For the anti-circs/and whoever else is interested

Krista - posted on 03/09/2011

But there HAVE been deaths from circumcision, Kati. That's irrefutable. And I just don't think that it makes sense to risk your child's life, even if the risk is small, for something like that.

Rosie - posted on 03/09/2011

it broke mine at first, but after a bit i figured it out. the 117 number doesn't come from any actual number of deaths, it's an estimate based off of the ratio of boys dying in the hospital compared to girls. he's basically assuming that the higher death rate for boys is associated with circumcision, which it's a known fact that boys die at a higher rate compared to girls. in countries where there is no RIC the same ratio applies-boys have a higher mortality rate for some reason. having nothing to do with circumcision. bollingers "study" is completely crap basically. :)

Krista - posted on 03/09/2011

I'm joining super late, but to answer Laura, my 28 month old is intact, we've never forced his foreskin back, and he's never had an infection.

I wish more people would educate themselves before lopping off a chunk of their newborn's flesh. Around here (rural Alberta/Saskatchewan), everyone I talk to seems to think an uncircumcised penis is disgusting. I usually don't mention that my husband's uncut when talking to girlfriends, just to avoid the looks on their faces and getting into a lecture on circumcision. Everyone just does it because they think that's what everyone else does! I even had a hard time explaining to my mom why we weren't circumcising our son...of course she had my brother circ'd in the 80's so why wouldn't we do the same????

Krista - posted on 03/09/2011

You've broken my brain.

Rosie - posted on 03/09/2011

sorry, must edit last post, my copy paste didn't do what it was supposed to.:)

Rosie - posted on 03/09/2011

krista, i got it from bollingers study, in it he claims the previous numbers of 220 were flawed, and to high. (bollinger is anti-circ by the way) . i also have issues with HIS study, which gets us the 117 deaths a year. this is gonna be long, and tedious, but bear with me, lol.



this is straight from bollingers study.

"Though the data previously cited are insufficient to establish a definitive death rate

on their own, there is enough available information to calculate an estimate. Not all of

the reported 35.9 deaths out of 1,243,392 circumcisions can be attributed to related

causes. What portion, then, is circumcision-related and how may we extrapolate to the

number of deaths after hospital release? What we can safely assume is that it is unlikely that any of these infants would have been subjected to the unnecessary trauma

of circumcision if they had been in critical condition, or that they would have been circumcised after their death.

Gender-ratio data can help extrapolate a figure. Males have a 40.4% higher death

rate than females from causes that are associated with male circumcision complications, such as infection and hemorrhage,

4

during the period of one hour after birth to

hospital release (day 2.4), the time frame in which circumcisions are typically performed (CDC, 2004). Assuming that the 59.6% portion is unrelated to gender, we can

estimate that 40.4% of the 35.9 deaths were circumcision-related. This calculates to

14.5 deaths prior to hospital release.

82

BOLLINGER

4

Selected from ICD-10 codes P21.9-22.9, 29.0-29.1, 29.8-29.9, 36.0-36.9, 37.5, 39.8-38.9,

50.9, 52.3, 54.3, 54.8-54.9, 55.9, 96.8-96.9But as is often the case with hemorrhage and infection, some circumcision-related

deaths occur days, even weeks, after hospital release. The CDC’s online searchable

database, Mortality: Underlying cause of death, 2004 (CDC), lists causes by various

age ranges and reveals that the percentage of deaths after release, compared with deaths

before, is 772% greater. This ratio is comparable to Patel’s (1966) 700% postrelease infection rate.

Multiplying the 772% adjustment factor for age-at-time-of-death by the 14.5 hospital-stay deaths calculated above, the result is approximately 112 circumcision-related

deaths annually for the 1991–2000 decade, a 9.01/100,000 death-incidence ratio. Applying this ratio to the 1,299,000 circumcisions performed in 2007, the most recent

year for which data are available (HCUP, 2007), the number of deaths is about 117.

