-
Common lies about Circumcision- part 2
- Dec 8, 2008 at 4:43 PM
- By
- Comments (13) Total Views (293) Everyone can see this journal post.
11) Circumcision interferes with bonding and breastfeeding and/or moms who choose to circumcise don't feel that bonding with their child
These depend on so many factors that implying that circumcision actually has a significant impact is ridiculous and frankly, rather pathetic. It's a scare tactic. No mother wants to be portrayed as not bonded with her child, however, even mothers that for various reasons don't feel that initial bond, can become the most wonderful, loving, caring mothers. That's another myth that needs to be brought down.
Choosing something that we feel is right for our children has nothing to do with how bonded we are with them. Even if it's a painful, difficult choice to make, our thought are on what's best for our children. That's all that matters.
As for breastfeeding, well a new study came out!
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/1...54.2007.01202.x
"Results: Circumcision status was not significantly associated (P > 0.05) with breastfeeding outcomes in infancy, even following adjustment for covariate factors, including maternal age, family socio-economic status, ethnicity and birthweight. Also, circumcision status was not significantly associated (P > 0.05) with health in infancy and cognitive ability outcomes in later childhood, even after adjustment for covariate factors."
12) Most babies are circumcised without pain relief-
Lies, lies. Unless you're stuck living in the 70s.
But for the rest of us who accept and embrace the new millenium, the vast majority of circumcisions are now performed with pain relief.
http://news10now.com/Default.aspx?ArID=20899
According to this article, "ninety-seven percent of all new doctors who deal with babies are now learning pain relief techniques for circumcision. That's up from 71 percent ten years ago". Unless your definition of "most" is a bit distorted, 3% is certainly not "most".
13) Moms who choose not to circumcise are protecting their sons
Nice emotional outburst, completely in character of intactivism who love to use guilt and fear to spread their message, but completely false.
Protection is highly subjective and according to what we believe, our definition of "protecting" will be different. Sure they're "protecting" their children from initial pain and from the tiny risks of circumcision. But parents who choose to circumcise will tell you they're protecting their children from penile cancer, phimosis, balanitis and all that list we now know by heart.
It's a common anti-circ tactic- language twisting. They always do this. Instead of simply saying something like: "good for you for not circumcising your child", they say instead "good for you for protecting your child". You see the trick there? The first one simply states that you agree this is a good choice. The second one implies that mothers who choose to circumcise aren't doing their job as "protectors".
Another great example of twisting words to create an emotional impression. It's good to know they haven't found facts to support their cause yet.
14) How can it be cleaner to have urine and feces directly up against an open wound?
Ok, first of all, the "open wound" lasts for like two days. I know many intactivists don't think much farther ahead than that, but when we say that it's cleaner we mean in a lifetime, not in the next couple of days. So yes, we're willing to go through the initial extra cleaning and care if that means being cleaner for the rest of their lives.
Second, the tip of the penis is covered for the first week with a gauze. And that gauze is changed with every diaper. Furthermore, disposable diapers absorb almost immediately. Not enough time to have the little urine a newborn makes sit on the open wound.
Third, urine is sterile. It cannot lead to infection.
Fourth, I dont' know what these people feed their children the first weeks of life, but my exclusively bf boys pooped very little. I also don't know where they think their sons poop out from (guess they didnt' Google that one?), but mine do it from behind, not to the front. The first time I had to clean poop from the penis, the "open wound" was pretty much healed and that was because I fed David a bean burrito or something (not recommended before potty training, lol). Not even when they started on formula they pooped enough to have it all smeared in front. It started happening with solids and it's probably unbelievable, but by the time they started solids, the "wound" was pretty much closed.
15- Babies don't cry during circumcision because they "pass out" from the pain
This is probably just an attempt at creating an emotional response. The idea of a baby that's in so much pain he passes out is repulsive to anyone. But in regards to circumcision, it's a completely false image. It's another common anti-circ tactic when normal conditions fail to create outrage: Exaggerate. And the more exaggerated, the better. The best way to end this disgusting lie is to encourage parents to be with their sons during the procedure. This way they can see for themselves that the baby isn't "passed out". Any mother that has fed her child after his circumcision will tell you that her baby wasn't passed out.
