cher3;
Tough decision.
My experience as an uncut boy?
I didn’t grow up white upper middle class-far from it. But I did go though catholic school.
Being uncut was the least of my problems. In fact I don’t remember much being said about it at all. I was the charity kid who asked too many questions about my religion.
As an adult, it’s never been a handicap. Occasionally it’s even been a plus (female curiosity, I guess).
The important thing is hygene, but that’s true for cut males too, isn’t it?
If you leave it, and are open with your child about his body, he can always decide for himself when he gets a old enough. Even as a teen.
My opinion is biased, of course. Not because I’m cut, but because I prefer to make my own decisions. I am thankful that I’m not cut, if that means anything to your husband.
Either way, you’re not going to ruin his life by what you and your husband decide. And you’re right. It is mostly a guy thing. But it’s your son, too.
Peace to you and your family.
mangeorge
A couple more things here:
To cher and her husband: my stepsons are not circumsized, but their father is. The big issue for all of them has been the fact that they look different from their father. That’s an issue to take into consideration, too. The way it was handled in this case was to talk to them about it from an early age, and explain the difference in contemporary thinking about the procedure.
To the fellow who keeps saying that children’s bodies should be kept intact: sorry, but parents MUST make certain decisions for their children. It’s something which happens daily in large things and small. If you allow your child to make all his/her own decisions, you’re doing it wrong. Children require parents to set limits and keep them, in order to feel secure. Maybe it would be nice if it were otherwise, but the world isn’t always nice. And if our parents didn’t make certain decisions for us, the psychiatric industry would be out of business. You wouldn’t want to put all those shrinks out on the street, would you?
As for clitorectomy, that’s a whole different subject from circumcision. From any way you look at it, one is a minor procedure with primarily cosmetic long term effects; the other is mutilation to destroy functioning. In this country, clitorectomy used to be performed to keep infants from playing with themselves. It’s still done in the course of episiotomy at times, accidentally. Ask any hundred women who have had one versus any hundred men. I think you’ll find that there is a profound difference between their responses.
Take it easy, APB9999! Don’t get so worked up in your self-righteous wrath! You’re liable to misread – or at least misunderstand – what people actually write…
What I actually wrote was:
But now, of course, I’m sure! 
As mle so calmly and ably pointed out, there are many decisions that parents must make on behalf of their underage children. Would you wait until adulthood to ask your infant child for formal permission to undergo a corrective surgery for a heart valve, say, or something orthopedic? If you would, you’re being both willfully reckless and cruel. If not, you’re a hypocrite.
The simple point, which you deliberately obfuscated, is that infant circumcision is considerably safer, easier, and less traumatic than adult circumcision. If, in your ill-conceived desire to be “noble”, you wait until the procedure is much more dangerous and painful, you have done your son an injustice. I submit that his options are scarcely more free than if you had had him cut as an infant.
If you don’t think your son should be circumcised (even with what you know about increasing his risk of contracting and transmitting AIDS), then don’t do it. Just spare us any more pontification about how “noble” you are…
Gee, Cher – I don’t have any stats, but I think that this might go the other way.
WARNING! Flaming anecdotal generalizations ahead!!!
My mom did home day care for 11 years and almost all of her boy babies were uncut. Most of her clients were upper middle class and well educated (mostly lawyers and doctors – her first baby was the daughter of a doctor and a lawyer and most of her subsequent babies were aquired through word of mouth). One of her cut boy babies was Jewish and the cut boy twins were neighbor kids and their parents were middle class and had no higher education. We come from a long line of poor white trash and none of our numerous kin have more than a 12th grade education, and all of my cousins had their boy children circumcized. I’ll attribute this to the fact that educated people are more likely to read up on what the AMA has to say about a procedure and base their decisions accordingly than less well-educated people. And, currently, the AMA is saying not to bother, right? Also, FWIW, one of Mom’s babies had to be cut at age 3 1/2 for medical reasons. Didn’t seem to bother him any more than it bothered my dad – which is to say, not much. No worse than any other minor surgical thing.
