Parents circumsizing their sons.

[luminum]

I guess it's less of a "sans-signature" issue than it is parents signing and not being informed that the signature also condones circumcision on their newborns. The point being that doctors assume a circumcision as standard neonatal practice rather than actually inquiring and getting actual informed consent from parents.

 

[KaraBulut]

I don't think so. This would be considered illegal and unethical. The circumcision (or any surgery for that matter) requires the consent of the parents in the US.

That's been my experience also in the US. Written, informed consent is always obtained- preferably from both parents.

more dangerous than what? It is more dangerous than no anesthetic, but I'm unaware of an increased risk simply because of age assuming a competent anesthesiologist in both cases.

In the past, circs were done without anesthesia. I checked with a colleague on the current practice. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) guidelines call for anesthesia- either local or general. Neonatal circs are usually done with a penile block or a local anesthetic gel (typically lidocaine).

Since 1971, the AAP has defined the procedure as having no medical justification and being a parental choice.

Tahara rituals in the mideast are done with a local anesthetic- usually when the boy is between 7 and 12 years old before his first prayers. It's either done in the doctor's office or in rural areas by a circumciser.

I don't know whether a traditional bris milah is done with anestheia since I've never witnessed one. Perhaps a Jewish member can comment on this.

 

[luminum]

I don't know whether a traditional bris milah is done with anestheia since I've never witnessed one. Perhaps a Jewish member can comment on this.

Traditionally, Brit Milah's are performed a wine-soaked rag given to the newborn to control the pain, though studies involving it showed that they were not effective in reducing neonatal pain.

Apparently whether or not to use general, local, topical anesthetics, or none at all on neonates (and adults) is subject to debate by various rabbis.

Some view circumcision as a mitzvah that requires the conscious awareness of the pain as part of the ritual (which is stated in text) but others do not interpret the saying as requiring the individual to experience pain or for the procedure itself to be performed in a way that creates pain, especially on an infant.

One rabbi's perspective is that a sleeping man undergoing circumcision is "like a rock, and mitzvah is not performed on a rock," so therefore the individual must be awake and not given a sleep-inducing anesthetic, including neonates.

However, others believe that the pain is unnecessary and agree with sleeping anesthetics. Others also believe that topical anesthetics can be used to create a middle ground where the individual is conscious throughout the procedure, thereby fulfilling mitzvah, while sparing them the pain of the procedure. That, of course, is then debated because of the effectiveness of topical anesthetics in controlling pain versus local or general anesthetics.

That's what I gleamed. Here are some of the discussions I read:
http://hyphen.bravehost.com/QuestioningMilah.htm
http://koltorah.org/ravj/britmilah3.htm
http://www.britpro.com/default.asp?p=information_anesthesia

 

[Puzuzzu]

I was cut at birth, and honestly, who the fuck gives a shit? My penis still works....
Anyway, sex is the last thing on my mind...

 

[CharlesII]

Re: Parents circumsize their sons

Someone was talking about circumsizing their son's penis, when they have a son. I was totally disgusted when I read that, because 1. I didn't know it was possible. 2. I think it's cruel and abnormal. And then, many parents reply saying they got their son's circumsized when they we're little.. I was so shocked that so many people do it, and nobody disagreed with it. Another thing that totally disgusted me, is that parents replied with, it's much "better" looking, and "cleanier".. like how could you say that omg? ... I'm totally in shock that circumsizing your dicks is even possible.. and the fact parents do it to their sons.. Does anyone have more to add to this? Or more information? I would like to know more.. because I never even heard of this act. Parents act like this is normal. btw, is their any pros or cons about this whole thing, beside the "look" of the head?

Volumee, if that is really your picture, you must be old enough to know about these things by now. Have you been living under a rock in Vancouver all your life?
Circumcision has been about as common in Canada, Australia, Philippines, Korea, much of Africa, virtually all of the middle east and elsewhere as in the U.S. There isn't enough space here to explain to you a custom that goes back for thousands of years and covers scores of countries and cultures. I'll just say, get over it, yes it is done, and the tradition is handed down, generation after generation, because SOME poeple think its better.

 

[CharlesII]

Re: Parents circumsize sons

...I think circumcision should be a decision left to the individual, not to the parents. I don't care what any religious text says, my cock is my cock and I want it how i want it. Too late for me to make my own choice now.

While I strongly favor it, I agree that it should be left for the boy to decide when he's old enough to understand it and make an informed decision. If he says he wants it, that's old enough. Respect that.
In the meantime, I would urge uncut boys to get their foreskins retracted and keep them that way until they are ready, so they don't develop phimosis or other problems.

