Circumcision

[Kaylee]

Sorry, I'm not clear on this. Are you talking about parents who make that choice? Or those who actually perform the circumcision? Or are both of those groups 'pro-circ'?
I can understand that they feel obligated. Does that make them pro-circ?
Of course! But I tend to reserve the 'pro' description for those who actively encourage others to circumcise their sons. I also reserve 'anti' for those who actively discourage others from it. That's why I wanted to find out who you include in the definition of those two camps.

Ah, I see. There may be formal definitions that I'm not aware of. This isn't actually a topic that consumes all of my time and attention.
I think your definition is reasonable, but I would expand it to include one's position for one's own babies.

In other words if the "Jones" decide not to circumcise their newborn son why not describe them as anti-circ?

As for people who want circumcisions for their sons only because they believe that they are obligated to make sure they get them for religious reasons, I would describe them as "pro-circ", even though the reason that they are in favor of circumcisions for their sons would obviously be different than a non-religious family who mistakenly believe that the procedure's pros outweigh the cons. ("I'd rather not but God says we have to" vs. "Its healthier to do this.")

Sorry. I'm try not to let it happen again

Our experience (our kids are 19 and 8) was that the hospital gave us consent forms for a bunch of things - vaccinations, circumcision, etc. when we checked in. My husband didn't sign the form authorizing circumcision, so it wasn't done. No pressure at all to sign it other than being handed the form in amongst other consent forms and a follow-up when he didn't hand the signed form back to make sure that was his decision and not simply an oversight.

Interesting. Are newborns vaccinated? I didn't realize that.

I also think that the AAP statement implies that parents should be given the pros and cons of circumcision in an appt. setting -- not by having them read through some legal documents (typically at the last minute in the USA). I realize that the birth of your kids predate the AAP's statement. But based on the few medical procedures I've had, my experience is that there is no discussion and that one is handed legal papers to sign at the very last possible minute. Anytime any procedure has been discussed its been at my initiation and sometimes it was not welcome, I believe mostly due to time constraints. Most medical appts., AFAIK, are less than 15 minutes. If I had concerns though, I never let that stop me. But I also, based on my experiences, would not expect my doctors to give me all the pros and cons of possible medical options for me. Because of that, when my few issues have come up, I've taken a few days off to do my own medical research and every time I was glad that I did so and I believe that I ended up getting better medical care as a result.

ETA: My experience has been is that doctors like to say "We are going to do ............." And they strongly prefer that their patient's comments be limited to "When?"

Anyway, thanks for sharing your experience.

 

[Beth]

Ah, I see. There may be formal definitions that I'm not aware of. This isn't actually a topic that consumes all of my time and attention.
I think your definition is reasonable, but I would expand it to include one's position for one's own babies.

In other words if the "Jones" decide not to circumcise their newborn son why not describe them as anti-circ?

I'm not aware of any formal definitions either. It just helps to communicate if I know what you mean by those terms. I don't tend to include people who simply make a decision one way or another as necessary pro- or anti- because my main dividing line isn't what people choose to do for themselves, but whether they want others to do as they think best. Just because I never had an abortion myself doesn't imply I'm anti-abortion. Nor do I think of myself as anti-circ just because we decided against it for our son. (Actually, I left that decision entirely up to my husband. I just didn't care that much one way or the other and still don't.) Anyway, thanks for the clarification. That we differ a bit on what we think of with those terms isn't an issue. Your definition is fine and I'll keep your interpretation of those terms in mind when I read your posts.

Interesting. Are newborns vaccinated? I didn't realize that.

When my son was born, the Hep B vaccination was recommended for newborns. We decided against it and had a lot more pressure to get the vaccination done than circumcision, which wasn't discussed at all after we made our wishes clear. But every time a new nurse came on duty, she'd come in to try and give our son the Hep B vaccine. I had researched the issue enough to feel that the risk posed by the vaccine was greater than the risk posed by the disease for my newborn. Interestingly enough, not too long after he was born, the recommendation that newborns get the Hep B vaccine was dropped, although I think they may have reinstated it after reformulating the vaccination.

