View Full Version : Infections etc
Reviewing these threads, it seems there are a lot of misconceptions around about the incidence and causes of so-called foreskin problems. Perhaps it's best to deal with these at the head of a new thread, rather than scatter gun a whole lot of bits and pieces.
First the following article - Management of the Paediatric Foreskin - is a guide for Australian doctors, and is definitely worth consulting for any parent interested in these issues.
http://www.cirp.org/library/hygiene/simpson1/
It should be noted that bacterial balanoposthitis (infection of the glans and/or prepuce) is quite rare in preschool boys. The main problems in this age group are caused by overzealous parents and doctors who mistakenly believe a tight (ie non-retractile) foreskin needs to be "corrected" and start retracting, often with the use of steroid creams.
The result of such "treatment" is exposure of the immature glans and inner mucosa to external contamination and colonisation by pathogens. :(
The foreskin is supposed to be tight at this age. The structure of the muscle sheath (dartos) is interleaved at birth and causes the prepuce to form a kind of one-way valve, which "puckers" on attempted retraction. The ratio of muscle fibres to elastic fibres in the dartos decreases with age, accelerating with the onset of puberty, resulting in the foreskin becoming fully retractile. This process should be allowed to run its own course, and no-one but the boy himself should be attempting to retract the foreskin. (Note that this is a separate issue to infant adhesions, which also bind the prepuce to the glans thus creating an additional protective barrier.)
Some older boys (~0.5%) may nonetheless experience recurrent balanitis which is not responsive to conservative treatment. Such boys may benefit from circumcision and should be seen by a specialist.
The other indication for circumcision is BXO (dealt with in the article), which probably has a similar incidence, peaking around 12 years of age.
Adult males (both circumcised and intact) may experience balanitis, but usually for different reasons eg diabetes. In one British study, biopsies were taken and it was discovered that the most common cause of recurrent balanitis was what the researchers tactfully described as "excessive soap washing with debrasion" (translation: masturbating with soap in the shower). They were sent home with some advice and emollient cream.
Under current medical practice guidelines it is probably fair to say an Australian uncircumcised infant faces a lifetime chance of 3 in 200 of needing a circumcision later in life, which is about the current incidence in Scandanavia.
The first post in this thread was for those who already have an intact son. For those who are expecting (or have just had - congratulations :D ) a son, here is some information from Australia's largest children's hospitals ...
http://www.chw.edu.au/parents/factsheets/circumj.htm
The other very important thing to consider is that newborns feel pain more than adults and older children. For a report on this important study, see:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=67501
The circumcision often seems distorted because there is rarely any mention of the benefits of a foreskin, as if there were no reason for its existence and therefore cutting it off is a matter of little consequence.
In fact, Nature did not get it wrong :D . We know the foreskin is protective of the immature glans in infancy, improves sexual sensation after puberty and, we now hear, reduces the incidence of urinary problems in older men.
A 2001 study of 1216 men published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Biostatistics "was devised to determine the prevalence of urinary symptoms among men living in the Australian cities of Melbourne, Sydney or Perth, and to identify factors associated with the presence of moderate-to-severe urinary symptoms."
The result? "The age-specific prevalence of moderate-to-severe urinary symptoms (IPSS > 8) in men aged 40-49, 50-59, 60-69 years was 16%, 23% and 28%, respectively. Compared with men with no or mild urinary symptoms (IPSS < 8), men with moderate-to-severe symptoms were more likely to report ... being circumcised ... There were no significant differences between men ... with respect to body mass index, education level, having had a vasectomy, or cigarette smoking." [The IPSS is International Prostate Symptom Score]
They conclude that "among Australian men, being circumcised, or not currently living as married, were associated with increased prevalence of urinary symptoms."
The result is significant for two reasons:
1. The researchers were not particularly looking for, or expecting any, association with circumcision - it just emerged out of the data.
2. Urinary problems, which can range from trouble urinating (because of prostate enlargement) through to prostate cancer, are a growing problem in the developed world. In Australia, according to a seminar held in Sydney last weekend, the number of men under 60 diagnosed with prostate cancer has increased by 50pc in recent times. About 2600 Australians will die of prostate cancer in the coming year.
So circumcision, rather than preventing problems later in life, actually causes them.
Thanks John. All this information is really useful to have. A nice little resource for bubhubbers seeking advice. :)
And lo and behold, a circ thread that hasn't turned into a free-for-all. :eek: Maybe if we all just had threads where we are the only poster, there'd be far less people getting offended around here. :D
C.
melfunction
28-11-2005, 17:50
Hi,
While visiting a friend today, we got chatting about circumcision. Her 3 year old son hasn't been done, but their dr is telling them that they may have to. Her Ds is having constant redness on the tip on the foreskin and it is always getting infected. Poor little guy even asked his mum to take him to the Dr because it was so sore.
Her question is whether or not anyone knows of any alternatives to circumcising her son as she is very firmly against it and doesn't want to put her son through so much pain and discomfort.
I told her I'd ask on this thread.
Thanks
First of all you may want to send your friend the link I put in the first post of this thread (the guidance for doctors). Also the following parental advisory has some practical advice after noting: "Sometimes the tip of the foreskin becomes reddened. This is quite common and not a cause for concern."
http://www.rch.org.au/kidsinfo/factsheets.cfm?doc_id=3715
I would add/reinforce what's said there with the following:
Avoid using soap, which is an irritant. As an alternative try sorbalene cream (with 5pc glycerine), which will also soothe.
Do not try retracting the foreskin, especially with steroid cream, since this will exacerbate the problem.
If true infection is suspected (as distinct from inflammation) then the doctor should take a swab of the preputial area to determine whether the pathogen is bacterial or candidal (or indeed if there is infection at all) before prescribing medication. (This applies to recurrent cases.)
Without further details, it is difficult to give more specific advice. But if there are further questions don't hesitate to post them here, (or PM me)
John
hummingbird
07-12-2005, 11:05
John,
Thanks for this information - it is exactly what I was hoping to find. We are expecting in April and though we are not aware of the sex I have brought this topic up with my husband. A lot of the information you have provided has answered many of the queries we have.
We both agree that there seems to be no medical benefit from routine circumcision, but were interested to know stats on routine circumcision over the last decade or so. I guess my husband's inclination to circumcise is because he was done and so were all his friends and is therefor a little concerned that if we didn't have our son done, he would be 'the odd one out'. Superficial I admit, but I didn't want to underestimate how this could effect our child psychologically.
I am heartened to know that it is not a routine procedure endorsed by medical practitioners and the prevelance amongst non-Muslim and non-Jewish communities has decreased considerably over the last decade. I am now confident we will not be circumcising our child.
Hi Siobhan,
It's really heartening to know that some people actually find this forum helpful. It sometimes feels like one is just preaching to the converted (or the unconvertible), so positive feedback is really nice, thankyou :D
On incidence, I think the only place I've mentioned the most current hospital figures was in my post The numbers (http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/showthread.php?p=66574#post66574), which you may not have seen since it's in the locked AIDS thread. The stats, of course, show a continuing downward trend. By weird coincidence that post was in reply to another prospective mother who had just decided not to get her child circumcised!
John
The AIDS thread was locked?? Why?? What is with this place lately?? :confused:
hummingbird
09-12-2005, 06:51
Hi John,
Thanks for the hospital numbers, very interesting indeed - I will be encouraging DH to have a read through of your threads.
Cheers,
S
Some interesting items from the USA.
From MedPage (preferring to blame mum rather than the circumcision!):
WASHINGTON, Oct. 10 - Community-acquired methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections are cropping up with surprising frequency in newborn boys, and mom could be involved, researchers reported here.
"Community-acquired methicillin-resistant staph aureus is a substantial and increasing proportion of staph infection in previously healthy neonates," Regine M. Fortunov, M.D., of Texas Children's Hospital in Houston. "Individuals who are most at risk are seven to twelve days of age, and male."
MRSA infections in infants who have not been hospitalized except at birth, and who have not had surgery other than circumcision, could be due to concurrent infection of mother and child, Dr. Fortunov said at the American Academy of Pediatrics meeting.
And from the New York Daily News:
Two more babies have contracted herpes through an ancient circumcision rite, leading the city's top health official yesterday to release an open letter to the city's Orthodox Jewish community urging caution.
The practice, known in Hebrew as metzitzah b'peh, involves a practitioner, or mohel, drawing blood from a child's circumcision wound by mouth.
Last year, three baby boys - including one who died - were known to be infected with herpes during circumcisions by the same Rockland County-based rabbi, Yitzchok Fischer, who has since suspended the practice, officials said.
