The Circumcision Discussion - page 83
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
0Apr 1, '09 by deege58do a bit more research please before you make that statement, circs are a protection and a sexual enhancement, most women just need to feel better about what they did to their babyboys...no undoing that...but this was about immunizations..
And it is about our right to choose...
5Apr 1, '09 by dianabayI am neither anti nor pro circ. But I am anti- uninformed.
From the moment I found out I was having a boy- the 14th week (I had CVS) I researched and debated. Delivery day came and I still had not made a decision.....
The deciding factors were:
NOT ONE doctor I spoke with would/could assure me that my son would not feel pain.
I did not know what my son would want. I hear it is painful if done later- but we will never know if it is more painful than it is for an infant. My poor husband was in much worse shape after his vasectomy than I was after childbirth and an episiotomy get my drift...
To this day, I still wonder if I made the right choice. But I can live with the wrong reversible decision much more so than wrong irreversible one.
Not sure if this will help any "on-the-fencers" on the issue....but I thought I'd share.
5Apr 2, '09 by morteQuote from Valerie Salvathis should rarely to never be an issue, the problem is staff is unaware/unwilling to give appropriate care.As for circs-
I have have had a number of LTC pts who've had problems due to not being circumcised. A good number of them have had to be circumcised as adults to correct these problems.
3Apr 2, '09 by Betty711Our first son was circumcised because my husband wanted him to "look" the same as him. I wasn't thrilled about it, but allowed it to be done. With my second and third, my husband agreed to not getting them circumcised. I don't really see it being an issue either way. Some boys are circumcised, and some are not. In my opinion, it is not necessary, and just plain mean. If they need to have their foreskin removed later for some reason, then it will be removed later.
6Apr 2, '09 by GooeyRNI hate the nursing home arguement. Why remove something 80-90 years before their *may* be a problem? Should women who *may* have large breasts have them removed, b/c they may get recurrent yeast infections under them 80-90 years down the road if someone does not clean under them well? Should all baby girls have their breasts removed b/c they *may* get breast cancer some day? Should we remove everyone's appendix and/or gall bladder b/c they *may* have problems some day?
3Apr 2, '09 by Elvish, BSN, RN GuideA lot of my coworkers talk about the WWI/WWII arguments - being that uncirced American men in the trenches often got bad penile infections from going weeks/months w/o being able to bathe.
Which always begged the question for me - how did the Japanese, Germans, Italians, and so many other countries that don't practice it, how did they cope? And if those men did get circed, the practice obviously didn't catch on in those countries. Something to think about...
2Apr 2, '09 by consult2"LOL!! My son's circ won't give your daughter measles."
No, and it won't give him back the 75% of sensation ans sensitivity it took from him.
"circs are a protection and a sexual enhancement"
Protection from what? A LOSS of 75% of sensation and sensitivity is now "sexual enhancement? How does that work?
"I have have had a number of LTC pts who've had problems due to not being circumcised. A good number of them have had to be circumcised as adults to correct these problems."
Why is we only get these anecdotes from americans--who can't seem to stop themselves from "foreskin fiddling"? In more educated countries NEEDED circumcisions are indeed, very rare:
First of all, for a man who was not circumcised as an infant the chances of him having to get circumcised as a adult are extremely rare. In fact it's only 6 in 100,000. (0.006%)
Health officials of each Scandanavian country were queried about adult circumcision.. None of the health officials could provide precise data, because the numbers were so small that they weren't worth compiling. Each official stressed that foreskin problems were present but said they were largely treated medically-surgical solutions were extremly rare.
"in Oslo, Norway, over a 26-year period in which 20,000 male babies were cared for, 3 circumcisions were performed-a frequency rate of 0.02%.
In Denmark. 1968 children up to the age of 17 were examined over a period of several years. In this group, 3 circumcisions were performed-a frequency of 0.15%. In this study, in retrospect, the physicians believed that all three operations might have been avoided. Both of these studies related to the infrequency of circumcision and puberty, they did not deal with the issue in adulthood.
Wallerstein, Edward, Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy. pg 128
In Finland -- a non-circumcising country -- the operative rate is only a tiny fraction of this percentage. A male's risk of being circumcised for any reason during his entire lifespan is less than one in 16,000.
The Finnish National Board of Health provided national case records for the year 1970 for both phimosis and paraphimosis. A total of 409 cases was reported for males 15 years and older,which represents only
2/100ths of 1% (0.023%) of the total male population in that age group. This means that 99.97% did NOT develop a problem. Moreover, according to Finnish authorities, only a fraction of the reported cases required surgery- a number too small to reliably estimate.
Wallerstein, Edward, CIRCUMCISION: AN AMERICAN HEALTH FALLACY p.128
1Apr 3, '09 by consult2"I meant FORESKIN!!!! Not Circ!!!!!! my son is intact and if you read my post i refer to circs as genital mutilation!!! Sorry!! Foreskin is a protection and sexual enhancement!!! NOT CIRCS!!!
Sorry, I jumped the gun...can't keep all posters separated--senility. My bad.