South Africa, July 5, 2006.
Siyabonga Radebe, 14 (beaten to death at a circumcision "initiation school" before he could be circumcised), Zuurbekom, near Westonaria, South Africa,July 5, 2006.
Looking at them from a more modern western perspective - ie. by doctors in a clean environment, I see 1 death (the last) in the last 7 years that looks legitimate. The first 10 look legitimate also, but they date back as far as 1910.
I guess is not only the 'pro' info that is misleading.
F, do you have evidence of someone dying because they had not been circumcised?
Does suicide count? Or do you want ACTUAL medical conditions?
firsttimemumvmr
12-09-2009, 14:43
The trouble with that, as I believe I pointed out earlier is that if some cancers have never happened because of lack of infection for instance that can't never be proven. I take into consideration the past not just the future although I understand that nowadays in an ideal world where everyone wears a condom every time that could come to zero I guess. Also there is the vaccine issue, but then again, time will tell with that one. I normally trust vaccination but there had been some blunders including the one with the swine flu.
How about some current 2009 stats from the National Cancer Institute (US).
Estimated new cases and deaths from penile (and other male genital) cancer in the United States in 2009:
New cases: 1290
Deaths: 300
This is obviously assuming that these are all uncircumcised. I'm sure you will all agree the the vast majority of these (if not all of them) were uncircumcised.
Thas was a quick search for you. I'm sure there is more info out there.
F, you're really clutching at straws...
You don't even know that they were uncircumcised, let alone that circumcision would have prevented their cancer. We both know the only way to completely prevent penile cancer would be to remove the penis entirely.
The fact is, circumcision does not completely prevent a male dying from penile cancer.
Not undergoing circumcision, completely prevents a male dying from circumcision complications.
BBBB.
I was answering your question regarding deaths due to not being circ'ed. I know it's rare - but so are circumcision deaths. That is the topic right?
The fact is, that uncirc'd males ARE the vast majority of those who die from penile cancer.
If you want more, this link has some good detail.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/105/3/e36
If you would like to know how uncommon penile cancer is in those who were circumcised as newborns, feel free to have a read.
Question for you.
Has anyone died from a circumcision using the plastibell method?
RedPanda
12-09-2009, 17:43
Has anyone died from a circumcision using the plastibell method?
I don't know of a death, but I know of a severe infection in a two-week-old (requiring hospitalisation) that need not have happened.
Well, that is unfortunate. But it's not death - which is what this thread is about.
I'm sure that that boy will be trouble free for the rest of his life now.
I have not heard of a death from the plastibell method. I have researched it to find out. That gives me enough confidence in the procedure to put my boy through it without worry.
The last death in Australia due to circumcision was 1979!
http://www.boystoo.com/news/flattkantak2.htm
Scare campaigns with old statistics using different procedures does not in any way affect my decision.
sockstealingpoltergeist
12-09-2009, 18:47
Well, that is unfortunate. But it's not death - which is what this thread is about.
I'm sure that that boy will be trouble free for the rest of his life now.
I have not heard of a death from the plastibell method. I have researched it to find out. That gives me enough confidence in the procedure to put my boy through it without worry.
The last death in Australia due to circumcision was 1979!
http://www.boystoo.com/news/flattkantak2.htm
Scare campaigns with old statistics using different procedures does not in any way affect my decision.
So it's fine that a baby only nearly died from uneccessary surgery? How odd.
Often the death is listed as something else. Obviously they havn't listed circumcision, it's like a death because of HIV. They don't put it down as such it could be written and recorded as pneumonia.
My nephew has permenant damage from being circ'd and requires plastic surgery to try to correct the damage done from his circumcision.
Often the deeath is listed as something else.
Are you basing that on anything in particular? Do you have anything to back up that suggestion?
sockstealingpoltergeist
12-09-2009, 19:21
Are you basing that on anything in particular? Do you have anything to back up that suggestion?
Do you have anything to prove it's not true?:)
I'm not the one making up conspiracy theories.
sockstealingpoltergeist
12-09-2009, 19:31
Or here as has allready been posted by bada I believe.
http://www.cirp.org/library/death/
or
http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html
sockstealingpoltergeist
12-09-2009, 19:32
I'm not the one making up conspiracy theories.
:laughing: Like the ones where you relate circ to cleanliness or as a saviour from cancer of the penis etc. Hilarious.
Like the ones where you relate circ to cleanliness or as a saviour from cancer of the penis etc. Hilarious.
These are conspiracy theories now? It's clear as day.
You women make me laugh. What would I know?
sockstealingpoltergeist
12-09-2009, 19:47
These are conspiracy theories now? It's clear as day.
You women make me laugh. What would I know?
:confused::detective: You tell me? I don't know, because every single argument you make for circ is refuted by the evidence time and time again.
What evidence? Your anti-circ sites.?
I provided a link from an unbiased site which clearly shows that penile cancer can be attributed to not being circumcised. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/105/3/e36
All your sites are obviously biased and skewed in the direction of scaring people off.
Or here as has allready been posted by bada I believe.
http://www.cirp.org/library/death/
http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html
These are really great sites for providing nothing but dribble.
This thread was about deaths from circumcision. I find it annoying when people throw up rediculous links with the intent on scaring parents away from a legitimate procedure.
Death from a circumcision in Australia is extremely rare if not non-existent. Full stop.
It is more dangerous crossing the road or driving - but I'm sure you still do that with your kids.
It is more dangerous crossing the road or driving - but I'm sure you still do that with your kids.
Yes but crossing a road is a necessity. Circumcision is not.
sockstealingpoltergeist
12-09-2009, 20:10
What evidence? Your anti-circ sites.?
I provided a link from an unbiased site which clearly shows that penile cancer can be attributed to not being circumcised. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/105/3/e36
All your sites are obviously biased and skewed in the direction of scaring people off.
Or here as has allready been posted by bada I believe.
http://www.cirp.org/library/death/
http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html
These are really great sites for providing nothing but dribble.
This thread was about deaths from circumcision. I find it annoying when people throw up rediculous links with the intent on scaring parents away from a legitimate procedure.
Death from a circumcision in Australia is extremely rare if not non-existent. Full stop.
It is more dangerous crossing the road or driving - but I'm sure you still do that with your kids.
Do you know what limits danger in a babies life? You guessed it! Eliminating unecessary procedures.
Penile cancer is so rare it's not even worth discussing, however because you brought it up, if you have a daughter will you be removing her breast tissue JIC of cancer? I await your answer.:)
Of course not. Don't be stupid.
There are many benefits of circumcision. Not just prevention of penile cancer.
It is also widely accepted in the community (other than the 'Bubhub' world that you live in).
There is no comparison.
Yet again, a thread has turned to cr*p.
sockstealingpoltergeist
12-09-2009, 21:24
Of course not. Don't be stupid.
There are many benefits of circumcision. Not just prevention of penile cancer.
It is also widely accepted in the community (other than the 'Bubhub' world that you live in).
There is no comparison.
Yet again, a thread has turned to cr*p.
Perhaps if you stop posting outdated info the thread will be awsome.
Widely accepted, by the whole 10% of people still circing.;)
Widely accepted, by the whole 10% of people still circing.
Yep.
The 10% of people who have enough courage to make up their own decision based on their research - rather than just jumping on the bandwagon with everyone else.
sockstealingpoltergeist
12-09-2009, 21:36
Yep.
The 10% of people who have enough courage to make up their own decision based on their research - rather than just jumping on the bandwagon with everyone else.
As someone who has a cric'd husband, FIL, Father, Brother, nephew etc, I was really jumping on the old bandwagon.;)
Do you talk like this in front of your whole family? I'm sure they appreciate your strong stance and attitude.
sockstealingpoltergeist
12-09-2009, 22:05
Do you talk like this in front of your whole family? I'm sure they appreciate your strong stance and attitude.
My parents encourage discussion over important issues.
My husband seems to appreciate it, as he knows my research and knowlege saved our son from having an unecessary cosmetic procedure, that he could later regret. So he's fairly happy with it, yeah.:yes:
I know you secretly love it or you wouldn't be here.;)
Yeah, I do.
If I didn't like it, I wouldn't come here. It provides some good entertainment.:)
misskittyfantastico
12-09-2009, 22:10
Yeah, I do.
If I didn't like it, I wouldn't come here. It provides some good entertainment.:)
Back atcha. You're funny :D
sockstealingpoltergeist
12-09-2009, 22:13
Father See that is where we differ...
I come here, yes for entertainment and a good debate, however some subjects like human rights abuse, circ, feminism etc are extremely important issues, I don't debate in here for entertainment purposes, as I don't find the removal of skin and tissue from small males very entertaining.
Yes they are important issues. (Well, I don't agree that feminism is an important issue.):)
Issues that not everyone will see eye-to-eye on.
I understand that - so I don't let it get to me when people have a different opinion. For that reason, I can find it entertaining. People say some funny things on here.
I'm not going to lose sleep over the fact that someone else in the world is doing something I don't agree with.
It's just a bit of useless skin.
PS. Woaah. That is going to upset a few people.
It's just a bit of useless skin.
:laughing:
How do you know it's useless...we can all tell yours was chopped off so you wouldn't know how useful it is ;)
misskittyfantastico
12-09-2009, 22:38
PS. Woaah. That is going to upset a few people.
I reckon most will find it "entertaining".:laughing:
misskittyfantastico
12-09-2009, 22:40
:laughing:
How do you know it's useless...we can all tell yours was chopped off so you wouldn't know how useful it is ;)
It's pretty useful *nods sagely for no reason other than nodding sagely is something I've always wanted to do.*
I reckon most will find it "entertaining".:laughing:
I know I do :laughing:
When you have no genuine or sensible comeback...:p
Imagine if we posted in the pro-circ section :eek: :laughing:
It's pretty useful *nods sagely for no reason other than nodding sagely is something I've always wanted to do.*
:yes: :laughing:
we can all tell yours was chopped off so you wouldn't know how useful it is
How I can I live with myself???:confused:
I'm missing out on so much. I might do some research into paying lots of money to get a useless bit of skin put on the end of my penis to collect dirt, smells, diseases, generate smegma, not last as long in bed, and cause infections.
I will feel alot better about myself then:)
How I can I live with myself???:confused:
I'm missing out on so much. I might do some research into paying lots of money to get a useless bit of skin put on the end of my penis to collect dirt, smells, diseases, generate smegma, not last as long in bed, and cause infections.
I will feel alot better about myself then:)
:laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:
Is that the best you can do?
sockstealingpoltergeist
12-09-2009, 22:45
Yes they are important issues. (Well, I don't agree that feminism is an important issue.):).
How would I have guessed that? When someone doesn't believe that babies don't have the right to bodily autonomy, it doesn't suprise me that they arn't very concerned with the rights of women.
Issues that not everyone will see eye-to-eye on.
I understand that - so I don't let it get to me when people have a different opinion. For that reason, I can find it entertaining. People say some funny things on here. .
I don't let it get to me either, hence why I am still here. However I don't understand why human rights isn't a concern to every parent.
I'm not going to lose sleep over the fact that someone else in the world is doing something I don't agree with..
I wish more people would lose sleep, perhaps we wouldn't have slavery,child abuse, rape, war, domestic violence etc...
It's just a bit of useless skin.
PS. Woaah. That is going to upset a few people.
I know you want to feel that way because it's easier when it's gone.:hugs:
I know you want to feel that way because it's easier when it's gone.:hugs:
:iagree:
It's hard to miss something you don't remember.
because it's easier when it's gone.
It's alot easier when it's gone. It practically cleans itself!
It's hard to miss something you don't remember.
Exactly. So why do anti-circers claim that so many men want to have it back?
Mathermy
12-09-2009, 22:50
It's alot easier when it's gone. It practically cleans itself!
No dude, you really orta wash that thing! :yes:
DH is circed :eek: but he still gives it the ol lather in the bathtub, infact I think that's his favourite part to wash;)
misskittyfantastico
12-09-2009, 22:50
How I can I live with myself???:confused:
I'm missing out on so much. I might do some research into paying lots of money to get a useless bit of skin put on the end of my penis to collect dirt, smells, diseases, generate smegma, not last as long in bed, and cause infections.
I will feel alot better about myself then:)
You crossed the line from entertaining to just sad. You see a lot of dirty penises in your daily life? If you do, yanno, that's cool. I won't judge. *nods sagely*
No dude, you really orta wash that thing! :yes:
DH is circed :eek: but he still gives it the ol lather in the bathtub, infact I think that's his favourite part to wash;)
PMSL :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:
misskittyfantastico
12-09-2009, 22:51
Exactly. So why do anti-circers claim that so many men want to have it back?
