secretspectrum

Male Circumcision Ineffective in HIV Battle According to New Future HIV Therapy Report Promoting male circumcision in Africa is risky and dangerous and could lead to more HIV infections, warns a new paper published today in the May issue of Future HIV Therapy. Promoting circumcision will drain millions, possibly billions, of dollars away from more effective prevention strategies, and cause tens of thousands of infections and other surgical complications. West Lafayette, IN (PRWEB) May 6, 2008 -- Promoting male circumcision in Africa is risky and dangerous and could lead to more HIV infections, warns a new paper published in the May issue of Future HIV Therapy. Lead author Dr. Lawrence Green says, "Having served on both the US Preventive Services Task Force and the Community Preventive Services Task Force, which do systematic reviews of research to arrive at government-supported evidence-based guidelines for practice, I believe the African studies on the basis of which some are promoting circumcision as HIV prevention would be classified at best as 'insufficient evidence’ by both panels." "Promoting circumcision will drain millions, possibly billions, of dollars away from more effective prevention strategies," cautions co-author John Travis, MD, "and cause tens of thousands of infections and other surgical complications, further straining an already overwhelmed healthcare system and undermining the current ABC (abstinence, be faithful, and use condoms) campaigns by creating a false sense of immunity and increasing risk-taking behaviors. African males are already lining up to be circumcised, believing that they will no longer need to wear condoms, and this is a serious concern." Full article: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/05/prweb916104.htm

Yes, it sure seems like it would make sense for the parents to at least be there to comfort the baby during painful procedures. I think the amount of siblings that would be done would decrease.

There are many similarities between female circumcision and male circumcision, in regards to culture's justification for both of them. In both cases the reasons for doing so is cited as hygiene, appearance, and decrease in sexual pleasure. (Decrease in sexual pleasure is one major reason male circumcision was popularized in the U.S. in Victorian times.They thought it would stop males from masturbating, and they mistakenly believed masturbation caused a lengthy list of ailments, including blindness) In both cases is it is done on unconsenting children, often without anesthesia. The patients themselves are not consenting to these surgeries. "Circumcision is a procedure that medical associations worldwide agree is not justified. It is a culturally sanctioned cosmetic amputation. Circumcision forever excises a normal body part with several functions: protecting the member, enhancing the body's immunological resources, and providing specialized erogenous tissue. Parents cannot really know what their son would want, so the best decision is to leave the healthy foreskin alone. For parents to take away so intimate a part of their son's body without his consent, barring true medical need, is wrong."—Steven Svoboda the founder of Attorneys for the Rights of the Child

The arguments for female circumcision and for male circumcision are very similar. In both cases, hygiene, appearance and decrease in sexual pleasure are given as reasons for doing it. (Male non-religious circumcision was popularized in the U.S. as an anti-masturbation technique.) Feel free to look up the history. I just think we as nurses need to think critically about the cultural practices we assist in perpetuating. I think we should also hold ourselves responsible to "First do no harm." Any expecting parents who are on the fence about the issue might think about it differently if they are open minded enough to watch an actual circumcision video. They are on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIRANs0eXwI Teaching video from Stanford: http://newborns.stanford.edu/Gomco.html Watch for yourself and then decide what you want done to your child.

I think the real point is that it is just plain unethical to cut off someone's body parts when they themselves cannot consent. If people want to get extreme body modifications when they are an adult, that is no one elses business. They should just be given the choice. The pain control discussions are a moot point. The point is that it is unethical to take away parts of someone's body when they cannot give consent. An interesting thought experiment- If circumcisions were never practiced and were not considered normal, what would the punishment be for someone who decided to do that to an infant? Interestingly, not all Jewish people still practice this, see http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/ their logic is quite fascinating.

Also, the original poster of another thread said that after watching a circumcision she was "glad she was born a female." The sad truth is that she is lucky she was born a female in a country that doesn't practice genital mutilation on it's girls as well as it's boys. Compare these statements from http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/mgmfgm.php regarding cultural beliefs that perpetuate this continued unethical practice in both males and females. Female: "She loses only a little piece of the privy parts, just the part that protrudes. The girl does not miss it. She can still feel, after all. There is hardly any pain. Women's pain thresholds are so much higher than men's." "Female circumcision protects the health of a woman. Infibulation prevents the uterus from falling out [uterine prolapse]. It keeps her smelling so sweet that her husband will be pleased. If it is not done, she will stink and get worms in her lady parts." Male "An uncircumcised member causes urinary infections and penile cancer. It generates smegma and smegma stinks. A circumcised member is more hygienic and oral sex with an uncircumcised member is disgusting to women." "It's only a little piece of skin. The baby does not feel any pain because his nervous system is not developed yet." Watch a video of a circumcision being done: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIRANs0eXwI Look at pictures of female "circumcision" http://www.geocities.com/restoremaine/pics/fgm/fgm_pics.htm What is cruel to little girls, is also cruel to little boys. 140 million women worldwide have been mutilated.

As nurses, we have tremendous collective power and influence in the medical field. Every interaction we have affects the outcomes of patient's lives. While nurses do not take the Hippocratic oath, since we are working "under" doctors it applies to us too. I urge you to think deeply about the issue of circumcision and whether you think forced cosmetic surgery should continue to be inflicted on infants, often without anesthesia. Is this a true commitment to "First do no harm"? Please join other nurses in being conscientious objectors to this brutal practice. http://nurses.cirp.org/ Was begun by a group of nurses from Santa Fe, New Mexico. There are many other organizations such as http://nocirc.org/ that seek to preserve human rights. Isn't it logical that each person's body belongs to that person? There is legislation currently waiting for sponsership that would make the female genital mutilation act of 1996 gender neutral so that boys will experience the same protections as girls. http://www.mgmbill.org/usmgmbill.htm You can help by writing to your elected officials-congresspeople, president, governor. This cultural practice can only be stopped one person at a time, by practicing the golden rule. Nurses, please nurture and protect the babies in your care, and refuse to take part in this unethical practice any more.

I think you should def. ask about the newborn nursery job. To address a couple of other things you said- I don't think small hands would impede your ability to do cervical checks. If you did get hired in that area, maybe you could tell them that you could not participate in abortions? They might be willing to accomodate you. I don't agree with circumcisions either. It IS barbaric, and the saddest part is that some babies get complications(severe infections even death) from it and have sexual dysfunction later.

I used NCSBN, some Saunders, and also watched the ATI videos that my nursing school made everyone purchase. I also took a lot of computerized practice questions to get a feel for it. I felt like pharmacology was my weakest point, and I did get several pharm questions on nclex where I didn't even recognize the drug. During studying I was always trying to see what my weakest point in content was, and then really attack that material. As for alternate item types, I got quite a few of the ones where you choose multiple answers.

I thought NCSBN was good. The site navigation can be frustrating at times, but the content is great.

I passed at 75 questions! Any questions on study materials I am happy to answer. Basically I studied until something changed in how I was looking at the questions and the answers. Something finally clicked with the studying, and I felt done.

Did anyone use ATI at their school? I still have access to their questions, and was wondering if they are good, or if I should stick with Saunders?

If you don't want to do CNA type stuff, then nursing school will be absolute hell for you.(It was for me) Also, if you have an excellent sense of smell, nursing may not be for you. There's lots of other jobs where you can help people, or take care of babies and children.