 

[luminum]

I don't think it's medically recommended to retract foreskins before the foreskin separates naturally from the corona...In fact, doing so (called "premature retraction") can damage the mucus lining of the inner foreskin and damage the glans penis.

Caring for the Foreskin, American Academy of Pediatrics

And the argument that it's a cultural thing, so it's "okay" and you should "get over it" isn't a strong one. Female circumcision is just as much a long-standing cultural practice, but that doesn't make female circumcision any less brutal and mutilating, even despite its intentions.

 

[CharlesII]

Re: Let Boys Decide

...perhaps a ban on neo-natal circumcision might be desirable, with the possibility of circumcision at 13 or 14 made available when the patient became educated enough to make a sane choice.
But then I realized that this idea is unfair to the Jews. Being circumcised at birth is as much a part of the Jewish tradition as anything, and denying them that right would be a violation of freedom of religion....

That's easy enough to fix. Make an exception for those with religious reason. Of course, now you are saving an 8-day old boy from his foreskin while inflicting religion on him instead. Shouldn't innocent children be protected from both?
I say wait until about the age of reason, or maybe puberty, and then offer them either/or.

 

[CharlesII]

I don't think it's medically recommended to retract foreskins BEFORE the foreskin separates naturally from the corona...In fact, doing so (called "premature retraction") can damage the mucus lining of the inner foreskin and damage the glans penis.
And the argument that it's a cultural thing, so it's "okay" and you should "get over it" isn't a strong one.

I never said "BEFORE". A foreskin may be easily and fully retractable as early as birth, but is not usually so until age 3 - 5, and rarely not until 10. WHEN it is, start doing it THEN. I know its not WIDELY recommended, and it ought to be. Foreskins are for children, at best. After that, get them out of the way, or get rid of them.
OK, so I was a little hard on the guy that just fell off the turnip truck in Vancouver. But his hysteria was just over the top.

 

[luminum]

Can you further explain what you mean when you say "foreskins are for children, at best"? They don't become vestigial and fall off on their own when a child undergoes puberty. How do you figure?

 

[jockboy01]

gentlemen.... CAREFUL. This thread is VERY close to having flames in it. Clearly there are differences of opinions that aren't going to be changed regarding circumcision. Keep it civil please.

 

[Corny]

Re: Parents circumsize sons

In the meantime, I would urge uncut boys to get their foreskins retracted and keep them that way until they are ready, so they don't develop phimosis or other problems.

wow that was quite an uninformed post.
- it was already mentioned that foreskins are not retractable at a young age
- it *hurts* a lot to retract it at an early age
- you don't "develop" phimosis, you either have it or not (at that age, sometimes senior guys get some kind of phimosis because of skin changes)

 

[CharlesII]

Re: Who To Decide Circumsision

...what you mean,... "foreskins are for children, at best"? They don't become vestigial and fall off on their own when a child undergoes puberty. How do you figure?

Possibly the perfect prick is the one with a naturally short foreskin that auto-retracts about the time of puberty, sometimes a bit later. There are far too few of them. The rest of us have to intervene.

 

[CharlesII]

Re: Parents: Retract Skin

wow that was quite an uninformed post.
1. - it was already mentioned that foreskins are not retractable at a young age
2. - it *hurts* a lot to retract it at an early age
3. - you don't "develop" phimosis, you either have it or not (at that age, sometimes senior guys get "some kind of" phimosis because of...

1. I minority are fully and easily retractable as early as birth; some are even born auto-retracted. The majority become so by age 3 - 5, and all but 1-percent by age 10.

2. A foreskin with no particular problem and which is fully and easily retractable is not normally painful, at any age. For some, it is preferable.

3. Contradiction alert.

 

[BenF]

Circumcision for anything other than a medical reason is nothing more than child abuse.

Circumcision without anaesthetic (local or general) is nothing more than cruel.

When I do the kiddy knob-job list, they get both (a gas induction [with Sevo and SV through an LMA if you're interested, some morphine during and a paracetamol +/- diclofenac chaser] and a ring block with chirocaine for post-op analgesia.

I would not gas a newborn just for a circumcision (unless the foreskin was so tight that he could not pee at all). I would ask the surgeon to hold off until he was 3-4 years old instead - which they would.

Neonatal anaesthesia is fairly safe, but it's not something that you'd want to do if you could avoid it (which, in this case, you can).

 

[Corny]

Re: Parents: Retract Skin

2. A foreskin with no particular problem and which is fully and easily retractable is not normally painful, at any age. For some, it is preferable.

