The Circumcision Discussion - page 79

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. Visit  2curlygirls profile page
    3
    Quote from Jubilayhee
    Research has proven thet circumcision reduces the spread our aids in hetersexuals. No lie. Is that a good enough reason for ya'll.
    Heck no!
    JanisM, GooeyRN, and Smurfette752 like this.
  2. Get the hottest topics every week!

    Subscribe to our free Nursing Insights newsletter.

  3. Visit  firstyearstudent profile page
    2
    Quote from lamazeteacher
    Jewish families do watch the circumcision being done, along with their families and friends, at a party given at their home for the occasion. The fainters aren't usually the parents, in fact I've not heard of that, but males attending the ritual (called a briss) have fallen many times and take the subsequent ribbing. It's because they hold their breath, watching. Blood can't oxygenate the brain, so knocking them out is the only way their bodies can resume breathing, on automatic pilot.

    So if you freak out again, breathe deeply and it will pass. Jews don't get to choose about circumcision, and so far, except in psychoanalysis, there haven't been many who are adament about that. It's a fact of life. When they become parents, they'll probably choose to have it done for their boys, just as their parents did for them, to be a part of "the covenant with G-d".

    I'm very much for anaesthetizing any part of anyone who is about to have a needle or knife shoved into them. It is barbaric that heel sticks are done without EMLA patches applied for an hour before it is done, as well as for the foreskin before it departs. 20 years ago, that was determined necessary at a conference I attended at Stanford. I've been passing the word, but everyone needs to do that.

    It's abusive to do any pain causing procedure without EMLA being used. At ritual circumcisions the baby gets sweet wine on a ball of gauze satuyrated in it, with a lkong tail of gauze attached to prevent swallowing the ball of gauze.
    I know many Jews. My husband is a Jew. While many parents find the bris a joyful time, I have spoken to a few Jewish women who found the bris to be a traumatic experience for them. Many have not stayed to watch. One woman told me she was completely hormonal and locked herself in her bedroom, cried her eyes out and and wished everyone would just leave the house!

    Jews do have a choice whether to circumcize or not. There is a strong pressure to circumcize but whether you are circumcized or not does not make you a Jew. You don't get thrown in jail if you don't circumcize your child and you don't get "kicked out." That's not to say not circumcizing isn't seriously frowned upon. It is.

    Strangely, circumcision is obligatory only if you are not born to a Jewish mother and wish to convert.

    Many Jews now are choosing not to circumcise and many secular Jews do not have a traditional bris but just get the baby circumcized in the hospital. It really depends what kind of Jew you are, also. An orthodox Jew would have a more difficult time not circumcizing. A secular or reform Jew might get some crap from grandmom and grandpa but mostly no one is going to bust their chops about it.
    Last edit by firstyearstudent on Mar 16, '09
    dnp2004 and Smurfette752 like this.
  4. Visit  latinalonestar profile page
    6
    US has the highest rates of STD transmission. The circ rate among sexually active men in our country is still at around 86%. Circ rates have only recently began to drop in the last 10 years so those men are still not sexually active. This alone should tell you that circ does NOT protect against the transmission of STDs and/or HIV. I have read studies that suggest a genetic tendency to becoming infected with HIV. Though I have not had the opportunity to investigate that study in depth, it seems far more plausible and more viable than any study I have read about circumcision. Though many are unaware, there have been equal studies showing that circ has no effect on HIV transmission and that circ can potentially increase the risk. Due to the loss of the functional foreskin and its 20,000 nerve receptors, blood supply, protective function, gliding function, etc, circed men are much more likely to forego wearing a condom which increases their risk. In our country it is estimated that 1 in 3 people has an STD.

    But I will play along...
    Even if circ somewhat reduced the spread of STD/HIV, it still would not endorse routine infant circumcisions. By the time a boy reaches an age where he is sexually active he can make the decision for himself about his penis. If a boy would choose circumcision at that age he could undergo a general anesthetic and receive all the GOOD pain meds in the world. In addition, the risks of the surgery would be far less b/c there man would be fully grown so it would be less likely for the surgeon to take too much skin (a common complication of infant circ) Also, the foreskin would already be separated from the glands in adulthood, unlike an infant foreskin so there would be no risk of skin bridging. Infant foreskin is fused to the glands of it must be forcibly separated during circumcision which can cause damage to the glands, increases blood-loss, and can result in bridging. Finally, if the glands have been protected by the foreskin in childhood, they would have less loss of sensitivity after circumcision than if they were exposed all throughout childhood.

    Bottom line. There are always "potential" benefits to amputating a part of the body b/c it eliminates the possibility of something going wrong with that particular part. For example: 1-8 women will get breast cancer yet we don't go removing the breast buds of baby girls to prevent that. The foreskin itself is not pathological and is a functional part of the male sex organ. To remove it during infancy is completely unnecessary, is harmful, and is a violation of a boy's right to choose over his own body. When a boy reaches consenting age, he should have the choice over his most intimate part of his body, just as girls do. Every child regardless of gender, age, culture, religion, or race has the right to genital integrity.

