View Full Version : Two sides to the issue
Here:)
hmmmm, I dont know about the hwole circumcision thing. I have a good friend who had her bubba done recently, not really for me to judge, they made a decision as a family. I havent done it just because I never really thought of it (DH isnt done) and it doesnt seem necessary to me.
Gosh, we all do things as parents that we feel guity about...mother guilt has to be one of the strongest feelings in the world, I guess it comes from mother love ahhhhh. Mummycloud, go easy on yourself...you obviously care soooo much about your child and he will know that.
Hmm I have been reading this thread, but never posted. There are a lot of interesting facts and opinions here..
Anyway my 2c worth. After Andrew was born, Mum asked me if we were going to get him done. I said 'Why?'. She said, cos thats what you do! Hmm
I had already decided while I was pregnant that if I had a boy, I wouldn't have it done. No need. Why fix what ain't broke?
Mum tried to get a conversation going about it and I'd just say 'why' every time. She soon stopped even asking.
I understand that it was the 'done thing' once upon a time, but times they are a'changin...
hehe wattle and frenchie, just popped in to see if you girls actually turned up or not :) great to see you both here :);) :p
oh and nicoles here too! *waves* :)
Clearly I missed something! Are you all still here?? Do stay.. it's more fun with company. ;)
Nicole, over in the thread that's just called 'Circumcision', JohnC has posted a lot of data on declining circ rates if you haven't seen it already. You're right... times ARE achanging!! :)
I just had my in-laws visiting for the weekend and had my first experience of external pressure on this subject,which was kind of interesting. Not that I was reallly pressured, but FIL talked about men in the war being done because of infections (so I suppose I should consider that next time I am sending my son to war.. :rolleyes: ) and MIL said she was greatly reassured that after my husband was done, the doctor told her that he had a 'restriction' that would have caused him problems later. Of course, even if that were true, it wouldn't necessarily require circumcision.
What I thought was most interesting though was that the first doctor MIL spoke to, told her that if she wanted it done, he'd be prepared to do it the day she was prepared to hold him down while it was done - and he turned around and left the room. That was 37 years ago! I was IMPRESSED!! :D
For those of you who have had your boys circumcised, what is the cost?
Can it be done through the public health system? Is it covered by Medicare, is there a gap to pay? :confused:
When I replied before I didn't have the exact Medicare numbers and couldn't get them since the HIC was rebuilding its website. They're done now, so here they are
Item 30653 (age 0-6 months), scheduled fee $40.25, 75% benefit $30.20, 85% benefit $34.25
Item 30656 (age 6 months - 9years ), scheduled fee $93.20, 75% benefit $70.20, 85% benefit $79.60
Item 30659 (age 10 years up, GP), scheduled fee $129.60, 75% benefit $97.20, 85% benefit $110.20
Item 30660 (age 10 years up, Specialist), scheduled fee $160.25, 75% benefit $120.55, 85% benefit $136.60
A few general (and personal) observations (and thanks to those who responded to my requests for more info):
1. Even though public hospitals are free (if you can find one that still does it) I would not recommend them since the complication rates are higher, probably due to the fact that junior doctors are used.
2. If you are being charged substantially more than the scheduled fee then you are in the hands of a medical profiteer - think twice.
3. The Australian Association of Paediatric Surgeons has this to say in 1996:
Parents requesting circumcision of their male children should have the complications both general and local, explained to them. These complications are usually minor but can be severe and may result in the death of the child. Time should also be spent discussing the advantages and disadvantages of the operation, both in the short and long term, as is currently applicable in Australia. There are many adults in the community who hold a very strong opinion as to the place of circumcision. This may be for religious reasons or for family "custom" or a claim of "cleanliness" or other reasons. In this event the procedure should be performed electively after six months of age. When performed, it should be carried out by a surgeon performing circumcisions on children on a regular basis with an anaesthetist using appropriate techniques. This would imply that the anaesthetist is fully trained in the art of paediatric anaesthesia, including the ability to perform caudal and penile regional or local anaesthesia. The operation should be carried out in a paediatrically orientated environment, designed to reduce the risk to the child and providing support to the parents or caregivers.