3. Contradiction alert.

2. it's not the retraction that is painful, anything that touches the glans is

3. no - you talked about *boys*, boy's don't "develop" a phimosis - it can happen when you are old and wrinkly (so to speak).

 

[luminum]

Re: Who To Decide Circumsision

Possibly the perfect prick is the one with a naturally short foreskin that auto-retracts about the time of puberty, sometimes a bit later. There are far too few of them. The rest of us have to intervene.

So basically you're basing this all off of your personal aesthetic. Lovely.

 

[BenF]

doesnt the british medical association recommend waiting until they are older and have tried other non-surgical interventions first? there are still a lot of chop-happy doctors round here too, but more and more are acknowledging boys's foreskins can take up to they are 14 to fully retract, and are trying steroids before sending them for surgery.

Possibly, they do. The BMA recommend a lot of things that a lot of doctors do not listen to.

You must realise that the BMA is the Union for Doctors. Contrary to popular belief: They are NOT a regulatory body, they are NOT a government agency, the are NOT an advisory body. The BMA can recommend what they like, it doesn't mean anything.

 

[luminum]

Again, you're statements that it's somehow "necessary" is flat out wrong. Circumcision is not at ALL necessary, otherwise men with foreskins would medically HAVE to be circumcised, and currently, most men uncut men have NO complications with their foreskins.

Have you questioned WHY you've heard more cases of phimosis and foreskin complications? It doesn't mean that the majority of men have foreskin complications. How many uncut men around you will come up to you or have a conversation you overhear about how their foreskins are doing fine and causing them no trouble? That's a standard statistical reporting error--that individuals who are asked to report on a specific issue will not be representative of a population that is asked about the same issue at random. If you think that there are "too many" times you've heard about foreskin complications, then make a tally mark for all those times and then go around and ask a bunch of uncut men if their foreskins are fine? You'll see that the number who experience problems are dwarfed by the amount who don't.

And erroneous statements that "most parents" don't teach their kids to clean their foreskins and that "most kids" don't listen to their parents anyway lack any sort of proof. Where do you get the idea that kids are just so out of line that they refuse to take care of basic hygiene? The fact some parents may not teach their sons about proper foreskin cleanliness is hardly a good reason to advocate circumcision. That is irresponsibility on the part or the parents. Would you advocate giving girls mastectomies because they weren't taught to have yearly breast exams? They're basically flimsy social generalizations you're attempting to attach to a specific behavior to push your point.

Also, your statement that there are hack job surgeons out there, so circumcision should be done on neonates makes little sense. Given that a surgeon is present for every neonate circumcision and the small window of time given to perform the surgery across the country (and the world) the odds are that a neonate would come into contact with a "hack job" more often than a consenting adult who could look at all the available surgeons and determine who had the most skill. A mother who just gave birth and a stressed father aren't going to have the same time and level of thought to determine whether the surgeon they're handing their newborn son to is "skilled" or "unskilled."

Likewise, it's almost frightening how your logic ends up in your final statements. Basically, you feel that since a circumcision can be botched so easily by an unskilled surgeon, it's better to botch it on a neonate, who apparently won't know any better than on a fully conscious adult who can feel displeasure at the outcome. So basically, you're agreeing that it's okay to take away the right to choice an infant, who will later become that fully-conscious adult, and let the randomness of circumcision be enforced because even if the penis is mangled and scarred, at least the kid won't realize it until 13 - 14 years later when it's too late to do anything.

And I would think that any conscious adult (or even teen) who decides to have a circumcision done, would rather take two weeks to heal when they can choose the best surgeon to do it than not remember the operation as an infant and wind up with a mangled penis from "hack job" surgeon who didn't know what s/he was doing. Would you? If you knew that the chances of getting one of those hack jobs was higher when you were a baby than when you were an adult and you had no say in whether or not s/he would perform the operation, would you really still choose to be circumcised as a neonate?

In the end, the trade off you conclude with is shallow. For all you talk about the need for circumcisions to be done by skilled surgeons, you seem more than willing to trade that necessity to male body image for two weeks of discomfort. "I might have my penis scarred, injured, or in the worst case, even destroyed and I'll have to live with that through my teenage years to adulthood, but at least I won't have to feel the pain or two weeks when I'm an adult..."

 

[jockboy01]

I see no medical reason to have it done to everybody. I fully support waiting until the male is old enough to make his own decision before having the surgery. In fact, I was quite unhappy with my brother for having my nephew circumsized out of the misguided belief that it is somehow "cleaner". There is no medical evidence to support routine circumcision of males.