Jess
Full of 'satiable curtiosity
Circumcision is neither corrective nor orthopedic.
None of which addresses the question of whether it is necessary or well-advised.
Oh, and incidentally, I strenuously and sincerely object to Rowan’s attempt to cast anyone who is critical of any Judaic practice as an anti-Semite. Rowan knows that my father is Jewish, and she also knows that I have stated many times that to the extent that I oppose religion, Judaism is included in that.
I am not going to make concessions and not criticize someone’s religion simply because they have a difficult time hearing that criticism. I do not think “God told me to” is a particularly compelling reason to perform surgery on someone.
Maybe I wouldn’t have such a problem with Rowan’s statements if I hadn’t frequently been witness to her own displays of cross-cultural and cross-religious criticism, or heard her say “I slept with a Gentile” like some people say “I slept with a black guy.” Being Jewish does not make you above reproach, and does not immunize you to criticism, and it definitely does not confer upon you carte blanche to be critical of other cultural or religious practices you consider silly, or harmful, while hiding behind a shield.
>>Oh, and incidentally, I strenuously and sincerely object to Rowan’s attempt to cast anyone who is critical of any Judaic practice as an anti-Semite. Rowan knows that my father is Jewish, and she also knows that I have stated many times that to the extent that I
oppose religion, Judaism is included in that. >> PLD
That wasn’t me-- it was on the AOL SDMB, and I think it was Dex. And there really were a lot of people who were baiting us-- PLD, the least of our problems. Many, many people would ask things like “Trichinosis isn’t something you have to worry about anymore. Why can’t you eat a hotdog. With Mustard. Mmmmm. Smack!”
>>I am not going to make concessions and not criticize someone’s religion simply because they have a difficult time hearing that
criticism.<<
You-- and not this time, but in the past, and when other people were doing it as well-- gave the impression that you weren’t just sounding off-- You really expected us to change or practice to suit you.
>>I do not think “God told me to” is a particularly compelling reason to perform surgery on someone.<<
Fine, go argue with the chief rabbi. I’m nobody. Even if you convince ME, Jewish practice will not change.
>>Maybe I wouldn’t have such a problem with Rowan’s statements if I hadn’t frequently been witness to her own displays of
cross-cultural and cross-religious criticism, or heard her say “I slept with a Gentile” like some people say “I slept with a black guy.”<<
In this case, it meant "I slept with an uncircumcised guy, whcih is relavant to this context.
>>Being Jewish does not make you above reproach, and does not immunize you to criticism, and it definitely does not confer upon you carte blanche to be critical of other cultural or religious practices you consider silly, or harmful, while hiding behind a shield.<<
All it qualifies me to do is inform the board of general Jewish idea which are related to the question. Where did I do othwise?
–Rowan
Shopping is still cheaper than therapy. --my Aunt Franny
[>>Maybe I wouldn’t have such a problem with Rowan’s statements if I hadn’t
frequently been witness to her own displays of
cross-cultural and cross-religious criticism, or heard her say “I slept with a Gentile” like
some people say “I slept with a black guy.”<<
In this case, it meant "I slept with an uncircumcised guy, whcih is relavant to this
context.
[/quote]
Then maybe you should say that, since “Gentile” and “uncircumcised” are not synonyms, and such characterizations only leave you open to accusations of prejudice.
I’m cut. My parents’ reasoning behind their choice is so I would be like the majority. Children tend to be curious about things that are out of the ordinary, such as an uncut penis.