But two new cases of infection - neither of which appears to be connected to Fischer - have since been reported to the city, causing Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden to release his letter yesterday.
The letter steered away from urging a ban on oral suction, as some have suggested, and instead focused on trying to educate families about inherent risks.
the_queen
17-12-2005, 12:03
The practice, known in Hebrew as metzitzah b'peh, involves a practitioner, or mohel, drawing blood from a child's circumcision wound by mouth.
I don't mean to be disrespectful to the Jewish religion and their traditions, but OMG WTF!!! :eek:
This from the December issue of Mothering magazine in the US (where about 56pc of babies were neonatally circumcised in 2003)
Circumcision Leads to Breastfeeding Complications
Need another reason to skip routine circumcision? For over twenty years, studies conducted by medical doctors and researchers have documented a connection between circumcision and breastfeeding complications. According to findings, the newly circumcised infant expresses noticeably decreased responses to a mother’s attempts at engaging their attention. This “subdued” behavior has been linked by several researchers in separate studies to a subsequent struggle in the achievement of successful breastfeeding. Research has also demonstrated that following circumcision, infants suffer from “prolonged periods of non-REM sleep,” a symptom that would further contribute to inactive and unreceptive tendencies.
Some of the infants observed in one study were supplemented with formula after circumcision—due either to frustration on the part of the mother from failed breastfeeding attempts or because doctors felt the infant was incapable of postoperative breastfeeding. Because infants usually leave the hospital seven to ten hours after the operation (many leave as early as three to six hours post-op) the long-term negative effects of circumcision on breastfeeding is more difficult to determine; however, “the observed deterioration in ability to breastfeed may potentially contribute to breastfeeding failure.”
The research was first published in the Journal of Human Lactation, I think.
moonblossom
19-12-2005, 12:20
When I had my first son 24 years ago, I was going to get him done, because his father had been done. Didnt really give it any thought till a nurse came to me and asked if my son was going to be done, I said yes and she said, come with me and it will prepare you for what ur son will go through
She took me to a room, where a newborn baby was having his done, I left the room and my son left the hospital intact.
Wow Moonblossom! A little unorthodox, but effective all the same. ;) Sounds like my MIL's experience... she said that the first doctor she spoke to about getting my DH done said to her "I'll be prepared to do it the day you're prepared to hold him down". My MIL found another doctor... :(
the_queen
19-12-2005, 15:22
Kinda OT....
I've actually been really worried about this issue, I've been lurking in these circ threads, to arm myself with some no-fail arguments, because I thought my husband would probably want it done (if we have a son - it had it's legs crossed at the ultrasound!!) BUT when I finally raised the topic with him, had heaps of bookmarked websites showing graphic images of what happens, load of anti-circ literature, etc etc.... He said "no way! We're not having that done!! It will reduce the length of his penis!!!!" :rolleyes: oh well, whatever keeps my boy intact, i guess!!!
That is TOO funny Queenie. Men!!.. ya gotta love the way they think. :)
moonblossom
19-12-2005, 16:03
Thats just the thing isnt it, out of sight out of mind. Most women dont realise the trauma these little boys experience. Their pain tolerance is so much lower than ours, I am grateful to the nurse who had had enough, and showed us what really happens. And yes, they are held down. Honestly i dont like to judge, but before you decide to do this to your sons, become informed and SEE what they go through.
i have had four sons and none of them have been done. Their Dad has but I can really see the tide turning.
reAllytee
19-12-2005, 16:20
I did look at everything & i weighed it all up as to what we should do.
We still chose to have our bubs done.
Thats mine & my partners choice & everyone has their own views. I would never openly say to someone yes you must have it done nor would i say no you shouldnt have it done i think everyone should make their own decisions based on their own views, information, beliefs etc both sides need to be seen good or bad. I think its best to be well informed on any decision you make whether its this, breastfeeding, co-sleeping or even controlled crying. I think JohnC can be commended on his facts & great information plus he always handles himself in such a way it makes people take note. Its a shame not everyone can be the same but at least this thread has been going for some time with no dramas !
Well done ! :D
I think its best to be well informed on any decision you make whether its this, breastfeeding, co-sleeping or even controlled crying.
Totally agree, Ally! And as strongly as I feel about some topics (some of those you've mentioned in fact) as I said in another thread, to say anything is guaranteed to cause problems is not accurate and that's why I'd never say it. Whenever I post about any of these topics, all I hope to do is discuss the risk (or possible risk) and it's up to others to weigh up those risks and decide what to do.
One thing bubhub has taught me is that even if something seems reeeeeeeally obvious to me, not everyone sees it the same way. ;)
I thought I'd heard it all on the dangers of circumcision until I saw the following from News24.com:
Johannesburg - Four out of fifteen people died after being struck by lightning during a circumcision initiation at Gengqe Village in Mqanduli, Eastern Cape, health officials said on Friday.
"Two of the deceased were traditional surgeons and the two others were initiates ...
"Eleven other people were taken to Umtata General Hospital," Kupelo said.
This is the second such incident. In December 2003, 10 initiates died after being struck by lightning.
On a more serious note, about 20 boys have already died in Eastern Cape Province (largely of septic wounds) so far this circumcision season (which coincides with school holidays).
the_queen
22-12-2005, 15:26
Johannesburg - Four out of fifteen people died after being struck by lightning during a circumcision initiation at Gengqe Village in Mqanduli, Eastern Cape, health officials said on Friday.
"Two of the deceased were traditional surgeons and the two others were initiates ...
"Eleven other people were taken to Umtata General Hospital," Kupelo said.
This is the second such incident. In December 2003, 10 initiates died after being struck by lightning.
I think God just made his feelings on circumcision perfectly clear ;)
John, you have made my day!
I have been fighting for every little boy who's mother want to destroy their perfect bodies.
Your information has armed me with new ammo! :) I could NEVER hurt my baby unneccessarily, why try to 'fix' something that was never wrong in the first place..??!!
I just can't believe that so many ppl went along with this awful 'tradition' for so long, and I'm glad that alot of women are making the decision to keep their baby boy's intact and perfect, just the way they were born.
Keep up the good work!
Kris.
the_queen
22-12-2005, 19:46
I think when someone says "we're planning on having our son circumcised" the perfect comeback is "oh, so when you have a girl, you'll have her circumcised too?"
(admittedly, not originally mine... I got that off another forum)
Having made that possibly controversial statement, I move a motion that this thread NOT become like other circ threads ie lots of personal attacks, harsh words, judgements, and eventually the thread gets locked down. Anyone going to second that? Dilly?? (I lurk on these circ threads, and I know you've been guilty of inciting thread rage in the past :p We all acknowledge this is a touchy subject, let's just not personally attack mothers whose boys have already been done - it helps nobody)
(And Dilly please don't personally attack me for asking you not to personally attack others.... please? ;) )
reAllytee
22-12-2005, 21:50
Dilly - Its funny how every thread you enter & when a mother has stated she has had her son circumcised you ask where. Im at a loss as to why you wish to know this when you are against it, what point would it prove knowing where i or others had theirs performed ? Just curious tis all.
Im from Sydney so its pretty obvious really.
Mother Duck
22-12-2005, 22:33
John C - this thread is brilliant, congratulations.
I am most uncertain about many issues if the baby in my belly is a boy. I just don't feel confident about being a mummy for a boy and knowing what would be best.
This particular topic is one that I am the most uncertain about.
The information that you have provided here has been most opportune and rather priceless - thank you
Allyoo - it is up to each parent to make this decision for themselves, I am quite sure that you have had your babies done because you believe this is best for them
Warmest regards - Jess
reAllytee
22-12-2005, 23:24
Jessie - Its not so much that i did it for what was best but for a number of different reasons all of those to which my partner & i weighed up together. I dont believe anyone should take the decision lightly nor is it something everyone has to do its just one of the things we chose for our son in the way we wish to raise him. JohnC is always great & offers the best info i have ever seen on a number of issues & always acts like someone with grace. True show of character.
Dilly - Again i ask again why you need to know the location especially if you have realised it was done in Sydney ? Would you like a map ?
I somehow dont think this serves a purpose.
the_queen
23-12-2005, 08:15
Hmmm perhaps I'll second my own motion - Can we please not turn this into an argumentative thread?? Please?? Pretty please???
Ally if you already know what Dilly is like, why bother addressing her? The more defensive you sound about your family's decision, the more ammunition you give her to attack you (needlessly, I might add - like I've said before, it doesn't help ANYBODY to personally attack anybody else.) If you don't like the way Dilly is posting, then report her. It takes two to argue. Be the bigger person.
Dilly, I don't think there's any need to question/attack someone for something that's already happened.