I also think that the AAP statement implies that parents should be given the pros and cons of circumcision in an appt. setting -- not by having them read through some legal documents (typically at the last minute in the USA). I realize that the birth of your kids predate the AAP's statement. But based on the few medical procedures I've had, my experience is that there is no discussion and that one is handed legal papers to sign at the very last possible minute.

I don't know. I don't recall ever discussing it with a doctor in any sort of setting.

Anytime any procedure has been discussed its been at my initiation and sometimes it was not welcome, I believe mostly due to time constraints. Most medical appts., AFAIK, are less than 15 minutes. If I had concerns though, I never let that stop me. But I also, based on my experiences, would not expect my doctors to give me all the pros and cons of possible medical options for me. Because of that, when my few issues have come up, I've taken a few days off to do my own medical research and every time I was glad that I did so and I believe that I ended up getting better medical care as a result.

I'll second that experience. I'm a strong believer in taking responsibility for your own health, including doing research on whatever is ailing you. Doctors just don't have time.

ETA: My experience has been is that doctors like to say "We are going to do ............." And they strongly prefer that their patient's comments be limited to "When?"

No kidding

Anyway, thanks for sharing your experience.

You're welcome.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

It doesn't matter. I was describing my reaction, not making a case. I have now gone on to state what it meant, so you can address directly whether or not you understand in that post.

Linda

In describing your reaction you made a false claim. You still haven't retracted it despite being twice advised that it was false.

 

[fls]

In describing your reaction you made a false claim. You still haven't retracted it despite being twice advised that it was false.

I retract whatever claim you think was false.

Linda

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

Actually, I left that decision entirely up to my husband. I just didn't care that much one way or the other and still don't.

<snip>

I find that hard to believe. Is that because you were ignorant of what infant circumcision involved? Have you ever seen an infant circumcision being performed?

 

[Kaylee]

I'm not aware of any formal definitions either. It just helps to communicate if I know what you mean by those terms. I don't tend to include people who simply make a decision one way or another as necessary pro- or anti- because my main dividing line isn't what people choose to do for themselves, but whether they want others to do as they think best. Just because I never had an abortion myself doesn't imply I'm anti-abortion. Nor do I think of myself as anti-circ just because we decided against it for our son. (Actually, I left that decision entirely up to my husband. I just didn't care that much one way or the other and still don't.) Anyway, thanks for the clarification. That we differ a bit on what we think of with those terms isn't an issue. Your definition is fine and I'll keep your interpretation of those terms in mind when I read your posts.

I see what you're saying. This issue is probably complicated enough that it might require a sentence rather than a phrase to capture each person's opinion.

Examples:

"I'm against circumcision for healthy baby boys, both in my family and in others. At this point I'm not in favor of making it illegal with criminal penalties; however, I think more effort should be made to educate parents and make it clear that the costs and risks outweigh any 'propylactic' benefits for rare conditions that can often be effectively handled with more mild medical treatments in the unlikely event that they occur."

"I'm against circumcison for any of my healthy baby sons. However, I think what other people do is their business. We're Libertarians." </possibly channeling our libertarian forum member, don't recall his name >

"My sons will be circumcised and anyone who doesn't do the same is an idiot." {Just kidding }

When my son was born, the Hep B vaccination was recommended for newborns. We decided against it and had a lot more pressure to get the vaccination done than circumcision, which wasn't discussed at all after we made our wishes clear. But every time a new nurse came on duty, she'd come in to try and give our son the Hep B vaccine. I had researched the issue enough to feel that the risk posed by the vaccine was greater than the risk posed by the disease for my newborn. Interestingly enough, not too long after he was born, the recommendation that newborns get the Hep B vaccine was dropped, although I think they may have reinstated it after reformulating the vaccination.

Interesting. Did the nurse engage you in a serious discussion or was her input limited along the lines of "Doctor wants you to do this. Don't you want your baby to be healthy?" in an annoying sing-song voice?