“Age is mind over matter; if you don’t mind, it don’t matter.” -Leroy “Satchel” Paige
ambushed writes
I never claimed I was noble. Could you quote what you’re thinking of? I did claim that the issue was one of personal choice, and I extend that to all humans, whether I am of their faith or not. After all, I’m sure the Sudanese funamentalists who perform clitorectomies don’t really care what I think either, but here I am in the world, and my opinion is as relevant as everyone else’s which is NOT negligible. And Rowan, no I don’t expect Jews to up and change their traditions on my say-so. How you got that out of what I wrote is beyond me. But I have raised what I think are serious ethical issues over the practice of circumcision, and is it not inappropriate that the dialogue should be ignored by Jews because I am a gentile? Well, that’s up to you, but I think it’d be foolish.
Back to ambushed. Give me a citation that AIDS transmission is reduced for circumcised men. I have read that there was such a study, but it was overturned later when it was discovered that the authors had not corrected for social factors. When these corrections were made, the difference disappeared. (Biologically, it would indeed be odd if excising a piece of protective flesh made one MORE vulnerable to disease.) but perhaps I’m wrong. There’s only one way to be sure: turn to the literature. Please give me the citation.
PLDennison has seen my point, which you have missed again. The words “medically necessary” that I put in originally were intended to differentiate between a life saving heart operation and something done for cosmetic or ill-supported hygienic reasons.
Further, it doesn’t matter how appalling you and I might find clitorectomies. If someone WANTS one for themself, we should have no say in the matter. Similarly, if someone doesn’t want one, how can it be justified?
Again. It doesn’t matter if we think circumcision is grand. It doesn’t matter if doctors or rabbis or a choir of angels tell us it’s groovy. It is a choice that must be made by the person himself.
I’m always amazed about how women will scream to high heaven that they have a moral right to do as they please with their own bodies (in a current political debate that shall remain nameless, lest I be accused of obfuscating the issue again) and yet they see no problem in taking this right away from men.
Way back up the list I posted some objective information. Now I’ll give some personal information. 1) I am not Jewish 2)I am cut 3)I have a son and have been through this. I had not even thought of the topic of circumcision until shortly before my son was born, and then it was brought up by the OB/Gyn. Having no preconceptions about circumcision, I asked the OB for his medical opinion. He said that, while the opinions and studies conflicted, his opinion was that circumcision afforded some protection against penile cancer and made cleanliness a non-issue. He further stated that there was no known medical benefit for keeping the foreskin. I also asked him about his own sons, to which he replied “Circumcised”. Faced with the choice between some medical and hygenic benefit vs. no benefit, we made the decision to circumcise. To address the “self determination” issue: IMO, it is my job as a parent to provide my children the best medical care possible. This includes making all decisions concerning the child’s medical care. When faced with any medical procedure where the choice is “some benefit if you do, no benefit if you don’t” I will most likely chose the former. If the child is old enough to understand the procedure I will certainly discuss it with them but until they turn 18, the ultimate decision is mine and must be based on what I consider to be in the child’s best interest.
The overwhelming majority of people have more than the average (mean) number of legs. – E. Grebenik
DrJ. At last a reasonable answer. I disagree, but at least you’re thoughtfully addressing the issue I raised.
I think our difference of opinion comes down to how medically beneficial the procedure is, and whether the difference is likely enough to crop up during childhood to justify circucision (or its lack), that difference being the only compelling reason for the decision to rest with the parents.
Frankly I’ve seen a lot of summaries and hand waving assertions, but I haven’t been through the literature. Neither has anyone else here from the sound of it. I DO know that the American Podiatric Association (or American Association of Podiatrists - I forget exactly what the word order is) recently examined the data and concluded that there is insufficient evidence to justify routine infant circumcision. I don’t have the reference right in front of me, but I will try to get it for you.
[[I DO know that the American Podiatric Association (or American Association of Podiatrists - I forget exactly what the word order is) recently examined the data and concluded that there is insufficient evidence to justify routine infant circumcision. ]]
Boy, everyone has to get into the act. Seriously, ABP9999, it’s Pediatrics, surely?
D’oh! Of course. Put my foot in that one, eh?
