Circumcisions-Question

Bipley · Dec 10, 2005

I don't work OB, but I was one of 10 nurses on my unit to have a baby this year (Apologies to the staffing dept!!:rotfl: ). 9 of those were male babies and 8 out of the 9 were circumcised. The one baby that was not circumcised...both of his parents are from Canada where circs are less common. The rest of us are born and raised in California and Nevada, if this means anything to your research. (in terms of geography playing a part)

Actually, it does. It does matter regarding geographical issues as that is part of the discussion.

It would seem that the US is the last to give up this practice.

Edit to add: Meaning other than 3rd world countries.

Bipley · Dec 10, 2005

Newer docs are no longer telling their patients that circs will prevent cervical cancer in men's sexual partners or stressing that penile cancer risk is decreased since the research that found those benefits was terribly flawed. They are also no longer teaching parents that it's necessary for hygeine or that they need to retract the foreskin to wash their boys. This is all outdated info I've heard some docs give parents. I believe the American Academy of Pediatricians (or whatever it's called) is no longer recommending routine circs because there is no real health benefit, and I know Canada's doesn't anymore and hasn't for years.
I live in Southern California and find a majority of white boys are done before they go home (maybe 60-70%), but I've yet to see a Hispanic baby circed. I would think that would make circed babies in the minority overall at my hospital.

Thanks for the info. The penile CA risk is a big issue in my thread, or it was at one point anyway. (The thread is over 1000 posts long)

I had no idea Hispanic boys were not circed, that's interesting info.

One issue I have learned is that 85% of female circs are not total circs, the are of the "summa" variety. Meaning, they remove the clitoral hood and that's all. It is done for a variety of reasons including decreasing sexual pleasure however mostly it is done for reasons of being clean and not spreading CA. (the belief is it prevents cervical CA and CAs in males but the type of CA was not explained in the research I have read)

It just seems to me that is one of the big reasons parents of males have it done here, tradition as well but also reasons of cleanliness and to lower CA risks.

If removing the hood of the privy parts (while leaving most of sensation intact) is similar to male circs, why is it primitive for female practices and not male?

This has been my question throughout a good part of this thread in question.

Bipley · Dec 10, 2005

Circumcision statistics:
http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/
Circ & bf:
http://www.cirp.org/library/birth/#n11
They list references for all of their information.
Here's another page on circ & bf... I haven't read it but it does appear to list it's references as well:
http://www.circumstitions.com/Nursing.html
Hope that helps!

Wow.... an absolute gold mine! Thank you SOOO much! I especially enjoyed the last link. I learned quite a bit! Thank you again!!!! This will be of great help in my "debate" on this procedure.

mitchsmom · Dec 10, 2005

Actually, it does. It does matter regarding geographical issues as that is part of the discussion.
It would seem that the US is the last to give up this practice.
Edit to add: Meaning other than 3rd world countries.

I used to be really into the circ debate... as far as I know, you are right, the U.S. is the last to give it up...

That stats link I gave breaks down the rates in a few countries and in different regions of the US. In order from lowest circ rate to highest is: west (about 30%), south (around 57%), northeast (65%), midwest (about 80%). Overall about 55%. That was for 2003. On their chart, from 1979 to 2003, the years 2001-2003 shows the biggest decrease in circ rates. They also have it by race.

PS.. As far as I know, most countries don't routinely circ period except for the U.S. and some that do it for religious reasons (Israel, some Islamic countries)... I never understood there to be a 3rd world correlation... do you have info on that? I would be interested to see. I don't think most of Asia or South America do it, & I don't think Africa does it except for Islamic areas??

Bipley · Dec 11, 2005

I used to be really into the circ debate... as far as I know, you are right, the U.S. is the last to give it up...
That stats link I gave breaks down the rates in a few countries and in different regions of the US. In order from lowest circ rate to highest is: west (about 30%), south (around 57%), northeast (65%), midwest (about 80%). Overall about 55%. That was for 2003. On their chart, from 1979 to 2003, the years 2001-2003 shows the biggest decrease in circ rates. They also have it by race.
PS.. As far as I know, most countries don't routinely circ period except for the U.S. and some that do it for religious reasons (Israel, some Islamic countries)... I never understood there to be a 3rd world correlation... do you have info on that? I would be interested to see. I don't think most of Asia or South America do it, & I don't think Africa does it except for Islamic areas??

Africa is one of the places that does it the most however they do it to females. Muslums do it routinely and many assume it is for religious reasons but in my research I have discovered it has nothing to do with religion. (both male and female)

There are quite a few links in the thread I am working on and I will give you a link if you'd be interested. But I have to tell you, there is a lot of bickering and four Jewish folks have decided that the anti-circ folks are only targeting them. We have explained over and over (ad nauseum) it has nothing in the world to do with religion, it is about the procedure. With this said, obviously I am on the anti-circ side.

To me, and this is just my personal opinion, but to me it seems barbaric and primitive.

fergus51 · Dec 11, 2005

Thanks for the info. The penile CA risk is a big issue in my thread, or it was at one point anyway. (The thread is over 1000 posts long)
I had no idea Hispanic boys were not circed, that's interesting info.
One issue I have learned is that 85% of female circs are not total circs, the are of the "summa" variety. Meaning, they remove the clitoral hood and that's all. It is done for a variety of reasons including decreasing sexual pleasure however mostly it is done for reasons of being clean and not spreading CA. (the belief is it prevents cervical CA and CAs in males but the type of CA was not explained in the research I have read)
It just seems to me that is one of the big reasons parents of males have it done here, tradition as well but also reasons of cleanliness and to lower CA risks.
If removing the hood of the privy parts (while leaving most of sensation intact) is similar to male circs, why is it primitive for female practices and not male?
This has been my question throughout a good part of this thread in question.