This is equivalent to one death for every 11,105 cases, which is not in substantial conflict with Patel’s observation of zero deaths in 6,753 procedures. It is more than some

other estimates (Speert, 1953; Wiswell, 1989), but less than the overstated 230 figure

derived from Gairdner (1949). Breaking this statistic down further, about 40% of these

deaths (47) would have been from hemorrhage, and the remainder (70) from sepsis,

using a hemorrhage-to-sepsis ratio for infant mortality (NCHS, 2004).

In summary: through a thorough review of the literature and the application of

common-sense calculations, this study has arrived at a reasoned estimate of circumcision-related neonatal deaths in the United States: approximately 117 per year"



ok, so looking at that, it's clearly flawed in every way. heres how..

Though the data previously cited are insufficient to establish a definitive death rate on their own, there is enough available information to calculate an estimate. Not all of the reported 35.9 deaths out of 1,243,392 circumcisions can be attributed to related causes.





(Here Bollinger references a figure he has provided previously: "Hospital discharge records reveal that, during the 1991–2000 decade, on average 35.9 boys died from all causes each year during their stay (average 2.4 days) in the hospital in which both their birth and circumcision occurred (Thompson Reuters, 2004).")



What portion, then, is circumcision-related and how may we extrapolate to the number of deaths after hospital release? What we can safely assume is that it is unlikely that any of these infants would have been subjected to the unnecessary trauma of circumcision if they had been in critical condition, or that they would have been circumcised after their death.





This is indeed a relatively safe assumption, though it is not one that actually gets us any closer to an answer.



Gender-ratio data can help extrapolate a figure. Males have a 40.4% higher death rate than females from causes that are associated with male circumcision complications, such as infection and hemorrhage,4 during the period of one hour after birth to hospital release (day 2.4), the time frame in which circumcisions are typically performed (CDC, 2004). Assuming that the 59.6% portion is unrelated to gender, we can estimate that 40.4% of the 35.9 deaths were circumcision-related. This calculates to 14.5 deaths prior to hospital release.





This is extraordinary! Bollinger is, in effect, assuming that the difference between male and female death rates is due entirely to circumcision. But it is a well-established fact that male babies are more susceptible to deaths than females, and there is no evidence that this is due to circumcision. Indeed, if circumcision alone were responsible for the difference, then we might expect countries with low circumcision rates to have the same infant mortality rates among males and females. But in fact, that's not the case, as the following table shows:





















Country Est. neonatal circ. rate IM (male) IM (female) IM m:f ratio

Israel > 90% 4.39 4.05 1.08

Nigeria 80-90% 100.38 87.97 1.14

United States 50-80% 6.90 5.51 1.25

Australia < 20% 5.08 4.40 1.15

United Kingdom < 5% 5.40 4.28 1.26

France < 5% 3.66 2.99 1.22

Finland < 1% 3.78 3.15 1.2





Table: Infant mortality (IM) rates for selected countries. Derived from female rate table and male rate table.



Clearly, infant mortality rates are consistently higher among males regardless of circumcision rates. So Bollinger's approach is clearly flawed. When he is trying to estimate the risk due to circumcision he is actually estimating the risk due to being male!



But it gets even worse (this would be laughable if the subject weren't so serious). Even if we assume that Bollinger's method is sane and appropriate (in spite of evidence to the contrary), he manages to miscalculate those attributable to being male. If the rate is 40.4% higher among males then the observed rate (35.9) will be the rate in females plus 0.404 times that rate again (or 1.404 times the rate in females). So, to find the rate in females:



1.404f = 35.9



f = 35.9 / 1.404 = 25.57



And so the rate attributable to being male will be 40.4% of that, which is 10.33.



But, as noted, this is the rate attributable to being male, not to circumcision.



But as is often the case with hemorrhage and infection, some circumcision-related deaths occur days, even weeks, after hospital release. The CDC’s online searchable database, Mortality: Underlying cause of death, 2004 (CDC), lists causes by various age ranges and reveals that the percentage of deaths after release, compared with deaths before, is 772% greater. This ratio is comparable to Patel’s (1966) 700% postrelease infection rate.





