The Circumcision Discussion - page 128

by jmspeach 187,809 Views | 1299 Comments

I know this can be a HUGE debate, and I'm not looking to start any arguments. I was just wondering as you are OB nurses. I'm expecting a boy in July and not sure if we should circ. or not. My husband says yes, it's better... Read More


  1. 0
    Quote from Elvish
    What I see is this: as soon as you mention to parents about 'reducing the chances of HIV/HPV transmission', what they hear is 'if we have him circumcised, he won't get HIV.' That is what I'm referring to. Rightly or wrongly, it is what many parents in my daily practice say. IF it does indeed reduce transmission chances (which I think has been talked about ad nauseum in this thread, and the studies were flawed), there's still no need to circumcise a newborn baby.


    Using a condom doesn't *guarantee* that you won't get an STD either - but it is about as effective as anything out there, and surely is more effective than circumcision at reducing HIV transmission. I am well aware of the fact that not everybody is faithful to their partner; however, why is the incidence of HIV transmission higher in the circ-happy US than in, say, European countries, where the circ rate is extremely low or nonexistent outside Jewish or Muslim communities?

    I stil haven't heard anyone mention doing appys on newborn babies because it will virtually eliminate their chances of getting appendicitis later on...
    You are comparing apples to oranges.

    I cannot control what parent hears or how they interpret the information. All I can do is present it to them, assess their level of understanding, and ask if they have any questions. Once they leave the hospital, it's up to them, not me, to raise and parent that child.

    I don't care what they teach or the circ rate or HPV, STD rate or anything else in the UK, etc....I don't live in those countries...I live and practice healthcare in the USA. I don't live in a geographical area with a transient population.

    Therefore, my job as a nurse is to practice objectively and non-judgmentally on FACT-BASED PRACTICE. The literature at our hospital that we provide to parents supports what I teach.

    An circumcision...is done with a lidocaine, does not cut into muscle, does not cut through a protective membrane that would expose major organs to possible infection and has minimal blood loss. It is considered a minor surgical procedure.

    An appendectomy, is considered major surgery. It is done through general anesthesia and all of the risks of intubation, cutting through major muscles of the abdominal cavity, thus, placing the body at risk for adhesions, major infection, stitches, etc.

    I cannot believe any intelligent healthcare worker could think the two are even remotely related.
  2. 0
    Quote from consult2
    "The links ARE my sources...and they are from the CDC and well recognized professional medical journals with CURRENT RESEARCH."




    Thoise are the OPINIONS of medical organizations--not proven facts--and are contradicted by empirical evidence in the real world.

    "Appeal to authority" is not a valid argument especially when those organizations have a bad track record.

    "I graduated in May and the same information appeared in our textbooks as well as the teaching literature we give to parents at my hospital who inquire about circumcision."

    That is a sad commentary on the state of our medical education--stating unproven claims as scientific fact.
    Well, I guess the CDC, World Health Organization, Unicef, and other, internationally recognized organizations that are dedicated to the PREVENTION of disease, are all wrong.

    Better send them a letter and tell them that the tons of studies that they are posting on their websites, published in the most widely accepted medical journals, are all one big conspiracy theory.

    I am glad that instead of citing personal opinion, I have written facts, backed up by current research as well as my employer, to present to parents.
  3. 0
    I say phooey on medical reasons....you are already probably pretty educated on those. You will have 6 of one opinion, half a dozen for the other side. At the end of the day, follow your heart:heartbeat Best of luck with your decision:wink2:
  4. 3
    Quote from BabyLady
    An circumcision...is done with a lidocaine, does not cut into muscle, does not cut through a protective membrane that would expose major organs to possible infection and has minimal blood loss. It is considered a minor surgical procedure.

    An appendectomy, is considered major surgery. It is done through general anesthesia and all of the risks of intubation, cutting through major muscles of the abdominal cavity, thus, placing the body at risk for adhesions, major infection, stitches, etc.