(Meanwhile, how the hell did I become referee?? :) )
Thanks for the kind words, guys :o :D
I've had a PM asking for some information about urinary tract infections in intact boys.
UTIs are relatively uncommon in infants, affecting 1-2pc of boys and girls (the rates are more or less the same). In the 1980s some research was done (by US Army doctor Thomas Wiswell) indicating that circumcision of boys conferred a significant degree of protection (up to 10 times) from UTIs. That research was subsequently shown to have what's called in the trade severe "methodological problems".
However, it is clear that removing the mucosal tissue of the inner foreskin does deny E coli, the bug responsible for most UTIs, a place to breed. The best estimate of the effect comes from a large study done in Canada in 1997, which found:
The cumulative risk for UTI hospitalization reaches a peak in the 1st year of life. Six hundred and twenty-five infant boys would need to be circumcised to prevent one UTI hospitalization in the first 5 years of life.
This of course still indicates a higher risk for intact boys, but hardly one that would justify circumcision. Mostly UTIs are treated with a course of antibiotics, like any other infection. In a few cases (both boys and girls) a congenital abnormality may be suspected, in which case the child should be referred to a paediatric urologist, who may investigate further with radiographic, sonographic or other techniques. Some abnormalities may require surgical correction.
It has been know for 30 years that the best protection from UTIs is probably breast feeding. This is the abstract of a 1975 Scandanavian paper (the language is a bit technical, but the issue is important enough to quote in full):
Human milk may contribute to protection against gram-negative infection by promoting intraluminal agglutination or killing of bacteria or by preventing bacterial attachment to epithelial surfaces. This paper explores the effect of human milk on the sensitivity of faecal E. coli to serum bactericidal activity and agglutination specificity, factors which have been regarded as related to virulence. Faecal E. coli isolated from breast-fed infants differed from those from formula-fed infants in two respects: They were more sensitive to the bactericidal effect of human serum and more often spontaneously agglutinating. E. coli strains isolated from sources outside the gastro-intestinal tract, that is the prepuce and female peri-urethral region, were in breast-fed babies less sensitive than faecal strains. The findings are compatible with the hypothesis that a breast-milk factor favours the proliferation of mutant strains. The observed effects of breast-milk might be associated with decreased bacterial virulence, and be one of the ways in which breast-feeding protects against infection.
Finally, the worst thing you can do if you have an intact son, is to try to prematurely retract the foreskin, which will expose the mucosa to bacterial colonisation, increasing the risk of UTIs.
reAllytee
23-12-2005, 12:21
Im not trying to be argumentitive nor cause trouble.
Im just curious as to why Dilly wants to know as ive said earlier im curious more than anything but i actually dont think it helps you making comments either if you get my drift. No im not meaning that as a nasty comment just as that your actually adding to it all again if you get my drift probably not as i can never explain myself properly these days ! Mushy brain !
Arguing is perfectly normal & healthy if you ask me its when it becomes nasty or personal thats the problem nor do i feel personally attacked at this stage so have no need to report Dilly. All i have done is ask my question back. As ive stated im curious as to why Dilly needs to know this as to me it serves no purpose.
I apologise if for some reason you think im getting upset or angry because well im not, words can be deceiving. :D
the_queen
23-12-2005, 13:54
----------
hummingbird
23-12-2005, 16:12
My sister has three sons, the first of which was circumcised.
The youngest (2.5yrs old) has had ongoing problems with inflammation and infection. I asked her if she was into the practice of teaching her son to 'clean himself' after reading JohnC's words on the foreskin not being retractable at this point in his life and in fact being the primary cause of inflammation and infection for uncut boys (thinking perhaps this may be the root of her son's problems).
She told me that his ongoing problems were mostly the result of a tear in the foreskin he gave himself. He has a fascination with playing with himself :D so I imagine the result of the tear and unclean hands always about the place are playing a rather large part in his ongoing inflammation and infections. I remember seeing him pulling on his penie quite hard at times and me wincing thinking he must be hurting himself, but he obviously enjoys it :D.
My question is, how do you discourage boys from playing with themselves when it is actually causing them harm?
Love the info you are posting JohnC! Very informative and interesting! Great thread idea!:)
My question is, how do you discourage boys from playing with themselves when it is actually causing them harm?
This is something that some boys (regardless of circumcision status) get into around the 3yo mark and tends to stop after around 4y, with growing "social awareness". (I still have a vivid memory of my DSS at age 3 lying in front of speaker's podium at a conference of 400 people at Monash University with his shorts round his knees and happily masturbating.)
There's nothing special about penises, particularly at that age. Some parents have kids who are forever scraping their knees or their elbows or doing any number of silly things (eczema is actually a huge problem in this regard - try to stop them scratching :eek: )
If your DS does cause some damage (which is fairly unusual), treat symptomatically - keep clean (but no soap), antiseptic cream if required - plus some gentle persuasion about appropriate behaviour.
John
ps On this Dilly matter, I suspect the whole thing is a misunderstanding, since I think all that was being asked in the first place is whether it was a hospital or surgery circumcision, which is a valid and interesting question given that in NSW the rates for the first are falling and for the latter rising. And I agree there is nothing wrong with a bit of robust debate, as long as people are respectful of one another.
i only just read this thread!
love the info you have been posting john :)
lol i also love how, here, as in other threads, you just keep posting your stuff and totally ignore any other nonsense that is going on, as if its not even there, very cool:cool: :D
rebeccamum
23-12-2005, 20:52
Coops, I think it's because John is a bloke and blokes aren't really into nitpicking or any trivial things, they just stick to their job. I think I know that because I have two brothers and they're exactly like that :D
lol rebeccamum, i think your right:D
reAllytee
23-12-2005, 22:50
ps On this Dilly matter, I suspect the whole thing is a misunderstanding, since I think all that was being asked in the first place is whether it was a hospital or surgery circumcision, which is a valid and interesting question given that in NSW the rates for the first are falling and for the latter rising. And I agree there is nothing wrong with a bit of robust debate, as long as people are respectful of one another.
Exactly ! I have no dramas with Dilly asking as i will state again as im just curious as to what purpose it would serve whether it would be to attack me or just to know whether its a hospital or private circ. Im not sure why everyone else has to add to it but as you said maybe everyone is misunderstanding each other.
Dilly - Im hesitant due to not wanting any trouble. As ive stated in my first only post in this thread i am not saying people need to get it done nor would i say not to as its a personal choice we made an informed decision & i think its great that someone like JohnC has info that informs without judgement please re-read this & you will see. Im in Sydney my sons circ was performed by a private doctor not far from us in the south west he is located down Campbelltown way. Now that is answered you have no need to continue with asking me more questions but if you wish to do so PM me as nothing we are talking about has to do with the thread.
the_queen - Sorry i didnt realise i hadnt added your name in where needed, i apologise. No im not offended not using my brain well enough atm :rolleyes:
I guess what i was meaning was you had been saying that "why dont i ignore Dilly if i know what he/she is like" when all i was wanting was an answer from him/her as i was curious & it felt like you stepped in to play referee as you so put it for no reason but its nice that you felt i was being attacked as i never looked at it that way more that if i answered i could cause a hate campaign against the doctor who did the procedure. Which i dont think is needed as JohnC has shown the procedure is on the decrease so its not like getting at this guy will serve a purpose. He doesnt advertise he does it etc its mainly a religious occurence etc. If you note i have not tried to comment on how wonderful circumsion is i actually only posted originally to congratulate everyone on how this thread wasnt locked as many others have been & commend JohnC but in someways it now feels like im being looked at as though i caused all the dramas by "fighting" with Dilly & not being the bigger person. When yet again i say that i was just curious. So in actual fact i like you want this thread kept open so i wonder whether even your comments made have helped ? Again im not meaning to sound harsh. Its just possibly that i couldve had my answer from Dilly to which i couldve answered his/her question & that it wouldve been over & done with instead we are all still talking about it !
Anyways thats it for me i wont even say well done anymore as it seems i get taken the wrong way.
Thanks.
2littleprincesses
26-12-2005, 08:31
I don't know why I'm reading this thread because I have two little girls and this topic isn't relevant to me, but I've read some of Dilly's posts asking where Ally had her boys circumcised, and Ally's reluctance to answer. I don't understand why Dilly needs to know where Drs are performing this. I don't need to know where, but I understand that it is an option that parents of baby boys may consider. Can't you just leave it at that, Dilly?
If you buy a Saturday edition of the Illawarra Mercury and look in the birth notices, every week there's a classified ad for circumcision. The ad is there for anybody to see, whether you agree with the process or not. Obviously there is still a "market" out there who will either chose to circumcise or have a need to circumcise.
DH and I have discussed this procedure before our two girls were born, so we know where we stand on this topic.