4. Any medically indicated circumcision should definitely be performed in a hospital by a specialist.
As an example of how lop-sided the "two sides" in this debate are when it comes to facts, consider the following from the pro-circ web sites of Brian Morris and Terry Russell:
In contrast to the appearance of the uncircumcised, the circumcised penis makes this part of the anatomy appear more adult, with its exposed glans. As an example of this, when the English (uncircumcised) colonized Australia in 1788 they naturally explored Sydney Harbour. Noticing a group of (naked) aboriginal men on the northern shores as they sailed past they commented on their ‘manly’ appearance, i.e., the circumcised state of their penises. This locality was consequently named ‘Manly’, which is today a well-known suburb of the greater Sydney metropolitan area.
An interesting piece of anthropology except for one rather big problem. The Aborigines of NSW - like the majority of Aborigines at the time of white settlement - did not practice circumcision. In fact, the eastern boundary of circumcision initiation rites extended from just outside Adelaide due north across Australia to the Leichhardt River in Queensland, as can be seen from the famous Tindale map (http://www.samuseum.sa.gov.au/page/default.asp?site=2&page=TIN_Tribal) of tribal boundaries.
Apart from pointing up the reckless disregard for the truth by the likes of Morris and Russell, this is an important fact in its own right since many people seem to be under the mistaken impression that circumcision was a universal Aboriginal custom.
rynosmum
05-12-2005, 12:00
John,
That is possibly one of the strangest support links to circ I have ever seen. What sort of show are these clowns running ? :confused:
More importantly, how come the history texts we had in school never had such humorous recollections as this ?
Oh, there's plenty more from where that came from. This is Brian Morris again ...
There are many fascinating historical aspects involving circumcision or lack thereof. For example, some argue that the latter may have precipitated the French Revolution. Marie Antoinette, 12th daughter of the Emperor and Empress of Austria, much hated by France, married the future Louis XVI in 1770 at the age of 14. By 18, still immature and lacking in intellectual interests, she became queen. Louis XVI suffered from phimosis (tight foreskin) that prevented successful intercourse. As a result Antoinette was deprived of the responsibilities of motherhood, which might have matured her. She indulged in lavish amusements, balls, plays and receptions that pandered to her childish fantasies, even building a model dairy farm "dolls house" at Trianon. Her enemies accused her of bankrupting France. In a secret visit to France her brother, Emperor Joseph II, reprimanded her and also persuaded Louis to get circumcised. This was 8 years after their marriage. Although she subsequently bore 3 children, the damage had been done. The rest is history, the Revolution took place, and both were executed in 1793.
I don't think further comment from me is needed really ...
ADDED: Except I can't resist :D Morris says "some argue ... ". Well the source of this preposterous invention was none other than Dr. P. C. Remondino, who in the same 1891 book also claimed that circumcision prevented or cured about a hundred ailments, including alcoholism, epilepsy, asthma, enuresis, hernia, gout, rectal prolapse, rheumatism, kidney disease, and so forth. The entire fabrication about Louis was debunked by a scholarly study from France, Le phimosis de Louis XVI (1754-1793) aurait-il été a l'origine de ses difficultés sexuelles et de sa fecundité retardée? Prog Urol. 2002; 12(1):132-7
ummm............i really don't know what to say on that. other than, what the? :confused:
where on earth does Brian Morris get this stuff from? those sort of claims to persuasion just make him look like a sensationalist.
Who's Brian Morris? Is he another Terry Russell? Doesn't matter where he gets it - people are buying it and he's laughing all the way to the bank. It's just not right.
omg, that has got ot be the most ridiculous load of crap i've ever read!!! who is this guy, is her for real!!!!:eek:
Who's Brian Morris? Is he another Terry Russell?