Talk to Andrew J.
Exactly. So why do anti-circers claim that so many men want to have it back?
I don't claim you want it back at all...
No use crying over spilt milk ;)
Talk to Andrew J.
From what I gathered after talking to him - he is happy. He is just confused about legal issues.
No dude, you really orta wash that thing!
but he still gives it the ol lather in the bathtub
He has baths? I'm a shower guy. I'm sure you all wanted to know that.
Thanks for the hygiene advice. 28 years without infection, bad smells, or complaints. I think I'm doing ok. Do you really think you know more than me about cleaning a penis?
sockstealingpoltergeist
12-09-2009, 22:59
Exactly. So why do anti-circers claim that so many men want to have it back?
I'm pretty sure my nephew wants it back, would you like to tell him he's being silly.:confused:
Oh and I have had sex with a couple of men;) circ'd and uncirc'd, once again if it's dirty it's dirty. I can't say I've ever had a problem with a man not lasting long enough either.:confused:
No use crying over spilt milk
Comparing circumcision to spilt milk. That's a new one. I might use that if I may?:)
Comparing circumcision to spilt milk. That's a new one. I might use that if I may?:)
Be my guest...:D
I'm pretty sure my nephew wants it back
I thought he was just getting cosmetic surgery? Does he actually want a foreskin?
sockstealingpoltergeist
12-09-2009, 23:01
He has baths? I'm a shower guy. I'm sure you all wanted to know that.
Thanks for the hygiene advice. 28 years without infection, bad smells, or complaints. I think I'm doing ok. Do you really think you know more than me about cleaning a penis?
Well are you saying the uncirc'd ones you have cleaned have been dirtier?:confused: I am unclear as to what you are getting at.
Do you really think you know more than me about cleaning a penis?
Not at all but you are the one who says it almost "cleans itself" :laughing:
Mathermy
12-09-2009, 23:02
From what I gathered after talking to him - he is happy. He is just confused about legal issues.
He has baths? I'm a shower guy. I'm sure you all wanted to know that.
Thanks for the hygiene advice. 28 years without infection, bad smells, or complaints. I think I'm doing ok. Do you really think you know more than me about cleaning a penis?
No, of course not silly. Sure you know what's best for your diddle daddle doodle etc.
I can only speak for what the ladies prefer and that's
CLEAN GENITALS FOR EVERYONE :smiliedance:
should really get that put on a T-shirt or something. How did you manage to get close enough to your penis to have a good smell? That's quite the party trick!:D
How did you manage to get close enough to your penis to have a good smell? That's quite the party trick!:D
:iagree: Impressive :laughing:
Anyhow, I am off to bed.
Must say Father, thanks for the entertainment, made my night. BH was rather :sleeping:until you popped in...do come back and visit us again.
sockstealingpoltergeist
12-09-2009, 23:06
I thought he was just getting cosmetic surgery? Does he actually want a foreskin?
No I have never said he is having surgery, just that he may want to have it as they removed far too much and left him with severe scarring and other issues. Cosmetic surgery would be painful and they need to do some grafting. He doesn't seem keen, he just wishes the unecessary procedure had never been done.
No worries ladies.
I'm off to bed too. It's been an absolute pleasure.
Try not to dream about foreskins too much. I might think about boobs though.:)
Until next time.:wave:
Mathermy
12-09-2009, 23:10
No worries ladies.
I'm off to bed too. It's been an absolute pleasure.
Try not to dream about foreskins too much. I might think about boobs though.:)
Until next time.:wave:
Forgive me father for I have sinned:kiss::valentine:
and yes I was just getting a bit fresh with you..
night:wave:
Tam-I-Am
12-09-2009, 23:11
I might think about boobs though.:)
But they're just useless flaps of skin. No purpose to them. Might as well get them lopped off in childhood - too much chance of cancer in later life....
misskittyfantastico
12-09-2009, 23:13
No worries ladies.
I'm off to bed too. It's been an absolute pleasure.
Try not to dream about foreskins too much. I might think about boobs though.:)
Until next time.:wave:
Pig o' Bardon? You're revolting.....but still funny, in an "oh my gawd, did you see that post, what a donkey" kinda way. Sleep tight.
Pippi Longstocking
13-09-2009, 05:41
But they're just useless flaps of skin. No purpose to them. Might as well get them lopped off in childhood - too much chance of cancer in later life....
Oh snap! :yelclap:
Father, it seems to me that you actually may have some (not so well) repressed issues regarding your own circumcision. :hugs:
This is the issue for many men - it's very difficult to accept that they have been harmed without their consent and their genitals are less than perfect. It's challenging. It's confronting. And it usually manifests in defensiveness, and a strong need to convince others that it's good, right, perfectly fine etc.
I hope you find a way to work through it. :shakehands:
MotherNurture
13-09-2009, 07:27
It's just a bit of useless skin.
I challenge. (http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/showthread.php?t=285983)
It's alot easier when it's gone. It practically cleans itself!
Oh for goodness sake...
A woman's vulva is full of skin folds, nooks, and crannies. Women get smegma. A woman's genitals are even darker, more internal, and *constantly* discharging a variety of fluids...much more so than a penis, cut or uncut.
Intact genitals-male or female-are for the most part self-cleaning. When women shower/bathe, they rinse between their labia. When natural men shower/bathe, they rinse under their foreskins. It's not rocket science. It's not complicated or time-consuming. If cleanliness doesn't justify removing a little girl's labia and clitoral hood it doesn't justify male infant circumcision either.
How I can I live with myself???:confused:
I'm missing out on so much. I might do some research into paying lots of money to get a useless bit of skin put on the end of my penis to collect dirt, smells, diseases, generate smegma, not last as long in bed, and cause infections.
I will feel alot better about myself then:)
You're insulting 80% of the world's men with your ignorant assumptions.
Mothernurture.
Thanks for the graphic description of a female genitalia.
When natural men shower/bathe, they rinse under their foreskins. It's not rocket science. It's not complicated or time-consuming.
Sounds a bit more time-comsuming for me. Pulling back the foreskin. There goes another 3 seconds a day!:) I'm joking. No response required.
What if there are no showers around? Weeks out bush - no showers. What happens then? Sounds like trouble to me.
You're insulting 80% of the world's men with your ignorant assumptions
Well honey. Sometimes the truth hurts.