Mother Duck
26-12-2005, 15:09
John C - I am interested to know what you think of the following..
My father and two other adult males that I know of had to be circumcised as adults, I am not entirely sure of the reasons - I think it was due to infections occuring at this late stage.
I do know that it was quite traumatic for each of them - I feel that if I were to circumcise my boys (if I have any) at a young age, it may be easier for them to get over and thus avoid this trauma as an adult, which I believe is far worse.
What is your opinion on this?
Mother Duck
26-12-2005, 23:11
Dilly - I think perhaps you misunderstand the point of my post
Let me emphasise for you
It is the trauma of the experience that they went through as adults that I would like to avoid inflicting upon my children - this still sticks vividly in my mind
My query to John C is to seek a balanced and informative reply to something that concerns me from a well informed 'male' perspective - (while well informed female opinions are most helpful as well it is not everyday that I have the oportunity to discuss this issue with males)
John C has given us some very beneficial information on this subject in this thread - the aforementioned issues are some that concern me due to direct experience and I am therefore voicing my concern in the hope to receive factual information and valid opinion
Your statement - following the same line of argument as "if your friends jumped off the cliff would you?" - does not help me
Thanks anyway
My father and two other adult males that I know of had to be circumcised as adults, I am not entirely sure of the reasons - I think it was due to infections occuring at this late stage.
I do know that it was quite traumatic for each of them - I feel that if I were to circumcise my boys (if I have any) at a young age, it may be easier for them to get over and thus avoid this trauma as an adult, which I believe is far worse.
What is your opinion on this?
There are really two issues: is circumcision "less traumatic" for children; and, what is the risk of an intact boy requiring a circumcision later in life. I'll address the first here, and post separately on the other.
Circumcision of children is deeply problematic for a number of reasons:
Ethical: The majority of doctors would now regard it as unethical to perform surgery on children without medical indication. I have posted a sample of these views at Choice (www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/showthread.php?p=86827#post86827) and some discussion at Ethics (http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/showthread.php?p=87097#post87097). The following, from a memorandum to Canadian physicians, is entirely typical of contemporary attitudes:
If parents remain adamant in their preference that circumcision be performed ... remember that you are under no obligation to perform any surgical procedure for which there are not valid medical indications. You can, and should respectfully decline to perform the procedure ...
Pain: This recent Australian study (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=67501) established beyond doubt that infants feel pain more than adults. For this reason the Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons firmly recommends (quoted in Costs (http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/showthread.php?p=87203#post87203)) that circumcision not be performed on children younger than 6 months, since provision of adequate anaesthesia is virtually impossible at that age. Furthermore, gauging correct levels of post-operative analgesia is difficult with children unable to communicate their pain levels.
Complications: Serious complications are really only an issue with children. The most important of these is haemorrhage, since the loss of more than a tablespoon of blood in an infant constitutes a life-threatening situation. Also, removal of the protective prepuce exposes the immature glans to contaminants and trauma, with the result that meatal ulceration is a very common late complication, and can result in meatal stenosis, which may require further surgical correction. In the only longitudinal study (started in Christchurch in 1977) I am aware of, it was found that circumcised boys had significantly more penile problems in infancy (5.2% vs 1.2%).
Cosmesis: The foreskin is usually significantly longer (in relation to penile length) in children than adults. An "acceptable" childhood circumcision therefore can result in overly tight and sometimes painful adult erections, with scrotal skin often being pulled onto the penile shaft. It is thought that chordee (abnormal downward bend of the penis) can also result.
Although any one of these points should be sufficient to reconsider the circumcision of children, I personally find the ethical argument the most decisive and, unfortunately, most underestimated by parents.
The risk of an intact boy requiring a circumcision later in life is very low indeed and falling. In the first post in this thread I estimated the lifetime cumulative risk based on current medical practice guidelines as 3 in 200. It might however be useful to look at some more precise figures and comparisons.
In the year to June 2004 there were 426 circumcisions of males aged 15-19 years (the age group with the highest post-puberty rate of circumcision) of which 136 were for routine/ritual reasons (mostly Muslims, I think), leaving 290 procedures for medical reasons. Now there were about 450,000 intact males aged 15-19 years, so about 0.006% required a circumcision for medical reasons that year. There were by comparison 1330 tonsil and adenoid removals and 1955 appendectomies among males in that age group (those procedures also reach their post-puberty peak amongst 15-19 year olds).
When we look at principal diagnosis amongst these young adults we find something contrary to popular expectations - namely that "infections" (balanoposthitis) accounted for only 23 admissions.
In fact, virtually all of the 290 medically indicated circumcisions were for phimosis (ie non-retractile foreskin) - and this is a condition that can in the vast majority of cases be treated without circumcision (usually steroid cream). This is why the rate of adult circumcision for phimosis (and therefore the total adult rate) has been falling throughout the developed world for the past two decades.
The most recent published study comes from Scotland, which examined all circumcisions performed there from 1990 to 2000. They found:
A total of 15,605 circumcisions were performed during the 10-year period; 10,888 (69.8%) for phimosis, 2,724 (17.5%) for nonmedical/religious reasons, and 1993 (12.8%) for all other indications. There was a 33.7% decrease in total number of circumcisions performed between the first and second halves of the study period. The fall in operations performed is almost solely attributable (94.5%) to a reduction in number of procedures carried out for phimosis.
So, I think it would be fair to say that choosing to have one's son circumcised to avoid having the procedure later in life just does not stack up - pre-emptive appendectomy would make more sense, and no-one is suggesting that (I hope :eek: )
Mother Duck
28-12-2005, 15:25
Thanks again John
Very interesting reading.
My mind is now, quite definately made up. No questions remaining!
Chickadee
28-12-2005, 16:02
Thanks for that John. I think seeing the numbers laid out like that answers quite a few questions for people. Out of curiousity, where were the first numbers you quoted collected from (ie, ." In the year to June 2004...")? Are those Australia wide, or a particular state, or another country.
Those figures are Australia-wide and sourced from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, specifically the Procedures and Diagnosis data cubes. Neither State nor private/public breakdowns are available from those datacubes, and must be inferred from other sources.
You might not realise, but only a minority of people are circumcised worldwide, namely Muslims and Jews, with America being the only civilised nation actually still doing it, with Canada as its side kick.
For the record, the best reckoning I can make of international incidence gives a circ rate of 30%, with Muslims constituting the great majority.
The Canadian rate fell in a very similar way to Australia's (except with more provincial variation) and like here about 15% of boys are likely to be circumcised by age 10 (if you exclude Muslims).
The only two large non-Muslim countries (apart from the US) in which the majority of males are circumcised are the Philippines and South Korea (since the 1960s).
15%?
Some sources say 10%, others 12% etc. Has this percentage risen recently? And if so, for what reason, other then an increasing islamic population would cause this?
You could be forgiven for forming that impression if for instance you looked at the CIRP file Circumcision Incidence in Australia (http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/Australia/), which in table 3 gives a range of 10.6% to 12.7% for 1993 to 2004. (The CIRP reference library is probably the most widely consulted source of circumcision information on the Internet.)
There are two problems here: first, these percentages are for boys <6 months, but there are a large number of boys circumcised in older age groups; second, these figures (and just about everybody else's) are for Medicare rebates only and do not include public patients in public hospitals, who do not attract a rebate.
This has the paradoxical effect of reducing the apparent incidence figures (masking the full extent of the problem) but making it appear as if the rate has been rising for the past decade (since the number of rebates has been increasing for all cohorts). The latter fallacy has been seized on by the likes of Terry Russell, who claims:
As a result of that uninformed crusade there has been an undoubted trend against routine neonatal circumcision with decreasing rates of circumcision reported in the US, Canada and Australia. That trend has been reversed over the last ten years. (emphasis in original)
As a corrective the table below presents the circumcision figures for boys aged 0-14 years.
Year to June.............2001..................2004
Public patients...........7,611.................6,435
Medicare rebates.........19,544................20,382
Total....................27,155................26, 817
As can be seen the trend is for declines in public hospital circumcisions and an increase in private procedures, mainly performed in GP surgeries by the likes of Russell and other medical entrepreneurs.
The cumulative risk of a boy born in the past decade being circumcised by age 15 is just under 20 per cent. The 15pc I quoted earlier excludes both boys aged 10-14 years and Muslims.
The following demands some deep reflection, since it speaks to the issue of cultural bias that many people may find uncomfortable. It is an article published today from The Tide, a leading newspaper in Nigeria:
They are at it again, is been obvious that the talk in the favour of female circumcision in the country is not a fluke.
Most democratic states have resolved to do away with some obnoxious cultural practices. These cultural practices do not in anyway glory humanity.