Morris is a professor of physiology at Sydney University and is Australia's most prominent and vigorous proponent of universal (preferrably neonatal) male circumcision.
Russell you know, and is rather easy to figure out - he's found the pot of gold at the end of his GP's career rainbow, consequently he'll say almost anything to scare parents into circumcising their sons.
The third member of Australia's pro-circ triumvirate, Roger Short, is a semi-retired (I think) professorial fellow of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at Melbourne Uni . He is the only one of the three to have ever published anything in the technical literature on circumcision - a paper on AIDS co-written with Szabo in 2000. I notice from Compass on the ABC last night that he has now turned his attention to lemon juice as an AIDS prophylactic (as if the long-suffering Africans don't have enough worries already).
Morris and Russell often work together: for instance after WA stopped circ in public hospitals last year, they both had letters published in the Perth Sunday Times warning darkly about epidemics of renal failure and penile cancer if parents there didn't come to their senses. To its shame, the paper also published a news article with these claims and attributed them to "eastern states experts".
Morris is difficult to figure out. He has had a semi-distinguished career, making his name in hypertension research. But his writings on circumcision are of a standard that would fail a first-year student (for instance, most of his footnotes on the website do not correspond to the numbered references!)
His motivation is even more obscure. I have a theory, but Morris is highly litigious (even taking Dr Karl and the Fairfax press to the Press Council last year - he lost), and I wouldn't want to get Bubhub into trouble with this rather creepy man (he even has holiday snaps on his web site of a visit to see Masai circumcisions).
Probably more than you wanted to know, eh?
I don't know if I'm just tired, but the lemon juice thing has me totally confuzzled :confused:
I don't know if I'm just tired, but the lemon juice thing has me totally confuzzled :confused:
It's okay, you're not the only one - ask his professional colleagues!
His current strategy for African AIDS prevention is mass circumcision for men and for women to douche themselves with lemon juice before or after sexual intercourse. I have yet to here him talk about condoms. I don't want to comment further - just makes me too angry :(
Sarie, if foreskins are such problems, then how come men havn't lost them with evolution over time?
You are entitled to your opinion as I am mine.
... if foreskins are such problems, then how come men havn't lost them with evolution over time?
A most interesting question, and one that is susceptible to some definite analysis. In a comparative anatomical study (http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/cold-mcgrath/) Cold and McGrath found that the prepuce was one of only three features common to all primate external genitalia. It is therefore reasonable to assume that it has provided some required functionality for over 65 million years of primate evolution.
In humans the foreskin has undergone some specific changes:
The results of this study demonstrate that the human prepuce is not "vestigial" but is, in fact, an evolutionary advancement over the prepuce of other primates. This is most clearly seen in the evolutionary increase in corpuscular innervation of the human prepuce and the concomitant decrease in corpuscular receptors of the human glans relative to the innervation of the prepuce and glans of lower primates. (emphasis added)
In English, this means that the foreskin in humans has shown a marked increase in sensitivity via fine touch (corpuscular) receptors and a corresponding decrease in sensitivity of the glans (head of the penis) compared with other primates. To understand what a fine-touch receptor is, hold out one hand palm down and gently run your fingernails over the back of that hand. Now turn the hand palm up and repeat. Notice the difference in sensation :cool: - that is because your palm and fingertips contain many more corpuscular receptors.
Here is not the place to speculate on the adaptive significance of this change. But together with four-fold increase in penile length, the formation of a true glans penis, and the disappearance of a penile bone, it is clear that the enhancement of preputial sensitivity is one of the defining features of specifically human genitalia.
In short, the foreskin is not "redundant" from either an anatomical or evolutionary standpoint, and its loss to circumcision entails a genuine loss of functionality.
And that's not just a matter of opinion ;) .
My last word, then I will bid this thread goodbye.
I want to say thankyou for those of you who are have a genuine interest in my stance, not just to find ammo for the against cause.
John I think you are a gentleman, Cosmic you know I think you're great and Coops too.