Fortunately there are only 2 men on these forums. Me and Andrew J. Both of whom are circumcised, so I don't think anyone would get offended. If they did, they can easily just get the procedure done themselves hey?:)
Pippi Longstocking
13-09-2009, 17:12
What if there are no showers around? Weeks out bush - no showers. What happens then? Sounds like trouble to me.
Dude, I'd wager that your doodle is gonna stink just as bad as a natural one if you haven't washed it for weeks. May as well cut the whole thing off, that'd be heaps cleaner. :thumbsup:
Dude, I'd wager that your doodle is gonna stink just as bad as a natural one if you haven't washed it for weeks. May as well cut the whole thing off, that'd be heaps cleaner. :thumbsup:
:laughing: Check Mate:yelclap:
studentmum
13-09-2009, 17:29
Hi :wave:
I haven't bothered to read the whole thread (sorry it is long) but this last page just looks like a bit of back and forth anyway.
I just wanted to say that only a few short months ago I watched a 5 year old boy very, very nearly die from a circumcision.
The boy started bleeding, he was bleeding for a long time, he was a dark skinned boy who turned an ashen grey colour and looked almost white.
Had it not been for the medical team doing ALL they could to stop the bleeding and the lucky timing of the child getting to hospital the child would have bled to death.
Many studies show the chance of infection is similar for a cicumcised/uncircumcised penis - I do believe not washing and poor hygiene would increase the chance of infection however that is the case for all people - poor hygiene = infection.
A circumcision based on any reasons other that medical indication is NOT recommended by any health professional following their code of ethics which states "Do no harm" ie, to perform a circumcision is considered to be causing harm.
That's my two cents :yes:
Sarah :flowerz:
sockstealingpoltergeist
13-09-2009, 18:48
Thanks Sarah, it makes perfect sense to me.:yes:
Dude, I'd wager that your doodle is gonna stink just as bad as a natural one if you haven't washed it for weeks.
I would love to be involved in that little experiment. I would also love to put money on it.
Any ideas of how to make the experiment work?
sockstealingpoltergeist
13-09-2009, 20:47
I would love to be involved in that little experiment. I would also love to put money on it.
Any ideas of how to make the experiment work?
Well after a day it's much of a muchness and seriously, no one wants to be with a dude who doesn't wash for a week circ'd or uncirc'd.:barf:
This thread has gone a little off topic. But here is a question for you SSP. Maybe some other women may want to answer.
Do you sometimes get a 'surprise' with what is hiding under the foreskin? At least when it's snipped, it's not hiding or concealing anything.
sockstealingpoltergeist
13-09-2009, 21:53
This thread has gone a little off topic. But here is a question for you SSP. Maybe some other women may want to answer.
Do you sometimes get a 'surprise' with what is hiding under the foreskin? At least when it's snipped, it's not hiding or concealing anything.
I beg to differ, an unerect circ'd penis still has folds, it is only when fully erect that it has none, thus it can still have smegma and the like. I'll tell you if a man showers reguarly it's hardly a problem circ'd or uncric'd.
Woah. I guess you learn something everyday.
Here I am. Thinking that I know a little bit about my penis, but obviously not.
You would think after having penis for 27 years that you might know it all.
Can you help me out with trying to identify this 'smegma' that I have? Is it a dry invisible substance that is not detectable to the eye or through touch. It must be, otherwise I would've seen it.
Anything you know about my penis that I don't?
sockstealingpoltergeist
13-09-2009, 22:21
Woah. I guess you learn something everyday.
Here I am. Thinking that I know a little bit about my penis, but obviously not.
You would think after having penis for 27 years that you might know it all.
Can you help me out with trying to identify this 'smegma' that I have? Is it a dry invisible substance that is not detectable to the eye or through touch. It must be, otherwise I would've seen it.
Anything you know about my penis that I don't?
You asked a question and I answered it, I'm sorry if it wasn't what you wanted to hear, but the truth can be like that.:hugs:
I'm pretty sure that my husband might know alot about it too, considering he has had a penis for 30yrs, and he concurs that a dirty penis = a dirty penis.
Moreover, I don't have to have to have broken leg to be able to read up on them and learn a lot about them. I may never know the pain of a broken leg, however I could still be very knowlegable.
Same with a circ'd penis.
I'm pretty sure that my husband might know alot about it too, considering he has had a penis for 30yrs
Is he circ'd?
dirty penis = a dirty penis
That is an obvious statement.
Moreover, I don't have to have to have broken leg to be able to read up on them and learn a lot about them. I may never know the pain of a broken leg, however I could still be very knowlegable.
Same with a circ'd penis.
But someone who has had a broken leg will still know things you don't.
Are you honestly saying that MY circumcised penis has smegma? How the hell would you know that? The fact is: I KNOW MY PENIS - YOU DON'T. You can read all you like, but it doesn't change that fact.
sockstealingpoltergeist
13-09-2009, 23:02
Is he circ'd?
Yes we have allready covered this, he is circ'd.
But someone who has had a broken leg will still know things you don't.
Depends if I break my leg and don't bother to take on board any info, then I may well believe that having had a broken leg gives me an advantage somehow, when it does not.
If my leg was broken before I could remember then I wouldn't be able to tell weather or not my leg was better before or after.
Are you honestly saying that MY circumcised penis has smegma? How the hell would you know that? The fact is: I KNOW MY PENIS - YOU DON'T. You can read all you like, but it doesn't change that fact.
I don't know, however I know the penisis I have seen have been relatively smegma free due to cleanliness, circ'd or uncirc'd.
I also know that any genitals where there are folds of skin (so everyone) are going to produce smegma, as to if you have some,:confused: I don't know, how often do you shower?
Tam-I-Am
13-09-2009, 23:12
All human genitals produce smegma (regardless of circumcision status). It is an essential, healthy natural lubricant. In males, it's necessary to them being able to get a smooth erection (ie whereby skin doesn't stick to itself - this would be very painful and inhibit the erection process).
Smegma - fresh, clean smegma, is not a problem. The same way that fresh, clean sweat is not a problem - in fact it's a good thing, it has several really important physiological funtions. It's stale smegma (likewise sweat) that has gathered bacteria, begun to decompose, and smells off and stale that is problematic.
In males, it's necessary to them being able to get a smooth erection (ie whereby skin doesn't stick to itself - this would be very painful and inhibit the erection process).
Thanks for the lesson. Literally. Thanks.