Bollinger expresses this with less than optimal clarity, but what he seems to be saying is that the ratio between deaths in the hospital stay (which Bollinger identifies as typically 2.4 days) and those after the hospital stay (but presumably within the first 28 days of life) is 7.72.



Frankly, that shouldn't be surprising. There are 10.7 times as many days in the latter period than there are in the former, so one would ordinarily expect more deaths simply due to there being more time in which people can die.



Multiplying the 772% adjustment factor for age-at-time-of-death by the 14.5 hospital-stay deaths calculated above, the result is approximately 112 circumcision-related deaths annually for the 1991–2000 decade, a 9.01/100,000 death-incidence ratio.





This multiplication is irrational. It stands to reason that there would be more deaths in the first 28 days than the first 2.4 days, simply because there is more time in which infants can die. If we look at the first 100 years of life, then the ratio will be even greater (in fact, the mortality rate over that period will be almost 100%), but would it make any sense to apply that ratio? Of course not — people die of other things than circumcision, and it wouldn't make any sense.



It doesn't make sense to apply this multiplication, either. Yes, a certain number of circumcision-related deaths will likely occur some time after the event, but it doesn't make any sense to assume, in effect, that any deaths in the period must be due to circumcision.



Applying this ratio to the 1,299,000 circumcisions performed in 2007, the most recent year for which data are available (HCUP, 2007), the number of deaths is about 117. This is equivalent to one death for every 11,105 cases, which is not in substantial conflict with Patel’s observation of zero deaths in 6,753 procedures. It is more than some

other estimates (Speert, 1953; Wiswell, 1989),





It is perhaps a little disingenuous to refer to these as "estimates". These are observations showing 1 death in 566,000 circumcisions (Speert), no deaths in 100,000 boys (Wiswell). Similarly, King reported no deaths in 500,000 circumcisions. So if we use 1 in 500,000 as a reasonable estimate, we would expect 2.6 deaths in 1.3 million circumcisions. Bollinger's errors have led him to a figure some 45 times greater than that which can be extrapolated from actual statistics!



but less than the overstated 230 figure derived from Gairdner (1949). Breaking this statistic down further, about 40% of these deaths (47) would have been from hemorrhage, and the remainder (70) from sepsis, using a hemorrhage-to-sepsis ratio for infant mortality (NCHS, 2004).





Yes, I suppose the nice thing about imaginary numbers is that there is an inexhaustible supply of them.



sorry it's so long, and stastical. :)

http://www.davidwilton.com/files/lost-bo...



http://www.davidwilton.com/files/lost-bo...

Minnie - posted on 03/09/2011

Also must point out that removing the clitoral hood involves cutting far less tissue than removing the male prepuce does.

Anyways, been away for most of today- back to doctors- when I was pregnant with my first I was handed circumcision propaganda- a pamphlet that listed all of the miraculous 'benefits' of circumcision and the apparent horrors linked to leaving my child intact. Informed, indeed.

Amy - posted on 03/09/2011

i think a possible "infection" is no reason to remove something. My daughter had an ear infection earlier this week. She is like miss hygiene, but it happened. People get sinus infections too. Infections happen - even to the best. But a possible infection isn't a reason for me to get rid of something like that.

as far as the intact boys who have issues. My guess would be that the parents made the choice for not circ-ing like we did and then had no information and went blind. We had to look up proper care for our son. My MIL told me to pull the foreskin back. I told her she was not correct and showed her websites. She appreciated it and said "wow, times have changed. Used to be they TOLD you to pull it back to clean." she had worked at a home for mentally disabled and they TOLD them to pull it back when babies!! argh. Misinformation is probably what causes most cases of infections/problems in intact little boys.

