I think today I will start on a topic that involves medical decisions. A topic that can make grown men squirm in their chairs. Circumcision. As with homeschooling, there seem to be three groups of people when it comes to the topic: those who think it is the only way, those who are completely against it, and those who could care less one way or the other. I fall into the middle category.
While I would not consider someone who does circumcise their boys a horrible mother I do think it is unnecessary and more of a cosmetic procedure than a medical one. Many countries agree with me on that and do not cover circumcision under their insurance plans; if a parent wants that procedure for their child they have to pay for it out of pocket. There has been talk of insurance companies in the US dropping that coverage as well, but so far it is still covered.
I am against circumcision for the fact that it causes a baby a great deal of pain. Some hospitals do not administer any pain killers or numbing agents to a child being circumcised. And those places that do still see that the child is in immense pain during the procedure. The foreskin of the child is still fused to the glans of the penis at birth, and will not retract until later in life. So the first step is to force the two apart, which has to be a very painful thing. There are various ways to circumcise but the fact of the matter is that it all involves removing a piece of the baby's body in their most sensitive area.
Many will voice that it is the most hygienic thing to do. That infections of those who are not circumcised are more common and that it is impossible to keep the area clean. Apparently God made the foreskin on a male for a reason and it does have a purpose. Among other reasons for the foreskin, it keeps the area covered and protected from outside irritants and especially in the young, keeps the area clear from soiled diapers. I see it no different than females, and I am sure we are all against female circumcision, which is still being done in other countries. A woman can very easily get a UTI or other infections if they are not kept clean, and so good hygiene is important for women. The same can be said for any male, whether they are circumcised or not. Good hygiene is an important part of life and I am not going to circumcise my boys just in case they are complete slobs when they get older, just as I wouldn't do that to my girls. The actual chance of a serious infection in an uncircumcised male is very slim, but the cases of serious infections in an infant that was recently circumcised is well documented. Pros and cons must be weighed on both, but I hate to hear the reasons of parents circumcising their children because "it is dirty otherwise" is a truly false reason to do so.
"Because I want them to look like their father" is another reason parents decide on circumcision. I think this one is another silly reason. I'm sorry, but a young child typically doesn't notice differences in their parts to their parents. And even if they do, there is still a huge difference between a child and their parent which is apparent to any child who is noticing a difference. Until that child is a teenager or a grown man they will NOT be looking the same as their father whether they are circumcised or not, and at that age I really hope they are not comparing each others private parts.
AIDS and STDS. There have been a few studies that say circumcised men are slightly more protected when it comes to AIDS and other STDS. Is this not a completely unreasonable reason to circumcise? If my child is choosing to have unprotected sex with a person who he is unsure of their health history, he better be choosing better protection than just a circumcised penis.
Circumcision is on the decline in this country, with statistics pointing out that around 60% of male babies in the US are circumcised, meaning that 40% are not. It is being called a cosmetic procedure in most cases and doctors, if asked, will tell you that with the majority of boys it is a preference issue...there is no medical need for a circumcision. My doctor has said "Good for you!" during the physicals of my boys.
I do not want anyone to feel defensive if they have decided to circumcise their boys. But I am stating my reasons for why I feel it is unnecessary in the majority of cases (yes, there are a few cases where an infant, or even an adult, may have a need to be circumcised). Those are my views and the reasons my husband and I have decided against it for our boys. As with anything, I urge parents to look into each and every aspect of their child's medical decisions and not just go along with what the doctors say. Many parents assume that if doctors recommend it that it must be the best thing to do, which is not always the case. Before anyone has a boy I think it is best to read both sides of the circumcision debate and decide why it is/is not best for their child.
I have one son, who is my last born, and I struggle with our decision to have him circumcised (he was). See, I left the decision up to his Dad, knowing his father would probably know better than I would about being/not being circumcised (he wasn't), and his Father chose to have it done...now, I think about it and sometimes wish I didn't...but, I can't dwell on it, what is done is done (and can't be undone)...I just hope his dad made the best decision for our son. His decision was both based on medical cleanliness and his own personal feelings and experiences of his own.
