I just happened across this article while diddling around online. I'm not posting it to start 'the debate', but rather to see if what's posted here holds with what you see at your place of work.
By region of the US, the avg circ rates are
West - 31%
South - 56%
Northeast - 65%
Midwest - 75%
There wasn't any definition as to what states are included in which region, so I'm unsure how it was divided up.
If I'm not mistaken, though, don't some Muslims have their boys circed when they are older - like 8,9 yo? Most of the Muslim patients where I am circ their boys as infants, but we have a goodly number who state they're going to have it done later on.
I know it's traditional to have it done later, but the few Muslim friends I have had it done for their boys at birth. I think it is a matter of cultural assimilation to have it done early in the states.
long live the foreskin- I am pleased as I do not want my boys to be the odd one out - we just do not circ in the uk- I am not starting a debate I am really worried about my boys being picked on because they are intact.
Honestly, I really wouldn't worry about it. I think they'll have company in the locker room with the overall circ rate in this country being around 60%. That leaves ~40% intact.
I am in south GA and my circ rate is also probably 98%. Maybe one non-hispanic all last year chose not to circ. Usually the only ones not circing are hispanic.
Is it fair to say there is a higher (Hispanic and otherwise) immigrant population out West? Most cultures outside the US don't circumcise babies, so it would stand to reason that if there's a higher overall immigrant population in the West, then circ rates would drop. This is just a hypothesis, so maybe our friends out West could enlighten us...
I'm in the southwest and we have a very low rate of circumcision, at both hospitals I've worked at. The docs would ask every mom that had a boy if she was interested in having it done, but for the most part, they said no. The majority of our patients are Hispanic (well over half ..... actually I'd say at any given time, at least 80% of our babies are Hispanic).
For those regions with a 98% circumcision rate, is it a possibility that mothers opposed to circumcision are choosing to give birth in a non-hospital setting? As another possibility, are they giving birth at another hospital with a lower circumcision rate?
I am finding it difficult to accept that in the year 2008, 98% of mothers are agreeing to a cosmetic, not medical, procedure for their baby. Furthermore, cost controls are causing Medicaid and other health insurers to not pay for circumcisions because it is just a cosmetic procedure.
For those regions with a 98% circumcision rate, is it a possibility that mothers opposed to circumcision are choosing to give birth in a non-hospital setting? As another possibility, are they giving birth at another hospital with a lower circumcision rate?
I am finding it difficult to accept that in the year 2008, 98% of mothers are agreeing to a cosmetic, not medical, procedure for their baby. Furthermore, cost controls are causing Medicaid and other health insurers to not pay for circumcisions because it is just a cosmetic procedure.
You bring up a good point. It is indeed quite possible, and I know of a few friends who have done exactly what you mention in the first paragraph.
On the other hand, I would estimate that about 2/3 of our patients receive Medicaid, which no longer covers circumcision. Our hospital charges close to $700 for it. It never ceases to amaze me how many families, after finding this out, will still say, "Yep. We still want it done." I'd say that happens well over 90% of the time. Incredible? Yes. But true.
For those regions with a 98% circumcision rate, is it a possibility that mothers opposed to circumcision are choosing to give birth in a non-hospital setting? As another possibility, are they giving birth at another hospital with a lower circumcision rate?
I am finding it difficult to accept that in the year 2008, 98% of mothers are agreeing to a cosmetic, not medical, procedure for their baby. Furthermore, cost controls are causing Medicaid and other health insurers to not pay for circumcisions because it is just a cosmetic procedure.
I had DS at home, so yep. But in my 70+ member moms group, I think there are only 4 uncut boys.
The hospitals I have worked in (limited experience, mind you) don't do circs. We tell patients to see their pediatrician.
Wow. New perspective.
ALL the hospitals that deliver babies in this area do circs. Now, in some places the OBs do the circs and in others the pediatricians do them, but all the hospitals do them.
Okay, one baby doesn't do a whole lot, but I have several local friends who also chose not to.
vashtee, RN
1,065 Posts
I know it's traditional to have it done later, but the few Muslim friends I have had it done for their boys at birth. I think it is a matter of cultural assimilation to have it done early in the states.