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 :)

[RN mom of 2]

For this discussion among medical professionals, can you clarify what you mean by "passed out"? Do you mean the infant became unresponsive? What measures were initiated to revive the child? What evidence do you have that this troubling episode of unresponsiveness in a neonate was connected to the procedure?

Are there any NICU nurses reading this discussion who could comment from experience on unresponsiveness in neonates undergoing procedures?

There will not come a time when we "remember" infant experiences with the clarity that we can recall some events from early childhood on. I don't have a text handy, but pull out any psych 101 text and refer to a chapter on memory.

The child I saw was in extreme distress, and passed out (fainted, lost consciousness, closed eyes, head fell back on the restraint board, neck tipped to one side for approx. 10-15 seconds), then became concious on his own. Haven't you ever seen a person who fainted wake up on their own? You don't need to revive someone who passed out. This sequence of events happened a second time. I'm no brain surgeon, but I think I'm smart enough to assess when someone, including and infant, has passed out. Also, I asked the nursery nurses about it and they admitted that it was due to the procedure, and it's not uncommon for this to happen.

We may not remember what happens to us as infants, but it doesn't mean it doesn't affect us. This type of severe trauma to a newly developing brain can cause a lifetime of damage, but we may not know that yet. Think of all the discoveries made after years of believing something is not possible. Also, why do we love and nurture an infant? We do it because although they won't remember it, we still know it's affecting them long term in a positive way.

It's crucial to love and nurture infants, so that they develop normally. We've all seen the results of babies and children who were never nurtured. If the positive experiences are affecting their brains, then it stands to reason that the negative experiences are also affecting their brains. I'd say cutting off part of a babies genitalia without proper anesthesia is a pretty negative experience. Wouldn't you?

[not now, RN]

As a student I've seen one child circumcised and it went like this:

Child is carried from Mom's room to the "Procedure room" while sleeping.

Strapped to board. Gives a little grimace, opens his mouth and falls back asleep.

Anesthesia(sp?) given. Still sleeping.

Circumcision done. Still sleeping.

Carried back to Mom's room. Gives me the one eye open "Who are you?" look that babies give.

Give him to Mom. Sleeping.

As for me and the man....he's Jewish and circumcised. I'm Mexican and Catholic, my culture doesn't really do circumcisions (in fact I know other Mexican girls who have never seen an uncircumcised member, they tend to ask me what it looks like). Any boys we have will be circumcised out of respect for his faith and culture.

[Katnip, RN]

Unofficial Anecdotal Poll of my 17 yr old son:

"You're discussing THAT online? . . . Mine, specifically????"

Followed (after a few faces of disgust) with a sheepish: "I don't care, I'm just glad I don't remember it."

I'll take that as validation of BOTH my right as a parent to make an informed decision AND the timing of said decision.

~faith,

Timothy.

I've asked both my boys if they felt cheated that they were circumcised. I got the same eye rolling and faces, and was told the same thing.

I only have one son left, but he continues to maintain that he does not feel deprived in any way and he doesn't remember it so can't say how he felt about it at the time.

[RN mom of 2]

Any psych nurses reading this? I'm at a loss to properly dx this all-encompassing focus on genitalia. I have no idea who James Spence is/was ... but after reading his view that "Nature" considers the brain and stomach to be "less essential" organs ... I don't feel the need to supplement my knowledge of him.

mvans ... I hope you have sought appropriate treatment. I am familiar with a large number of amputees who are less conflicted about losing one or more limbs, w/life-altering consequences, as adults, than you seem to be about the removal of foreskin as an infant.

I think your statement to mavans is extremely arrogant. It's very disrespectful of you to advise him to seek treatment for something that he feels was taken from him that was rightly his. He didn't say he lies in bed all day long unable to function because of it. He just understands the injustice that was done to him as a newborn and is not pretending it doesn't matter. Are you intact? If so, you could never put yourself in his shoes. If not, then maybe this is your way of not looking at the reality of what was taken from you? If it doesn't affect you I'm happy for you, but don't judge another person for how it affects them. Most amputees became this way do to something traumatic that occurred, forcing the removal of a body part, in order to save their lives. Please do not compare it to circ'ing. Circ'ing is NOT done because something traumatic happened, and it's not done to save a life. Circ'ing is the trauma. I'm not saying losing a body part isn't a tragedy, but it has nothing to do with a discussion about circ'ing.

