Circumcisions

[akflightmedic]

I do not think any of us can say we have or havent suffered more or less, as we do not know what we do not know...right?

I am just overly curious as to why we continue this trend and how peopple feel about it today even with all of our advanced knowledge of medical care and hygiene.

[firedoc5]

I had been told of the hygiene issues as already discussed. And one thing that was mentioned by a nurse that was trying to insert a foley into an old guy, was that it was a cosmetic issue also. But I kind of find that as sort of shallow thinking. Unless the baby was going to grow up and be a porn star.

If I'm not mistaken, I remember someone making a comment that in some states it was either required or it was being discussed to be required. But I don't know the justification of it.

Personally I think it should be a choice. But I'd lean to favor it.

[p3medic]

If I had a boy I wouldn't do it, Lord knows I could have used the extra 1/2 inch....

[Eydawn]

I think if one is Jewish, then as a requirement of religion, it should be performed if the child is being raised in accordance with Jewish principles. If one, however, is NOT Jewish, I think the decision depends on the feelings of the parents.

I think improperly managed foreskins can lead to nastiness. I don't know if I really have an opinion universally on whether it should be done or not. I mean... parents do things to their children all the time... choose the gender, if the child is born ambiguous... pierce infant girls' ears... determine the child's haircut... different levels of choosing something physical for a child... but choices made by the parents nonetheless. Do we have the same level of indignation for babies having their ears pierced?

Does anyone here envision *missing* that foreskin, of either status (cut or uncut)? Do the benefits of quicker healing as an infant outweigh leaving the decision to choice? *Shrugs*

I think there are much larger issues in the world to contemplate... the social and ethical ramifications of circumcision are interesting, but really... I'm not going to lose a lot of sleep over it. Because fellows who are circumcised and uncircumcised alike seem to get along ok and don't seem to have lasting psychological or physical damage...

Wendy

CO EMT-B

[Just Plain Ruff]

I can remember when my son's circumcision whatnot was ready to come off. I was cleaning him and it just sort of came off in my hands. I FREAKED out with a capital F.

I thought I had hurt him but he just smiled at me and said in baby talk. ga ga goo goo ga ga and he proceeded to pee on me.

So I assume it didn't hurt too much to have it done but then again I wasnt' in the room when they did it. Maybe it did but I don't remember it hurting me.

[rock_shoes]

There is no solid medical reason I know of that indicates circumcision is better. You just need to teach your kids to wash themselves properly. I still have mine and have never had an infection as a result of it.

[Mateo_1387]

I agree with AK, I personally think that routine circumcision is not warranted. In cases severe enough, it may be warranted, but that is not the common case.

The argument of personal hygiene to me is weak. Hygiene needs to be taught to prevent problems with the foreskin, not circumcision to eliminate problems with the foreskin.

We all know the argument about appearance is weak.....I feel this argument is based on what people are used to.

Just from a little bit of searching, I found where there were higher incidents of appendicitis than phimosis in England. It is not practical to just perform routine appendectomies. I realize the procedure for appendix removal and circumcision are different, and one is less invasive than the other, but the "routine" deal is what I am getting at.

How about another approach. The routine should be to have the pinky finger cut off on the right arm. Most people are right hand dominant, the pinky serves some function in gripping, but that is about it. It has instances of getting squashed in car doors, developing infections under the nail, hangnail, and other various trauma, such as being broken. Of curse we will not have any problems with the pinky finger because it is not there, where we would have problems with it attached to the hand. If everyone had their right pinky finger removed, I am sure it would become common place, and someone with a pinky finger would be viewed as "different." Of course, anyone who questions the practice will be cited with the fact that with the pinky finger, it can be damaged, and come with problems....

Ak brings up another good point. He says "we do not know what we do not know....right?" When the foreskin is removed, it is permanent change. The decision to remove is certainly without consent. You are taking something away from the child that they may very well desire later in life. To me it is not much different than taking off that pinky finger.

Does anyone here envision *missing* that foreskin, of either status (cut or uncut)? Do the benefits of quicker healing as an infant outweigh leaving the decision to choice? *Shrugs*

To answer your first question, for a male who is circumcised, I could imagine that they would feel that they may be missing a part of them that will forever be gone. I can see them as having a sense of 'I want my body to be unchanged' only to have their penis forever changed. They will not be able to get that foreskin back. As for an uncircumcised male, some may decide that they really do not like their foreskin, for whatever reason. I am sure there are some who just have an aversion to it, and that is for whatever their personal reasons are. That person may decide to have a circumcision, and will never "miss" the foreskin. For other uncircumcised males, I am sure that they would "miss" the foreskin because they have had it since birth. It goes back to what AK said, "you do know now what you do not know"

To your second question, I think that the benefits of quick healing are an inadequate argument to having the operation done. I feel in the case of circumcision, it should be left to choice. After the procedure is done, it cannot be taken back. When the child grows up and decides he does not need his foreskin anymore, then he can make the change himself. It will then never be the question of, did we make the right choice for the child, it will be, did he make the right choice for himself.

[brentoli]

I've never missed it, never wondered what it would be like either. Maybe it's just me.

Fifty-six percent of American newborn males are circumcised. So approximately a quarter of American newborns are "altered". From what I have read this morning, it is a late 19th/early 20th century procedure that was started for the same reasons many procedures were for during that time period.

They didn't have the capabilites to establish good hygine during that period and the procedure did prevent infection and other complications. Also they theroized it would stop the spread of STDs, and other sexual things.

Obviously we know this is false today, parents do it for 3 reasons: Culture, Religion, Conformity.

Think about it like this as well... I don't have foreskin, so I think, I would be a bit hesitant explaining to my son how to clean his. Never done it, never have to do it, how do I know if I'm doing it right?

[Michael]

I do not think any of us can say we have or havent suffered more or less, as we do not know what we do not know...right?

Skimming (so to speak) a couple of pages on google seems to show a fairly even distribution of satisfaction/dissatisfaction among adult males who can recall their Before and compare it to their After. As for an opinion, I fear it's one of those topics about which, alas, I will http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRdfX7ut8gw.

[Richard B the EMT]

From the bible, as referred to at a site for "Q&A" on the Jewish religion:

Brit Mila (Covenant of Circumcision)

God said to Abraham, "Such shall be the covenant between Me and you and your offspring to follow which you shall keep: every male among you shall be circumcised. you shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and that shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you" (Genesis 17:10-11).

From personal knowledge, and religious training, I am aware the "Bris" is done at the male child's 8th day of life, presumably as that was the indicator the child would survive, and that was when the child would be named.

The mohel, who does the surgery as part of the religious ceremony usually joke that the first thing they get taught when learning the "how to", is not to say "Oops!".