Are they serious?

[Opinionated]

I have just seen in the pro thread that there is a doctor who performs circ under a general anaesthetic. Now I am all for the use of anaesthetic if a child is being circumcised, but a general? I can't believe that people would risk putting their child under a general for this procedure. Seriously, I don't think people really understand that a general anaesthetic can be quite a risk. It is not something I would ever consider for my child unless they absolutely had to have one and the procedure was totally necessary for their health. Just spins my mind.:dizzy:

[mummy2olivia]

i have one word to reply...

OUCH

how about we do that to him!!!

[NonnyMouse]

At what age?

DD had to go under a general at age 2 and she was only under long enough for her procedure, which lasted around 10 minutes in total.

It's actually a good marketing ploy really, especially since one of the reasons people don't want to circ is due to inflicting pain.

(Not condoning it of course, just thinking out loud from my cynical perspective on marketing)

[SassyMummy]

I think sometimes it's safer to put them under when performing operations that don't actually REQUIRE a general.

I know that when DPs niece had a potentially cancerous mole removed, she was put under. She didn't NEED to be, but I can't imagine a 4-year-old holding her arm still while you cut at it.

Same could be said for an older baby - you just can't make them stay still for long enough.

I'm not for circumcision, but I can imagine that in some cases, it's just safer because it means they're not moving about... cos it could be kinda dangerous if they are thrashing about a bit.

[sockstealingpoltergeist]

General is very risky, I would never ever put my child through that unless it was absolutely necessary.

My son has allready had two small ops, and had to go under, it was very nerve wracking, why any one would do it just because is beyond me.

[bada]

The RACP recommends the procedure be performed under GA after the age of six months.

[PeppaH]

Not about cir, but I remember when I was like 10 or 11 I got attacked by a rotti and had to get stiches to my face.
The doctor asked me if I wanted to be awake or asleep. There was no way in hell I was stayin still getting stiches to my eye while awake lol

[SPC]

It's insane. We don't do umbilical hernia repairs under general FFS. They are done with a caudal, which is similar to an epidural, and some sedation. There's no reason to not do circs under a local block and a bit of midazolam, so they don't remember it or stress out during it. A GA for this would dangerous and expensive; heaps more time in recovery etc.

I imagine its not a general at all, but that's what it's described as to the parents. Anaesthetists are not the best at honest explanations. It's probably, at worse, a bit of gas through an LMA and a whole heap of local anaesthetic, but seeing as parents don't stay in the room for a GA, it doesn't matter. This is about parent anxiety, not medicine or pain relief. This way, the parents don't have to witness it being done.

[tomtom]

I had my appendix out at 5.
My heart stopped, they tried for quite a while to get it going again. I am allergic to suxamethonium, my parents didn't know, nobody knew.
I wouldn't be taking the risk of any anaesthetic for my kids unless it was absolutely necessary.
My point being you just don't know what can happen.

[Blueberry Crumble]

There is a much much higher risk of dying in a car accident than dying from anasthetic. YEt we drive every day

[sockstealingpoltergeist]

There is a much much higher risk of dying in a car accident than dying from anasthetic. YEt we drive every day
So why add to the risk, for no reason?

[NonnyMouse]

It's insane. We don't do umbilical hernia repairs under general FFS. They are done with a caudal, which is similar to an epidural, and some sedation.

Mine was done under GA. The only time they wouldn't do a GA was if I needed it repaired while I was preg, and then I'd have the "twilight" meds plus local anaesthetic.

[Opinionated]

There is a much much higher risk of dying in a car accident than dying from anasthetic. YEt we drive every day
Aaaah statistics.

Of the people that drive, what % drive. Of those that have a general, what % die or have a serious adverse outcome. I would argue a general is much more dangerous.

I think that you are probably right SPC, it is probably not a true general, just pitched that way to the parents.

Still, I think it is all totally ridiculous.

[serendipity22]

Originally Posted by Blueberry Crumble View Post
There is a much much higher risk of dying in a car accident than dying from anasthetic. YEt we drive every day

There are about 1500 road deaths in Australia per year. Up until 1980 the chance of dying of a GA was 1 in 10,000 in the US.

If we had the same rate in the US and everyone had one GA per year then 15,000,000/10,000 = 1500 which is about the same as the road deaths.

The difference is most people have hundreds or thousands times of car trips as GAs.

Also people don't have equal probability of a car accident. Obviously drunks, drivers on dope and other drugs (including prescription) have a much higher chance.

If you are not one of them then your chance of dying from a GA might be 1,000,000 times higher than in a single road trip.

[MummaBear03]

Anaesthetic is not something to be taken lightly. It has huge risks and there's no way in hell I'd be risking it with my child for something unnecessary. A coaching partner went under a GA to have teeth pulled and never woke up. I know a couple of others, too, but wasn't close to them like I was with her. I have her daughter on my FB and the poor kid never stood in this world without a mother, being dumped on a father who walked out when she was a baby and never wanted her back. People die under GA. It's very real that it happens.

[TripleTime]

:eek:

A GA under the age of 2 is very risky.

Im quite shocked actually.


Here i am holding of putting DD2 under a GA for an MRI for as long as possible.

Doesnt sit right with me.

[myhusbandswife]

:eek:

A GA under the age of 2 is very risky.

Im quite shocked actually.


Here i am holding of putting DD2 under a GA for an MRI for as long as possible.

Doesnt sit right with me.

Sorry off topic

Can your DD just have sedation? My DD did for MRI as I was dead set against a GA it took 3 attempts but I wasnt backing down

[TripleTime]

Sorry off topic

Can your DD just have sedation? My DD did for MRI as I was dead set against a GA it took 3 attempts but I wasnt backing down


Depends on how much will still move. She needs to be on her stomach & needs to be done the day of surgery.

[Bellini]

That is absolutely ridiculous :mad:

DS needs to go under GA at 9 months to bring his testicle down and I am absolutely freaking out about it. I would never even consider it if it wasn't necessary.

[Sheer Bliss]

For an ELECTIVE surgery like that - it's crazy IMO.

DS2 was under a general anesthetic for a bi-inugiual hernia at 11weeks. He was too big for a spinal (which freaked me out every bit as much as a general TBH) It was causing him pain and he was crying all the time, so worth doing. He stopped breathing a few times coming out, and then he had quite a few episodes over that night of stopping breathing. We had to stay in hospy overnight because of his age before any of that happened anyway, but OMG scary. Why you would want to put a baby through this if it wasn't needed is beyond me.

[Opinionated]

There are about 1500 road deaths in Australia per year. Up until 1980 the chance of dying of a GA was 1 in 10,000 in the US.

If we had the same rate in the US and everyone had one GA per year then 15,000,000/10,000 = 1500 which is about the same as the road deaths.

The difference is most people have hundreds or thousands times of car trips as GAs.

Also people don't have equal probability of a car accident. Obviously drunks, drivers on dope and other drugs (including prescription) have a much higher chance.

If you are not one of them then your chance of dying from a GA might be 1,000,000 times higher than in a single road trip.

Yes, that may be the actual rate of death caused by a GA. However, that does not take into account other listed causes of death that may be a direct complication of a GA. Have a heart attack under a GA and your death certificate will list your cause of death as cardiac arrest, even though it may have been directly caused by the GA. It is impossible to know exactly how many people die to complications caused by GA's because of the way cause of death is listed. They are a lot more risky than you are implying.

No way on earth would I risk my child having to have a GA unless absolutely necessary, especially at such a young age.