Furthermore, here are some studies on newborn pain that show that even simple measures like close contact, rocking, sucking and oral sucrose can significnatly reduce the pain in newborns. Add those to proper pain relief and you really have no "passed out" babies.
http://pediatriconcall.org/fordoctor/pharmaupdates/sucrose_ana.asp
http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FDMC%2FDMC43_01%2FS0012162201000056a.pdf&code=385dd103aefe335e0e528452fc6608c7
Finally, pain-induced shock isn't as simple as they like us to believe. It's a serious life-threatening condition. A newborn baby wouldn't simply pass out from shock and be awake and alert 10 minutes later without any measures. And considering that's how most mothers receive their sons after their circumcisions, it's very unlikely that the baby went into any kind of shock during the procedure.
16- Circumcision isn't "just a snip"
Actually, that's exactly what it is. You see, a "snip" is "to cut with a small, quick stroke, or a succession of such strokes, with scissors or the like." and "a small cut made by snipping". Both describing circumcision perfectly.
Why the common lie saying that it isn't a snip? Because intactivists love to say that the adult foreskin measures 3 x 5 inches. But we're not talking about adult foreskins, are we? At the moment the foreskin is removed, it's a small piece of skin, therefore, regardless of how big it becomes, at that moment, it's a "snip". So infant circumcision is just a snip. Adult circumcision is a little more complicated.
17) Doctors who perform circumcision violate the AMA's Code of Ethics:
First of all, I'd like to specify that when I read this, the person who said it claimed that circumcision violates all 7 principles of medical ethics. This shows the total ignorance as there a 9 principles, not 7 (thank you, anippy for pointing that out!)
Having said that, let's review them, one by one:
(Source: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/2512.html)
Principles of medical ethics
- A physician shall be dedicated to providing competent medical care, with compassion and respect for human dignity and rights.
- A physician shall uphold the standards of professionalism, be honest in all professional interactions, and strive to report physicians deficient in character or competence, or engaging in fraud or deception, to appropriate entities.
- A physician shall respect the law and also recognize a responsibility to seek changes in those requirements which are contrary to the best interests of the patient.
- A physician shall respect the rights of patients, colleagues, and other health professionals, and shall safeguard patient confidences and privacy within the constraints of the law.
- A physician shall continue to study, apply, and advance scientific knowledge, maintain a commitment to medical education, make relevant information available to patients, colleagues, and the public, obtain consultation, and use the talents of other health professionals when indicated.
- A physician shall, in the provision of appropriate patient care, except in emergencies, be free to choose whom to serve, with whom to associate, and the environment in which to provide medical care.
- A physician shall recognize a responsibility to participate in activities contributing to the improvement of the community and the betterment of public health.
- A physician shall, while caring for a patient, regard responsibility to the patient as paramount.
- A physician shall support access to medical care for all people.
I. Circumcision DOES NOT violate any human rights (see "Common lies about circumcision" for details). Therefore, a doctor performing a circumcision doesn't violate this principle.
II. Obviously, circumcision doesn't violate this principle, which refers to interaction between physicians.
III. Circumcision is legal. Seeing as there isn't enough evidence to consider circumcision harmful, there's no need for a doctor to fight to make the procedure illegal.
IV. Circumcision doesn't violate doctor-patient confidentiality
V. Seeing as recently many studies have come out proving the medical benefits of circumcision (especially in relationship to HIV transmission), a doctor performing one doesn't violate this principle.
VI. How exactly does circumcision violate this particular principle? Three words: In any way.
VII. Circumcision doesn't violate this principle. A doctor performing acircumcision is simply abiding by the patient's/parent's wishes and that's not an issue of community/public health.
VIII. And seeing as all medical organization agree that the "best interests" of the patient in the cases of infant circumcision are to be determined by the parents, a doctor abiding by the wish to circumcise doesn't violate this principle.
IX. Again, circumcision cannot relate to this principle, unless a physician refuses to circumcise.
Sharon
Comments:
#15 is a real sore one for me. I have been accused repeatedly of either bring a liar, in denial, or just plain stupid after explaining my son slept through his circumcision. Considering I was in the room and watched as he fell asleep before the procedure began. Then I watched his face the entire time, he never flinched or even whimpered. After topical anesthetic, then an injection he couldn't feel anything. People think they've seen a propaganda video on U Tube so they are experts on the procedure.
Hmmmm. Guess I should tell all 3 of my circumcised boys that we didn't bond when I breastfed them because I had the doctor hack off part of their wee wee......Gah.
Forgot the MYTH that circumcision is healthier than leaving your boy in tact.
If you think that's a myth, then by all means write your own jornal post about that.
Sharon
Thanks everyone!
Sharon
Already a member? Click here to log in
- dhhaj
Message Friend Invite