Can you explain which bits of skin would stick together on a circ'd penis?
sockstealingpoltergeist
13-09-2009, 23:30
Thanks for the lesson. Literally. Thanks.
Can you explain which bits of skin would stick together on a circ'd penis?
Doesn't your penis shrink when not erect?:confused:
Doesn't your penis shrink when not erect?:.
unlikely. his penis is perfect
Pippi Longstocking
14-09-2009, 05:00
I would love to be involved in that little experiment. I would also love to put money on it.
Any ideas of how to make the experiment work?
Bags not me doing the sniff-test. If it's not washed, it's not coming near me, cut or not.
I was going to use this smiley --->:p but am too scared to leave my tongue out after the above sentence :laughing:
Woah. I guess you learn something everyday.
Here I am. Thinking that I know a little bit about my penis, but obviously not.
You would think after having penis for 27 years that you might know it all.
How do I put this tactfully...as women, many of us are also quite familiar with penises. :yes:Many of us have seen quite a few, possibly even more than you have, although you may well have seen a few up close too, who am I to make assumptions? :footinmouth: But there is a fairly high likelihood that many of us have had the opportunity to become familiar with more than just one penis. I guess that makes us, and certainly me [/smug], experts eh?
Can you help me out with trying to identify this 'smegma' that I have? Is it a dry invisible substance that is not detectable to the eye or through touch. It must be, otherwise I would've seen it.
Anything you know about my penis that I don't? I don't need to know anything about your penis to know it produces smegma. They all do. I'm surprised (genuinely) that you wouldn't know that. Penises produce smegma. Vaginas produce smegma. Why, humans are veritable cheese fonts. :laughing:
Sometimes I even gross myself out. :cool:
firsttimemumvmr
14-09-2009, 10:26
[QUOTE=Tam-I-Am;4071423]All human genitals produce smegma (regardless of circumcision status). It is an essential, healthy natural lubricant. In males, it's necessary to them being able to get a smooth erection (ie whereby skin doesn't stick to itself - this would be very painful and inhibit the erection process).
In my experience the stegma that may collect under the foreskin specifically cannot be necessary for smooth erection. If this were the case and it was painful and inhibited erection circ'ed men would be in no hurry to initiate sex and believe this is certainly not the case in my humble experience.
sockstealingpoltergeist
14-09-2009, 10:36
In my experience the stegma that may collect under the foreskin specifically cannot be necessary for smooth erection. If this were the case and it was painful and inhibited erection circ'ed men would be in no hurry to initiate sex and believe this is certainly not the case in my humble experience.:confused: The smegma is allways there, cric'd or uncirc'd, it's only a problem if a man doesn't bath/ shower as there is a build up.
Because it is allways there, all men circ'd and uncirc'd don't have their skin stick. So I'm unclear as to why circ'd men would have pain.:confused:
Tam-I-Am
14-09-2009, 11:53
Yeah, I'm a bit confused by what you mean, too, firsttimemummvr :confused:
Boobycino
14-09-2009, 12:09
How do I put this tactfully...as women, many of us are also quite familiar with penises. :yes:Many of us have seen quite a few, possibly even more than you have....
:laughing: how true.
And... :barf:to the rest of what you'd said.... some things are better left un said... because now that I know these facts I cant unlearn them!!! :barf:
firsttimemumvmr
14-09-2009, 12:47
Sorry, I thought your argument guys was that the extra bit under the foreskin was to prevent this happening.Of course, everyone needs to wash! lol I thought you were saying that because of more of it in uncirc'ed men that this facilitated erection and so forth specifically for these men.I guess what you are saying is that a healthy amount is always present one way or the other but that the stuff that's damaging is the stale one. No arguments there. The pro circ argument in terms of cleanliness is basically that since it come become stale very quickly uncirc'ed men require more constant attention because the underneath of the foreskin which is moist in essence can favour the breeding of bacteria and so on but this is a different argument and belongs in advantages or disadvantages really.
Bags not me doing the sniff-test. If it's not washed, it's not coming near me, cut or not.
I was going to use this smiley --->:p but am too scared to leave my tongue out after the above sentence :laughing:
How do I put this tactfully...as women, many of us are also quite familiar with penises. :yes:Many of us have seen quite a few, possibly even more than you have, although you may well have seen a few up close too, who am I to make assumptions? :footinmouth: But there is a fairly high likelihood that many of us have had the opportunity to become familiar with more than just one penis. I guess that makes us, and certainly me [/smug], experts eh?
haha, I have to agree, many women would have more 'up close and personal' experience with penises than most men;)
[QUOTE=sockstealingpoltergeist;4071446]Doesn't your penis shrink when not erect?:confused: [QUOTE]
:footinmouth: :footinmouth: :footinmouth:
So we have drifted WAY off topic and while it's been amusing, it's time to get back. If you really want to talk about skin sticking together, I think that deserves a whole new thread of it's own.
Thanks to all who have been contributing positively, now back to Circumcision deaths (and has there been a plastibell death?).
Cheers
MotherNurture
14-09-2009, 15:40
Sounds a bit more time-comsuming for me. Pulling back the foreskin. There goes another 3 seconds a day!:) I'm joking. No response required.
What if there are no showers around? Weeks out bush - no showers. What happens then? Sounds like trouble to me.
No more trouble than it is for women out in the...ahem, bush. We're either fearfully and wonderfully made creations of God or the product of billions of years of evolution. Either way, shiny tiled showers and bars of soap are relatively modern inventions, no?
Thanks for bringing the topic back.
I might start another thread about my penis shortly.:)
Has anyone found if there has been a plastibell death?
sockstealingpoltergeist
14-09-2009, 22:21
No there would not have been a likely plastibell death, however complications arising from the plastibell method that led to death, I am very sure there have been.
sockstealingpoltergeist
14-09-2009, 22:28
Complications of meatal obstruction with the PlastiBell technique have been previously described in the literature (1 (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2528673#b1-pch12311),2 (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2528673#b2-pch12311)). Necrotizing fasciitis as a complication of circumcision is rare, and all cases reported seem to be associated with the PlastiBell technique (2 (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2528673#b2-pch12311),3 (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2528673#b3-pch12311)). The finding of cyanosis below the umbilicus after circumcision due to meatal obstruction caused by a misplaced PlastiBell ring resulting in bladder distension and obstruction of venous return has also recently been described (1 (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2528673#b1-pch12311)). A review of circumcision complications suggest that these may occur more frequently than is conventionally believed (2 (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2528673#b2-pch12311),4 (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2528673#b4-pch12311)).
