The Circumcision Discussion - page 32

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... Read More

  1. by   TazziRN
    Babies also scream at the top of their lungs when having a rectal temp taken, and we all know that's not painful at all.
  2. by   Jennifer, RN
    I have found that most infants do not mind rectal temps. Its the older infants and toddlers. I know that when I told my OB MD that I did not want my son circumsized, he was a little surprised, but said, "thats great, if it were up to me I would never do another one". My two boys are circ'd, have never had a problem, are healthy and happy. If you were to see them in the grocery store or on the street, you would not be able to tell them apart from another child that has been circumsized. I have taken care of very old men that have lived long healthy lives without being partially dismembered as a child. It's all in how you are raised.
  3. by   TazziRN
    [QUOTE]I have found that most infants do not mind rectal temps. Its the older infants and toddlers. [Q/UOTE]

    I guess CA infants are more sensitive then.

    I did not want my son circumsized, he was a little surprised, but said, "thats great, if it were up to me I would never do another one". My two boys are circ'd, have never had a problem, are healthy and happy. If you were to see them in the grocery store or on the street, you would not be able to tell them apart from another child that has been circumsized.
    Are they or are they not circ'd?
  4. by   ladyinred667
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20070305...albarriertohiv
    For decades, the common wisdom was that HIV easily enters and infects Langerhans cells. Geijtenbeek's team has now cast doubt on that notion.
    Looking closely at the interaction of HIV and Langerhans cells, they found that the cells "do not become infected by HIV-1, because the cells have the protein Langerin on their cell surface," Geijtenbeek said. "Langerin captures HIV-1 very efficiently, and this Langerin-bound HIV-1 is taken up (a bit like eating) by the Langerhans cells and destroyed."
    In essence, Geijtenbeek said, "Langerhans cells act more like a virus vacuum cleaner."
    Only in certain circumstances -- such as when levels of invading HIV are very high, or if Langerin activity is particularly weak -- are Langerhans cells overwhelmed by the virus and infected.
    The finding is exciting for many reasons, not the least of which is its potential for HIV prevention, Geijtenbeek said.


    So that kind of mitigates the "circ prevents HIV" study. It is also important to remember that the study was performed in Africa where there is a high rate of HIV infection, and it was done on consenting adult males. In addition that study has many flaws as far as control groups, not being double blind (how could it be?), etc. and as far as I know, has not been peer reviewed.

    To me, circumcision is a cure looking for a reason. If it had all these medical benefits, routine infant circumcision would be recommended by the APA, AAP, or WHO, and guess what...it's not.
  5. by   Jennifer, RN
    Oh, sorry they are NOT circumsized, I was typing a little too fast.
  6. by   jrsmrs
    Quote from ladyinred667
    To me, circumcision is a cure looking for a reason. If it had all these medical benefits, routine infant circumcision would be recommended by the APA, AAP, or WHO, and guess what...it's not.

    I agree. We are not performing these numerous studies on circumcised females (and rightly so, they have been violated by having pieces of themselves forcibly removed without cause, so IMO any discovered benefits would be ill-gotten gains, so to speak and putting the cart before the horse) in order to see what benefits it might have. Such a double standard.
    I have been in numerous debates about this issue, and it is so circular. But I have yet to have anyone ever answer my question as to why, in the Western world, female circumcision, and in fact any form of cutting on the female genitalia for non-medical reasons, is seen as abuse and a human rights issue. Yes, in the countries in which it is performed, they lack proper instruments and such. But if these people were to come over here and want it done- even a tiny ceremonial cut on their daughter's genitals or removal of only the labia or clitoral hood rather than the clitoris itself- in a proper sterile environment, with good tools, by a trained professional, it would never be allowed. Why are these parents not allowed to make this choice for their daughters, yet the parents of sons are allowed to do as they please?
    It boggles the mind.
  7. by   HisHands
    I recently had a pt that we had to bladderscan and frequently straight cath'd for urinary rentention. Well, he was uncut, and I swear to God cathing him was the worst experience of my life. The foreskin was like fused shut at the end so there was only a teeeeeeny tiny hole for urine to pass through. You could barely fit a 14 fr in there, and it was a crap shoot if you would get the urethra or not. It was so uncomfortable for this poor patient. Eventually the tip of his penis got infected from all the trauma. The whole thing was a mess. I still don't get why they didn't put in a foley or superpubic. Anyway, I spent my time in the chopping room too during school. I was traumatized. But, to look at what this gent went through (and I understand he is the exception) bothered me even more. I don't know. I think I'll probably go for the "Americanized" look when I have boys.
  8. by   Balder_LPN
    Quote from 2bnurseofalltrades
    I give kudos to any male who has been circumcised. I witnessed my very first circumcision this morning. I never gave much thought to the whole procedure until I actually saw one with my own eyes! OUCH!:smackingf I am glad that they don't remember this when they are adults!!!!!!! Thank heavens Im a girl!

