What were your medical reasons for circumcising?

[kushie tushie]

Originally Posted by sarchamar I think this perfectly illustrates the disconnect between the two "sides". For those who believe this is a human rights issue, this idea simply doesn't resonate. First, leaving a boy intact is a reversible position, whereas circumcising at birth is not. Second (and perhaps more important), the human penis is designed to include a foreskin, and refusing non-therapeutic surgery for a normal, healthy newborn is actually the standard for proxy consent. There would only be parental choice involved if baby boys were made to order. I can see both sides of the privacy issue, but ultimately I don't think it's any different than any of the myriad behavioral and medical issues we post about here (some of which can be very detailed/personal). Posting photos could definitely cross a line, but simply stating that a boy is intact or circumcised doesn't exactly paint a detailed picture.

Good post. I agree. Leaving your son intact is not a choice. Its natural and a non choice. Just like I would remove any other body part voluntarily.

Amanda . Blaming my phone for typos and crap.

[joyful mother]

Originally Posted by sarchamar I can see both sides of the privacy issue, but ultimately I don't think it's any different than any of the myriad behavioral and medical issues we post about here (some of which can be very detailed/personal). Posting photos could definitely cross a line, but simply stating that a boy is intact or circumcised doesn't exactly paint a detailed picture.

I tend to not post anything that may be embarrassing to my kids on the internet, I feel it's their choice to embarrass themselves. I have been with friends with older boys at the park and they are discussing their intact and circumcised sons and personally that is just something I would rather not know about their teenage boy and full grown son, I have seen one of them hush as their intact boy comes up. Why do they hush, is it because they know it might make him uncomfortable. I don't discuss my daughters bra size with people, that again would be her choice and her developing breasts are a totally normal thing. If I want to share how my breast development was going 30 years ago that is my choice but I would have been mortified to have my mom discussing it with strangers.

To me it's not my choice to share any info about private areas of my son/daughters life without their permission, even at the doc I ask them if it's okay to talk to the doc about it.

[Terra]

Originally Posted by Minniebees The standard of care requires use of anesthesia for circs. As a Ped dh has done, gosh, I don't even know if I can guess how many circs. The military has a 90+% circ rate, and he spent 6 years either observing or solely performing them. I don't know how many newborns have been in his care over the years, and approx 50% of them are boys, and most military families circ. So who knows? But he was taught to always use a nerve block (injection), to always wait for it to take effect. They also use a numbing cream before the nerve block. We know a lot of Peds, obviously, and I don't know any who would even think not to use pain meds. Like I said, it's the standard of care. I've never met a Ped who enjoys hurting babies, but I guess that's just me. Having said that, they don't use pain meds for all procedures, like spinal taps. If your baby under 30 days gets a UTI, they will get a lumbar puncture, and without pain meds. I've known NICU docs who don't do them for chest tubes, either (which drives dh crazy, he's all about pain control in the NICU). When you have general Peds who don't deal with procedures like intensive care docs do on sick patients, they are often not comfortable handing out meds they don't use much when the child has a condition they don't see often, so they err on the side of caution most times. But for healthy kids and circs, it's standard of care. Any docs not doing it, are not following the rules. I think when the AAP came out with their new policy recently, they mentioned specific studies and risks. The OP could look there. There was another article, was it the NY Post? That had a piece on the rising costs of health care as circs go down, and they listed a ton of studies there, too. It also might be useful to look up rates of UTI's in newborns, including the rates of hospitalizations, death and so on. Any infection in a newbie can be a life threatening event very quickly. And they are not always easily taken care of in newborns with antibiotics. Then you have to decide, are those risk greater than the risk of circ? That what all of us parents do with every decision we make for our kids, a basic risk/benefit analysis. I don't ever personally state my circ position on the internet because it squicks me out that people can then infer what my son's penis is like, and that seems like a gross violation of his privacy. Maybe because he's so much older now it feels like it should be kept private, so I won't say what we chose to do. But we did read the research, look at the risks from circs, which are very real, the potential benefits, and then made a decision based on what we thought was better medically. If you want some real advice about information, OP, stay off of parenting boards, and try some journal articles, policy statements, talk to several medical professionals (Peds and urologists would be a good place to start), check out government agencies that collect raw data and so on and so forth. IMO, parenting boards are not a good place to do research, people are too emotional about their pet topic, and every parent has something, whether is it car seats, or circs or whatnot. Good luck with your decision.

Marry me please!

[*Peanut*]

Originally Posted by nursenmom I think you may be correct. I'm in the midwest with a high rate of circumcision and I think a low rate of anesthesia. I could be wrong but when I witnessed in clinicals for nursing anesthesia was not used and it was the norm.

That's terrible.