I'll second that experience. I'm a strong believer in taking responsibility for your own health, including doing research on whatever is ailing you. Doctors just don't have time. No kidding

True, its too bad. Ideally they are suppose to be able to truly advise their patients. However, in reality, they are more like the gas station attendents for the human body. "OK, what are you here for? Flu shot, blood pressure tests, blood sugar tests. OK, here are your slips for the tests. Go straight down the hall. You'll get a call if there's a problem. Bye!" OK, sometimes the procedures are a little more sophisticated and the conversation lasts a few minutes longer -- but the quality of the interaction is about the same.

 

[Kaylee]

There's already been quite a few posts about the risks (albeit rare) of circumsicion, so I almost didn't post about this again.

Still, I happened to see this earlier today while double checking something else and no writes like the inimitable Dan Savage. Here he is on circumcision. Look for the letter from the man whose penis was partially amputated when he was an infant in the middle of the article.

Probably not safe for work.

 

[fls]

There's already been quite a few posts about the risks (albeit rare) of circumsicion, so I almost didn't post about this again.

Still, I happened to see this earlier today while double checking something else and no writes like the inimitable Dan Savage. Here he is on circumcision. Look for the letter from the man whose penis was partially amputated when he was an infant in the middle of the article.

Probably not safe for work.

Great column. Now that is what I've been talking about. I suspect the reasons given are the main reason the average parent circumcises their infant. And he directly addresses them by agreeing with them, so no one has to get defensive, but then showing how they can be relatively trivial. And I bet most parents would find that article persuasive, without any need to bring in the crazy.

Linda

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Great column. Now that is what I've been talking about. I suspect the reasons given are the main reason the average parent circumcises their infant. And he directly addresses them by agreeing with them, so no one has to get defensive, but then showing how they can be relatively trivial. And I bet most parents would find that article persuasive, without any need to bring in the crazy.

Linda

Do you think so? Why are non-celebrities classed as anti-circ. 'crazies' when they mention such tiny risks, but when Dan Savage does exactly the same thing, you consider it a persuasive argument?

Or is it more the 'I don't give a f[rule 8] what you do to your kid really' tone that you think makes it persuasive?

 

[Southwind17]

The 50% reduction in HIV is sufficient to warrant circumcision for every boy, everywhere.

What a sweeping and ill-considered opinion. I have absolutely no concerns over the apparent causal link between uncircumcision and HIV for my sons. This theoretical risk pales into insignificance compared to many other 'wordly' risks they're likely to face.

And, no, condoms don't make a significant enough difference to warrant not circumcising.

Says who? In what circumstances?

Condoms are less effective on uncircumcised men

Ditto.

and they are not 100% effective in preventing HIV or other STDs.

What is?

If circumcision cuts the chance by half, and condoms by 95% (for example), then condoms plus circumcision would cut the chances by 97.5%!

So 95% is insignificant?

That extra decrease in the chance of not getting HIV is worth far more than the 0.2%-0.6% chance of a little bleeding or possible infection (both of which are treatable), or the .003% chance of serious complications or malformations.

These aren't the only downsides, and not the more significant ones at that.

Plus, there's no guarantee that the kids' gonna use condoms when he grows up; circumcision at least guarantees the 50% chance of not catching HIV, without having to resort to drastic measures like total castration.

50% - guaranteed! Do you honestly believe that?! I think you do!

The only benefit I can possibly see from carrying around that vestigial bit of skin is that it has a few extra nerve endings, and keeps the head moist and sensitive.

Well you wouldn't see many, would you, because you don't know. Bottom line!

Big deal - if women want their men so sensitive that 30 minutes of sex seems like a long time, they can speak up. FWIW, I think a decrease in sensitivity is a good thing for women - they don't have to put up with early shooters and minutemen. So I don't see that as a benefit, really - meaning the one advantage is really a disadvantage.

So do you wear a condom too then, just for the extra-reduced sensitivity? Bet you can last over an hour eh!

 

[Gurdur]

What a sweeping and ill-considered opinion. I have absolutely no concerns over the apparent causal link between uncircumcision and HIV for my sons. This theoretical risk pales into insignificance compared to many other 'wordly' risks they're likely to face.

