CDC rec to counsel all males about benefits of circumcision

RNsRWe, ASN, RN · Dec 4, 2014

I suppose if the mother is recognized as the custodial parent and the father is not (which I would hazard a guess might be the case if there is such a VITAL disagreement as this, that they don't live together?) then the hospital would reasonably follow HER requests, rather than his.

allnurses Guide · Dec 4, 2014

Phimosis - the inability to retract the foreskin- is not pathological before the completion of puberty. It's just normal male anatomy.

I guess you can debate that with kids that have had that diagnosis and the urologists that have made that diagnosis then.

https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2003/178/4/circumcision-phimosis-and-other-medical-indications-western-australian-boys

The incidence of phimosis in boys. - PubMed - NCBI

I guess you need to contact these authors and tell them they are wrong too.

Red Kryptonite · Dec 4, 2014

From your link:

"Non-retractable foreskins, or preputial adhesions, occur in young boys as a normal part of penile development, and these adhesions separate over time, requiring no surgical intervention. A United Kingdom report showed that only four percent of newborns had a completely retractable prepuce, but that by two years of age this had increased to 80%.

After concerns were raised in the UK that normal preputial adhesions were being misdiagnosed as phimosis, particularly in children, and were leading to unnecessary circumcisions, the rate of circumcisions performed for medically indicated reasons declined, most notably in boys less than five years of age."

Having had to deal with doctors myself regarding intact sons, and speaking to other parents about their doctor office experiences, I can tell you far too many of them are profoundly ignorant of normal penile anatomy, how the separation of the foreskin and glans occur over time, and proper intact care.

canigraduate · Dec 4, 2014

(bold mine)
This is slightly frustrating. How can you read my post and conclude that I think that I have the right to make the decision?
I do NOT have the right to make decisions about another person's genitalia or any other part of their body. That is my entire point.
Neither do you or anyone else in my opinion.
The only person who has the right is the person who inhabits the body. This is about an individuals autonomy and right to make decisions that have life-long consequences for themselves.
I don't see it as a gender issue.
Are we only allowed to stand up for the rights of individuals of the same gender as ourselves, and just let the other half of the human population fend for themselves? I have an opinion on this issue as a human being, not as a man or a woman.

I see that you have strong feelings about this. I guess I misunderstood and thought that you meant you would make the decision against circumcising for every male if you were able.

As for your question, it is rhetorical, inflammatory, and irrelevant. You can stand up for whomever you want to. In this case, the discussion is about male anatomy and I don't believe gender can be ignored.

allnurses Guide · Dec 4, 2014

From your link:
"Non-retractable foreskins, or preputial adhesions, occur in young boys as a normal part of penile development, and these adhesions separate over time, requiring no surgical intervention. A United Kingdom report showed that only four percent of newborns had a completely retractable prepuce, but that by two years of age this had increased to 80%.
After concerns were raised in the UK that normal preputial adhesions were being misdiagnosed as phimosis, particularly in children, and were leading to unnecessary circumcisions, the rate of circumcisions performed for medically indicated reasons declined, most notably in boys less than five years of age."
Having had to deal with doctors myself regarding intact sons, and speaking to other parents about their doctor office experiences, I can tell you far too many of them are profoundly ignorant of normal penile anatomy, how the separation of the foreskin and glans occur over time, and proper intact care.

It does not change the fact that pathological phimosis occurs before puberty no matter if the rate is 0.1% or 20%. It is a real diagnosis that occurs before puberty, and it does not change because you deny it. I have seen elective circumcisions and medically necessary circumcisions in boys and adult males. I have seen several cases of adhesions too, which depending on the age still sometimes have to be taken to the OR for deep sedation.

Male circumcision has medical benefits to deny that is a lie. You can post all day long, but that is the simple truth.

Nurses should not be pushing their personal opinions and beliefs on patients especially when there is clear evidence to support another view.

phuretrotr · Dec 5, 2014

I've read through this entire thread and the consensus I see is that some believe parents should not be able to choose whether to circumcise. However, is there any reason why having a infant circumcised hurts the child besides the initial procedure?

I'm all for letting parents decide what procedures they are willing to consent to for their child be their own choice, whether to decide yes or no, or to omit an answer either way. Although, why should parents who elect for circumcision be ridiculed and bashed for being unethical just because they would like their child to be circumcised? If circumcision does not have any serious long-term consequences, shouldn't parents be able to choose what they would like for their child just as those who what to omit any decision making for their child (which by default are deciding not to circumcise)?

What about those parents who do not want to breastfeed but instead formula feed. Are those parent unethical too? Do they deserve to have their decision-making abilities taken away because THEY are deciding what their child eats and not letting the child decide for themselves?

It seems to me these subjects are a matter of preference and as so, to put it bluntly, mind your own business.

Red Kryptonite · Dec 5, 2014

Why should the default position be FOR cutting something off? Why shouldn't the default be that we do NOT cut parts off of our children, and that in order to cut parts off, you should have to prove significant, unequivocal benefits that cannot be achieved in any other way?

CarryThatWeight, BSN · Dec 5, 2014

Red, I'm sorry, but your Galatians quote is taken quite out of context and can't be used as an anti-circumcision argument. Paul is using circumcision as an example to teach the church members that were preaching Christ PLUS the law as a way to salvation. He is using circumcision in that sense to symbolize following the law, as in Jewish law it must be done on the 8th day. He's saying that Christ is the only way to salvation and circumcision is of no value in someone's eternal salvation. You make very good points, but please don't quote the New Testament as anti-circumcision, because that's not what it's talking about at all.

allnurses Guide · Dec 5, 2014

Why should the default position be FOR cutting something off? Why shouldn't the default be that we do NOT cut parts off of our children, and that in order to cut parts off, you should have to prove significant, unequivocal benefits that cannot be achieved in any other way?

The medical benefits to male circumcision are proven. Male circumcision can be part of multi-modal public health solution to reduce STIs/diseases, certain female infections, cervical and penile cancer.

Your ideas of education and hygiene as a end all solution to prevent these conditions is naive at best and equates to expecting abstinence education alone to decrease STIs and teen pregnancy.

klone, MSN, RN · Dec 5, 2014

For those who say it's only cosmetic, I would point to religious practices for whom it is NOT cosmetic, and those who are adhering to this practice don't find their baby boys dropping from infection or blood loss, either.

A) A circ done by a mohel is usually not as extreme as that done in the hospital (i.e. they generally take off less prepuce)

B) The procedure is done at 8 days of life. At that point, gut is colonized with E. coli and the infant is making its own endogenous Vitamin K, thus less risk of hemorrhage

klone, MSN, RN · Dec 5, 2014

Is this true? I have a hard time imagining that a hospital would take on the liability of performing a procedure for which only HALF the legally-consenting adults agree.....and in fact, one half of the parental unit does NOT agree.

Yes, it's absolutely true. Only one signature is required on the consent. If the staff was not aware that one parent was opposed to the procedure, and the mother said 'Yes, do it" and signs the consent, we would do it.

allnurses Guide · Dec 5, 2014

A) A circ done by a mohel is usually not as extreme as that done in the hospital (i.e. they generally take off less prepuce)
B) The procedure is done at 8 days of life. At that point, gut is colonized with E. coli and the infant is making its own endogenous Vitamin K, thus less risk of hemorrhage

The risk of hemorrhage and infection are extremely low no matter if it is done on the day after birth or 8 days. Traditional male circumcision by a Rabbi is hardly a sanitary procedure. Brit milah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia