Channel 7's 'Sunday Night' - To Snip or Not to Snip?

[~Leasha~]

Well just as my post is offensive to some, so is the idea of circumcision to me. Very distasteful, in fact.

Which I think I am ok to say? Since many have said my post is offensive? Correct me, of course, which you will, if I'm wrong.

JMO. Leaving this one now, had my bit. Everyone's choice etc. Not mine but hey, everyone is entitled to have their opinion (including me)?

[Onyx]

Nelle, I read a really interesting article a while ago about women who choose to get double masectomies as a precautionary measure against breast cancer. It's more common than you might think.

[*det*]

Hmm interesting debate and interesting timing for me
we had our son circumcised on Friday!
We chose to get it done in hossy under and he woke from the GA smiling at me!
He has not/is not in any pain AT ALL!!!!!!
Yes he was a little groggy from the medication they gave him to put him under- but that is it!!!
We had him done for religious reasons
and YES EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO THEIR OWN OPINIONS!!!!!
If anyone has any questions about it- feel free to ask

[lauren22]

I agree with you Leasha
people are entitled to there opinion i view and accpet both sides and i feel people have been harsh on you.
You have your opinion against i have mine for and there is no problem there?
opinions are a beautiful thing each one should be valued as the next.

[lauren22]

oh det i have some questions
if tiger is a boy he will be cut
How big is the cut?
Stiches?
Pain meds?

[Willow]

Well just as my post is offensive to some, so is the idea of circumcision to me. Very distasteful, in fact...

Correct me, of course, which you will, if I'm wrong.

Leasha - sometimes there is no wrong or right, that's the whole point. It is one thing to be offended by an idea, concept etc but another to make statements in judgement of those who may agree with that idea, concept etc iykwim? There are, of course, ways to express an opinion without being offensive.

[teepee2]

Why do people feel the need to persecute others for their beliefs and opinions (not directed at anyone in particular!)

This is a highly personal decision which should just be left at that. Whether you believe in it or not is your business and you shouldnt feel the need to have to justify it to others, as with all the other topics that create such heated debates!

[RhiChiChi]

I only saw parts of this tonight, so I don't know the full content of the article.
AFM - My dh & I have had many discussion about this, (if we were to have a boy). I say no, he says yes. DH got circumcised when he was late 20's due to a medical issue & would rather our son be circumcised at a young age rather than older. Also, he wants his penis to look the same as his. I am not educated enough on if there are 'health' benefits for it, but we had this discussion sometime at work & it seems to me, the ones that are circumcised (not for religious reasons) are of the belief that it is cleaner. My mum disagreed with this statement & said she taught my bro to clean under the foreskin. Apart from the Dr who does the proceedure - where do you obtain non-biased information about it?

[MantaRay]

I have edited some posts and will close this thread if opinions are not expressed respectfully. Plesae play nice.

Leasha, no-one has criticised your opinion, simply the way you have expressed it. You have been around long enough to know that there is a difference.

[MantaRay]

RhiChiCHi, try googling it hun.

[Onyx]

RhiChiChi, try going to Science news and science jobs from New Scientist - New Scientist and doing a search. They have up to date research and no agenda to push.
If you use google just keep in mind that a lot of the websites are written by people who feel passionately about the topic to go to the effort of starting a website about it and the information on those sites tends to be biased.

[Ahurani]

I agree with Leasha

Why cut it off when its obviously meant to be there.

I watched it in horror when the man did the procedure. But hey each to their own right.

[blessedatlast]

I simply posted out of curiosity.. I was interested as it seems to change from generation to generation.. As I said most men of my age aren't circumcised (I am 28)but I am aware it was common practice in my parents generation (Late 40's to 50's) I never realised it would become such a heated debate.. Also I have not come across a thread on this subject before

Also Det i do have a question.. Hope I am not being rude, but did you have to pay for it, The doc that did my adult partners did babies aswell so if we had our son's done we would have gone to his private practice rather than ask the hospital to do it..

[Schmickers]

Bron, Willow - I think that one of the reasons why circumcision always spawns a thread here is that so much misinformation abounds, such as some of the content of tonight's Sunday Night segment.

For a start, there was some very creative interpretation of statistics going on. The circumcision proponents state that they believe circumcisions should be "mandatory" (I cringe whenever I hear that word applied to anything to do with parenting) because it reduces the risk of a male carrying human papillomavirus, it reduces the spread of HIV, it reduces the risk of penile cancer, and it reduces the risks of UTI. When you combine all of those factors together, you get the "100-fold increase in benefits" of circumcision, although I note that they have not actually provided any links to this research they are discussing to back up that statement.