I think the point he (Spence) was trying to make, is that the propagation of the species is what drives mankind. Bringing up the brain and the stomach was, I assume, his way of driving this point home. Obviously, those organs are important, especially one being vital, but he is trying to stress the importance of the genitalia as our means of procreating. He figures that nature knew what she was doing when she created the genitals, since they are the means to keeping mankind on this Earth. I would agree with this, in that one of the foreskin's functions is protecting the sensitive glans, so that it doesn't become desensitized. Do you realize that the U.S. is the main consumer of Viagra? I find this interesting considering the circ rate here is so high. I have always found this correlation rather interesting.

[Jelli_Belli]

Why is it that the only response for circumcision that we are hearing is "Oh well I had my son circumcised and when I asked him he didn't mind." Come on now, are you serious?

I imagine if you asked victims of female genital mutilation in Africa if they "minded" the procedure, they would tell you no. They are products of social conditioning. They are taught to believe it is a necessary procedure.

The same applies to males. Parents of circumcised children obviously believe it is the right thing to do, and they indoctrinate their children with that same belief. I doubt anyone has ever explained what was lost during that procedure to them and they will never understand because they won't know what they lost. They can't miss something that they never had, but that doesn't mean that they never needed it in the first place.

Just because a circumcised child doesn't think that he "misses" his foreskin later in life doesn't justify cutting it off as a child.

[Altra, BSN, RN]

I think the point he (Spence) was trying to make, is that the propagation of the species is what drives mankind. Bringing up the brain and the stomach was, I assume, his way of driving this point home. Obviously, those organs are important, especially one being vital, but he is trying to stress the importance of the genitalia as our means of procreating. He figures that nature knew what she was doing when she created the genitals, since they are the means to keeping mankind on this Earth. I would agree with this, in that one of the foreskin's functions is protecting the sensitive glans, so that it doesn't become desensitized. Do you realize that the U.S. is the main consumer of Viagra? I find this interesting considering the circ rate here is so high. I have always found this correlation rather interesting.

You & I have some very different views, obviously, and that's OK. I completely disagree that "propogation of the species" is what drives mankind: my belief system holds that we humans are different than other mammals and we have the capability to be driven by intellectual, emotional and ethical motives far beyond the instinctual. In fact, we are the only species with the intellectual capacity to choose not to procreate.

The "correlation" with Viagra and the U.S. that immediately jumps to my mind is the constant media attention given to sex, and the quirks of the practices of U.S. advertising that make awareness of Viagra & "ED" (cute name) a given for anyone who reads, views or listens to any mass media. That, and the cultural values of the huge bubble of baby boomers now turning 60 or thereabouts, with the typical "symptoms" of aging. The correlation is that culturally we don't deal well with aging in this country -- we are now treating age-related physical manifestations as "symptoms" to be cured. Enter Viagra ...

But this is OT, and I don't want to hijack the thread.

I have no illusion that anything I say will change your views on circumcision. That's OK too. But before you dismiss my language as arrogant, take another read of any one of your posts, or the website you provided a link for ... talk about inflammatory language ...

[RN mom of 2]

You & I have some very different views, obviously, and that's OK. I completely disagree that "propogation of the species" is what drives mankind: my belief system holds that we humans are different than other mammals and we have the capability to be driven by intellectual, emotional and ethical motives far beyond the instinctual. In fact, we are the only species with the intellectual capacity to choose not to procreate.

The "correlation" with Viagra and the U.S. that immediately jumps to my mind is the constant media attention given to sex, and the quirks of the practices of U.S. advertising that make awareness of Viagra & "ED" (cute name) a given for anyone who reads, views or listens to any mass media. That, and the cultural values of the huge bubble of baby boomers now turning 60 or thereabouts, with the typical "symptoms" of aging. The correlation is that culturally we don't deal well with aging in this country -- we are now treating age-related physical manifestations as "symptoms" to be cured. Enter Viagra ...