The similarities to certain forms of female genital mutilation (I would not use the word circumcision to describe cutting of female genitals because it gives the impression that it's similar to male circs in ways it isn't) is one of the main reasons I could not participate in infant circumcision. It is a cosmetic surgery with real medical risks done on a patient too young to consent for themselves. I find FGM far worse because it is meant to deny sexual pleasure and is not done under medical supervision in our country. It is also illegal whereas circumcision is not and carries more medical risks because of it being done "underground".

OT maybe, but where did you get your info on FGM? In my experience the sunna or type 1 variety is common among certain groups (not "summa"), but that doesn't necessarily mean just the hood of the privy parts is removed, it can mean the entire privy parts is removed as well. The whole point of the privy parts being unclean and a source of disease means that quite often, removing just the hood of the privy parts would be pointless, the privy parts itself must be at least partially excised. This is not something that will only mildly impact female sexual enjoyment. The sunna type only means that the labia are not scraped off (as in clitoridectomy or type 2) and the woman is not sewn together tightly (as in infibulation or type 3).

http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/fgmintro.html

Type 1 and type 2 operations account for 85 percent of all FGM according to this site with type 2 being the most common, so I don't think there is any support for the notion that 85% of women who have undergone FGM "only" had the clitoral hood cut.

http://www.irinnews.org/webspecials/FGM/default.asp

NurseFromTexas · Dec 11, 2005

I work postpartum and nursery and approximately 90% of the babies we take care of are circumcized. The only true trend I have noticed is the majority that I see not having the procedure done are hispanic. My husband is hispanic and I have not noticed within his own family that there is a true opposition to it....(but maybe I just have no idea who is or isn't circumcized). Our pedicatrician's do perform the procedure although we have only one I wish wouldn't do it cause it looks horrible after he completes it. As far as the others yes it looks raw and reddened but I think it is all the parents choice on whether or not to circ. The majority of our pedis use a plasti-bel and these are the ones that look the best in my eyes. As far as breastfeeding I will agree it does tend to make these babies the day it is done and they don't feed as well and are just difficult to wake or keep awake but because the stay is normally so short I couldn't verify this makes a difference for weeks. I usually feel they still recieve adequate nutrition just by looking at sugars or weight that can be determined.

elizabells, BSN, RN · Dec 13, 2005

My understanding was that uncircumcised men had a higher risk of STDs bc the foreskin can tear during sex - especially if there are any adhesions to the glans. I'm perfectly content to be told I'm wrong, however...

Rock, LPN, RN · Dec 13, 2005

There is no medical reason for circumcision. Some religious groups do this routinely. Hundreds of years ago, especially in the deserts, there was a lack

of water and soap, therefore the practice of circumcisions. In 2005 there is

no reason for the practice.

nurse_knitter · Dec 13, 2005

I work in a free-standing peds hospital. I have taken care of a few young infants whose parents requested to have a circ done while they were in the hospital. It was always turned over to urology who never seemed to be very interested in doing it. They didn't come right out and say no, but they would put it off over and over gain.

fergus51 · Dec 13, 2005

My understanding was that uncircumcised men had a higher risk of STDs bc the foreskin can tear during sex - especially if there are any adhesions to the glans. I'm perfectly content to be told I'm wrong, however...

I know some HIV studies showed an increased risk, but the studies themselves were horribly flawed in that they didn't look at the difference in behavior between the intact and circ'ed men (they didn't ask who was using protection and who wasn't). The best way for preventing STDs is the same regardless of circumcision: abstinence, monogomy, condoms.

Bipley · Dec 14, 2005

The similarities to certain forms of female genital mutilation (I would not use the word circumcision to describe cutting of female genitals because it gives the impression that it's similar to male circs in ways it isn't) is one of the main reasons I could not participate in infant circumcision. It is a cosmetic surgery with real medical risks done on a patient too young to consent for themselves. I find FGM far worse because it is meant to deny sexual pleasure and is not done under medical supervision in our country. It is also illegal whereas circumcision is not and carries more medical risks because of it being done "underground".
OT maybe, but where did you get your info on FGM? In my experience the sunna or type 1 variety is common among certain groups (not "summa"), but that doesn't necessarily mean just the hood of the privy parts is removed, it can mean the entire privy parts is removed as well. The whole point of the privy parts being unclean and a source of disease means that quite often, removing just the hood of the privy parts would be pointless, the privy parts itself must be at least partially excised. This is not something that will only mildly impact female sexual enjoyment. The sunna type only means that the labia are not scraped off (as in clitoridectomy or type 2) and the woman is not sewn together tightly (as in infibulation or type 3).
http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/fgmintro.html
Type 1 and type 2 operations account for 85 percent of all FGM according to this site with type 2 being the most common, so I don't think there is any support for the notion that 85% of women who have undergone FGM "only" had the clitoral hood cut.
http://www.irinnews.org/webspecials/FGM/default.asp

I'm looking for an education here so I am not claiming this is fact, I'm asking.

IF only the clitoral hood is removed (assuming skillfully however we all know it isn't done in a skillful manner) wouldn't that be similar to a male circ? It doesn't stop sexual stimulation, it just ... slows it down a bit, isn't this true?

I'm trying to understand the difference between JUST the removal of the cliteral hood vs. removal of the foreskin in a male.

Yes, it could well be Sunna vs. Summa. I was going by memory.

I can't find any useful reasons for either type of circ, female or male. It's painful, it removes a functioning part of the human body, and it is for silly reasons. I just don't understand the reasons behind circs done on a routine basis.