The problem with this approach is that you can't simply lump all of these problems together because they are very different.

Take, for instance, human papillomavirus and HIV. Both of these viruses spread more readily in men that are uncircumcised, because they infect the tissues of the foreskin. So it is certainly true that circumcision reduces the likelihood of men becoming infected with these viruses. The problem is, there is another way of preventing the spread of these viruses that is much less riskier, and costs the public health system a great deal less, and has the added benefit of also being an effective way of reducing the spread of a whole raft of other diseases that have nothing to do with foreskins whatsoever - the promotion of safe sex, using a condom.

So, taking HPV and HIV out of the equation, you are left with the decreased risk of penile cancer and the decreased risk of urinary tract infection. Examining penile cancer, it is a disease with an extremely low rate of occurrence - in the vicinity of 1 in 100,000 men in developed countries might expect to get it. Some studies have shown that circumcision decreases the risk of contracting penile cancer, but as yet we don't know what causes cancer of the penis. Until we have a more concrete idea of what actually causes penile cancer, it seems premature to suggest mandatory circumcision to ward off penile cancer. And given that one theory is that one of the risk factors in the development of cancer of the penis is HPV, once more, we get back to the realisation that a more cost-effective and less risky way of preventing penile cancer may be to promote safe sex.

Finally, we get to the risk of UTI. There have been numerous studies performed into the contribution of circumcision towards the likelihood of developing urinary tract infections in boys, with varying results. At the moment, it is true that the balance of the research is tipping towards a small increase in the likelihood of getting UTIs in uncircumcised boys, but once more, it comes down to risks versus benefits - given that the risks of urinary tract infection are minimal, and that only a small reduction in the number of boys who will get UTI can be expected to result from large scale circumcision, most paediatricians and childrens health workers agree that the benefits simply don't outweigh the risks.

So, to summarise, when you separate out the risks and benefits of circumcision compared to the reduction in HIV and HPV infection rates, penile cancer and UTI, and you consider other realistic interventions that also reduce the risk of these conditions without needing to mandate surgical intervention for newborn babies, the claims made in tonight's program simply don't add up. It's a classic case of trying to conflate a number of studies that simply shouldn't be combined.

And, as is becoming common practice with this farce of a current affairs program, we also had to put up with the usual rhetoric. The presenters constantly refer to the procedure as "having a snip". It is really not that simple. It is the careful and methodical separation and scraping away of the foreskin (which at that age is adhered to the glans of the penis), the clamping of the foreskin, and then using either scalpel or a shield and band, cutting away the foreskin, or cutting the blood supply off to the tissue and letting it die and peel away of it's own accord. It is classed as minor surgery, but it is surgery nonetheless. They repeatedly suggested that circumcision was "saving lives", and later on suggested that of children who remain uncircumcised, "many will die" - but in all honestly, I have yet to see a child die of a UTI, or a grown man die of genital warts, and relying on circumcision to protect against HIV is utterly foolish. And penile cancer is so rare that it is quite hard to even gather together a large enough population to do valid research in any case.

The doctor who operated the circumcision clinic announced proudly that they had not had any cases of "major bleeding", "systemic infection", and they they'd never "lost a penis". Thank God! Having said that, none of those are really risk factors of circumcision. The risk factors of circumcision are pain, damage to the penis that limits sexual function later in life, or infection of the penis itself, and these remain not uncommon adverse effects of circumcision (realistic studies suggest that between 2% and 10% of baby boys will experience one of these complications following circumcision). I also note that despite the doctor saying that the procedure was "relatively pain free", the baby they showed during the procedure still cried several times throughout.

At the end of the day, there are far safer, more cost effective ways of preventing HIV and HPV spread amongst males than circumsision; the risk of penile cancer is so vanishingly low that any reduction in risk can't possibly outweigh the risks associated with circumcision; and in their absence, the prevention of UTI alone simply is not worth the risks associated with circumcision.

For what it's worth, I think we're all entitled to our opinions here, and I think we can all keep it civil. Bron, Willow: I don't think that Leasha's statements are inflammatory at all; I think it's a valid point of view and it's one that, to a certain extent, I share. The foreskin is designed to protect the penis, and it has the distinction of being the only part of the body that we will remove from an otherwise healthy baby in order to protect it from conditions later in life. And Brontide, while rarely women will request and be granted access to a double mastectomy to protect against breast cancer, this intervention is reserved for women with a strong family history of breast cancer, usually bilateral. That same distinction is not made when we talk about mandating circumcision.