ReplyDeleteMy son is not circumcised. When I had him I was on Medical (California's version of Medicaid) and it is NOT covered and considered an "unnecessary procedure". The doctor doing the procedure wanted to charge over $800. I decided against it in the beginning because of the money but, now am totally fine with my decision because I too think it's an unnecessary procedure. Should we have more boys, my hubby and I both agree that they would remain "au natural". Like you, I have no problem with those who choose to do it but, I think it's becoming an antiquated procedure.
ReplyDeleteAs a mother of only girls, I don't know much about the topic. I have, however, heard that it is best for cleanliness etc. I may have misread your statement, but I am confused by the fact that you say you see no difference in circumcision for males and females. The procedure is done on females for only one reason and that is so they can't enjoy sex. That is not the case with males. Yes, God gave males foreskin, but he also gave us hair too. Using your argument, it could be wrong for men to shave their faces and women to shave their legs and armpits. (Just making a point.) In the end, it is the parents decision to make and I don't have a problem with that.
ReplyDeleteI have 2 boys and they are both circimsized, it was left up to there dad so they would all "look" the same .
ReplyDeleteI actually did watch the proceduer with my youngest and let me tell you I will never ( if i have another boy) get them circimsized again.
The statement I made about females was that, while you are correct in saying it is done in other countries to detour sex, one could say that removing the inner labia of a female is best for cleanliness, just as they say about men. That statement probably sounds ridiculous, just as it does to me when applied to men.
ReplyDeleteI have 3 boys all circ'd. It is still the norm in our area. Is that the wrong reason to do it, maybe. But its what we did. It's what my husband wanted. And honestly with my first it was barely questioned.
ReplyDeleteHowever I see lots of valid points to not do it.
Linking from MckMama's community. :-)
ReplyDeleteOh my...circumcision is a soap box topic for me. :-)
I have four boys (ok...three boys and a husband). All are intact. Hubby is European and they just don't do that.
I never really thought about it and probably would have circumcised my boys had my husband not been against it. Now, more research later, I'm staunchy against it and I think it's a horrible thing for parents to do to their sweet baby boys.
I love the arguments and rebuttals that you already presented. I debate with the same rebuttals. It's NOT any cleaner (TRUST me). A young intact boy does not even retract...and an adult intact man has two extra steps "pull and swish." That's it.
Since when did we decide that we'd cut parts off instead of teaching our kiddos how to be clean? I mean...not for nothing but there are LOTS of parts that would be cleaner if we cut them off. Ears? Nose? Labia?
The "looking like daddy" argument is so silly. If my husband was an amputee, would I amputate that same part on my son so he'd "look like daddy?" NO, of course not. And like you said, little bits don't look ANYTHING like grown bits until the child hits puberty...and trust me, by puberty, your teenage son won't want to be comparing his bits to dad's. I bet the majority of teenage boys don't even have a clue whether dad is intact or not.
The alleged health reasons are slight and the studies done are really not reliable. The majority of studies compare cut and uncut males in 3rd world countries where hygiene practices and life in general is quite different than here in the good ol' US. Besides...the percentage of cut boys that have some kind of complication from the circumcision (adhesion, too much cut, not enough cut, infection...all minor complications but complications nonetheless) is FAAAAAR less than the percentage of uncut boys that will grow up and have an issue at any point in their lives.
Besides...since when did we start lopping parts off of newborns as a preventative measure? We could nearly eradicate breast cancer if we performed mastectomies on all newborn girls. Heck, she's too small to remember it and be traumitized by it, right? Oh...breasts are important and necessary for an adult woman? So say some...but then...so is the foreskin.
I also love the "it looks better" argument. Ok...so the parents' personal preference on what their son's penis looks like means they should cut off a part of his body as a newborn? What about his right to make that decision about how HE wants it to look when he's an adult? You can't reattach a foreskin, but he can choose a circumcision later in life.