Krista - posted on 03/09/2011

Yeah, you know when you stand there and make that "weighing" motion with your hands? Picture me doing that, while saying, "Potential for easily treatable bacterial infection"..."Potential for death by hemmorhage"..."Potential for easily treatable bacterial infection"..."Potential for death by hemmorhage...hmm...that's a toughie!"

Isobel - posted on 03/09/2011

You know what's interesting...of all these "millions" of people I keep hearing about whose intact boys get infections ALL the time...how is it that NONE of these people are ever here?

I would be interested to hear how many people here who have intact boys that never forced the foreskin back had problems with recurring penile infections????

Tara - posted on 03/09/2011

@Audrey,
I have 2 teen sons, neither have ever had any problems with their intact completely natural penises.

from your post
"i have read a million posts on fb about moms wondering what to do because they didnt circ their boy and now he has an ongoing infection in that area. all of that could have been avoided if they had just circd him in the first place."

I know of enough stories of moms whose baby boys died after circumcision due to infections, blood loss, heart attack and hemorrhaging. All of those deaths could have been prevented if they had just left him intact to begin with.

Krista - posted on 03/09/2011

Audrey, I've also read a "million" posts on FB about moms whose kids get tonsillitis. Should we just get their tonsils taken out the second they're born and be done with it?



If a penis gets infected, then you go see the doctor, and the vast majority of the time, it can be cleared up with some antibiotics. It's not such a huge ordeal that it's worth pre-emptively cutting off that body part. And an awful lot of uncircumcised boys NEVER have any problems with it. No infections, no trouble, nothing. It would have been a bit silly to put them through circumcision for nothing, no?



I just don't understand why people insist on having a perfectly healthy, functional body part removed, just because it MIGHT someday get an infection -- an infection that can usually be treated easily.



Love,

One of those crazy people

Becky - posted on 03/09/2011

A friend of mine had surgery done on her ears and the doctor told her there were no risks whatsoever. (Stupid dr, her husband is a lawyer!) She ended up with temporary hearing loss and numbness on the side of her face and an infection! So there are doctors out there that are not completely forthcoming about the risks. Fortunately for us, because it is not performed routinely here, when we were going to have it done on Cole, we had to first find one of the maybe 5 doctors in the whole city who do it and then consult with him before making an appointment to have it done. He was very detailed in the consultation about what would happen and the potential side effects. After I came home in tears, we decided not to have it done. I'm so glad we did. My boys aren't smelly, they've never had infections, and we didn't put them at risk for infertility (that was the clincher for dh!) or all the other possible complications.
As for it being less of a major surgery for an infant than for an adult, that I do believe. Our youngest had to have surgery on his testicles a couple months ago, because they were undescended. It was day surgery, we were home from the hospital within about 6 hours, and a few hours after we got home, he was walking, jumping, bouncing around. Other than a couple of times when he pooped and it must've stung the stitches, you wouldn't have even known he'd had surgery. The surgeon said if it was done on an adult male, he'd be out of commission for at least a week! Kids are very resilient and do heal faster than adults.

Audrey - posted on 03/09/2011

no way in hell is somebody taking the right to circ my son away from me! and to all you crazy people saying that circ your son is the same as removing your daughter clitoral hood...oh my God!!! seriously?!?!? i have read a million posts on fb about moms wondering what to do because they didnt circ their boy and now he has an ongoing infection in that area. all of that could have been avoided if they had just circd him in the first place. as for the clitoral hood thing...there would be no reason to snip it because it doesnt get infected. its not the same thing! and if they implemented a stupid law like this and i had another boy, i would still have him circd and if they want to fine me then go ahead and throw me in jail I dont care!!! its a ridiculous waste of time for anyone to try and make a law of this.

Georgia - posted on 03/09/2011

They do help, but it's never going to be back to pre-stretched status again. I can deal with the occasional wee issue, but I'm just glad that my bits don't flap in the breeze. I had horrible thoughts of that happening before I had my first baby.

~♥Little Miss - posted on 03/09/2011

ABSOLUTELY! Kegals can help...but dammit! I DO THEM!