We're not judging your decison, although it isn't one that we agree with; I respect that some of you have chosen to circumcise for religious reasons, or because you agree with some of the views put forward in this program, and that is your right. We are simply explaining the reasoning behind our decison. I believe that every parent of a baby boy has a right to choose whether or not to circumcise, but I feel that the decision needs to be made for the right reasons, without misinformation or misunderstanding. And tonight's segment was very much full of misinformation. More to the point, tonight's segment was not about whether circumcision was right or wrong; it was about something much more serious than that. It was about proponents of the practice attempting to misrepresent the results of research in order to mandate a medical procedure whose benefits are questionable.

[rhyb]

I didnt get DS done as his father (my XP) was not and I couldnt bring myself to do it as I saw no reason. Now Im having problems with DP as Im pregnant again and if hes a boy he wants to have our son circumsised cz he is. My arguement is I wouldnt want DS to feel different and not only that I still see no point for me to have that done to my son.

[Schmickers]

Originally Posted by lauren22

oh det i have some questions
if tiger is a boy he will be cut
How big is the cut?

If it is done using a scalpel, it is a very thin cut around the base of the head of the penis, although the head of the penis itself is usually inflamed because the foreskin has to be separated from it.

Originally Posted by lauren22

Stiches?

If a scalpel is used, usually one or two dissolvable sutures. If the plastibell and band is used, no stitches.

Originally Posted by lauren22

Pain meds?

During the procedure, usually not, although they will give you some anaesthetic cream to apply to the penis before the procedure to numb it.

Afterwards, you should ensure that your baby has adequate pain relief. I'd suggest paracetamol or ibuprofen for a few days, smearing vaseline on the front of their nappy to stop the penis sticking to it.

[Schmickers]

Originally Posted by rhyb

Now Im having problems with DP as Im pregnant again and if hes a boy he wants to have our son circumsised cz he is.

I've heard a few men say this. Something to consider is, while he may look like his dad, he probably won't look like most of his friends, as circumcision is becoming quite rare these days.

[Freya]

I watched this show out of interest to see how they would spin the story. I think it was all the same ol' fluff that gets bandied about everytime this subject is bought up. Nothing new from either side that I could see.

I will happily be honest and put my hand up for having circumsized my sons. I dont have any shame or fear related to that decision. My boys are happy, well adjusted kids and their penis' work like any other males.

I dont feel they are psychologically damaged by having been circumcised, they wont even remember the procedure or time afterwards. They were all done before 8wks of age which is the safest and physically easiest time to do so. All had the plastibell procedure under local anaesthetic. I actually watched Ds2 being done as I felt I could not be fully supportive of circumcision as an idea, or for my own boys, without being 100% informed on the procedure so when offered the choice to watch I did so (with great trepidation I assure you!).

It was interesting to say the least (I wont give details on what exactly happens) - from my POV Ripley cried from the injection and from being held down. I dont believe he felt any major pain and he was perfectly fine afterwards. I think it was more distressing for me that he was crying for a few minutes and that I could not be the one to hold him. Even with this knowledge, I still went on to have Ds3 done a few weeks ago because I believe still that it is the right choice for my boys.

I think circumcision is a fence sitting topic - there are no completely compelling reasons why it should or should not be done that encourages illegalisation or compulsory participation of it. I truly think its a personal choice and should stay that way. I dont care if people choose NOT to circumcise. I would not teach my children that those who are uncircumcised are any less of a man than they are/are dirty etc - their just different in a minor physical way.

I worry about how other boys, and eventually girls, will treat my boys because they ARE circumcised. I think the only fear of psychological harm my children could possibly have is from an encounter with a passionate anti-circ'er who will fill their head with nonsense about child abuse and what we did being psychologically harming.

If they themselves, without encouragement, tell me that they feel we made the wrong decision - then I will apologise but tell them that I made what I thought was the best decision for them at the time, which is what my role as a parent involves. I never intended to cause hurt or long term issues for them, I love them and all my parenting decisions stem from that love whether it correlates with the "norm" or not. This could apply to alot of controversial parenting choices in the long run so we are probably all in this situation at some point.

FWIW, my husband is uncircumcised. I made it known I was pro-circumcision but let him have the final say as he is the one with first hand penis knowledge. I had a stipulation that IF they ended up with any recurring issues ie UTI's, foreskin problems; that they would be circumcised while they were still young enough for us to make the choice for them. He decided to have them done because he can remember having foreskin issues as a kid and it being very painful/embarrassing for him. Not to mention the issues he has had as a grown man. He would rather they be circumcised to possibly prevent these issues as newborns rather than have to endure medical problems AND surgery as an older child/adult. He contemplated being done himself but decided against it as adult circumcision is extremely painful. So it was a fully informed decision - the Dr who performed it even gave us a pamphlet stating all the pro's and con's including statistical and medical info for BOTH sides.