There have been a few people who have tried to come in and cause tension just to start a fight, but it's been good to get an understanding for both sides.
I wish you all well
Love
Sarie
Well, thankyou Sarie. But do pop back if you see something that piques your interest (I'm sure you'll be checking up on us from time to time ;) )
I'll keep you to that John ;)
mummycloud
08-12-2005, 00:56
The question Dilly asked earlier which Jon C just answered has me think'n ( I know amazing eh ), I know that tonsils have a function still, but they are removed at the drop of hat. I hear too often that when kids get tubes put on their ears, the ENT surgeon just "whips" the tonsils out too :rolleyes: , just to save having to do it later...oh and why not just take out the adenoids while they're there too..LOL
The appendix serves no purpose anymore, but we wait till it gets infected before the removal of those.
Looks to me like if it's easy to get rid of it and isn't too invasive, some surgeons are more than happy to just snip whatever off at the request of the parents, after all it's all moolah to them :rolleyes:
Oh well, just a passing thought, not totally against circ's just not into painful infant ones and circ's done for cosmetic porpuses, which has nothing to do with the post I just made ;)
the_queen
08-12-2005, 13:57
I'm not any kind of medical professional - but I don't think they will remove tonsils these days until there's been multiple (ie more than 5) recurrent serious tonsillitis episodes. I'm 26, and I had mine out when I was 2 after one bout of tonsillitis; but my sister (3 yrs younger) didn't get hers out until she was about 13, after many many bouts of tonsillitis. As far as I understand, the trend of "whip them out just in case" has changed (in the case of tonsils anyway!).
Someone who has actual medical knowledge, please correct me if I'm wrong! :)
your right, queen, it is now very very difficult to get tonsils removed. children and adults with recurring tonsilitis have a real battle on thier hands to get the operation done. doctors dont like to do it these days unless it is absolutely necessary. i have a friend who suffers terrible with several bouts of severe tonsilitis every yr, and another friend whose daughter is the same, yet still dr refuses to have them removed.
I think everyone is kinda right here :D
The most recent figures show a total of about 30,000 tonsillectomies, adenoidectomies or both for the year to June 2004 for all children aged 1 to 14 years. This is a lot, but much less than was the case 40 years ago. A back-of-the-envelope calculation says the total cumulative risk of child losing their tonsils and/or adenoids by age 15 is around 12%.
Now the decline in tonsillectomies was actually part of the same trend that led to the radical reduction in routine circumcision, and for the same reasons - "unnecessary surgery is bad surgery" and complication levels - and at the same time - 1970s. (I have read that "T&C" was a common routine operation in the 1950s and 60s, but I can't confirm this usage - anyone know?)
Appendectomies fit into the same category. Indeed, members of the team that showed a boy was about 3 times more likely to be circumcised if he was born in regional WA compared with Perth also found a similar problem with appendectomy. Both studies were conducted by the Safety and Quality of Surgical Care Project.
ADDED: It occurred to me that because the experience of the older generation is very different to that of the younger with regard to tonsillectomy, just as with circumcision, parents may be concerned about whether a tonsillectomy is warranted for their child. This link (http://www.racgp.org.au/afp/downloads/pdf/august2002/20020801harris.pdf) is an advisory to GPs on the issue and may be of some use ...
A Party of Five
08-11-2006, 17:47
Routine infant circumcision is not available at all in public hospitals in Queensland, Tasmania and Western Australia
Does anybody know who does private circumcision in Tasmania? Or how I would find a list of doctor who do? No one down here will give us this information. They just kept telling us not to have it done. And stop asking. We really don't want to have to go to the mainland to have it done.
mummycloud
08-11-2006, 18:01
Find a Rabbi, they'll hook you up with a Moyel (I think that's what they are called) who is basically a Jewish doctor who circumsizes in a ceremony type way.
Wow! this thread still kicking! Keep up the good work, all! :thumbsup:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.9 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.