    Wow!! how far this discussion has wandered from the OP. The only opinion she gave was that she was glad to not be a boy!! No judgements at all from her.

    What an incredibly devisive issue. I did enjoy the articles a few people posted. With the conflicting medical information I certainly recognize the individual choice this is for a parent.

    I am surprised (kind of, not really, maybe) at how judgemental so many nurses are of others personal choices like this. What happened to being open minded and accepting of anothers view even if different than yours? Or, since everyone has to do that at work all day is that the reason why we come here to participate in these polarizing discussions?

    I am also surprised at how much faith people put into the "facts" they are stating; "cut men last longer due to desensitivity" and that they suffer from ED more often, etc, etc. I say thats a bunch of second hand, anecdotal hooey if you dont show me the proof!
    Last edit by Balder_LPN on Mar 6, '07
  9. by   Balder_LPN
    Quote from jrsmrs

    I have been in numerous debates about this issue, and it is so circular. But I have yet to have anyone ever answer my question as to why, in the Western world, female circumcision, and in fact any form of cutting on the female genitalia for non-medical reasons, is seen as abuse and a human rights issue. Yes, in the countries in which it is performed, they lack proper instruments and such. But if these people were to come over here and want it done- even a tiny ceremonial cut on their daughter's genitals or removal of only the labia or clitoral hood rather than the clitoris itself- in a proper sterile environment, with good tools, by a trained professional, it would never be allowed. Why are these parents not allowed to make this choice for their daughters, yet the parents of sons are allowed to do as they please?
    It boggles the mind.

    Awesome point, before reading your post I would never have thought of this point of view
  10. by   mvanz9999
    .........
    Last edit by mvanz9999 on Mar 6, '07
  11. by   Works2xs
    [QUOTE=mvanz9999;2098840]
    Quote from TazziRN

    A couple of "proofs". Viagra, Cialis, Levitra.
    Because there are large sales of these drugs, it's somehow "proof" of a negative impact on sensitivity, etc. in circ'd men? "Intact" men don't use these drugs? Was there a study showing a distribution of use among these groups?
  12. by   TazziRN
    Quote from jrsmrs
    why, in the Western world, female circumcision, and in fact any form of cutting on the female genitalia for non-medical reasons, is seen as abuse and a human rights issue. Yes, in the countries in which it is performed, they lack proper instruments and such. But if these people were to come over here and want it done- even a tiny ceremonial cut on their daughter's genitals or removal of only the labia or clitoral hood rather than the clitoris itself- in a proper sterile environment, with good tools, by a trained professional, it would never be allowed. Why are these parents not allowed to make this choice for their daughters, yet the parents of sons are allowed to do as they please?
    It boggles the mind.

    In all the articles I've ever read about female circs, they are done under NO anesthesia whatsoever, to older girls. No attempt at anesthesia is even made. After the excision is done what is left of the labia is sewn together, leaving a small hole through which the girls void and menstruate and have intercourse. One of the arguments about male circs is the level of sensation the men feels....not whether or not they feel anything, but how much. With female circs the clitoris is removed and without the clitoris there is no sensation.

    Yeah, I'd call it abuse.
  13. by   TazziRN
    [QUOTE=mvanz9999;2098840]
    Quote from TazziRN
    I don't think the ones with fissures enjoy it.



    Ask a partially restored man if he's more sensitive.

    A couple of "proofs". Viagra, Cialis, Levitra.
    Uncirc'd men can have ED too. Got nothing to do with sensation.

close