>>I’m always amazed about how women will scream to high heaven that they have a moral right to do as they please with their own bodies (in a current political debate that shall remain nameless, lest I be accused of obfuscating the issue again) and yet they see no problem in taking this right away from men.<<
Yeah; and the day you deliver a baby out of your foreskin…
Seriously. You know what, APB? I wish, I wish, I wish to G-d, that when I was a newborn, and wouldn’t remember (and quite possibly barely feel) it, someone had broken my hymen.
I really do.
(“No,” grits teeth, “it’s just my period. Whaddya know, I’m early.”)
–Rowan
Shopping is still cheaper than therapy. --my Aunt Franny
Objecting to one of my posts, pldennison wrote:
I never said it was. APB9999 asserted:
The only exception APB’s inflexible and moralistic stand permits is in cases where it is “medically NECESSARY” (his emphasis). But procedures such as orthopedic and heart-valve surgeries are typically not “medically NECESSARY” during childhood. However, putting them off until your child is an adult may well result in physical or social impairments and predispositions to certain diseases. A parent who deliberately defers such surgical procedures until the age of consent can hardly claim to be acting in the child’s best interests. Thus, contrary to his assertion, ABP’s strict proscriptions are actually unethical.
Another point pldennison misconstrues involves my statement that “infant circumcision is considerably safer, easier, and less traumatic than adult circumcision,” to which he replies:
Obviously, pld, it wasn’t intended to. ABP had claimed that it was ethically superior to wait until adulthood, whereupon one would allegedly be “free” to make one’s own choice regarding circumcision. The statement you quoted was an essential part of my rebuttal that ABP’s view was little more than self-righteous rhetoric, since that same delay dramatically increases the pain, trauma, and risks of the procedure. What this establishes is that ABP is fooling himself if he thinks that intentionally deferring the decision somehow provides his son with a “free choice” to make as he sees fit. It doesn’t.
APB9999 asks:
Actually, ABP, I’d be hard pressed to defend myself against accusations of hyperbole in some of my remarks here. It’s just that when you make pronouncements such as:
you’re not only asserting that anyone who would do so is “completely unethical”, you’re also claiming that you and those that share your views are ethically superior. I guess I just can’t help taking offense at an attempt to elevate a personal value judgement into a universal ethical standard (and contrary to your later soft-pedalling, that’s exactly what your statement attempts to do).
C’mon, ABP: I already did that. Didn’t you read it? Look again.
Once again, I did provide a cite: it’s you who haven’t backed up your claims. The other medical references I’ve found confirm substantially increased risk of HIV infection for uncut men. The “corrections” you refer to (assuming they are scientifically valid) may account for the wide range of risk estimates (70 to 820 percent increase), but the established fact of an increased risk remains unchallenged.
I agree!
Even though I realize you didn’t really mean that, it is a mistake to over-generalize. Just because something can serve as protection from one problem is no reason to believe it can protect us from all problems! Clearly, in this case it is precisely due to the foreskin’s protective role that HIV finds it such a warm and nurturing environment.
Again. Deferring the decision until adulthood limits your son’s options nearly as effectively – for all practical purposes – as circumcising him as an infant. To deny your child even minor health benefits for such an awfully weak reason cannot, in all fairness, be justified on ethical considerations.
I, for one, find Doctor Jackson’s reasoning to be eminently sound and compelling. And whatever sound reasons may exist to choose not to have your son circumcised as an infant, surely PLB’s is not among them.
(er… I meant APB, not PLB, in that last sentence)
Ambushed. I’m speechless. WHAT citation? You still haven’t given any. (I haven’t either. since you insist onseeing this debate as people trying to elevate themselves, let me admit that right out. I intend to, though. I didn’t get to it yesterday. Hopefully this afternoon).
Second, you are changing the issue from what I’ve said to how I’ve said it and what you take to be my emotional state at the time.
Third, mangeorge, who started this thread, said
Good enough. Hence, this is my last post here (except for the citation on that AAP release, which I’ll post asap).