The members of the Paediatric Death Review Committee of the Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario were collectively aware of complications from their own institutions, including two children with necrosis of the glans, two infants requiring transfusion, one infant with a buried penis secondary to circumcision, numerous cases of retention of a PlastiBell ring, one infant with a slipped PlastiBell ring causing a penile tourniquet, and one infant with meatal obstruction due to a misplaced PlastiBell ring (Figures 2A and 2Bhttp://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=2528673&blobname=pch123112.gif (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2528673&rendertype=figure&id=f2-pch12311)). None of these complications were reported in the medical literature and are therefore not available in a retrospective literature review.
It is concerning that none of the initial three physicians who saw this infant, including the physician who performed the procedure, identified this problem as a meatal obstruction, although they were all concerned about a possible link with the recent circumcision.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2528673
Seems that it is underreported as a complication of circumcision. What a surprise.
Worth the risk? :no: I don't think so
No there would not have been a likely plastibell death, however complications arising from the plastibell method that led to death, I am very sure there have been.
My nephew was circ'd using the plastibell. :( It didn't turn out so good for him nor his penis.
If it's not too personal for you SSP, could you elaborate on what the complication was and how it occurred? I have only heard good things about this method, and would like to get some info on some risks associated.
sockstealingpoltergeist
14-09-2009, 22:39
If it's not too personal for you SSP, could you elaborate on what the complication was and how it occurred? I have only heard good things about this method, and would like to get some info on some risks associated.
I have known people directly affected
and how do you feel towards his parents? Do you state your mind on human rights bla bla bla?
sockstealingpoltergeist
14-09-2009, 22:48
and how do you feel towards his parents? Do you state your mind on human rights bla bla bla?
Are you asking me this question?:confused:
At the time RIC was still being preformed in hospitals, it was encouraged. My sister very much regrets it and feels terrible.
I don't blame my sister, she was uninformed about the risks. If it was illegal and no one was pushing it on her it would never have happened.
if we now know better and are far better educated (even with the deaths and complications being largely hidden) I cannot comprehend someone going ahaead with this procedure.
I think it's fine to say, I thought I was doing the right thing, but I now know better and would not do it now, nor encourage others to do something that puts their children at risk of complications unecessarily.
I dont remember it being "pushed" and i have a child not much difference in age. We had to seek a doctor out, they werent just hanging around at the hospital ready to chop,lop or roll.
Does your nephew have any ill feelings towards this being done? Is the correction that can be done just for show or is it medical?
My nephew who is currently 16 yrs, had his circumcision done within the week after birth, whilst still in hospital, the plastibell was used.
The Dr who had done many circs, must have misplaced the plastibell, as it took too much skin off and left my nephew in distress and obvious pain. Afterwards there was a lot of scarring and his penis has been shortened, which will require painful skin grafting if he wishes to try to correct the damage.
When confronted about this the Dr said "Oh well, sometimes these things happen.":(
Doesn't sound good.
I don't want to question you, but are you sure it was the plastibell method?
From the research I have done, that is one of the biggest good points about the plastibell - the fact that it is nearly impossible to remove too much skin.
Warning - some graphics
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1845746&blobtype=pdf
Sorry I couldn't find a better link. But I didn't want to use a pro-circ website.
Does anyone else know of a plastibell method gone wrong?
sockstealingpoltergeist
14-09-2009, 23:01
I dont remember it being "pushed" and i have a child not much difference in age. We had to seek a doctor out, they werent just hanging around at the hospital ready to chop,lop or roll.
Does your nephew have any ill feelings towards this being done? Is the correction that can be done just for show or is it medical?
It was just after his circ that it became unavailable in hospitals, and my sister was told with her next child born less then two years later, that if she had a boy, she would have to seek a private circ.
Of course he has ill feelings.
Some boys have lasting damage from circumcision, some have lost their penis and some have died, all for a cosmetic procedure.:(
Now I know most parents who get their sons done do so in the beleif that circ is benificial, however it is purely a cosmetic procedure and currently defined as one. That is why most anti RIC people want to put the word out, one baby boy maimed or killed from an unecessary procedure, is one to many IMO.
sockstealingpoltergeist
14-09-2009, 23:05
Doesn't sound good.
I don't want to question you, but are you sure it was the plastibell method?
From the research I have done, that is one of the biggest good points about the plastibell - the fact that it is nearly impossible to remove too much skin.
Warning - some graphics
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1845746&blobtype=pdf
Sorry I couldn't find a better link. But I didn't want to use a pro-circ website.
Does anyone else know of a plastibell method gone wrong?
Almost impossible does not make it impossible. I do believe I know what I am talking about, yes it was the plastibell. The plastibell carries with it many risks.
Did you read the link I posted.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2528673
Baby boys are dying from this procedure, using the plastibell.:thumbsdown:
Why would you want to promote that? When a boy can be easily circ'd when he grows up if he deems it necessary.
Imagine if your baby died, purely because of an unecessary circ, or lost their penis.:eek:
The plastibell carries with it many risks.
Ok. I acknowledge the article that you have provided. It does show that there is some risk - I think we all know that.
it is purely a cosmetic procedure and currently defined as one
Where is that definition?
Do you acknowledge that there are risks with the foreskin? I know there are members on here that have testimony to that fact. Hygiene did not help them out unfortunately.
I don't want you to agree that the benefits outweigh the risks (as this is a personal assessment), but it would at least be productive for you to acknowledge that there are benefits. RACP does. It is not just cosmetic.
sockstealingpoltergeist
15-09-2009, 00:04
Ok. I acknowledge the article that you have provided. It does show that there is some risk - I think we all know that..
Any risk is too high. We are talking about the lives of babies and the well being of their penis.
Where is that definition?.
I believe the definition of cosmetic surgery would be to alter your body for a non medical reason. That's what RIC is. That is why the RACP do not recomend it.
Do you acknowledge that there are risks with the foreskin? I know there are members on here that have testimony to that fact. Hygiene did not help them out unfortunately..:confused: So you mean that they got infections and had to be circ'd later? Well that happens with many conditions. Again I wouldn't remove my childrens tonsils just in case. I'm fairly sure that we can agree it is better to wait and see, and that the majority will not have to have body parts removed so lets just leave them unless and untill.
