Welcome to CafeMom

join our community and talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

Email:

Password:

(minimum 6 characters)

Screen Name:

Birth Date:

We won't show your age or birthday to anyone unless you want us to!

Send me email updates about messages I've received on the
site and the latest news from The CafeMom Team.
By signing up, you certify that you are female and accept the Terms of Service and have read the Privacy Policy. Already a member? Log in here!

Advice for Moms

Advice for Moms > See Active Posts - Let's Talk!

TO circumcise or not?

Posted by

ry22dance

on Aug. 22, 2012 at 1:29 AM

Bronze Member

63 Replies

We had our first son circumcised with no problems. Then we had our second son circumised and that same day he stopped breathing and later that week passed away. They never proved that the medicine given to him caused his death. That was five years ago. We just had another little boy and are trying to figure out if we should circumcise or not. I think it is healthier for him, but his dad his nervous that something will happen again. They told us we could wait until he was 6 months old but it will be more painful. Would you do it now, wait until he is older or not do it at all?

Posted on CafeMom Mobile

Posted by

ry22dance

on Aug. 22, 2012 at 1:29 AM

Add your quick reply below:

You must be a member to reply to this post.

Join CafeMom

Replies:

11-20 of 63 replies

first previous 123 4 5 next last

slw123

Member on Aug. 22, 2012 at 12:33 PM

1 mom liked this

OMG, I wish I had seen this article before getting my son cir'd after he was born. This describes our situation exactly. The doctor told us he didn't cry, not even a peep. Then he did nothing but sleep for 3 weeks. After the 3 weeks he cried non stop unless I was holding him and walking with him. It was so awful. I never even gave it a thought that it was because of his circumcision. He never had a problem eating and gaining weight though.

Quoting emmy526:

http://www.drmomma.org/2011/03/he-didnt-cry-babies-in-shock.html

SUNDAY, MARCH 20, 2011

He Didn't Cry: Babies in Shock

Posted in honor of Griffin Starr, who entered this world perfect, suffered infection and breathing difficulties, and was taken from the NICU to be cut this weekend. May your suffering and loss not be in vain. May many more, in your honor, be spared what you endured at the hand of those who refused information for your sake.

See below for photo credits.

This little one is not screaming. He is not sleeping. But he has gone into shock: a semi-comatose state that the human body slips into in order to physically survive extreme pain and trauma.

After the cutting of his genitals is complete, this little baby may sleep for many hours a day over the next several days or weeks (much more than is normal or healthy for a newborn, and similar to the deep depressive-state sleep that adults often slip into after trauma). He may experience severe 'colic' for weeks and months to come, as his body attempts to heal itself and deal with the very real pain and suffering of both a festering amputation wound, and post-traumatic stress. His cortisol levels (stress hormones) remain high. His metabolic brain functioning has changed. He may have trouble nursing or gaining weight, and he has a significantly greater risk of being deemed a 'failure to thrive' case. He will likely experience pain to a heightened degree in the future, even into adulthood. And his normal sexual functioning is forever impacted as a result of this alteration in form.

There are many side effects to the genital cutting of a human baby. Today, 68% of U.S. parents, 91% of Canadian parents, and the majority of the rest of the world keep their sons intact from birth. Please, be fully informed for the sake of your child.

Photo Credit:
This photo was originally printed in the December 1981 issue of the Saturday Evening Post. It was one of several images published in an eye-opening piece on the realities of infant circumcision. The horrors of this image are mild in comparison to the other photographs highlighting the brutality of genital cutting. Rosemary Romberg, author of Circumcision: Painful Dilemma, purchased the slides from the Saturday Evening Post in order to ensure they remained publicly available. She has the photos displayed on her website, Peaceful Beginnings, and granted DrMomma.org permission to post here.

CoeyG

on Aug. 22, 2012 at 1:21 PM

1 mom liked this

As a woman I would not take it upon myself to have a male child cut. It is not necessary in this day and age and is only done for religious or cosmetic purposes of which neither mean anything to me.