    So my question is... why are Americans so bent on protecting a parent's right to circumcise boys when every single medical association has classified it as medically unnecessary? We legally protect girls from this very same harm yet we strap our sons to tables in the first days of their life as if a foreskin is some type of birth defect.

    And for those who say that their sons are "happy" about being circed, how can they know? They have never experienced a foreskin. If the only car you ever saw or drove was a Pinto, then you wouldn't miss a Lexus now would you? Yeah, a Pinto will get you from point A to point B, but shouldn't the individual have the choice? You can always take away, but you can never put back.

    HIS body, HIS choice.
    MT-Matt, JanisM, consult2, and 3 others like this.
  5. Visit  Joe12 profile page
    2
    I just wanted to build on this for interested parties.

    It seems to me the practice of circumcision is largely driven by fear not rational thinking. And mating circumcision with HIV was inevitable.
    In my previous post I cited an article in this weekend's Australian which can be read here. This article is a response to another opinion submitted to the Australian in January, it can be read here. Now I think it's important to read the January article (second cited) closely.

    The author, Mr. Wodak, in addition to trotting out the usual excuses (all of which are typical BS), begins to cite the changing trends in Australia's HIV epidemic. Specifically focusing on the increasing numbers of heterosexually aquired HIV among men between about the years 1999 and 2006. Without proper context, it seems he might have something to talk about though he isn't really specific. He notes a rise in overall infections and he notes a rise in heterosexual infection but it isn't clear how it breaks down, in which direction the infections are going. There are other problems too, but they aren't necessary to make the point.

    Now compare that with Mr. Murray's article. Yes, there was a rise in the number of HIV cases, 854 among men. Of which only 77 (9%) were for men who were infected through sex with women. Yes, that is an increase among heterosexual men, 15 more than in 2000 of which 10 were in men over 60. The average age of infection was 46 and no man in Australia under 24 was diagnosed with HIV through heterosexual contact in 2006.

    So this is what I mean when I say that circumcision is largely driven by fear. It's the same for all the other purported benefits. If they do exist, they're down in the noise and quite trivial. So why would Mr. Wodak try to ring the alarm bell and want to start encouraging circumcision again when a more rational look at the information (like the break down I provided in a previous post), provide by Mr. Murray, shows that such a move is entirely without merit. Does someone want to take a shot?
    JanisM and Smurfette752 like this.
  6. Visit  firstyearstudent profile page
    2
    Quote from Joe12
    I just wanted to build on this for interested parties.



    In my previous post I cited an article in this weekend's Australian which can be read here. This article is a response to another opinion submitted to the Australian in January, it can be read here. Now I think it's important to read the January article (second cited) closely.

    The author, Mr. Wodak, in addition to trotting out the usual excuses (all of which are typical BS), begins to cite the changing trends in Australia's HIV epidemic. Specifically focusing on the increasing numbers of heterosexually aquired HIV among men between about the years 1999 and 2006. Without proper context, it seems he might have something to talk about though he isn't really specific. He notes a rise in overall infections and he notes a rise in heterosexual infection but it isn't clear how it breaks down, in which direction the infections are going. There are other problems too, but they aren't necessary to make the point.

    Now compare that with Mr. Murray's article. Yes, there was a rise in the number of HIV cases, 854 among men. Of which only 77 (9%) were for men who were infected through sex with women. Yes, that is an increase among heterosexual men, 15 more than in 2000 of which 10 were in men over 60. The average age of infection was 46 and no man in Australia under 24 was diagnosed with HIV through heterosexual contact in 2006.

    So this is what I mean when I say that circumcision is largely driven by fear. It's the same for all the other purported benefits. If they do exist, they're down in the noise and quite trivial. So why would Mr. Wodak try to ring the alarm bell and want to start encouraging circumcision again when a more rational look at the information (like the break down I provided in a previous post), provide by Mr. Murray, shows that such a move is entirely without merit. Does someone want to take a shot?
    Here's a theory:

    http://kvetcher.net/2009/01/2438/jew...-of-australia/

    I am absolutely NOT an anti-semite. In fact, I'm married to a Jew and my two boys have very Jewish names (and gentile foreskins) and I hold a disproportionate number of Jews in high regard. But when I brought up the circumcision issue with my Jewish pediatrician she definitely did not take my concerns seriously and pushed for the circumcision.

    However, not all Jewish doctors are narrow minded about this particular issue. Dr. Paul Fleiss is Jewish and is against circumcision. (Yes, I know he is Heidi's dad and a tax evader but that doesn't make his arguments invalid.)
    Last edit by firstyearstudent on Mar 16, '09
    consult2 and Smurfette752 like this.
  7. Visit  Joe12 profile page
    5
    Quote from Smurfette752
    I hope that maybe YOU will change the warped views of many!!! Thanks!
    I wish I had that power but we can all only do so much. Many of you who post here are in a unique position to help and it is really only through those in the medical community that we will succeed in ending routing circumcision. So I hope everyone does at least a little something as often as they can. Learn more, educate others, and talk about it make people look at this from a rational and ethical perspectives.
    consult2, meluhn, Elvish, and 2 others like this.
  8. Visit  Smurfette752 profile page
    1
    Quote from Joe12
    I wish I had that power but we can all only do so much. Many of you who post here are in a unique position to help and it is really only through those in the medical community that we will succeed in ending routing circumcision. So I hope everyone does at least a little something as often as they can. Learn more, educate others, and talk about it make people look at this from a rational and ethical perspectives.

