+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    560
    Thanks
    142
    Thanked
    165
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts

    Default Recent literature review regarding circumcision

    I will be having a boy in 15 weeks and had put this issue to the back of my mind as something unnecessary due to the literature I have read. When I went to uni for nursing it was strongly recommended, but when I finished that course the literature I was reading didn't recommend it. Now reading this I am questioning it again.
    http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org...p_ft89_4_1.pdf

    Need only to read abstract and conclusion or look up recent news about this review.

    Very interesting really! Has anyone had a boy or know someone uncircumcised that is the supposed 1 out of 3 that has problems?

    This isn't meant to cause issues or drama - just trying to get some insight and further evidence if anyone has anything recent to add.

    Thanks ☺️

  2. #2
    Busy-Bee's Avatar
    Busy-Bee is offline Offending people since before Del :D
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    11,183
    Thanks
    3,664
    Thanked
    4,704
    Reviews
    2
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    Past Moderator - Thank you
    @JohnC is the go-to bloke for information on RIC.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    560
    Thanks
    142
    Thanked
    165
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Thanks busy bee. After just doing a google search, I can tell this is going to give me a headache!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    607
    Thanks
    392
    Thanked
    383
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Regardless of the 'trends' your new sons foreskin is not yours to remove without medical necessity. It's not something that needs to be thought about unless a medical situation arises requiring its removal. The same as with every other body part.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Acadaca For This Useful Post:

    BettyW  (05-04-2014)

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    7,053
    Thanks
    6,263
    Thanked
    5,481
    Reviews
    4
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a weekBusiest Member of the Week - Most posts for the week ending 5/6/2014
    3 sons, all uncircumcised, zero problems to date

    Sent from my GT-I9505 using The Bub Hub mobile app

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to peanutmonkey For This Useful Post:

    Acadaca  (03-04-2014)

  8. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    4,222
    Thanks
    894
    Thanked
    3,219
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Yes my uncirc'd boy had lots of problems, which was then worsened by the fact that doctors were reluctant to recommend circ'ing, though in this case it was needed.

    In saying that though, if I was to ever have another boy, I'm not sure if I would circ him just because of issues I had with another child. Seems a bit OTT to me, but then all the pain my DS went through was OTT too. I would certainly have to have a good think about it.

  9. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    my house
    Posts
    17,710
    Thanks
    1,392
    Thanked
    7,295
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 posts
    Do you know who Brian Morris is?

    I saw his name and closed the article.


    ImageUploadedByThe Bub Hub1396551464.089660.jpg
    Last edited by BigRedV; 04-04-2014 at 05:13.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to BigRedV For This Useful Post:

    bel2466  (05-04-2014)

  11. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,310
    Thanks
    136
    Thanked
    808
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    @Tippytoes

    That was quick! The publisher (Elsevier) only issued the press release about this American paper yesterday, but it has already been heavily criticised on this side of the globe. So key things to know include:

    Authors and American Context
    This is primarily an intervention in the US debate about Medicaid funding by three leading members of an international coterie that has for two decades been promoting universal infant circumcision. Only one of them is a medical doctor (Wiswell), and the Australian lead author, Brian Morris, has been labelled an "extremist" by medical authorities here. He is the founder of a political lobby group that has been unsuccessfully pushing this agenda for several years.

    Australian context and position
    In Australia infant circumcision has been in decline since the 1960s and today no more than 15% of boys are circumcised by the time they start school (the most comprehensive statistical summary can be found here). This is obviously a very different situation from the US.

    Australian paediatricians first recommended that routine infant circumcision not be performed in 1971. There have been a succession of policy statements since with essentially the same message. The most recent concludes:

    After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP [Royal Australasian College of Physicians] believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand.
    (Just Google "RACP circumcision" if you want to find the full statement.)

    Risk-benefit analysis
    The "analysis" presented in this paper (Table 4) is not accepted by any reputable body, including the American Academy of Pediatrics! Various forms of this table have appeared in at least four different papers authored by Brian Morris since he published his manifesto "Circumcision: A biomedical imperative for the 21st century" in Bioethics in 2008. It has not become any more credible in the intervening years.