Mommy2justone

Platinum Member on Aug. 22, 2012 at 1:27 PM

1 mom liked this

My husband is intact and has never had an issue. If we were to have a son, he would be left intact as well.

salamandersmom

on Aug. 22, 2012 at 2:55 PM

2 moms liked this

I'm so sorry for your loss. It must be extra hard not knowing what the cause of death was. I have 5 kids, three are sons. We chose not to circumcize any of our sons, we wanted them to have the CHOICE later in life. So far, none have wanted to do it.

0Peach0

on Aug. 22, 2012 at 3:06 PM

I couldn't get my son circumsized when he was a baby cuz of insurance and when he was one he ended up with a cyst on the tip of it and he had to have it surgically circumcized at 1... so i think it is good to get them circumsized its alot healthier for them.. if your husband is nervous has he talked to the dr yet about his concerns???

CoeyG

on Aug. 22, 2012 at 3:09 PM

3 moms liked this

Quoting 0Peach0:

I couldn't get my son circumsized when he was a baby cuz of insurance and when he was one he ended up with a cyst on the tip of it and he had to have it surgically circumcized at 1... so i think it is good to get them circumsized its alot healthier for them.. if your husband is nervous has he talked to the dr yet about his concerns???

It isn't healthier being cut unless their penis isn't kept clean...that would be the job of the person doing the diapering.

ADMIN for: Baby Boomers and Beyond, Let's Talk

erikadi

Bronze Member on Aug. 22, 2012 at 3:17 PM

1 mom liked this

I would either wait until he is 6 months or don't do it at all. My son is not circumcised and he is fine. It is up to you and your husband.

MilesOfSmiles7

Member on Aug. 22, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Ironically I read this today:

Declining Rates Of U.S. Infant Male Circumcision Could Add Billions To Health Care Costs, Experts Warn http://ow.ly/d9JLG

Procedure linked to prevention of sexually transmitted infections and related cancers

A team of disease experts and

health economists at Johns Hopkins warns that steadily declining rates of U.S. infant male circumcision could add more than $4.4 billion in avoidable health care costs if rates over the next decade drop to levels now seen in Europe.

Image: Circumcision Protest Credit: Wikipedia

In a report to be published in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine online Aug. 20, the Johns Hopkins experts say the added expense stems from new cases and higher rates of sexually transmitted infections and related cancers among uncircumcised men and their female partners.

They say the study is believed to be the first cost analysis to account for increased rates of multiple infectious diseases associated with lower rates of male circumcision, including HIV/AIDS, herpes and genital warts, as well as cervical and penile cancers. Previous research focused mostly on HIV, the single most costly disease whose risk of infection is decreased by male circumcision, a procedure that removes foreskin at the tip of the penis, hindering the buildup of bacteria and viruses in the penis’ skin folds.

Senior study investigator, health epidemiologist and pathologist Aaron Tobian, M.D., Ph.D., says that roughly 55 percent of the 2 million males born each year in the United States are circumcised, a decline from a high of 79 percent in the 1970s and ‘80s. Rates in Europe average only 10 percent, and in Denmark, only 1.6 percent of infant males undergo the procedure.

“Our economic evidence is backing up what our medical evidence has already shown to be perfectly clear,” says Tobian, an assistant professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. “There are health benefits to infant male circumcision in guarding against illness and disease, and declining male circumcision rates come at a severe price, not just in human suffering, but in billions of health care dollars as well.”

The 20-year decline in the number of American males circumcised at birth has already cost the nation upwards of $2 billion, Tobian and his colleagues estimate.

The Johns Hopkins team’s analysis showed that, on average, each male circumcision passed over and not performed leads to $313 more in illness-related expenses, costs which Tobian says would not have been incurred if these men had undergone the procedure.