Originally Posted by DesertRat A pediatrician tried to tell me DS would have to be circ'd because at age 4 he still couldn't retract. (He's going on 7 and still can't.) There were a couple studies done (I'll try to find the links) that showed the average age of retractibility was 10 years old, and it was still considered normal (though rare) into puberty. For this reason, whenever I hear of someone who "had to be circ'd" as a child I wonder if it was simply because the doctor didn't know this.

I think that in areas where the circ rates are high doctors are probably less likely to wait it out and more likely to push circ for medical reasons. In other words, doctors will do it if it's medically beneficial versus medically necessary.

Originally Posted by Fairycat I will say thanks to a man we knew, I would not circ to help with future possibilities of penille cancer. I knew a man who well, we all knew was circed, cause he is Jewish who developed penille cancer, They had to remove almost the entirety of his penis due to cancer. He was in his early 40's and he was no longer going to be able to have intercourse with his wife, and had many other issues. They actually wanted to sue the doctors. But it was determined because of the cancer, and because he had been circed, they were unable to save the majority of his penis. It came out if he had not been circed, they could have saved a lot more of his penis (enough for intercourse for sure), because of the way the cancer formed and when the foreskin is present, there is more to work with. The man was crushed, and like others when you have a close experience to someone with circ issues, or non-circ issues, it can effect your views a whole lot.

This is an interesting (but very sad) post.

Originally Posted by DesertRat While there are often medical reasons cited for justifying circumcision, it doesn't make sense when you use the same justification for other things. For example, we don't do appendectomies or tonsillectomies at birth to avoid those problems as children or adults. The foreskin is the only part of the body that we cut off in advance to avoid problems. I know someone who chose to have a double mastectomy because she had a history of breast cancer in her family and didn't want to get breast cancer.

I believe we don't cut off girls breasts, but remove foreskins because (right now, for the most part) we see the foreskin as expendable whereas breasts (we know) serves a very important function AND we find them appealing.

Originally Posted by kushie tushie Personal means for that person. Circed boys dont made that decision. Also I dont see where anyone was bashing circ-ers Many posters were talking medical reasons. There are few reasons and they are minimal thats all those mamas were pointing out. Amanda . Blaming my phone for typos and crap.

I think she meant to say "parental choice" versus "personal choice".

[JennTheMomma]

I can say for me leaving my son's intact wasn't a "choice". It was just normal.

Also for privacy, while I know for some it is weird to talk about sexual organs with one another, for others it's completely normal. Talking about issues like circumcision and intact care, etc is common amongst my family and friends.

ETA: I honestly don't think my boys will care that I've told people they are intact and then explain how to care for an intact penis. We don't view the penis, breasts, vulva/vagina, etc as any different than any other body part. And many of the boys amongst my friends who are now teenagers have talked about the dreaded locker room horrors that some parents claim are reasons they circ. We're just open about stuff like this, which is awesome, because it helps people make decisions and feel comfortable talking about these issues.

[DesertRat]

Originally Posted by *Peanut* I think that in areas where the circ rates are high doctors are probably less likely to wait it out and more likely to push circ for medical reasons. In other words, doctors will do it if it's medically beneficial versus medically necessary.

But how is circumcising a child who isn't yet retractable considered "medically beneficial?" If the foreskin doesn't retract (aka: it's still attached to the head of the penis) there's nothing in there that needs to be cleaned. Circumcising a boy who can't retract doesn't provide any benefits at all. They're just cutting it off because they think something is wrong when a child can't retract, when studies show that's totally normal development.

Originally Posted by *Peanut* I believe we don't cut off girls breasts, but remove foreskins because (right now, for the most part) we see the foreskin as expendable whereas breasts (we know) serves a very important function AND we find them appealing.

And this is the point I try to make most often when talking about circumcision. The foreskin is not expendable. It serves a very important function. I highly recommend googling "function of the foreskin" and doing some research. Not only does it offer protection, but it's role during s3x is rather interesting, IMO. It's not extra skin. It's there for a reason. And I think a whole generation of us have been duped into believing that it is just pointless extra skin. When you hear a pro-circ doctor talk about the pros and cons and circumcision, they NEVER mention what the foreskin does. And by doing that, we all assume it does nothing besides contribute to UTIs, cancer and STDs.

[*Peanut*]

Originally Posted by DesertRat But how is circumcising a child who isn't yet retractable considered "medically beneficial?" If the foreskin doesn't retract (aka: it's still attached to the head of the penis) there's nothing in there that needs to be cleaned. Circumcising a boy who can't retract doesn't provide any benefits at all. They're just cutting it off because they think something is wrong when a child can't retract, when studies show that's totally normal development. And this is the point I try to make most often when talking about circumcision. The foreskin is not expendable. It serves a very important function. I highly recommend googling "function of the foreskin" and doing some research. Not only does it offer protection, but it's role during s3x is rather interesting, IMO. It's not extra skin. It's there for a reason. And I think a whole generation of us have been duped into believing that it is just pointless extra skin. When you hear a pro-circ doctor talk about the pros and cons and circumcision, they NEVER mention what the foreskin does. And by doing that, we all assume it does nothing besides contribute to UTIs, cancer and STDs.