And of course the "I don't want him to be different and be teased" argument. So lets all just be lemmings then and act like sheep. I thought our culture was all about "individuality." My husband grew up in this country and never had an issue being teased. When presented with this argument he points out that most boys in the lockeroom are keenly intent on making sure that they look anywhere BUT at each others privates...lest they be accused of being something that they aren't.
When you boil it all down...not a SINGLE argument for circumcision holds an ounce of validity. Not a single one.
*stepping off the soap-box now* Sorry...lol, this is a passionate topic for me. :-)
My son is circumcised, we didn't even think about it. It was just the thing to do. My husband wouldn't have had it any other way, even if I did have reservations. He has heard too many horror stories of men needing to get it done later on in life, and just the complex that a few of his friends had when they were older. So that sealed the deal for him. All of our friends have had boys, and all have had them circumcised. There were "issues" with 3 out of the 7 that were done. Those odds aren't great in my book... just glad we had a good Dr.
ReplyDeleteBesides...the percentage of cut boys that have some kind of complication from the circumcision (adhesion, too much cut, not enough cut, infection...all minor complications but complications nonetheless) is FAAAAAR less than the percentage of uncut boys that will grow up and have an issue at any point in their lives.
ReplyDelete*edit* Far MORE. :-)
Hmmm...I will say that with 100% certainty there are medical/cleanliness issues with not being circumcised especially if one is prone to yeast infections (men and women can be) and we have had to work with them ourselves, of course we can and do deal with it, but it would not be as much of an issue to maintain if he were circ'd...Again, our son is not like his Dad, and his Dad chose to have our son circ'd, and although sometimes I wish we hadn't, almost so that he would have his God-given parts in tact, the fact is that we did have it done and I can't change that. But, I tolerate and approve of both sides, I just sometimes doubt our decision...for whatever reason.
ReplyDeleteI am commenting from MckMama's forum. :)
ReplyDeleteI have an uncirc. son. I really enjoyed reading your post. It is nice to read what I have been thinking/saying all along from another mom. My husband is African and is uncirc. as well. It is cosmetic and I cannot see changing my son's natural anatomy.
How appropriate that you chose to tackle this subject now since January 1 is traditionally the feast of the Circumcision of Christ (now more popularly the Feast of the Holy Name of Jesus or Octave of the Nativity). Even though God gave man a foreskin His Son was circumcised. (Luke 2:21) As long as it's not done as a religious ceremony now the Church is neutral on it.
ReplyDeleteActually Julie...while Christ Himself WAS circumcised (as it WAS a command of God to be done) the command was done away with in the NT as no longer necessary. Initially it was an outward sign of a Hebrew's covenant relationship with God (and I suppose it had a health reason as well...back then, hygiene concerns were a bit greater...especially in the desert...imagine sand getting stuck under there?). As the NT covenant came into play, the necessity for circumcision became no more.
ReplyDeleteI'm another "really could care-lessor". :)(hopped over from BF)
ReplyDeleteMy first son was circumcised. I left it up to my husband, he has the equipment and I don't. I was impartial either way. Hubby wanted it - done. (we did request a lidocaine gel and a novacaine injection prior because OUCH!)
My second son, i thought it was a no-brainer. I already have two without the "turtleneck", why not add a third. But my second son came early at 31 weeks. They don't do circumcision in NICU because that could naturally be a way for infection to get in and attach their little preemie bodies. So, we decided to wait things out. He was born with kidney failure however and we have both a nephrologists and urologist. So, we knew we could "get it done" whenever we choose so to say. When he was 8 months old he had exploratory surgery into his urinary tract, and since he would be asleep for the surgery...we thought we could have it done then. (He has NEVER peed the way God intended it - he has a vesicostomy in his abdomen). Turns out, he doesn't have a urethra! So the urologist told us to hold off until he was 4 or 5 and they could construct a new urethra from his foreskin. So needless to say - the second is DEFINITELY getting circumcised for that. :) I've never been happier about a "snip the tip" before in my life. My boy might be able to pee one day. woo hoo! I'm SO glad our urologist didn't do it that day in surgery and discussed this new information with us. He kind of rocks! :)
Many insurance companies in the United States no longer do cover circumcisions. Our insurance paid for son #1 but would not pay for son #2. It was a very personal choice for us. My mom is a nurse and has seen many older boys, teenagers and adults that have to have a circumcision later in life due to infections. We have had problems with adhesions, but it hasn't seemed to bother either of them.