It is a calculated attempt by people to bring to an end the age-long female genital mutilation being practiced in most communities in the state.
Before the passage of the law on this cultural practice there was hue and cry for the stoppage of this practice. The reasons for the outburst of criticisms from various quarters were sequel to the dangers associated with the practice in the first place. The permission to effect circumcision on males was given by God in the bible but, not on females and as such does not give the practitioners of female genital cutting the right to indulge in that kind of dehumanisation.
I have posted before on the issue of female circumcision in cultural blindness (http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/showthread.php?p=77762#post77762), so I won't belabour the point here :rolleyes:
The latter fallacy has been seized on by the likes of Terry Russell,
the trend is for declines in public hospital circumcisions and an increase in private procedures, mainly performed in GP surgeries by the likes of Russell and other medical entrepreneurs.
can you tell me what [if anything?] is wrong with people like [William] Terry Russell?
am I right in thinking that you are concerned that Drs like him may be in it for the money only?
Thanks [and I'm not trying to cause trouble just gain an insight]
unique
Unique,
I can't answer for John (he's our resident expert ;)) and I certainly can't speak for Dr Russell, but I think it's a fair assumption that yes, he (and others like him) are in it for the money.
People who support routine circumcision would argue that it is not illegal and as long as there is a market for it, it's good that we have 'reputable' doctors willing to perform the surgery. My personal opinion is that perhaps there wouldn't be such a market for it if there weren't doctors like Terry Russell, who are not only prepared to do the surgery, but also go to great lengths to get into the media promoting the supposed 'benefits' of circ to unsuspecting parents (I call it scaremongering, but that's just me :rolleyes: )
charli06
31-12-2005, 16:14
hi can i just say that i had sascha circumcised at 14 mths old and it was the best move i ever made. He got infections alot and fevers of 41, he had had enough and after trying medication after medication, so had i. i had him done at the royal childrens hospital in melbourne, by a very good surgeon who also repaired a hydroseal at the same time. it cost me about $1400 after all rebates, it was brutal, i looked at his penis and felt like i was the worse mother in the world,i cried a lot. it took a few days to heal and a lot of TLC but we havent had a problem since. I dont regret it now.
Chickadee
31-12-2005, 21:10
Dilly, lay off Saschasmum. She did not advocate circumcision at birth or say that it is necessary. In fact, she obviously chose not to do her son at birth and only did it later due to repeat infections. If the rates quoted previously for medically necessary circumcisions are correct, however low the percentage, is it not conceivable that her son be in that low percentage?
can you tell me what [if anything?] is wrong with people like [William] Terry Russell?
am I right in thinking that you are concerned that Drs like him may be in it for the money only?
The facts, I think, speak for themselves. The scheduled fee for the circumcision of a boy <6 months is $40. Russell charges just over $300 (on the testimony of Bubhub members), which is 7.5X the scheduled fee. I cannot think of any other procedure where this happens, and it spells profiteering to me.
Russell has spoken of the "personal satisfaction" he gets from performing so many circumcisions (which I find a bit creepy), but if you multiply his fee by the number he performs each year (about 1,500) it is his bank account that is receiving the most satisfaction.
He is of course simply the most high profile of the circumcision entrepreneurs, who seem to charge in range of $200 to $500 (again according to Bubhub members).
More broadly, Russell's web site is full of "information" that is at best misleading and often straightforwardly wrong, and his self-promotion of these deceptions extends to sponsored links on Google and other search sites. This is, to say the least, most unusual (though clearly highly profitable) behaviour for a GP.
hi can i just say that i had sascha circumcised at 14 mths old and it was the best move i ever made. He got infections alot and fevers of 41, he had had enough and after trying medication after medication, so had i. i had him done at the royal childrens hospital in melbourne, by a very good surgeon who also repaired a hydroseal at the same time. it cost me about $1400 after all rebates, it was brutal, i looked at his penis and felt like i was the worse mother in the world,i cried a lot. it took a few days to heal and a lot of TLC but we havent had a problem since. I dont regret it now.
I presume (given the reference to fever) that the problem was recurrent urinary tract infection (for general info see my post UTIs (http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/showthread.php?p=106599#post106599)).
There is not enough information here to make a specific comment but it is relevant to note that the RACP guidelines include the following:
... The benefit-harm trade-off is also sensitive to the baseline risk of UTI. Assuming the same protective benefits of circumcision for the prevention of UTI extends to boys at higher risk of UTI, such as those with underlying renal tract abnormalities, then is it likely that a small group of boys, who continue to have symptomatic recurrent UTI despite conventional clinical care such as chemoprophylaxis, will benefit from circumcision. The risk of UTI in these boys is not 1% as it is in the general population, but closer to 30% so that only 4-5 boys would need to be circumcised to prevent UTI ...
In summary, routine circumcision in boys cannot be justified on the basis of preventing a UTI. On the other hand, there may be a role for circumcision in boys with recurrent symptomatic UTI and/or underlying renal tract abnormalities.
So circumcision in such a case at least does not fall outside existing medical practice guidelines, and therefore MarthaM is quite correct in saying:
"If the rates quoted previously for medically necessary circumcisions are correct, however low the percentage, is it not conceivable that her son be in that low percentage?"
I might just add that such "targetted surgical prophylaxis" for UTIs is very much a judgement call and is obviously not an option for girls or circumcised boys, so parents of intact boys should be aware of the clinical options - if in doubt seek a second opinion.
*****All quite unnecessary abuse******
go away dilly. sashcasmum did not go into the nature of her sons recurring infections as i dont see how it is any of our business, so you have no evidence into how unnecessary it was or not. how do you know it was unnecessary? i imagine leaving her son to suffer constant infections and fevers would be a much worse abuse than having go under general anaesthetic to have a minor procedure. i am against routine circumsicion, i am not against it being done if it is necessary, and YES it is very occassionally, necessary. i am however against ppl like you who without any knowledge of a person or their background, making nasty remarks which to you may seem harmless, being nameless and all, but to the person on the recieving end it can leave a lasting impression.
havnt you been banned? do you really love discussing willies so much that you would go to the effort of creating another persona just to continue adding your thoughtless comments, that contribute nothing, to a forum where mums come to get help and support?
Let's make a New Year's resolution not to overreact ;)
hehe, sorry you are right john, i dont usually, but i know from other threads that saschasmum is having a hard time of things atm, and i think that dillys comments can be very hurtful, without him/her even realising it, as well as being completly unproductive. there are plenty of more creative, intelligent ways to get your point across than just slandering ppl.
mmmm...maybe i should take my own advice, lol :)
Foxymoron
03-01-2006, 21:46
Thanks for the interesting read John C :) We've never had any problems with my sons foreskin. Circumcision hasn't actually been raised as an issue in our home, I guess we both just assumed we wouldn't be going down that road.
she didn't go into the nature, because that wasn't the purpose of (her?) visit. The nature of (her?) visit was so that parents would look at think "hmm, this person said that it was the best decision she ever made in her life! !!! !!" which is what she was emphasizing.
Pure and simple.
yes, sorry i forgot you were psychic:rolleyes:
hummingbird
03-01-2006, 21:55
In what is in essence a VERY informative and interesting thread, could I go one further on JohnC's NY resolution and propose we completely ignore posts which offer no value to the subject at hand?
hehe siobhan, jolly good idea, i have proposed the same thing myself for several other threads :) so please feel free to go around my rants as if i am not here:D
Mother Duck
03-01-2006, 22:26
Hi All -
Firstly and I think most importantly - Happy New Year!
Siobhan - I think your suggestion of ignoring is a great idea, however without offering any response to such nasty and blatant posts as Dilly's there is room for the person on the receiving end, in this case a very honest and open 'Sashcasmum', to believe that those comments are a general consenses.
Sashcasmum - Thank you for bravely sharing this information with us all. Congratulations on doing what you believe to be the right thing, I feel it must have been very difficult to make this decision. I saw none of the things mentioned by Dilly in your post, the fact that you have described so clearly the anguish that you went through during the process shows that you are not trying to be 'an advocate' - just letting us all know some relevant first hand information.
Dilly - your opinion is obviously as welcome as the next persons - perhaps you can adjust your 'extremist' and offensive comments to some informative ones and rejoin our discussion in a much more productive way.
ahhh, Jessie you managed to get your point across so much better than i did, lol!!!
i think it is often a good idea to just ignore what are obvious attempts to upset people on a thread, but in this instance i felt that i had to let saschasmum know that not all of us felt the way dilly did, but dilly i apologise for the rude way in which i expressed my thoughts on your post.
now, back to the topic at hand, over to you JohnC (or anyone else who has anything valid to discuss :) )
reAllytee
04-01-2006, 00:54
Just be insanely nice this always diffuses things i find :p
Ok - time to for everyone to count to 10.
