Hi Cecil,
Since you mentioned in a recent column that it’s always risky to give infants anesthesia during surgery, and since the circumcision of a baby boy ALWAYS involves either anesthesia or excruciating pain for the infant, I’m just wondering if you still believe your previous statement that parents should simply “flip a coin” before deciding whether to mutilate their male offspring?
best,
Jon
Hi,
Assuming that you are referring to:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a940128.html
then I think that Cecil has already answered this.
"- Circumcision is performed without anesthesia and is painful.
Anesthesia presents a greater danger to infants. Circumcised infants remember nothing of the operation later in life. There is no evidence for the claim that this early trauma conditions the infant to a life of sexual violence."
As the original question was to do with how it would affect the future sex life of the child (not whether or not Cecil agreed or disagreed with the practice), then your question would seem to have been addressed.
I, personally, am against any unecessary medical practice, including circumcision - it’s just that it seemed that you were questioning a judgement that Cecil never actually made on a question that wasn’t asked (The original question wasn’t “Is it better to circumcise or not?” it was “Which choice is the right one in terms of the sex life of the boy and a future partner?”).
So, the question that you asked has already answered, but that was a really nifty was of expressing that you are against circumcision and implying that Cecil doesn’t have an opinion one way or anther, even though that isn’t what he said.
I actually think it’s cool that Cecil doesn’t give his opinion, but presents us with verifiable data instead of emotional arguments.
Well, except for when his opinion is that the writer is an idiot. He never fails to give that opinion! 
Cecil said in response to a question from a parent about circumcision, “Flip a coin.” In my opinion, he DID express his opinion, namely that it doesn’t make any difference. I am not using this forum as a platform to express my hatred of genital mutilation–I’ve got lots of other ways to do that. Instead I’m asking a widely read and very entertaining syndicated columnist if he STILL believes it doesn’t make any difference whether one performs this unneeded, painful surgery on male infants, in light of his recent column on legends about people “dying of fright” or other emotions, in which he stated that anesthetizing children is always dangerous & should be done only when absolutely necessary. Hope that clears that up, & I’m glad you agree with me on the basic issue.
best,
Jon
PS Anyone out there want “verifiable data” on circumcision, there’s plenty to be had. You can read Goldman’s CIRCUMCISION: THE HIDDEN TRAUMA, Boyd’s CIRCUMCISION EXPOSED, & any number of other fine books on this topic. Those who promote this procedure are the ones who are a little short on the facts, unless one’s idea of a “fact” is “I want my son to look like me,” or “It’s a Jewish [or Muslim] tradition,” or “It’s like cleaning the bathroom, boys just aren’t as good at it”…
Assuming that you are referring to:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a940128.html
then I think that Cecil has already answered this.
"- Circumcision is performed without anesthesia and is painful.
Anesthesia presents a greater danger to infants. Circumcised infants remember nothing of the operation later in life. There is no evidence for the claim that this early trauma conditions the infant to a life of sexual violence."
As the original question was to do with how it would affect the future sex life of the child (not whether or not Cecil agreed or disagreed with the practice), then your question would seem to have been addressed.
I, personally, am against any unecessary medical practice, including circumcision - it’s just that it seemed that you were questioning a judgement that Cecil never actually made on a question that wasn’t asked (The original question wasn’t “Is it better to circumcise or not?” it was “Which choice is the right one in terms of the sex life of the boy and a future partner?”).
So, the question that you asked has already answered, but that was a really nifty was of expressing that you are against circumcision and implying that Cecil doesn’t have an opinion one way or anther, even though that isn’t what he said.
I actually think it’s cool that Cecil doesn’t give his opinion, but presents us with verifiable data instead of emotional arguments.
[/QUOTE]
Yes you are.
Anesthesia is a tricky, complicated subject much in the same way as pain; both rely on sensation or blocking thereof of a stimulus (which is where local anesthesia fits), in propogation or interruption of the sensation (which is where regional anesthesia like an epidural fits), and finally in interpretation and awareness or interference of the sensation (which is where general anesthesia like nitrous oxide or hypnosis fits). In the case of quick and limited procedures such as suturing cuts or circumcision local anesthesia is a safe and effective means of limiting pain and apprehension associated with these procedures. At our institution we use both local anesthesia (1% Lidocaine w/out epinephrine) AND general anesthesia (in the form of 10% dextrose water applied by either a pacifier or gloved nurse’s finger depending on mother’s preference) when performing circumcisions. Much research has been done on this topic, and the majority of evidence supports using an anesthetic method over none, and that sugar water (“Sweet-Ease”) and 1% Lidocaine w/out Epi are equally efficacious and safe to use in male infants who have received Vitamin K within 1hr of birth.