I don't want you to agree that the benefits outweigh the risks (as this is a personal assessment), but it would at least be productive for you to acknowledge that there are benefits. RACP does. It is not just cosmetic.
Where does RACP recognise the benifits?:confused:
Like this
Recently there has been renewed debate regarding both the possible health benefits and the ethical concerns relating to routine male circumcision. The most important conditions where some benefit may result from circumcision are urinary tract infections, and in adults HIV infection and cancer of the penis. The frequency of these conditions, the level of protection offered by circumcision and complication rate of circumcision do not warrant a recommendation of universal circumcision for newborn and infant males in an Australian and New Zealand context.
:confused: What benifits? The benifits have been disproven. If you feel it is of personal benifit that is fine, lets not force our own agenda's about cosmetic benifits on tiny babies. If it really was of more benifit adult males would be running out to have the procedure done in droves. We would not take their right to choose away from them in infancy.
Tam-I-Am
15-09-2009, 00:08
Do you acknowledge that there are risks with the foreskin? I know there are members on here that have testimony to that fact.
There are risks with EVERYTHING to do with the human body :confused:. Nobody could argue that there weren't risks with the foreskin. However, the argument here is whether the risks of prophylactic removal of the foreskin outweigh the risks with keeping the penis intact until such a time as treatment is warranted by the presence of, you know, *actual* pathology.
There are risks with having skin, too, you know. And a heart, a brain, a colon, kidneys, a liver, a gallbladder, an appendix, eyes, a nose, ears, tonsils, breasts, testicles - want me to go on? The medical profession doesn't advocate for the prophylactic removal of any other healthy, functioning part of the body before pathology presents itself. Some adults CHOOSE such prophylactic removals FOR THEMSELVES if they think that the risks of keeping said body parts outweigh the risks of the removal.
I don't think of circumcision as cosmetic surgery - but I do think of it as purely elective surgery, unless there is evidence of pathology. Which it is, by definition. The same as having your tonsils, appendix, or testes removed without evidence of pathology would be purely elective - no medical necessity.
Where does RACP recognise the benifits?:confused:
I'll bold it for you.
The most important conditions where some benefit may result from circumcision are urinary tract infections, and in adults HIV infection and cancer of the penis.
They then talk about the low frequency of the connditions. But they ackowledge it at least. They never mention it as cosmetic.
lets not force our own agenda's about cosmetic benifits on tiny babies.
Since you guys love RACP quotes:
RACP does not recommend that routine
circumcision in infancy be performed, but accepts that parents should be able to make this decision with their doctors.
Should we ignore all of RACP, or just some of their statements?
but I do think of it as purely elective surgery
I agree. It is elective. Fortunately we have the freedom to be able to elect this surgery if you so choose.
im not even sure its elective surgery. babies are not electing themselves
UNfortunately, some people see it as their right to elect surgery on other people
sockstealingpoltergeist
15-09-2009, 00:30
I'll bold it for you.
The most important conditions where some benefit may result from circumcision are urinary tract infections, and in adults HIV infection and cancer of the penis.
They then talk about the low frequency of the connditions. But they ackowledge it at least. They never mention it as cosmetic.
Since you guys love RACP quotes:
RACP does not recommend that routine
circumcision in infancy be performed, but accepts that parents should be able to make this decision with their doctors.
Should we ignore all of RACP, or just some of their statements?
I agree. It is elective. Fortunately we have the freedom to be able to elect this surgery if you so choose.
They say that parents should be able to decide with their Dr because it is currently still legal.
Unfortunately for some boys they don't get to elect if they want this unessecary risky procedure or not.:(
It does harm some boys, it does kill some boys, those are the facts. So even if you believe it has some benifits, why not wait and see if you need to worry about those things. The foreskin will still be there, these decisions can be made later?
Wouldn't you rather not risk your childs penis and life? The odds are so low of them needing a circ, so why risk death for it? When it can be done later? I don't get it?:confused:
Tam-I-Am
15-09-2009, 00:39
Girl babies suffer far more urinary tract infections that boy babies. Should we just incise everything from labia to labia on them?
Likewise, penile cancer is a) really rare, and b) can happen regardless of the presence of a foreskin, so if we're going to eliminate that risk entirely, we should just advocated for the lopping off of the entire penis.
And, you know what REEEEALLY helps HIV? Good sexual hygiene.
;)
And yes, you're right Andrew - my apologies. There should be a different name for it - parental-elected surgery, or some such.
I guess that is what make us all so different.
What a boring world it would be if we were all the same.
I can understand that you don't see it through my eyes. My eyes are different. My morals and values are different.
I don't ask that you understand me. But I do worry that others are trying to take away my choices as a parent.
I fear for the day when they make smacking illegal and give children to right to claim 'child abuse' at their parent's disciplinary techniques.
Tam-I-Am
15-09-2009, 00:46
I guess that is what make us all so different.
What a boring world it would be if we were all the same.
I can understand that you don't see it through my eyes. My eyes are different. My morals and values are different.
I don't ask that you understand me. But I do worry that others are trying to take away my choices as a parent.
I fear for the day when they make smacking illegal and give children to right to claim 'child abuse' at their parent's disciplinary techniques.
You're right, we do see things VEEEERY differently - because I have a lot of rights, legally speaking - and my child very few. I'm more worried about INCREASING my child's rights (EVERY child's rights) so that they have equal human status - the right to bodily autonomy being foremost in that fight.
Is that another can of worms I hear opening?:)
sockstealingpoltergeist
15-09-2009, 00:50
I guess that is what make us all so different.
What a boring world it would be if we were all the same.
I can understand that you don't see it through my eyes. My eyes are different. My morals and values are different.
I don't ask that you understand me. But I do worry that others are trying to take away my choices as a parent.
I fear for the day when they make smacking illegal and give children to right to claim 'child abuse' at their parent's disciplinary techniques.
Ok obviously what I have been saying makes sense and you are changing the subject. (Would love to debate you about smacking too though:)).
I do feel parents have a right to parent how they wish as long as they are not putting their child at risk of harm, that to me is a human rights violation.
I don't ask you to be the same, because I certainly am not, I ask you to recognise that every person from the tiny defenceless newborn, to the little old lady should have the right to bodily autonomy. That means not having unecessary procedures done without consent.
If circumcision is so wonderful, I ask that people wait, tell their sons about it, give them links to all the info and let them decide.