Dilly, you can not possibly know the situation of this woman - do not judge her here when all she has done is posted her personal experience and feelings. She did not suggest that it was the best option for everyone, and she tried many other things before deciding on circumcision.
To all: Everyone's differing opinions on and experiences with these issues are warmly welcomed here at the hub. Negative comments about individual bubhubbers are not.
Please add constructively to the issue at hand with research and / or your personal experience.
Cheers
DP and I have discussed our views on circumcision, he was circumcised as a toddler after suffering very painful and recurring infections. He is all for circumcision as a result, he said he was old enough to remember how much pain he was in with these infections. After reading all this material about circumcision, it looks like we'll need to discuss the topic again at length in the future if we have a son! :)
He was born in Brazil, I'm not so sure of the statistics for circumcision over there.
He was born in Brazil, I'm not so sure of the statistics for circumcision over there.
Circumcision incidence is very low in Brazil <5% for all reasons.
Just be insanely nice this always diffuses things i find :p
hehe, yes that is usually my motto as well:D
again, apologies for getting off track, please carry on:D
DP and I have discussed our views on circumcision, he was circumcised as a toddler after suffering very painful and recurring infections. He is all for circumcision as a result ...
Thought I might retrieve the figures for balanoposthitis (inflammation of foreskin and/or glans) for children to give some indication of incidence. The stats are for a principal diagnosis of balanoposthitis among boys aged 1-4 years nationwide and are from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.
In 1998-99 there were 358 cases, falling to 306 in 2000-01 and 250 in 2003-04.
Note that this age group experiences peak incidence, with the 2004 figures for boys <1y being 13 cases, 5-9y being 173 cases, and 10-14y being 54 cases.
The circumcision rate and cohort size for 1-4yo boys did not significantly change in those periods, with an average of around 420,000 intact boys. So while infection deemed serious enough to warrant admission (and circumcision) certainly occurs the incidence is very low.
Even more importantly, it has been falling (quite dramatically) in all age groups. The likely explanation for this is that doctors are becoming more familiar with current medical practice guidelines and therefore are able to deal effectively with any problems at the level of primary care.
hummingbird
04-01-2006, 19:20
JohnC you really should write a book on this.
Silence is golden.;)
Hi All
The hypospadia discussion started here has been moved at Lukaelmo's request to a new thread, link is Wonky Willy (Hypospadia) Question (http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/showthread.php?t=8996)
Carry on ;)
An interesting quotation from John Shelby Spong, retired US Episcopal bishop and a leading spokesperson of progressive Christianity, about the "health benefits" of circumcision:
[Circumcising] the baby instead of teaching each child the arts of good hygiene is bad practice, bad ethics, bad theology and a bad idea. I do not understand how any religious system could ever endorse that. Female circumcision – I prefer to call it “female genital mutilation” – is still practiced in parts of Christian Africa. It too is said to have health benefits. I think not. Both of these practices represent control tactics and guilt laden castration rites born out of the superstition and ignorance of the past. I regard circumcision in both sexes as a ******** act with no redeeming features. I find it almost laughable that the same religious voices that oppose the use of condoms would now support circumcision as a health practice.
Mother Duck
23-01-2006, 21:03
Thanks John C - as usual a good read!
Good for him speaking out so directly
By the way did you look in on our Awards Evening - you got a mention in my acceptance speech ;)
When my baby boy was born I was unsure whether he should be done or not (as they call it). My husband is however and he wanted it done so I agreed. He had the plastibell procedure and for the rest of my time in hospital I was made to feel like a negligent mother by the midwives there who simply made it clear that boys penis skin should be left alone. That is fair enough for people to have their own opinions on it, however I think we are going a bit far with this debate these days. Bring up this topic anywhere in a room full of parents and you are guaranteed to get a fight happening either for or against. Since when did a bit of skin become source for such heated arguements?? The parents that choose not to circumcise there boys, good job for you, you made the right choice for you, the parents who decided to have there boys circumcised, good job for you too, you also made the right choice for you. I am aware and have read alot of the stats backing up for and against and the whole God put it there so why remove it?, so why then do we pierce ears, earing holes were not there at birth and can cause severe permanent damage if placed on a pressure point, some of us were born with poor eyesight, should you not wear glasses or even better get lasic eye surgery in order to see properly, removal of ugly warts, moles etc that God did put there, I mean common it is a long bow to draw.
Please don't bother writing negative comments about what I have said, as I noted earlier, each and every one of us have the right to voice our opinion and I have not commented either way which I think is the right way, whatever suits your family and most importantly your son is the right way.
No need to be uptight about a little bit of skin, we are only going to give our boys a complex by mentioning constantly.........:)
I hear you Heidi
My bros weren't "done" and one ended up having an op when he was about 5. I remember him being in so much pain before and after while recovering. When his son was born last year my sil left it all up to him to decide what to do. It was an easy decision for him to make. My few day old nephew had the procedure with a little ring placed on the end, which he slept through!
Heidi,
If you don't want people to comment, why did you bother to post?? :confused: Or is it only 'negative comments' that you don't want? So people can agree but disagreeing is not welcome? This is a public forum. If you put a post in a thread that you know is about a controversial issue you can expect that people will agree or not.
As far as I'm concerned it is not a parent's right to choose to have an unnecessary surgical procedure done on a newborn baby. No doctor would take a newborn babies tonsils out because it was the parents choice so how is it ok for them to cut skin from their genitalia?
C.
the_queen
08-02-2006, 15:29
Well said Cosmic :)
I am aware and have read alot of the stats backing up for and against and the whole God put it there so why remove it?, so why then do we pierce ears, earing holes were not there at birth and can cause severe permanent damage if placed on a pressure point, some of us were born with poor eyesight, should you not wear glasses or even better get lasic eye surgery in order to see properly, removal of ugly warts, moles etc that God did put there, I mean common it is a long bow to draw.
Ok I've been nudged out of my little circ thread lurking spot for this one.
I don't believe in God, but I will say that I'm not putting glasses on my child unless he has he has a vision problem, much like I won't remove a bit of his penis unless there is a problem.
Yes each to there own but I can't see how it is my right to remove "a little bit of skin" from my little baby's penis when there isn't a reason.:) ;)
This has been done over and over.
Arrgghhh someone shut me up now.:o
melfunction
08-02-2006, 16:52
Since when did a bit of skin become source for such heated arguements??
Please don't bother writing negative comments about what I have said
No need to be uptight about a little bit of skin, we are only going to give our boys a complex by mentioning constantly.........:)
Since it is totally unnecessary for it to be done. It's not the little piece of skin I'm worried about, its the stress to the little baby, caused by the cutting of the little piece of skin that concerns me.
Also the fact that NO ONE has found any medical evidence to sway me into thinking cutting a foreskin is necessary.
Dear Cosmic,
Not afraid of negative comments, but I wasn't forcing my opinion on anyone else, simply making a comment. I respect your decision to post your comment about what I said, but really do you need to do it standing on your soapbox????:confused:
I wonder if anyone has read the information about uncircumsised men being at a greater risk for HIV infection and other STD's or that women are at a higher risk of cervical cancer, this information should also be given to parents of young boys to assist them with their decision, like anything there will always be fore and against.
I once read an article about a woman who when she gave birth to her fourth child, refused to let the doctors cut the umbilical cord because she said it would cause pain to the baby, so she delivered the placenta and put it in a bucket and carried it around next to the baby until the cord finally dried up and fell off about two weeks later, called the lotus technique from memory, anyway while I thought this was a little excentric and don't agree there is any pain involved in it, that was important to her. Is this going to be the next debate, to cut the umbilical cord or not????
Please try to remember this is an open and friendly discussion.:)
ThomasMum
08-02-2006, 20:31
Dear Cosmic,
Not afraid of negative comments, but I wasn't forcing my opinion on anyone else, simply making a comment. I respect your decision to post your comment about what I said, but really do you need to do it standing on your soapbox????:confused:
Please try to remember this is an open and friendly discussion.:)
Thats right Heidi, so no need to be rude to Cosmic or anyone :) Respect others opinion, no matter how different they are. Lets keep the forum friendly yeah?
Ta very much! :)
Thought I was being respectful
Dear Cosmic,
Not afraid of negative comments, but I wasn't forcing my opinion on anyone else, simply making a comment. I respect your decision to post your comment about what I said, but really do you need to do it standing on your soapbox????
