The Circumcision Discussion

[jmspeach]

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 husband says yes, it's better medically in the long run. My gpa who just turned 70 had to have a circ. due to endless complications lately.

As nurses in this area, is the medication that they use good? And what are some questions to ask my Dr. about it. I already know that my hospital i'll be at uses a med. when they perform it, I"m just wondering what you all think.

Thanks

Jen :)

[D.R.A.]

I say phooey on medical reasons....you are already probably pretty educated on those. You will have 6 of one opinion, half a dozen for the other side. At the end of the day, follow your heart:heartbeat Best of luck with your decision:wink2:

[Elvish, BSN, DNP, RN, NP]

An circumcision...is done with a lidocaine, does not cut into muscle, does not cut through a protective membrane that would expose major organs to possible infection and has minimal blood loss. It is considered a minor surgical procedure.

An appendectomy, is considered major surgery. It is done through general anesthesia and all of the risks of intubation, cutting through major muscles of the abdominal cavity, thus, placing the body at risk for adhesions, major infection, stitches, etc.

I cannot believe any intelligent healthcare worker could think the two are even remotely related.

Except that I have seen massive blood loss, infection, adhesions, and disfigurement occur with circumcisions, things that you are apparently reserving for appendectomies. You are not cutting into muscle, but you ARE essentially ripping a foreskin off that was was meant to be fused to the glans for a time.

Look, I'm not opposed to a person of the age to decide for themselves getting circumcised. If my son comes to me at 18, or even 16, and says he wants to be circed, guess who will make the appointment? He can decide for himself, let him have it done.

I am, however, opposed to doing it to newborn babies, because whatever evidence is out there does NOT suggest that it is in any way beneficial to them.

I don't care what they teach or the circ rate or HPV, STD rate or anything else in the UK, etc....I don't live in those countries...I live and practice healthcare in the USA.

Just because you live and practice here doesn't mean you can't ask questions about what is working in another country and why the same thing can't work here (and that doesn't apply only to circ). Why do those countries have a lower circ rate AND a lower STD transmission rate than we do? Why?

It bothers me greatly that we fight to protect our daughters' genitalia but not our sons'. And with that, I'm out for now. We are going around in circles and neither is going to change the other's mind.

[consult2]

"Some cried for a few minutes and then stopped. To me it did not seem that the lidocaine made much of a difference because that hurts being injected. It seems that they cried just as much either way."

Of course! After the initial pain, they retreated in a trauma-induced coma-like state

"My ex-boyfriend was not circ. and he was embarrased about it when we first got together. Since most men are circ. when you are one of the few that are not I think it can be embarassing for you. He always said that he wished it would have happened when he was a baby because now it would be a big ordeal."

Not if you are educated and know that YOU are the lucky one--knowledge is a great confidence builder.

HOW would it be a BIGGER ordeal now than as an infant?

[consult2]

well, consult.....i was waiting for you, and you didnt disappoint.....i really wasnt looking forward to going back thru all the posts to find the info....lol

Being a bit lazy are we?

[consult2]

Here's some common sense:

Since countries where circs are routinely done, are more developed (except for the Scandinavian countries) stats are available, as record keeping is better, and computerized.

In underdeveloped countries doing circs, less reliable data is stored and availability of it is difficult to obtain, especially in most African countries. Anecdotal information changes the way things are done there, and that takes much more time.

.

In SCIENCE, all it takes is ONE valid exception to make a theory invalid--you got them in Scand. and Japan--and the other rates for various countries are valid ENOUGH to complete the picture.

So, again:

IF circumcision reduces HIV by 50%, WHY do we not see this alleged reduction in the real world?

If circumcision reduces HIV by 50%, HOW & WHY do we oft times see an increase in HIV --up to 88 fold?

[consult2]

"An circumcision...is done with a lidocaine,"

very infrequently..

"does not cut into muscle, does not cut through a protective membrane that would expose major organs to possible infection and has minimal blood loss. It is considered a minor surgical procedure."

not to the victim--and not to those who die from it directly or indirectly.--onlt to the perpetrators.

"An appendectomy, is considered major surgery. It is done through general anesthesia and all of the risks of intubation, cutting through major muscles of the abdominal cavity, thus, placing the body at risk for adhesions, major infection, stitches, etc."

So? one is UNNECESSARY and the other is necessary--what is your point?

[consult2]

"Well, I guess the CDC, World Health Organization, Unicef, and other, internationally recognized organizations that are dedicated to the PREVENTION of disease, are all wrong."

Well, they certainly were on the latest swine-flu pandemonium they manufactured--and the bird flu, and...

and Again, IF it is their OPINION that circumcision reduces HIV, WHY do we NOT see this reduction? Either their OPINIONS are wrong, or reality is wrong--so, which is it?

[brillohead, ADN, RN]

Come to think of it, there sure seems to be one heck of a lot of HIV in Africa where circumcision is not routinely practiced....

[consult2]

Come to think of it, there sure seems to be one heck of a lot of HIV in Africa where circumcision is not routinely practiced....

And it is just as prevalent in areas that DO circumcise and those that don't --something does not compute logically.

[brillohead, ADN, RN]

And it is just as prevalent in areas that DO circumcise and those that don't --something does not compute logically.

But...but...but... circumcision is supposed to help prevent HIV infection... how can that be???? :icon_roll

[consult2]

""Well, I guess the CDC, World Health Organization, Unicef, and other, internationally recognized organizations that are dedicated to the PREVENTION of disease, are all wrong."

Well the circumcision and HIV rates come from those organizations whose opinions you cite, so this begs the question: Why do their own stats contradict their opinions?

Perhaps because "medical science" is mostly a consensus of OPINIONS (sometimes based on facts and evidence, and sometimes contradicted by it) and "science" is a consensus of the evidence?

[consult2]

But...but...but... circumcision is supposed to help prevent HIV infection... how can that be???? :icon_roll

Exactly! You got me.