What do you really believe most young men would choose? Do you really feel they would risk their penis and other complications just in case?
Ok obviously what I have been saying makes sense and you are changing the subject.
Of course you make sense. I understand everything you're saying.
I don't ask you to be the same, because I certainly am not, I ask you to recognise that every person from the tiny defenceless newborn, to the little old lady should have the right to bodily autonomy. That means not having unecessary procedures done without consent.
I'm sorry, but that one does not make sense to me. You are asking me to be the same. You are asking me to look at circumcision the same way as you. We view the procedure differently. I understand your viewpoint, but if I looked at it the way you did we wouldn't be here.
and let them decide
Some of the benefits are most effective when they are circumcised young. In my eyes, I am doing the best thing by them by giving the best protection possible - regardless of how rare it may be. This is how we are different SSP. Your risk/benefit ratio is different to mine. There is no right or wrong analyses unfortunately. We will not be able to align. We have read all the info and come to our own conclusions. Our brains obviously work in different ways.
Anyway. It's been great again.
But I'm off to sleep.
I might take a break from this for a couple of days - so please don't feel that I am ignoring you.
Pippi Longstocking
15-09-2009, 05:08
Of course you make sense. I understand everything you're saying....
<snip>
...I'm sorry, but that one does not make sense to me.
:confused:
sockstealingpoltergeist
15-09-2009, 10:43
Of course you make sense. I understand everything you're saying.
.
Good.:)
I'm sorry, but that one does not make sense to me. You are asking me to be the same. You are asking me to look at circumcision the same way as you. We view the procedure differently. I understand your viewpoint, but if I looked at it the way you did we wouldn't be here.
.
No I am not asking you to be the same, I am saying that sometimes we might do things that we feel are in the best interests of our children, yet when we find out they are not, we change our stance. Moreover the goverment often steps in and says, (insert issue here) is a violation of human rights, because it is unecessary and harms children. We both know circ can harm and kill children!
I would be glad if we wern't here discussing this, because then it would mean one less perosn supporting RIC.
Some of the benefits are most effective when they are circumcised young. In my eyes, I am doing the best thing by them by giving the best protection possible - regardless of how rare it may be. This is how we are different SSP. Your risk/benefit ratio is different to mine. There is no right or wrong analyses unfortunately. We will not be able to align. We have read all the info and come to our own conclusions. Our brains obviously work in different ways.
Could you please list the proven benifits from RIC? Do these benifits outweigh the risk of death, or loss of penis etc?
There is a right or wrong when it comes to bodily autonomy, all adults have it and so should all babies and children, (unless there is a medical condition).
Why do you feel children should not have this basic right particuarly when RIC can be quite dangerous?
Imagine how you would feel if you were one of the people who lost their son because they believed they had a right to choose RIC for him? Or one of the people who's son lost their penis? What would you say when he was older?
I can't imagine anything more awful really. Losing my son for a non necessary procedure.:(
My son has had two operations allready in his little life, and both times I was terrified that something would go wrong, and I would never put myself, least of all him through something distressing or painful and risky if I didn't absolutely have to.
Whispers
15-09-2009, 11:06
RIC to me violates the rights of a child. I will never understand how someone can risk the life of their child or cause pain to their child for reasons not nessacary.
Cosmetic surgery should only be done at the wish's of the person receaving it.
My daughter has a third nipple I wouldn't go and have that cut off just because it what I wanted, she was born with it and so it is apart of her, my son was born with foreskin it is apart of him and so I would not go and chop that off ether.
MotherNurture
15-09-2009, 13:49
Originally Posted by Father
I have not heard of a death from the plastibell method. I have researched it to find out. That gives me enough confidence in the procedure to put my boy through it without worry.
I simply googled "plastibell death" and immediately found reference to this report.
Plastibell Death (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2528673)
There's probably more, but really, even one death from an unnecessary surgery performed on an absolutely perfect baby is too much, isn't it?
MotherNurture
15-09-2009, 13:53
Oh, and death is not the only horrifying risk of circumcision. Here's a case of Necrotizing fasciitis after Plastibell circumcision (http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/bliss/). WARNING, CONTAINS GRAPHIC MEDICAL JOURNAL REPORT AND ACCOMPANYING PHOTOS.
The foreskin comes standard, it's as healthy and normal as a little girl's labia and clitoral hood. There's no reason to subject completely healthy, normal newborns to elective surgery. There's no reason it can't wait until he can decide for himself. It's his penis, his future sexuality. What if this was your child? :(
mother nurture,
that is just terrible:(
I have mums in our mothers group, talking like it is such a 'minor' thing to have done, and if they have a boy, they'll do it, I'm trying my best to bite my tongue, but I don't think it will last for much longer:no:
Whispers
15-09-2009, 14:09
Oh, and death is not the only horrifying risk of circumcision. Here's a case of Necrotizing fasciitis after Plastibell circumcision (http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/bliss/). WARNING, CONTAINS GRAPHIC MEDICAL JOURNAL REPORT AND ACCOMPANYING PHOTOS.
The foreskin comes standard, it's as healthy and normal as a little girl's labia and clitoral hood. There's no reason to subject completely healthy, normal newborns to elective surgery. There's no reason it can't wait until he can decide for himself. It's his penis, his future sexuality. What if this was your child? :(
:no: and people would risk this :no:
studentmum
15-09-2009, 19:24
I dont remember it being "pushed" and i have a child not much difference in age. We had to seek a doctor out, they werent just hanging around at the hospital ready to chop,lop or roll.
Does your nephew have any ill feelings towards this being done? Is the correction that can be done just for show or is it medical?
My brother is 11 and my mum was asked after he was born and whilst still in theatre i.e. would've done it there and then and not even waited the usual 12 days or so. When pg with my daughter 8 years ago my Dr asked me to consider circ in case we had a boy.
It would depend on how "old school" the ob is... I personally hope they're all retired by now.
Sarah :flowerz:
studentmum
15-09-2009, 19:36
The bottom line for this thread is quite simple...
You may wish to argue about personal opinions but from a medical perspective a circumcision is an unnecessary surgical procedure, any practitioner performing one without informing of the MANY risks beforehand is in breech of ethical conduct. (I would argue that it is still unethical to perform one regardless, but when $ are involved surgeons would cut anything)
Evidence based care is our right, evidence supports the above statement.
Sarah :flowerz:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.9 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.