To be honest, I didn’t intend to go off into all of this, either. I simply said I was circumcised and expressed my personal feelings of resentment that I had no choice in the matter. It was a very short post. Those feelings were challenged (!) and I had to defend against the ridiculous assertion that they were not “well thought out”. They are: I think that there IS a universal ethical principle here, as I’ve said again and again and again, only to have my arguments misheard - in such a twisted way I can’t help but feel it was at least a little on purpose. Now if you want to psychoanalyze that assertion into a conviction of my own moral superiority, keep it to yourself, it doesn’t match my own knowledge of my feelings, you pretentious twit.
At last! I’ve been trying to get back on here all afternoon - the server’s been down, or something.
First, I want to apologize to you, ambushed. That last remark was uncalled for. Like other people, I get pissy when someone presumes to tell me what I’m thinking - I find it even worse than being told what I SHOULD think.I meant to write “presumptuous”, too, not “pretentious”, and I wouldn’t even have said that if I hadn’t lost my temper. Further, I chided others in the Great God Debate for being hot with someone over there who was behaving as you are, and here I’ve gone and lost my own temper. I abase myself before you all. Again, ambushed, I apologize to you, the others, and myself.
BTW, look again before you jump on here to tell me I’m pronouncing what YOU should think. I’ve raised some issues and couched them in what I think is a universal ethical imperative to self-determination, which I think most people would agree with, even if they don’t think it applies to this issue. that doesn’t mean I’m trying to compel you. I’m trying to convince you.
I’m going to post some info I got this afternoon, but I want this apology up asap, so I’ll give the rest in the next post.
First, we’re almost up to 80 posts on this thread, and no one has given a single hard citation! We should all turn in our Straight Dope badges to Uncle Cecil right now. Especially considering how easy it is to find this stuff: the following took me about twenty minutes to collect and another hour to look through.
First:
I hate to have to tell you this ambushed, but that does not constitute a citation. THIS is a citation:
Van Howe RS
Circumcision and HIV infection:review of the literature and meta-analysis
Int J STD AIDS 1999 Jan;10(1):8-16
The author goes through 35 articles on the topic and looks at the overall data. His conclusions? (I quote from the abstract. The emphases in this, and all subsequent abstract quotes, are mine.)
"When the raw data are combined, a man with a circumcised penis is at greater risk of acquiring and transmitting HIV than a man with a non-circumcised penis (odds ratio(OR)=1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.01-1.12). Based on the studies published to date, recommending routine circumcision as a prophylactic measure to prevent HIV infection in Africa, or elsewhere, is scientifically unfounded.
that’s from January of this year, you’ll note.
Here’s another citation for you.
Simpson ET, Barraclough P
The management of the paediatric foreskin
Aust Fam Physician 1998 May; 27(5):381-3
I quote:
“There are many conflicting opinions among health professionals and parents regarding care of the normal foreskin in young boys as well as the highly controversial subject of circumcision. Minor foreskin related complaints are very common in the first few years of life. Most of these can be managed with advice and reassurance, or with medical treatment alone.** Circumcision is very rarely indicated in young boys, particularly under the age of 5 years.**The issue of circumcision for nonmedical reasons, that is, religions, ethnic or personal, remains controversial.”
Here, now, is the citation I promised in my earlier posts.
Circumcision policy statement. American Academy of Pediatrics. Task Force on Circumcision.
Pediatrics 1999 Mar; 103(3):686-93
They state, "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.
I must be fair to you. There IS some pretty solid stuff that urinary tract infections (UTIs) are decreased by circumcision. However, this is not exactly a plague among uncircumcised boys, and the effect seems to have been exagerated in past studies, anyway:
To T, Agha M, Dick PT (no jokes, please!), Feldman W
Cohort study on circumcision of newborn boys and subsequent risk of urinary-tract infection.
Lancet 1998 Dec 5; 352(9143):1813-6
I quote; “Although our findings support the notion that circumcision may protect boys from UTI, the magnitude of this effect may be less than previously estimated”.