Georgia - posted on 03/09/2011

Well, then obviously you should be doing more Kegels too! That's gotta give you the shits though. I can't imagine always having this issue. And I just mean the coughing!

Hmm, I think this has gone way off topic! lol

~♥Little Miss - posted on 03/09/2011

No shit...I have had a section, and a vbac...I have been pissing myself from coughing since I was a kid...LOL...I can jusst empty my bladder and have a fit of coughing and still piss! TMI I know...that is how forceful my coughs are when I have bronchitis.

Georgia - posted on 03/09/2011

I'm not THAT old! If it gets bad enough, I may use a nappy, but it's only a temporary measure.

What I've found really annoying is how I keep getting told by a good friend of mine (who had c-secs) that I just need to do more Kegels. Kegels my ass!

~♥Little Miss - posted on 03/09/2011

Sorry Donna,...I have chronic bronchitis issues,...I know your feeling! It is time to get some pads!

Amy - posted on 03/09/2011

also, my friend forwarded this website to me. I found it helpful. because honestly, i had NEVER been around little boys and didn't know how to care for Any kind of penis! My son is only 2 and I keep this site because I have a feeling I'll have questions eventually and husband isn't intact. They told us nothing at the hospital on how to care for an intact penis. So, we searched to make sure we were doing the right thing/proper care after the circumcision decision. There was so little information on anything. I see what you're saying about them not getting all the information, but it should be parent responsibility really. right? no?

http://www.coloradonocirc.org/foreskin.p...

Georgia - posted on 03/09/2011

Marina, because I cant stop coughing long enough to fall asleep. And my ability to NOT wee myself during a coughing fit isn't as good as it used to be (pre-babies). AND I'm insane. :-) oh wait, they call it a masochist!

Amy - posted on 03/09/2011

all they give out here is a pamphlet with biased "facts". Whatever people decide, I sure hope it's not based on a silly little pamphlet like the one they threw in our papers at the hospital with my son.

Georgia - posted on 03/09/2011

Holy guacamole! Krista and Marina... Go to your separate corners and have a rest. You are both saying practically the same thing, only in different ways. It's not worth fighting about.

From what I've seen and heard, most doctors in the states DO assume you want a circ done. I, and my friends with boys, represent the following states where DoCS have made this assumption erroneously: CA, OR, WA, TN, FL, DC, NY, NC, MT, ID, NV, UT, GA, TX, and VA. Of course there are good docs and bad ones, but disclosure seems to go with their level of education on the subject, as well as their personal opinion. Just as docs don't receive enough education on breastfeeding, the same can be said about circ.

Krista - posted on 03/09/2011

Enough said indeed.

You're describing things as they SHOULD be. Not as they actually are.

But if you're determined to not believe the data in front of your face, and to insist, despite all evidence to the contrary, that parents ARE being suitably informed, then I suppose that's your prerogative.

~♥Little Miss - posted on 03/09/2011

That is fine Krista, I am tired of this debate. I have been trying to walk away for a while now. I will say this, informed consent is essential when doing any medical procedure. If a patient (or gaurdians in this case) are not fully informed, the Dr and hospital are liable. Enough said.

Krista - posted on 03/09/2011

This study observes that physicians routinely inform parents about a small minority of the medical complications and risks associated with elective circumcisions. When selecting which medical complications to mention to parents, physicians appeared to use a policy based on their subjective assessment of the frequency and seriousness of the complications' occurrence. Subsequent analyses revealed that the physicians' probability estimates were biased and their seriousness assessments were consistently less than those expressed by mothers of newborn sons.

http://journals.lww.com/lww-medicalcare/...

Numerous legal scholars have concluded that routine neonatal circumcision falls within the legal definition of child abuse and violates children's civil and human rights under national and international law.3 Consent to a procedure that is per se illegal is, of course, invalid regardless of the motives of the consenting party.4 But even if it were legally and ethically permissible for parents to authorize circumcision of their sons, empirical studies have shown that the manner in which doctors typically obtain "informed consent" for neonatal circumcision from parents falls far below the standard of care required of the medical profession.5
C. Ciesielski-Carlucci et al., Determinant of Decision-Making for Circumcision, 5 CAMBRIDGE Q. HEALTHCARE ETHICS 228 (1996).

I'm not assuming a damn thing. I'm looking at the research that has been done on this.

Your experience was different. That's great. Unfortunately, it appears quite clear that you're in the minority.

I don't know why you're taking this so personally and getting so upset about it -- weren't you saying several posts ago that the big key to reducing circumcisions is to try to educate parents, instead of trying to make them feel guilty? Well, part of educating parents is making sure that their doctors are giving them all the information they need. And if they're not, that should be pointed out.

~♥Little Miss - posted on 03/09/2011

Hi Donna, My name is Marina, and I am not for circumsicion either...but the topic is a debateable one as you can see ;) I hope you are feeling better Donna...why are you up??? 2 am for crying out loud...it is almost 11 am here.

Georgia - posted on 03/09/2011

Marina, I know that threads can get heated, but (as anyone who knows me) I do not engage in such activity. My posts are based on logic and rationale, as opposed to emotional, and only directed toward you because you seemed to be the only one putting up the opposing viewpoint.

I do not like being accused of not educating myself on the topic at hand and what points have been expressed, and that is when I will react emotionally. If it wasn't your intent to sound condescending, then that is my error. But surely you can see how the comment could be misconstrued.

So, shall we start again? :-) Hi, my name is Donna. I'll be the one who will express the "anti" side of this debate this evening. (it's actually 2am and I have a fever, not to mention this topic has run its course... So shall we find another topic in which to joust at a later date?)

BTW, I'm right there with a big thumbs up to you on the yum factor of the uncut member... but cut ones aren't so bad either. Just different.

~♥Little Miss - posted on 03/09/2011

Yes, I say "most" becouse I do not know every doctor in the USA. It is a fair statement....and no one is perfect. those that do not disclose information...it is called MALPRACTICE....if something were to happen to your child after, you can sue the living fuck out of them, MOST doctors do not want to be sued.

~♥Little Miss - posted on 03/09/2011

You make a HUGE assumption becouse you know of a few that NONE are regularly doing this....and NO I have either not been a part of those thread that you are mentioning, or just haven't seen them period.

When you sign a consent for to have the procedure done, they review it with you just like any other surgery. Then, YOU CAN READ THE FORM! It discloses the risks ALSO! Then you sign if you want it done. I actually had to sign a form stating I did NOT want my son done.

I have had great experiences with Dr's, and I feel for those who feel they have not received adequate information pertaining to routine care. I don't remember where you are from Krista, but maybe that is only a problem in your area.

Krista - posted on 03/09/2011

Some Dr's may not, most are going to inform you. Call it self preservation, they don't want to get sued or lose their license to practice.

I'm not bashing the entire medical community. I don't know how I can say this more clearly. You said it yourself, "most" are going to inform you. Not all. I am simply taking exceptions with the ones who do NOT inform parents and am saying that they are doing a major disservice to the parents and to the infant, and that this is something that needs to be rectified.

Katherine - posted on 03/09/2011

I am just going to pop in and say doctors DO assume that everyone wants to circ their son.

Krista - posted on 03/09/2011

Marina, would you care to provide a source for your assertion that doctors do indeed disclose all of the risk factors for routine infant circumcision? Because with all due respect, I'm very doubtful.

And my statement about care was not to indicated that nobody could do anything right. Please refrain from putting words in my mouth. My statement was simply to illustrate that as a general rule, there is very little information given to parents about a) the risks of circumcision and b) how to care for an uncut penis. Circumcision has been so common in the U.S. for such a long time, that a lot of people simply accept it as the status quo, and have no idea how to deal with an uncut penis.

And how many times right here on COM have we heard mothers saying that they had to get their toddler circ'd because of an infection, and that they don't know why the infection happened, because they were cleaning it so carefully, pulling the foreskin back and everything? How many times right here on COM have we heard mothers talking about a pediatrician forcibly retracting a baby boy's foreskin? This stuff happens, so I really do wish you'd stop taking it as this gigantic affront towards parentkind and the entire medical community.

And how do I know what is discussed and disclosed? Because i've done my damn homework and have read the studies. Yes, there are exceptions, but in many, many cases, doctors are not disclosing the risks adequately, and they are not informing patients how to care for an uncut penis. You're very fortunate that you happened upon three doctors who do. And that's great. But they should ALL be doing that. And they're not.

~♥Little Miss - posted on 03/09/2011

Krista "Cool your jets. You don't have to come to the heroic rescue of the entire medical community"

I wouldn't if I didn't think you were bashing them for not doing their jobs. Some Dr's may not, most are going to inform you. Call it self preservation, they don't want to get sued or lose their license to practice.

~♥Little Miss - posted on 03/09/2011

Krista, with all due respect, Dr's now a days are even MORE careful about fully disclosing info to parents about potential risk factors becouse people are sue happy.

In your statement, "This can only lead to a lot of cases where the parents try to forcibly retract the foreskin in order to clean the penis, which often leads to infections, which lead to...you guessed it...circumcision" Parents and doctors are made to look like they cannot do anything right....circumcise...they are damned....don't, and you don't know how to take care of it properly becouse no one tells you...Damn..,..no one can do anything right.

Give some credit where credit is due. If you are in an area that doesn't circumcise, and have never even talked about having it done with a doctor, how do you truly know what is discussed between parent and doctor about what risk factors may be? Also, pediatricians will talk to you about care of an uncut penis througout the visits. I have had 3 different ped's and each of them, without me asking, talked to me about proper maintanance of my sons penis. 2 were in Missouri, one was in Massachusetts. 2 different states, 3 different doctors.

Krista - posted on 03/09/2011

It is still a medical procedure, and for you to make a huge blanket statement about all medical staff like that...is truly...how do I say it without indirectly thumping you?

Cool your jets. You don't have to come to the heroic rescue of the entire medical community. I think doctors and nurses are awesome. But facts are facts, and this is one procedure that is slipping through the cracks when it comes to informed consent.

Krista - posted on 03/09/2011

Marina, doctors do typically inform patients of the risks of surgery. However, circumcisions appear to be the exception.

With respect to the risk of complications and the supposed medical benefits associated with circumcision, studies reveal that physicians underreport the risks and exaggerate the supposed benefits. A 1987 study found that physicians routinely inform parents about only a small minority of the medical complications associated with elective circumcisions.284 The common practice is to mention only pain, infection and bleeding as complications of newborn circumcision.285 This is far below the standard level of disclosure for other surgeries, whether medically indicated or cosmetic. The physician should disclose each of the many potential complications mentioned above, addressing the risks of serious bodily harm and even death, the probability of “success,” and the alternatives to circumcision, ad any risks associated with these alternatives. A study has shown, however, that physicians do not do this.286 When selecting which medical complications to mention to parents, physicians tend to use a subjective assessment of the frequency and seriousness of complications. The study revealed that the physicians’ probability of estimates were inaccurately low and their assessments of the seriousness of potential complications were consistently lower than those expressed by mothers of newborn sons.287
285. See Jay J. Christensen-Szalanski et al., Circumcision and Informed Consent. Is More Information Always Better? 25 MED. CARE 856, 856-67 (1987).
286. See Fletcher, supra note 284, at 259.
287. See Christensen-Szalansk, supra note 85, at 856.

Marina, when my son was born, my Ob-Gyn never asked about circumcision either way, mostly because it's just not done here anymore.

However, nor was I given ANY information as to how to care for an uncirc'd penis.

And this is key. Most men of my generation are circumcised. Most of their sons are not. So you have a new generation of baby boys with natural penises, whose fathers have absolutely no idea how to care for them.