I wonder if anyone has read the information about uncircumsised men being at a greater risk for HIV infection and other STD's or that women are at a higher risk of cervical cancer, this information should also be given to parents of young boys to assist them with their decision, like anything there will always be fore and against.
I once read an article about a woman who when she gave birth to her fourth child, refused to let the doctors cut the umbilical cord because she said it would cause pain to the baby, so she delivered the placenta and put it in a bucket and carried it around next to the baby until the cord finally dried up and fell off about two weeks later, called the lotus technique from memory, anyway while I thought this was a little excentric and don't agree there is any pain involved in it, that was important to her. Is this going to be the next debate, to cut the umbilical cord or not????
Please try to remember this is an open and friendly discussion.
Heidi, if i was you, i would do a bit more research on the so called info about uncirced men having higher risk or stds than others, if you study it closely the 'research' is completely laughable. (someone correct me if im wrong, but wasnt these test carried out on a small group of men in Africa? the continent with the largest rate of AIDS in the world, due to lack of info, and lack of access to condons?):rolleyes:
I also dont understand your point about lotus birth and its connection to circumsion, lotus birth, while yes, i agree odd, is completly pain free to the child, cirumscion is not, im also confused about your examples of eye glasses etc, these are NECESSARY things. Noone here is arguing that there is anything wrong with circumscion being performed if medically necessary, but like E pointed out, there are few people who would put glasses on their child if their was nothing wrong with them.:rolleyes:
You cant expect people to sit back and let you have your opinion, if you are not willing to let them have yours, surely you realised that post was going to cause a bit of a stir, being the sensitive topic that it is?
if you have any genuine reasons for having your son circumscised, please share them, im assuming you didnt get your son done purely because his dad was?
ps, (re your comment about ear piercings) i wont be getting my dd ears pierced till she is of an age where she can make a conscientious decision that that is what she wants done to HER body, it is not my decision to make.;)
Cosmic, i dont think there was anything wrong with your comment, it was well written and not the least bit rude, Heidi, your comment is welcome and valid, as is everyone elses, including responses to your post. :)
Hi Heidi
There's been plenty of discussion here on the point you raise:
Aids
http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/showthread.php?t=2787
If you change your viewing options in this section, you can read the scores of threads that have been started on this topic so far. We try to keep them open, but this topic is a minefield :rolleyes:
Cheers
When my baby boy was born I was unsure whether he should be done or not (as they call it). My husband is however and he wanted it done so I agreed. He had the plastibell procedure and for the rest of my time in hospital I was made to feel like a negligent mother by the midwives there who simply made it clear that boys penis skin should be left alone. That is fair enough for people to have their own opinions on it, however I think we are going a bit far with this debate these days. Bring up this topic anywhere in a room full of parents and you are guaranteed to get a fight happening either for or against. Since when did a bit of skin become source for such heated arguements?? The parents that choose not to circumcise there boys, good job for you, you made the right choice for you, the parents who decided to have there boys circumcised, good job for you too, you also made the right choice for you. I am aware and have read alot of the stats backing up for and against and the whole God put it there so why remove it?, so why then do we pierce ears, earing holes were not there at birth and can cause severe permanent damage if placed on a pressure point, some of us were born with poor eyesight, should you not wear glasses or even better get lasic eye surgery in order to see properly, removal of ugly warts, moles etc that God did put there, I mean common it is a long bow to draw.
Please don't bother writing negative comments about what I have said, as I noted earlier, each and every one of us have the right to voice our opinion and I have not commented either way which I think is the right way, whatever suits your family and most importantly your son is the right way.
No need to be uptight about a little bit of skin, we are only going to give our boys a complex by mentioning constantly.........:)
Its the childs foreskin, why not let him decide?
the parents who decided to have there boys circumcised, good job for you too, you also made the right choice for you. The right choice for them? What about the right choice for their son?
And i can assure you, it is not just a "little bit of skin". It is quite a large bit. If you don't think it would hurt, then i challenge you to get a pair of scizzors and cut through the webbing that joins your thumb to your index finger.
Heidi, I wasn't on a soapbox.. I just thought it was a bit odd that you came and posted an opinion and then asked not to hear negative comments about it. :confused: As you said we are all entitled to an opinion. :)
As coopsntilly said, the claims that circumcision lowers STDs and AIDS are completely false. This has been stated numerous times before on this forum, with the relevant research to back it up. That is why every medical association in the western world has stated categorically that there is absolutely no necessity for routine infant circumcision.
As xkwzit said, if you do a search there is LOADS of information here, much of it posted by a medical professional who visits this forum. We at Bubhub are very fortunate to have him around as he is always willing and able to provide factual, empirically validated information that dispels these myths so many parents hear and are influenced by.
reAllytee
09-02-2006, 01:16
Oh dear :( :confused:
Coopsntilly you didn't comment on women at higher risk of cervical cancer, in fact no one did, I am interested to see some factual data on that.:rolleyes:
Seondly, I had my son done for personal reasons, my brother suffered many infections which were due to not being circumcised, have you seen a little boy sitting in a bath of antiseptic with pus oozing out his swollen penis? not very pleasant. Neither of my brothers are circumcised and they both wished that they had been for a lot of reasons. My oldest adult brother is even considering getting done now. My son was not cut I would like to stress, he had a plasitibel attached and the skin fell off just as the umbilical cord does painlessly ten days later, he was asleep through the whole thing!!!!! You asked the question what did my umbilical story have to do with circumcision? well this lady said cutting a baby's umbililcal cord caused great pain to babies and her oldest child told her that she remembers being born and the pain from having her cord cut was immense. I was simply asking what peoples thoughts are about this topic, does cutting the umbilical cord with scissors cause the same pain as cutting foreskin, (I do not agree with that method, that is very painful and stressful for the baby). :(
As parents it is our duty to make decisions for our children until they are old enough to do it for themselves - whatever that may be. We hope one day when they are grown, were the right ones. As mere mortal parents we are all going to make mistakes and need to accept that when we do, that we had our child's best interest at heart, whether it turned out to be the best choice well that will be discovered many years from now. Maybe my son will join the 'return the foreskin committee' and hang weights from his penis to grow it back. I would tell him that his Dad and I made a call for him that we hoped would be the best long-term, that applies to many other areas besides his circumcision.:)
This is a fairly new widespread opinion not to circumcise boys due to there not being enough medical evidence to support doing it, however, a generation ago this was not the case and it was routinely carried out to nearly all baby boys just after birth. It seems this trend goes in and out of fashion. My bet is Mum's on this forum will be chanting pro circumcision in the next generation to our little boys as everything ends up going full circle.
I am glad we have forums such as this to debate our views. I am not here to defend my choice, nor preach to the unconverted! On my saying not to add negative comments was just like waving a red rag to a bull it seems, I was not saying that people should not comment on what I wrote, just not to be only negative about it, these are simply my thoughts. I will refrain from using this statement again, promise, as everyone does have the right to comment.
I hope that you all have a lovely day. Thank you for sharing with me also, I am always happy to hear all perspectives, I just feel being negative is simply a waste of energy, life is too short.
Look forward to having discussions besides circumcision with many of you!!!!
melfunction
09-02-2006, 09:54
Where the h*ll is JohnC??? :confused:
Hi Heidi, sorry i didnt comment about the cervical cancer, i had so much i wanted to say that i forgot!!
As far as i know (and there have been links to this sort of info in other circ threads) there are also no genuine links to men being uncircumscised and cervical cancer. all that sort of nonsense is spun by doctors who perform circs because they make alot of money from it!!! they will show you 'research' supporting it etc, but when you study this research you always find that it is very flimsy and not properly carried out.
I feel for your little brother, or nephew, i forget which one it was, but i personally cant condone performing a cirumcising on the very small chance that something like that may occur, the risks of infection etc surrounding it is much much higher than if you just left it alone!!
to me it is also the same as saying (and as others have also pointed out in other circ threads) 'oh well my child might get lots of tonsilitis, i better have them taken out just in case, or 'my daughter my develop breast cancer, i better have them removed' i hope i havnt upset you with my comments, it is just the angle i am seeing it from.
I respect your view, and definetly respect your right to share it, i just really dont understand it.
Hi there Heidi,
I really do suggest you read through the previous thread on this topic. There are more than just the three displayed, if you change the setting down the bottom you will find them all. The reason I suggest this is that many of the topics you are addressing have been discussed many times before and lots and lots of information has been provided.
My son was not cut I would like to stress, he had a plasitibel attached and the skin fell off just as the umbilical cord does painlessly ten days later, he was asleep through the whole thing!!!!!
This is some info a member (JohnC) posted in regards to the plastibell procedure:
Plastibell, again
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
This must be the third thread where this has come up, so pay attention please - Plastibell circumcision involves the excision (cutting off) of the foreskin. This is surgery on a child, not ringbarking a tree!