    Did I mention...I love you! Hahaha Seriously, you rock!
    Joe12 likes this.
  9. Visit  tpanative profile page
    2
    I'm 33 now but I asked my mom sometime in HS why she and dad decided to have me circumsized vs. leaving the decision up to me later in life. She told me it basically "what people did" back then.

    Having had an uncut bf I can guarantee you the sensation is better for them. I wish I still had my foreskin!!
    Smurfette752 and consult2 like this.
  10. Visit  consult2 profile page
    5
    "Having had an uncut bf I can guarantee you the sensation is better for them. I wish I still had my foreskin!!"

    Of course intact men are more sensitive and have more sensation. It is completely irrational to think one can remove most of the penile nerves (and nearly all of the specialized ones) and have the remaining nerves covered with keratinization--and there be no loss of sensitivity and sensation.
    Last edit by consult2 on Mar 18, '09 : Reason: clarification
  11. Visit  pooptacular profile page
    0
    yeah yeah, it's all been said, but why would you cut off a perfectly good chunk of skin off your CHILD?! your BABY?

    (btw, if i were a mom, i would try to avoid watching procedures done to my child- iv, catheter, etc., but i believe these parents should watch and empathize with that child!)

    now, my mother chose against having my 3 brothers circumcised. they are all quite glad!

    as for the "getting teased"?!, who wasn't teased in school? i'll make sure my kid is wearing the best clothes and always has the hottest girlfriend to make sure he doesn't get teased. ooh...i'll get him an escort for prom too, don't want him to look unpopular. let's build some character!

    granted, i have NO desire to have kids, but my current bf is, of course, cut. he adamantly wants our "hypothetical" son to look like him. yeah, it's a pointless argument, but whatever. his MAN reason is purely aesthetic though!

    just to throw some fuel on the fire- i also would not pierce my infant's ears.


    p.s. this point is completely moot for me b/c i yearn for a barren sterile existence! :wink2:
  12. Visit  AirforceRN profile page
    0
    Oh boy...just when you thought the discussion was over with...this was just published in the New England Journal of Med. according to a news release by the Canadian Broadcasting Corperation...

    "SASKATCHEWAN (CBC) - Circumcision helps protect heterosexual men against genital herpes and a virus that causes genital warts and cancer but has no effect on the bacteria that causes syphilis, two trials in Uganda show."

    See the story here: http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2009/...erpes-hpv.html

    Take note..."Trials in Uganda show..."
  13. Visit  Joe12 profile page
    4
    Quote from pooptacular
    as for the "getting teased"?!, who wasn't teased in school? i'll make sure my kid is wearing the best clothes and always has the hottest girlfriend to make sure he doesn't get teased. ooh...i'll get him an escort for prom too, don't want him to look unpopular. let's build some character!

    granted, i have NO desire to have kids, but my current bf is, of course, cut. he adamantly wants our "hypothetical" son to look like him. yeah, it's a pointless argument, but whatever. his MAN reason is purely aesthetic though!
    Here is what I don't understand, why do fathers think it is important to have their son's look like them in this respect. Ask him if he bonded with his father over their penises. I suspect then answer is no. I think when a man says that it is more for his comfort. This was done to me, there must have been a good reason so it must happen to my son.

    Quote from AirforceRN
    Oh boy...just when you thought the discussion was over with...this was just published in the New England Journal of Med. according to a news release by the Canadian Broadcasting Corperation...

    "SASKATCHEWAN (CBC) - Circumcision helps protect heterosexual men against genital herpes and a virus that causes genital warts and cancer but has no effect on the bacteria that causes syphilis, two trials in Uganda show."

    See the story here: http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2009/...erpes-hpv.html

    Take note..."Trials in Uganda show..."
    Here is what I don't get about this kind of announcement. First, we have a very effective vaccine for HPV so who cares? Second, there have been several studies in the first world that show no significant difference between circumcision and HPV for but also other STDs too. Even if what the propose was in fact true, why does that still require a decision in infancy?

    Why is it when those types of results are released, we never hear about it. It seems like every time there is a result in favor of circumcision it is splashed across the news but not the other way around. Why do you think that is?

    ETA: Made a correction.
    Last edit by Joe12 on Mar 26, '09
    MT-Matt, JanisM, Smurfette752, and 1 other like this.
  14. Visit  morte profile page
    1
    joe12 sent you a pm
    Joe12 likes this.


Nursing Jobs in every specialty and state. Visit today and find your dream job.

A Big Thank You To Our Sponsors
Top