But this is OT, and I don't want to hijack the thread.

I have no illusion that anything I say will change your views on circumcision. That's OK too. But before you dismiss my language as arrogant, take another read of any one of your posts, or the website you provided a link for ... talk about inflammatory language ...

It may be wise for you to retake Biology 101. Yes, we have the ability to think before we act, but this does not change the hard wiring in our brains, especially when it comes to procreating. All species are driven to pass on their genes. You don't have to like it, but that's the reality. Why is it so hard to believe that men can have a healthy sex drive their entire lives? There's nothing wrong with that. In a marriage it's one of the ways to foster love and intimacy between a couple. A healthy sex life can give a person a sense of well being. There's nothing wrong with this. It's part of being a human being. I think there is a good chance that the member is no longer functioning properly, because its source of protection has been cut away since birth. I'd say an area this sensitive would lose sensation after 50+ yrs rubbing up against underwear. Makes perfect sense to me.

I am passionate about what I believe in when it comes to leaving boys intact. I feel someone needs to be, so it may as well be me. Sure, I get a lot of heat for it, but it's OK, because I believe in it so strongly. I'm not doing it for myself, but rather, for those without a voice. The people who are trying to change things in the world are the ones who take a lot of flack. If you go against what's accepted, you are a trouble maker in our world. It has always been this way, and I assume, always will be. I don't mind. I don't however, go around telling people they need psychological help, because they don't agree with what I think. That IMO, that is arrogant.

What's wrong with supporting an organization that feels it's looking out for the rights of a child? I guess if you don't agree with their philosophy, it would be bothersome to you. There are many organizations that people belong to, this happens to be one of mine. I posted it so those who are interested could learn more about it. I didn't post it to make you personally upset.

[mvanz9999, RN]

The "correlation" with Viagra and the U.S. that immediately jumps to my mind is the constant media attention given to sex, and the quirks of the practices of U.S. advertising that make awareness of Viagra & "ED" (cute name) a given for anyone who reads, views or listens to any mass media. ...

I equate the popularity of ED drugs with not only mass media but circumcision itself. Research has shown that circumcised males report a significantly higher proportion of ED than do intact males. If we were to stop routinely circumcising our children, we would have much less of a need for ED drugs.

[Altra, BSN, RN]

Research has shown that circumcised males report a significantly higher proportion of ED than do intact males.

Can you provide a citation for the research which establishes this? I have zero experience w/male urology topics.

[jjjoy, LPN]

The topic here is about the potential of circumcision to decrease the spread HIV infection. Some clearly are of the opinion that it's much too drastic a procedure to ever do unless it's an acute emergency.

Personally, if the evidence shows that it can significantly decrease transmission then I'm for adding it to the orificenal of HIV prevention strategies in countries where it's affecting large segments of the population. Behavioral prevention methods should always be encouraged, but if there's a permanent, more passive method also available it could really make an impact.

I'm not saying circ'ing has NO downsides but it seems reasonable to consider circumcision as a potential means of stemming HIV infection in some areas.

There have been some comparisons to female genital mutilation. Just FYI, according to the WHO, the most common type of FGM is excision of the privy parts and the labia minora.

[TiffyRN, BSN, PhD]

The trauma of a circumcision for an infant pales in comparison to a slow painful death from AIDS.

:yeahthat:

In my opinion; that is what this thread should be discussing. We've done the circumcision thing to death on the OB/mother/baby site.

Oh, and NICU nurse here; have seen literally dozens of circs. I've never seen a baby "pass out" from pain. And I'm sure the babies I've seen circ'd are far more fragile than the typical nursery infant. But, I digress, this is not the topic.

[porterwoman]

Wow, this conversation is quite....hmm, what's the word...occicentric?

Best, everyone. Sharon, like smilingblueeyes said, thanks for that very concise and right-on analysis.

Timothy, thanks for reminding me to get my head out of my day-to-day and look at the WHO website.

Rebecca