This can only lead to a lot of cases where the parents try to forcibly retract the foreskin in order to clean the penis, which often leads to infections, which lead to...you guessed it...circumcision.

You can accuse me of bashing the medical community all you want, but that's not at all my intent. I am simply saying that as a general rule, doctors are NOT obtaining fully INFORMED consent for these procedures, and that if they did give the full details, we'd likely see circ numbers drop somewhat.

~♥Little Miss - posted on 03/09/2011

Sara C, I don't know where you are from. I am in the USA, and if it was made illegal, the Dr. would be going to jail, and lose their license. I have already said I would not flinch if it was illegal. If someone asked me why I did not circumcise and they were trying to decide if they were going to, I would most definately try to educate them. But, it is every parents choice who has a boy right now. I am not going to attack someone elses beliefs, or berate them for a choice that is legally theirs to make. That is all I am trying to say. All these comparisons that are not practiced, like removing breast tissue, removing clitoruses and all the others are just reaching to me. They do not get routinely done, and hold no water in my opinion.

~♥Little Miss - posted on 03/09/2011

Settle down Donna...these threads get heated. I am glad you have read everything. Most people don't.

Sarah - posted on 03/09/2011

I don't mean to judge people who choose to circumcise. I was on a thread the other day talking to many women who were saying why they chose to do it and i fully understand their reasons. The reason they all had in common was that they were all uneducated on the negative effects of circumcision.
I don't think they are bad parents, i don't think anyone who circumcises because they believe it is best is a bad parent at all. What i think is wrong is when fully educated parents circumcise because they think it looks better or whatever other vain reason.
This is why i think making it illegal would be a good thing. Jail time might be a bit far fetched, but if it were illegal it would be an illegal circ done unprofessionally without anaesthetic and that is sickening.
I guess education might be the key, more that making it illegal. Another woman said it should be like it is in Australia, here it is not done routinely with only like 1 or 2 clinics per state and is very frowned upon.

Brandi - posted on 03/09/2011

ah, You are welcome. I think we all could learn a thing or two from you. :)

Georgia - posted on 03/09/2011

Okay, where did I make a snap judgement on ant one's stance? I have read most of this thread... Including the bits about your UNcircumcised husband and just how much you enjoy it. I was simply pointing out that "No Marina..." I wasn't thinking you were pro circumcise because I had read those earlier posts.

So where was my supposed snap fucking judgment?!

~♥Little Miss - posted on 03/09/2011

Thank you Brandi. MUAH!

Brandi - posted on 03/09/2011

That is fine with me. IF it is illegal. I am not against circumcision, but it would suit me fine if were made illegal. Will I sign the petition? Probably not. But, I won't start a war for it to stay legal either. I just cannot stand for someone else to throw their beliefs down my throat. I may not agree with you, but I will never ever make you feel bad for your beliefs and I will never try to make you believe as I do. That is the only problem I have with most of the people on this thread, minus Marina. The only anti-circ person on here who doesn't judge,

~♥Little Miss - posted on 03/09/2011

Sara Stevens "Marina - I am seriously hoping you've had breast cancer cos im telling you now you're wrong...take from someone who has breast cancer in her family"

I do have cancer in my family, and I find your comment insulting, and insensative. Cancer is not the equivalent of foreskin.

Sarah - posted on 03/09/2011

yeah i know, my cousin had a colostomy bag her whole childhood. Yeah it sucks. What's the point of this discussion now? lol

Sarah - posted on 03/09/2011

Oh wait other Sarah! shit i thought you meant me then :/
Shall we say Sarah C and Sarah S so it's not confusing?

~♥Little Miss - posted on 03/09/2011

This thread is now lost all importance and had lead to someone wishing me cancer. Done.

~♥Little Miss - posted on 03/09/2011

Nope....can't really function normal...can't have a family, and can't lead a normal life with a collostomy bag. My best friend had one from 2nd to 8th grade. Go ask her how normal her life was.