    If you would like any information on any of the specific items in that table, please post questions in this thread and I will do my best to answer them with detailed references.

    Ethical dimension
    To the extent the discussion has changed in recent years, it is the growing awareness that there is a terrible double-standard in Western societies outlawing the genital cutting of female children but allowing (or even encouraging) the genital cutting of unconsenting boys. For a good discussion of this problem, this article by Oxford University ethicist Brian Earp is a good introduction.

  12. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to JohnC For This Useful Post:

    bel2466  (05-04-2014),btmacxxx  (04-04-2014),Busy-Bee  (04-04-2014),Ellewood  (04-04-2014),MINIRoo  (04-04-2014),rainbow brite  (05-04-2014)

  13. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    560
    Thanks
    142
    Thanked
    165
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    It does sound very biased doesn't it. It popped up in my feedly app and I wasn't aware about the authors. Very glad I asked here. Thank you all very much for your help. Thanks Johnc for all of that info. 😊

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Tippytoes For This Useful Post:

    JohnC  (04-04-2014)

  15. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by BigRedV View Post
    Do you know who Brian Morris is?

    I saw his name and closed the article.


    Attachment 52457
    Thanks for providing his Bio. He does seem well qualified.

    I'm not sure that your closing your eyes/ears to information is the best way to become educated on a subject.

    Tippytoes. I would recommend that you read the RACP statement in full. It is a good and unbiased read that goes into detail as to the benefits of infant circumcision.

    JohnC's quote should be taken in its full context:

    After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand. However it is reasonable for parents to weigh the benefits and risks of circumcision and to make the decision whether or not to circumcise their sons.
    When parents request a circumcision for their child the medical attendant is obliged to provide accurate unbiased and up to date information on the risks and benefits of the procedure. Parental choice should be respected.
    The important word is 'routine'. ie. a standard procedure. It means that it doesn't warrant hospitals doing to all boys as standard.

    This quote from RACP is important.

    This suggests that parents are in principle better placed than doctors to weigh up the risks and benefits of circumcision for male infants. It is ethically appropriate for the decision about infant male circumcision to be left in parents’ hands...
    John, and others like to quote that one sentence only and trust that the RACP's view is correct. But they do not agree with the RACP's entire document, they would much rather cherry pick the sentences that suit them and ignore the others. I happen to agree with the entire document.

    Obviously, the AAP have recently changed their document (it is more current) to be more in favour of infant circumcision to the point where they have said:

    Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and that the procedure’s benefits justify access to this procedure forfamilies who choose it.
    It can be read here.
    http://pediatrics.aappublications.or....full.pdf+html

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Father For This Useful Post:

    Aron  (10-04-2014)


 

Similar Threads

  1. Show me your recent cards
    By Yolandac31 in forum Crafts and Hobbies
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 11-05-2014, 11:52
  2. Confused - recent m/c and pos hpt
    By Green Cheese in forum Pregnancy Loss Support
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 15-08-2013, 08:44
  3. TTC after recent complicated loss and contraceptives
    By Piscean Dreamer in forum Conception issues & ttc
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-04-2013, 21:31

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
free weekly newsletters | sign up now!
who are these people who write great posts? meet our hubbub authors!
Learn how you can contribute to the hubbub!

reviews
learn how you can become a reviewer!

competitions

forum - chatting now
christmas gift guidesee all Red Stocking
Mother and Baby Shop
Save $$$ during our Christmas Sale Mother and Baby Shop
Great prices on Schoenhut kids pianos, toys, baby clothing as well as big brands like Pigeon, NUK, Cherub Baby and many more. Sale starts on 1 November 2016 and ends on the 27 December 2016. Hurry! Place your order today!
sales & new stuffsee all
Bub Hub Sales Listing
HAVING A SALE? Let parents know about it with a Bub Hub Sales listing. Listings are featured on our well trafficked Sales Page + selected randomly to appear on EVERY page
featured supporter
ProSwim
ProSwim runs learn to swim classes for babies, children and adults. Our indoor centre in Plympton Park has lessons all year round, including school holidays. We also offer outdoor programs during the summer months (Oct-Mar) at Rostrevor college.
gotcha
X

Pregnant for the first-time?

Not sure where to start? We can help!

Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!