The Circumcision Discussion - page 48

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   lovemyjob
    cosmetics/aestetics are not a reason to submit an infant to great pain and risk of botched circs and all of the other cons discussed here.

    a man who is in the hospital where people do not bathe an uncirc'd male properly is going to have an odor, as is a female who has not been bathed properly.

    convincing a patient who is unsure of whether to circ or not is unethical. if they are unsure, you should speak of pros and cons, including the fact that it is deemed unnecessary by the aap, and stick to facts only, not including that fact that you think they stink or are ugly.
  2. by   RNfinally
    As nurses when working it is not our job to try and change someones mind about a procedure, or any healthcare decision. It is however our duty to present the facts and support our patients and families so they can make an informed decision about their healthcare. I agree to try and force your opinion on someone because you don't agree or like it is very unethical as well as very unprofessional!!!!!!
  3. by   rnin02
    Quote from msmcrn5
    I am sorry, but unlike most of you, I am all for circumcisions. Not only did I circ my son, but I try to convience my pts to do it, if they ask my opinion. If they say they are not going to do, I don't ever mention it. Most of my pts are hispanic and they don't do.
    Everyone in my family is circ'd and I have only been with men that have been circ'd, and it is so much nicer to look at then an uncircumcised penis.
    While I worked in hospital a while ago, and helped men with baths, I noticed the uncirc's men and they are very ugly, and to be honest, stunk. The smelt that they get under the foreskin smells really bad.
    I don't want to upset anyone, but I feel that all men should be circ's. I have seen numerous boys that had to get circ's while they were kids. My grandfather had to have it done when he was 15.
    Its a matter of easy, easy hygiene to avoid odor...my husband is not circ'd, and he has never had a problem. Neither have any of my patients over the past 5 years. Sorry you've had such a bad experience with your patients. Not much I can say about the "ugly" part, I guess to each his own.
    Last edit by rnin02 on Jul 9, '07 : Reason: forgot word
  4. by   ElvishDNP
    My guess is that yes there are a few people who have to have it done as older kids/adults but that the whopping majority of intact men do just fine throughout their lives.

    Either way you have to wash it, and if you don't, it is going to smell either way.

    Edited to add that if my son comes to me when he's 18 or older and says he wants to be circed (even though I think he's crazy for wanting it), I will make the appt and pay for it if I have to. At that point he is an adult and can make his own choices. But while he is small and there is no real medical benefit, I think it's wrong for me to put him through that.
    Last edit by ElvishDNP on Jul 9, '07
  5. by   vashtee
    Quote from Arwen_U
    But while he is small and there is no real medical benefit, I think it's wrong for me to put him through that.
    Cutting the risk of HIV infection by as much as half is "no real medical benefit"? I mean, one might argue that (for them) the risks outweigh the benefit, but I don't know that it can be said there isn't any benefit at all...
    Last edit by vashtee on Jul 9, '07
  6. by   ElvishDNP
    Quote from natania
    Cutting the risk of HIV infection by as much as half is "no real medical benefit"? I mean, one might argue that (for them) the risks outweigh the benefit, but I don't know that it can be said there isn't any benefit at all...
    The study relates to adult men, not newborn babies. If adult men want to have it done, fine. They're adults, they can make the choice themselves. And if we cringe at the thought of a grown man having a sensitive part of his penis cut on, why don't we cringe at the thought of doing it to a baby?

    Condoms, monogamy, and abstinence all still work pretty darn well at preventing the spread of HIV, I think.
  7. by   dawngloves
    Quote from natania
    Cutting the risk of HIV infection by as much as half is "no real medical benefit"? I mean, one might argue that (for them) the risks outweigh the benefit, but I don't know that it can be said there isn't any benefit at all...
    I can't believe medical professionals use this as an argument for circumcision. We should be teaching that using a condom in 80% effective or abstinence, until you know your parteners status, is 100% effective.
  8. by   vashtee
    That would be great, except that the Catholic Church doesn't allow condoms. As for abstinence, yeah, right....
  9. by   dawngloves
    Quote from natania
    That would be great, except that the Catholic Church doesn't allow condoms. As for abstinence, yeah, right....
    And the Pope doesn't condone abstinence???
  10. by   rnin02
    Quote from natania
    That would be great, except that the Catholic Church doesn't allow condoms. As for abstinence, yeah, right....
    I gotta agree with Dawngloves...you follow the teachings of the Catholic Church regarding condoms, but not abstinence?
  11. by   rn/writer
    Quote from natania
    That would be great, except that the Catholic Church doesn't allow condoms. As for abstinence, yeah, right....
    I don't want to speak for natania, but I take this to mean that since many men do not like to use condoms, they are probably not going to mind being told not to wear them. But, since abstinence is not the preferred state, they would be far more likely to disregard this part of the teaching.
  12. by   fergus51
    Quote from natania
    Cutting the risk of HIV infection by as much as half is "no real medical benefit"? I mean, one might argue that (for them) the risks outweigh the benefit, but I don't know that it can be said there isn't any benefit at all...
    The problem I have with that is that it's unlikely to cause much benefit HERE. Here, men have the means to control the spread of HIV already. Relying on circumcision to protect them would be beyond foolish since it doesn't prevent the spread, it just lowers the chances of getting it through vaginal intercourse. But again, that isn't the main way HIV is spreak in our country. It isn't going to save millions of Americans.


    In Africa, it would probably save lives, though it's still pretty unpractical (countries that can't afford to provide clean drinking water to their population probably can't afford to perform millions of sterile surgical procedures each year).
  13. by   vashtee
    Quote from rnin02
    I gotta agree with Dawngloves...you follow the teachings of the Catholic Church regarding condoms, but not abstinence?
    I don't follow the teachings of the Catholic Church at all, but clearly, their teachings about abstinence aren't being followed. I am guessing it is a lot more palatable to refrain from using using condoms than it is to refrain from having sex. Naturally, abstinence is better, but human nature being what it is, I won't be holding my breath for that to occur. And yes, I am thinking in particular about the HIV/AIDS statistics in Africa.

    In the end, if people are going to be having unprotected sex (as appears to be the case), evidence shows that circumcisions may make things a bit safer.
    Last edit by vashtee on Jul 9, '07

close