According to the team’s analysis, if U.S. male circumcision rates among men born in the same year dropped to European rates, there would be an expected 12 percent increase in men infected with HIV (or 4,843); 29 percent more men infected with human papillomavirus (57,124); a 19 percent increase in men infected with herpes simplex virus (124,767); and a 211 percent jump in the number of infant male urinary tract infections (26,876). Among their female sex partners, there would be 50 percent more cases each of bacterial vaginosis (538,865) and trichomoniasis (64,585). The number of new infections with the high-risk form of human papillomavirus, which is closely linked to cervical cancer in women, would increase by 18 percent (33,148 more infections).

Tobian says state funding cuts in Medicaid, the government medical assistance program for the poor, have substantially reduced numbers of U.S. infant male circumcisions, noting that 18 states have stopped paying for the procedure. “The financial and health consequences of these decisions are becoming worse over time, especially if more states continue on this ill-fated path,” he says. “State governments need to start recognizing the medical benefits as well as the cost savings from providing insurance coverage for infant male circumcision.”

The problem in the United States is compounded, Tobian says, by the failure of the American Academy of Pediatrics to recognize the medical evidence in support of male circumcision.

The Johns Hopkins team says it plans to share its study findings among state government officials across the United States to help raise awareness of its medical and cost-benefit analysis.

In the study, researchers constructed a novel economic model to predict the cost implications of not circumcising a male newborn. Included in their forecasting was information from multiple studies and databases that closely tracked the number of overall infections for each sexually transmitted disease, as well as the numbers of new people infected. Costs were conservatively limited to direct costs for drug treatment, physician visits and hospital care, and did not include indirect costs from work absences and medical travel expenses.

The most recent states to stop Medicaid funding for infant circumcision were Colorado and South Carolina, in 2011. States that already had funding bans in place include Louisiana, Idaho and Minnesota, all since 2005; Maine, since 2004; Montana, Utah and Florida, since 2003; and Missouri, Arizona and North Carolina, since 2002. California, North Dakota, Oregon, Mississippi, Nevada and Washington – all stopped funding before 1999.

Funding support for the study was provided by The Johns Hopkins Hospital. Other Johns Hopkins investigators involved in this research were Seema Kacker, B.S.; Kevin Frick, Ph.D.; and Charlotte Gaydos, M.S., Dr.P.H.

I did not have my son circumcised and he has been fine, he's only 11 months but I can't imagine doing that kind of surgery long after birth...I know it happens but to me it seems like genital mutilation. I am not by any means against circumcision, if it's what you want to do then you should do it. I just didn't find it necessary for my son.

heidi749

Canadian on Aug. 22, 2012 at 6:13 PM

I am so sorry for your loss.

My son is not , he is 7 and has no problem , it really is not even practiced here where I live in Québec Canada, it is considerd cosmetic surgery.

sreichelt26

Silver Member on Aug. 22, 2012 at 6:13 PM

I agree 100%

Quoting AmiJanell:

There are ZERO medical benefits for a healthy newborn with normal foreskin to be circumcised... sadly, you learned that first hand... every year in the U.S. alone, over 100 infants die for something that is purely cosmetic.

I would go with your husband on this... why risk it?

Your son can choose for himself when he's an adult if he wants to be cut of not... when he can weigh those risks for himself. And it is NOT more painful to have it done when they are older... a newborn infant, who has never known pain before is strapped down, is sometimes given some numbing meds, which do not numb the entire penis (and the doctors never wait long enough for it to work anyway!) and then they are given nothing for pain control afterwards....... compared to a consenting adult who is put to sleep for the procedure and is given narcotic pain relievers afterwards.

Let HIM choose!

Posted on CafeMom Mobile

11-20 of 63 replies

first previous 123 4 5 next last

Add your quick reply below:

You must be a member to reply to this post.

Join CafeMom

Previous: "Carrying a gun? (updated)" Next: "need advice on quitting smoking"

Advice for Moms > See Active Posts - Let's Talk!