As for whether or not to circumcise, objective evidence clearly states that it is up to the preference of the patient or their surrogate. Neither the American Academy of Pediatrics nor the American Academy of Family Physicians supports or opposes the practice of male circumcision 12-24hrs after birth. Therefore, as Cecil has been quoted previously, it is a coin-flip.
If circumcision is “up to the preference of the patient,” shouldn’t we stop performing it on infants, who cannot give or withhold such consent? The baby is the patient in this case, correct?
Cordially,
Jon Swift
Sorry, Jon, but the question was specifically about how circumcision would affect the child’s future sex life and that was the question that was answered. Cecil did not say ‘I am for/against/indifferent about circumcision as a practice’. I am basing this on what he actually said. The problem with reading between the lines is that we often come to the wrong conclusion. If you want to find out Cecil’s opinion of circumcision as a practice, you should ask the question rather than trying to put words into his mouth because you have chosen to read a couple of words out of the entire Q&A in a way that allows you to get on your soapbox.
You are, in fact, using this forum as a platform to express your hatred of genital mutilation. The content of your posts and your mode of expression are VERY clear on that, and the fact that you are suggesting reading material that supports your viewpoint only reinforces this.
Again, I am against unnecessary circumcision, so this is not a comment on the practice.
If you want to find out Cecil’s opinion of circumcision as a practice, you should ask the question
–Okay: Cecil, what is your current view of circumcision? (As opposed to the question of how it might affect a kid’s future sex life, which strikes me as fairly important in itself, but maybe I’m some kind of weirdo for considering human sexuality to be significant) And if your current view is “makes no difference,” how can you justify this?
I don’t blame the dr. who responded for lapsing into medical/professional jargon, incidentally. I’d probably do something similar if I were trying to defend an indefensible act I was paid to perform. (OOH! He’s using the board as a soapbox! Busted!)
The “[lapse] into medical/professional jargon” was not meant as a defense of the practice of circumcision, it was instead meant to reveal the true anesthesia used in the procedure. It my info was too technical I apologize; the gist is, the anesthesia is absolutely safe (it’s sugar water!) despite the earlier assertion that all anesthesia in children is “dangerous” which is blatantly false. And male circumcision is as inherently dangerous and with as much long-term sequelae as piercing the ears of infant girls. So, where is the moral outrage and platform for this barbaric act against innocent little girls who likewise do not consent to the procedure? Just curious. By the way, if parents made the safest most logical decisions for their children we would not have commercial formula for infants, obese children eating fast food, televisions in every bedroom, parents refusing immunizations for their children, firearms of any kind in a home, or swimming pools open to the house w/out locked gates. Face it, parents make many lousy decisions and we all manage to survive (and some succeed) for the most part. Ain’t life amazing…?
–There’s plenty of outrage out there over female circumcision. As for parents having their infant daughters’ ears pierced, I wasn’t aware there was much of that going on. If it is happening, I’m against it. Circumcision is irreversible. TV-watching habits & eating habits can be changed. I oppose new laws prohibiting circumcision. I just want people to know what a lousy idea it is. If you disagree that not all anesthesia in infant surgery has risks, take it up with Cecil–he said the opposite. I’m with him on that one.
BTW, many circumcisions nowadays involve some sort of pain-deadener (I want to say novacaine, but I haven’t had my coffee yet and my mind is jet-lagged) so that there’s no pain.
According to my dentist, “novocaine” today typically means, “some more up-to-date cocaine derivative or analog that we’re telling you is ‘novocaine’ because we know you expect it.”
You’re correct. the are is injected, via a tiny needle with 1% lidocaine.
It was determined, after lengthy research, that infants indeed feel pain, and whether they remember it or not, it’s cruel to inflict it when the means are available to prevent it.