    I cannot believe any intelligent healthcare worker could think the two are even remotely related.
    Except that I have seen massive blood loss, infection, adhesions, and disfigurement occur with circumcisions, things that you are apparently reserving for appendectomies. You are not cutting into muscle, but you ARE essentially ripping a foreskin off that was was meant to be fused to the glans for a time.

    Look, I'm not opposed to a person of the age to decide for themselves getting circumcised. If my son comes to me at 18, or even 16, and says he wants to be circed, guess who will make the appointment? He can decide for himself, let him have it done.

    I am, however, opposed to doing it to newborn babies, because whatever evidence is out there does NOT suggest that it is in any way beneficial to them.
    I don't care what they teach or the circ rate or HPV, STD rate or anything else in the UK, etc....I don't live in those countries...I live and practice healthcare in the USA.
    Just because you live and practice here doesn't mean you can't ask questions about what is working in another country and why the same thing can't work here (and that doesn't apply only to circ). Why do those countries have a lower circ rate AND a lower STD transmission rate than we do? Why?


    It bothers me greatly that we fight to protect our daughters' genitalia but not our sons'. And with that, I'm out for now. We are going around in circles and neither is going to change the other's mind.
    Last edit by Elvish on Aug 5, '09
    Smurfette752, dnp2004, and JanisM like this.
  5. 0
    "Some cried for a few minutes and then stopped. To me it did not seem that the lidocaine made much of a difference because that hurts being injected. It seems that they cried just as much either way."

    Of course! After the initial pain, they retreated in a trauma-induced coma-like state

    "My ex-boyfriend was not circ. and he was embarrased about it when we first got together. Since most men are circ. when you are one of the few that are not I think it can be embarassing for you. He always said that he wished it would have happened when he was a baby because now it would be a big ordeal."

    Not if you are educated and know that YOU are the lucky one--knowledge is a great confidence builder.

    HOW would it be a BIGGER ordeal now than as an infant?
  6. 1
    Quote from morte
    well, consult.....i was waiting for you, and you didnt disappoint.....i really wasnt looking forward to going back thru all the posts to find the info....lol
    Being a bit lazy are we?
    morte likes this.
  7. 0
    Quote from lamazeteacher
    Here's some common sense:

    Since countries where circs are routinely done, are more developed (except for the Scandinavian countries) stats are available, as record keeping is better, and computerized.
    In underdeveloped countries doing circs, less reliable data is stored and availability of it is difficult to obtain, especially in most African countries. Anecdotal information changes the way things are done there, and that takes much more time.
    .

    In SCIENCE, all it takes is ONE valid exception to make a theory invalid--you got them in Scand. and Japan--and the other rates for various countries are valid ENOUGH to complete the picture.

    So, again:

    IF circumcision reduces HIV by 50%, WHY do we not see this alleged reduction in the real world?

    If circumcision reduces HIV by 50%, HOW & WHY do we oft times see an increase in HIV --up to 88 fold?
  8. 0
    "An circumcision...is done with a lidocaine,"

    very infrequently..

    "does not cut into muscle, does not cut through a protective membrane that would expose major organs to possible infection and has minimal blood loss. It is considered a minor surgical procedure."

    not to the victim--and not to those who die from it directly or indirectly.--onlt to the perpetrators.

    "An appendectomy, is considered major surgery. It is done through general anesthesia and all of the risks of intubation, cutting through major muscles of the abdominal cavity, thus, placing the body at risk for adhesions, major infection, stitches, etc."

    So? one is UNNECESSARY and the other is necessary--what is your point?
    Last edit by Elvish on Aug 5, '09 : Reason: member PMed
  9. 0
    "Well, I guess the CDC, World Health Organization, Unicef, and other, internationally recognized organizations that are dedicated to the PREVENTION of disease, are all wrong."

    Well, they certainly were on the latest swine-flu pandemonium they manufactured--and the bird flu, and...

    and Again, IF it is their OPINION that circumcision reduces HIV, WHY do we NOT see this reduction? Either their OPINIONS are wrong, or reality is wrong--so, which is it?
  10. 0
    Come to think of it, there sure seems to be one heck of a lot of HIV in Africa where circumcision is not routinely practiced....


Top