I presented a non-emotive description of the procedure from the MJA in bits and pieces with a follow-up specific reply in curiouser and curiouser to Helen who had made this same incorrect point in almost precisely the same words ("tie it with string and its all done.. 3-7 days later it falls off and circumsised he is...").
But how can you not notice (posting by braille, perhaps)? Two hours before surgery you apply EMLA cream to the foreskin, and following surgery you get home and apply betadine to the wound and the previously inaccessible glans. I'm perplexed
There is heaps of info already around for you to view.:)
the_queen
09-02-2006, 10:32
You asked the question what did my umbilical story have to do with circumcision? well this lady said cutting a baby's umbililcal cord caused great pain to babies and her oldest child told her that she remembers being born and the pain from having her cord cut was immense.
:rolleyes: So, what you're saying is, you believed this woman whose child claims to remember her birth and the umbilical cord being cut, which caused great pain.
So, doesn't that mean that you would also believe that an infant circumcision would be remembered by the child also??
In which case, whether by cutting with scissors or clamping it until it falls off, surely any experience of having an adult tampering with your genitals would be a life-long emotionally scarring experience???
Intelligent debate is certainly welcomed here Heidi ;)
Hi Queenie
I think the point being made is that the lotus birth woman believed that cutting the umbilical cord caused pain. I'm guessing that a woman who chooses lotus birth to prevent pain would also not routinely circumcise a baby.
I don't think Heidi said that she belived the same thing, she was asking our opinions on lotus birth and, on that note Heidi, here's the thread http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/showthread.php?t=6207
We have threads on EVERYTHING :D . You could also do a search for it, using the search functions at the top right of the page.
*deep breath* - now back to Circumcision, or more specifically Infections ...
Cheers
Heidi, you are of course entitled to post your views. Please forgive a few of us for being short but we have had this conversation many times before and all the points you raise in support of circumcision have been squished well and truly with evidence. I think even JohnC, our resident expert, is tired of having the same old arguments over and over again (and KM, he's on holidays for a while now that you ask). ;)
But that's not for you to know, Heidi - and others have said, please do go back and read the previous threads because you will find them loaded with information. :)
I wholeheartedly agree with Erin's (and others) position that I would not elect to perform any other surgery on my baby at birth because of the offchance he/she might develop an infection later.. eg. I wouldn't take out her appendix at birth because her cousin had a bad case of appendicitis and almost died. I fail to see how circumcising a child because someone else had an infected foreskin is any different.
As for the argument that circumcision is a trend that comes in and out of fashion, that might have been the case in centuries gone by. The history of circumcision is a most interesting one, with it being introduced as a punishment for masturbation at one time. :rolleyes: And in the 19th and early 20th century, I believe doctors claimed it cured all manner of ills mainly because they were making a profit from the surgery and most of those claims we now know to be completely laughable. Again, that has been covered in detail in other threads. But recent data indicates that circumcision has been on a gradual decline for the past several decades and there is no reason to think that is likely to change.
I don't think it's necessary to go into lotus birth here... though as Xkwzit said, it has been covered before. I personally will not clamp and cut the cord until it has finished pulsing to ensure that transition is as smooth as possible for my baby. I don't know about physical pain being caused, but I do know that the transition from warm, dark womb to bright lights, cold air and noise can't be the most pleasant for a little one so I want to have as gentle a birth as possible. The one key difference I think is that the cord must come off eventually. The foreskin doesn't have to come off at all.
What I think IS relevant, though and I would be interested to hear your views Heidi - is whether female circumcision should also be the right of the parents and if you would be just as willing to have that surgery performed on your baby girl if it was a socially acceptable practice.
Edited to add: Sorry, I forgot to say - the plastibell procedure definitely involves cutting with a knife. Two incisions I believe. Most docs who perform circ would have you believe otherwise, but they do have to make a cut to get the plastibell under the foreskin. And there is also a quote in another thread that indicates that studies done in the USA have found that babies who are circumcised clearly show increased signs of stress (ie pain) even if they don't cry, and some experts believe that if they don't cry it is because they have gone into a kind of shock. If an adult would find it painful, a newborn would find it even moreso, as newborns have more sensitive pain receptors.
melfunction
09-02-2006, 12:41
Did anyone in Qld see Today Tonight last night? It showed a circumcision being done.
And they DID cut.
I can't believe I missed it, but I hope it makes more parents realise what is really involved. Here is a link that shows what happens during plastibell. From what JohnC said, it's fairly accurate:
http://www.cirp.org/library/procedure/plastibell/
reAllytee
09-02-2006, 16:28
Did anyone in Qld see Today Tonight last night? It showed a circumcision being done.
And they DID cut.
Yes this was the procedure done by a Rabbi so there is no pain relief & it is cut with scissors. This is the "traditional" way.
I chose not to have it done this way due to it being cut like this.
The plastibell device as you have all stated does has incisions made so Heidi sorry but your info is incorrect.
I obviously had a fantastic doctor who explained everything correctly as to what i had found on the net that would/could happen.
My son had a penile block & i chose to make sure he would have this but the doctor did this automatically so i was happy to pay extra for this to happen.
I find it sad that so many are told lies or mistruths about it all.
Very dissapointing considering we put so much trust in our doctors.
Dr Hook,
Please keep it civil, we're all for debate and discussion, but there is no need for the aggressive tone you are using.
melfunction
09-02-2006, 21:30
Hmmm, I really have to wonder about these newbies posting first in a controversial thread. Very dilly thing to do ;)
***Deleted because Dr Hook's comments edited*****
I do not wish to comment any further on this topic thanks girls as I have made my thoughts clear and you yours and it seems we are going around it circles a bit. Thanks for the info. I still would like to hear that some of the issues addressed are irrefutably unfounded, nobody can show that as yet.:)
Signing off!!!!
Hi Queenie
*deep breath* - now back to Circumcision, or more specifically Infections ...
Cheers
I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW WHAT YOU MEANT BY QUEENIE??? I THINK THAT IS A LITTLE ON THE SARCASTIC AND DISRESPECTFUL SIDE DON'T YOU?? :confused:
PLEASE DO TAKE THAT DEEEEEEP BREATH!!!
[Xkwzit's Note:
Heidi, I was NOT addressing you. Queenie is a nickname I use for the_Queen, another user who posted on this thread. I was actually trying to clarify YOUR post to HER. Please have a really good read of the posts before assuming that we are name calling. We do not do that here, it is not acceptable on this forum. If you are still unsatisfied, please PM me for further clarification.]
Heidi,
I think the reason xkwzit made that post was as moderator she had edited queenie's post (check down the bottom) for tone. Obviously she had been getting a bit hot under the collar and it is the moderator's jobs to keep the threads from becoming abusive and on track.
As others have posted there are heaps of threads on circumcision that have run their course and this one was originally posted to discuss circumcision in relation to the idea that it prevents certain infections. (The reason I haven't posted in this one before is that most of what I've posted has been more relevant to the other circ threads, but I've been reading this one as it is always good to see if "research" is infact statistically warranted and should be carefully considered).
I hope this clears it up for you and I'd encourage you to read the other threads as they give a lot of mother's stories from both sides. (Oh and a couple of men too!):)
I do not wish to comment any further on this topic thanks girls as I have made my thoughts clear and you yours and it seems we are going around it circles a bit.
Wait.. how are we going around in circles? You said it prevented a whole bunch of things and we said it didn't and showed you where to go to find the information so we are not dredging up the same arguments over and over again.
Heidi, did you look at the old links to find the information?
I also asked you what you thought about female circumcision. That was a new subject all together and you didn't respond at all. I would still be interested to hear your views.
I still would like to hear that some of the issues addressed are irrefutably unfounded, nobody can show that as yet.
Are you serious?? That is the only way you will believe circumcision is unnecessary? I'd love for you to explain that statement. The fact is that circumcision does lower the incidence of UTI's in baby boys. It only is effective for the first year or so I believe and it drops the rate from some miniscle amount to an even more miniscule amount (sorry, I don't have the figures on me but we are talking about less than 5%). Basically, whether circ'd or not, baby boys risk of UTI is STILL lower than girls!! Most of us would say it is hardly a reason to lop off a foreskin, but are you saying the fact it does lower the risk justifies circumcision?
Heidi, I have read the circ threads for a while and formed my opinion after reading lots of info for and against (basically there's not much in the 'for' category ;)). But to come here with your mind made up, post a view and then completely ignore all argument to the contrary is a bit...um... pointless isn't it? :confused:
I think that this thread has run it's course. Thank you too all who have contributed to the topic.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.9 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.