ReplyDeleteIsn't it strange how none of these old wives' tales and urban myths about foreskin problems seem to effect men in non-circumcising cultures? Sounds like Americans trying to justify the bad choice they made to circumcise when they didn't know any better. The only other cultures than circumcise men are Muslim. All advanced countries don't do it.
ReplyDeleteI also came over from the BlogFrog and have to say that you did a great job with this post! My husband is intact and if we have any boys (baby girl #3 is due any day now) we will not circumcise. My husband is 26 and says he was never teased about not being circumcised. He was also not the only one intact in the locker room.
ReplyDeleteAs for cleanliness....honestly, my husband is not good at showering every day. Gross, I know, but he isn't a maniac about keeping clean, and he has never had an issue with his foreskin. I just asked him how it was growing up and he said that he and his 3 brothers are all intact and when they were younger his mom had to force them to take showers (you know how young boys are - they hated to stop playing outside for the day!) and NONE of them ever had any sort of infection. So as for the cleanliness argument, it really makes no sense.
Anyway, just wanted to get that out there so people don't have to believe that their sons are at risk for infection if they don't clean it constantly. Oh and - my mom recently told me that had my parents had had any sons they would not have circumcised either - my dad is not. He is in his 50's and has never had any medical problems from being intact.
Good for you! You might also want to check out the following:
ReplyDeleteCanadian Paediatric Society
"Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed."
http://www.caringforkids.cps.ca/pregnancy&babies/circumcision.htm
"Circumcision is a 'non-therapeutic' procedure, which means it is not medically necessary."
"After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions.
RACP Policy Statement on Circumcision
"After extensive review of the literature, the Paediatrics & Child Health Division of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians has concluded that there is no medical reason for routine newborn male circumcision."
(almost all the men responsible for this statement will be circumcised themselves, as the male circumcision rate in Australia in 1950 was about 90%. "Routine" circumcision is now *banned* in public hospitals in Australia in all states except one.)
British Medical Association: The law and ethics of male circumcision - guidance for doctors
"to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate."
Drops in male circumcision:
USA: from 90% to 57%
Canada: from 48% to 32%
UK: from 35% to about 5% (about 1% among non-Muslims)
Australia: 90% to 12.6% ("routine" circumcision has recently been *banned* in public hospitals in all states except one, so the rate will now be a lot lower)
New Zealand: 95% to below 3% (mostly Samoans and Tongans)
South America and Europe: never above 5%
Mark, thanks for those links! The decline is interesting, but I'm wondering what time period the drops occur over?
ReplyDeleteWe chose not to circ our son, although my husband is circumcised, because it just isn't necessary. My husband had his appendix out, but we wouldn't take out our kids' appendix "just in case" or so he has a scar like dad.
When my son was 2 1/2, I was babysitting another child who is circumcised, and they had a bath together after a particularly messy time playing in the mud. He noticed that the other boy's penis looked different and asked about it. I said that some boys have brown eyes and some have blue eyes, some are tall and some are short, and some boys have penises that have more skin and some have less skin. That answer satisfied him. He never asked about why his looks different than his dad's, even though they regularly shower together; I think the whole thing is just matter-of-fact to him. Dad is a grown up and grown up penises don't look like little boy penises.
By the time he's old enough to really compare side by side (and EWW, who DOES that?) he'd be old enough to understand the choice.
My dad is fervently anti-circumcision and is angry that someone cut him without his consent. He thinks that it should be illegal except in medically necessary cases.
The rate in the UK started dropping around 1949 after an influential medical paper (the Gairdner paper) was published. This had some effect elsewhere, but it wasn't till around the 1970's that the rates started dropping in North America and Australasia.
ReplyDelete