What you fail to consider is that the whole world is not just like you. Others have different risk probabilities to face, and correspondingly behave differently. Merely because you cannot put yourself in their shoes does not mean they do not exist, and doesn not make what is good for you good for everyone else too.

 

[Southwind17]

What you fail to consider is that the whole world is not just like you. Others have different risk probabilities to face, and correspondingly behave differently. Merely because you cannot put yourself in their shoes does not mean they do not exist, and doesn not make what is good for you good for everyone else too.

No, what you fail to consider is what Z actually wrote, and what prompted my response:

The 50% reduction in HIV is sufficient to warrant circumcision for every boy, everywhere. (emphasis added)

If people would only take the time to read what's staring them in the face and pay attention eh!

 

[Gurdur]

No, what you fail to consider is what Z actually wrote, and what prompted my response:

Wrong.
But never mind. I was simply referring to your own answer to that and to your POV.

If people would only take the time to read what's staring them in the face and pay attention eh!

Oh, I do, no worries. My answer stands. Merely because you do not adopt a rational answer does not mean the answer is not rational. Is that clearer for you now?

 

[Southwind17]

Wrong.
But never mind. I was simply referring to your own answer to that and to your POV.

Ugh?

Oh, I do, no worries. My answer stands. Merely because you do not adopt a rational answer does not mean the answer is not rational. Is that clearer for you now?

Oh yes, as clear as ugh?, again

Nicely brushed over. Suggest you think before you post in future

 

[Gurdur]

Ugh?
Oh yes, as clear as ugh?, again
Nicely brushed over. Suggest you think before you post in future

I'ld simply suggest you consider the logical point made to you (two, actually) rather than simply trying to flame. Just being helpful.

 

[Southwind17]

I'ld simply suggest you consider the logical point made to you (two, actually) rather than simply trying to flame. Just being helpful.

OK, I'll try. Which two are you referring to?

 

[Darat]

Drop the personal stuff folks - you all know better.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[BlackCat]

I know I'm poking the bee's nest, so please forgive me. I have something new to add to the discussion.

I was watching Nova the other night, the program was about epigenetics. Wikipedia has an article on it, as well as the Nova website: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/genes/

To sum up, epigenetics controls which genes are turned on, and which aren't. I think one of the reasons it was discovered was to understand why identical twins don't live identical lives (such as one develops a disease, like cancer, that the other doesn't.)

This is all very fascinating, but one of the things they touched on in the program is how the environment can influence epigenomes, basically making them turn on or off the part of the genome it controls. This explains why identical twins can be so different, and actually they showed how by the end of their lives, twins share very little in the way of identical genomes that are expressed, compared to the beginning of their lives.

So you're asking, what does this have to do with circumcision?

Another part of the program looked at rats and the environment they grew up in, and how that could influence identical rats, making one thin and normal, and the other fat and cancerous. Basically what they found was the rats with nurturing mothers (measuring by how much the mother licked the babies) were normal, while the rats that had inattentive mothers had behavioral problems later in life, in so far as some having the pleasure center in their brain turned off, so they ate in excess.

The program also touched on things like this in humans, wondering if perhaps many diseases like cancer were caused by the environment that the person grew up in.

I thought of circumcision, and the argument of "babies can't remember it anyway." There is evidence that RIC inhibits and delays the bonding process between mother and child. I don't have evidence, but the studies on other animals makes me uneasy, to think of how we might be affecting our children by affecting how they bond with their mothers, and although they won't remember the circumcision, they could be affected by it for the rest of their lives.

 

[Lonewulf]

While I may agree in principle, I do just want to add that the environment of being with an inattentive mother tends to be stretched over a much longer period of time than circumcision, and while the experience may be painful (especially when done the "traditional" way... ), anesthetic would make the actual initial experience less potent.

 

[robinson]

Hmm... interesting point. One might wonder of there is a difference between mothers that don't mind if you mutilate their child, and ones that would kill you before they let you taker a sharp instrument to their baby, for no reason other than "God told us to".