There is also a growing awareness that circumcision IS quite painful for newborns, unless analgesics are given.
Maxwell LG, Yaster M
Analgesia for neonatal circumcision:no more studies, just do it.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1999 May; 153(5):444-5
and
Olson TL, Downey VW
Infant physiological responses to noxious stimuli of circumcision with anesthesia and analgesia.
Pediatr Nurs 1998 Jul-Aug; 24(4):385-9
I quote from that last one:“FINDINGS:Infants demonstrate physiological and behavioral response to pain. These physiological and behavioral responses are observable and measurable.”
So it would seem that there is no medical consensus, to say the least, that circumcision is medically justified on otherwise healthy neonates, particularly on the old pretext that the kids feel no pain at that age. Pediatricians may give advice based on something other than the literature (it wouldn’t surprise me), but even a quick exploration of the ACTUAL DATA ought to raise doubts as to how ethical it is to force the procedure on the patient when it is not necessary. And as it happens, most parents who do so aren’t thinking of medical reasons anyway,as the following citation clearly shows:
Tiemstra JD
Factors affecting the circumcision decision
J Am Board Fam Pract 1999 Jan-Feb; 12(1):16-20
I quote, “CONCLUSIONS:Most parents have made a decision on circumcision before physicians discuss it, and physician discussions appear to have little impact on the decision. Ease of cleanliness is still the most common reason parents choose circumcision.”
A couple of citations that seem pertinent, but I have no segue for them so I’ll stick them in here:
Fleiss PM, Hodges FM, Van Howe RS
Immunological functions of the human prepuce
Sex Transm Infect 1998 Oct; 74(5):364-7
Wiswell TE
Routine neonatal circumcision: a reappraisal
American Family Physician 1990 Mar; 41(3):859-63
Laumann EO, Masi CM, Zuckerman EW
Circumcision in the United States: prevalence, prophylactic effects, and sexual practice
JAMA 1997 Apr2; 277(13):1052-1057
And now, for the grand finale. Most of the papers I turned up on this topic were related not to routine circumcision, but to the technique as a corrective in cases where there is malformation or similar problem. A large chunk were on female “circumcision”. But not a few were on medical complications arising from the procedure. The scariest was this one:
Money J
Case consultation: ablatio penis.
Med Law 1998; 17(1):113-23
The abstract, in it’s entirety:
“In male infants, traumatic ablation of the penis, with or without loss of the testicles may occur as a sequel to mutilatory violence, accidental injury, or circumcision error. Post-traumatically, one program of case management is surgical sex reassignment to live as a girl, with female hormonal therapy at the age of puberty. the other program is genital reconstructive surgery to live as a boy, with male hormonal therapy at puberty if the testicles are missing. In both programs, the long term outcome is less than perfect and is contingent on intervening variablesthat include societal ideology; surgical technology; juvenile and adolescent timing and frequency of hospital admissions construed by the child as nosocomial abuse; development of body image; health and sex education; fertility versus sterility; coitus and orgasm; possible lesbian orientation if living as a girl; and long-term cost accounting, including the psychic cost of being a pawn in possible malpractice litigation on whose disability a very large fortune in compensation may devolve. there is, as yet, no unanimously endorsed set of guidelines for the treatment of genital trauma and mutilation in infancy, and no provision for a statiatical depository for outcome data.”
My personal reaction to this was AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!
Okay, let’s be fair. Really he’s speaking generally about genital mutilations, and this is certainly not VERY common with circumcision. But as this paper reminds us, mistakes are made, even with circumcision, from time to time, and the results can be EXTREME to say the least.
Even when the procedure is performed correctly, we have:
Upadhyay V, Hammodat HM, Pease PW
Post circumcision meatal stenosis: 12 years’ experience.
N Z Med J 1998 Feb27; 111(1060):57-8
"Meatal stenosis is an under-recognised complication of circumcision done in neonatal and nappy aged boys. Symptomatic presentation from meatal s