I don't think you are understanding my point. My point was that I think people who live in certain areas have certain believes and those beliefs affect what they feel is fact. So doctors who grow up on areas with very high circ rates may be more willing to circ and more willing to call something necessary, when it may or may not be necessary. I did not mean circing someone is medically beneficial if they cannot retract by a certain age. I was not even talking about a particular medical issue.

I said "we" as in this society. And we (society) does mostly feel that it is expendable, otherwise we wouldnt allow circing. I didnt say it was a useless piece of skin.

[DesertRat]

Originally Posted by *Peanut* I don't think you are understanding my point. My point was that I think people who live in certain areas have certain believes and those beliefs affect what they feel is fact. So doctors who grow up on areas with very high circ rates may be more willing to circ and more willing to call something necessary, when it may or may not be necessary. I did not mean circing someone is medically beneficial if they cannot retract by a certain age. I was not even talking about a particular medical issue. I said "we" as in this society. And we (society) does mostly feel that it is expendable, otherwise we wouldnt allow circing. I didnt say it was a useless piece of skin.

Sorry if I misunderstood your point. And that's true about doctors. I know not all doctors are like this, but I think in general U.S. doctors are ignorant about foreskins and proper care. (though hopefully that's changing) But I think it's unfortunate that their ignorance means many men and boys will be put through unnecessary circumcisions because they would rather cut it off than treat the problem.

When the pediatrician told me my 4 year old would have to circumcised, she was threatening me because I told her not to retract him during his well-child visit. She told me she had a 10 year patient "who had to be circumcised because he couldn't retract." This was before I read those studies about normal retraction, otherwise I would have laid into her. I just asked her stop and we switched doctors because she made me so angry. I couldn't believe how rude and condescending she got. But it really makes me sad that this 10 year old patient of hers went through an unnecessary surgery. (assuming there were no other issues, but that's all she mentioned) It's because of that experience that I tell other moms with intact babies about these studies and that they need to stand up for their kids if a doctor suggests circumcision for a problem that could be treated another way.

Because of the ignorance of doctors, I don't think it's enough to just leave your baby intact. We need to be very well informed, and willing to speak up or get a 2nd opinion when something doesn't sound/feel right.

[Terra]

Originally Posted by joyful mother I tend to not post anything that may be embarrassing to my kids on the internet, I feel it's their choice to embarrass themselves. I have been with friends with older boys at the park and they are discussing their intact and circumcised sons and personally that is just something I would rather not know about their teenage boy and full grown son, I have seen one of them hush as their intact boy comes up. Why do they hush, is it because they know it might make him uncomfortable. I don't discuss my daughters bra size with people, that again would be her choice and her developing breasts are a totally normal thing. If I want to share how my breast development was going 30 years ago that is my choice but I would have been mortified to have my mom discussing it with strangers. To me it's not my choice to share any info about private areas of my son/daughters life without their permission, even at the doc I ask them if it's okay to talk to the doc about it.

I agree with this! And I do the same thing at the doctor too! I mean they wait and look at me when the doctor asks to examine and I let them know it's a safe situation and up to them.

[*Peanut*]

Originally Posted by DesertRat Sorry if I misunderstood your point. And that's true about doctors. I know not all doctors are like this, but I think in general U.S. doctors are ignorant about foreskins and proper care. (though hopefully that's changing) But I think it's unfortunate that their ignorance means many men and boys will be put through unnecessary circumcisions because they would rather cut it off than treat the problem. When the pediatrician told me my 4 year old would have to circumcised, she was threatening me because I told her not to retract him during his well-child visit. She told me she had a 10 year patient "who had to be circumcised because he couldn't retract." This was before I read those studies about normal retraction, otherwise I would have laid into her. I just asked her stop and we switched doctors because she made me so angry. I couldn't believe how rude and condescending she got. But it really makes me sad that this 10 year old patient of hers went through an unnecessary surgery. (assuming there were no other issues, but that's all she mentioned) It's because of that experience that I tell other moms with intact babies about these studies and that they need to stand up for their kids if a doctor suggests circumcision for a problem that could be treated another way. Because of the ignorance of doctors, I don't think it's enough to just leave your baby intact. We need to be very well informed, and willing to speak up or get a 2nd opinion when something doesn't sound/feel right.

Sorry. I think I could have worded it better. I agree with a lot of your post. Like I said, I think doctors' decisions are largely based on what is culturally acceptable and/or common practice.