Circumcision

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, pogi said:

In the defense of parents, I don't think that we can really place much, if any, blame on parents when it is pushed as an "important public health measure" by the CDC.  On top of that, parents are not given the opportunity to practice informed consent by their medical providers.  We shouldn't expect parent to be medical experts.  Most trust their pediatricians advice and recommendations.  What information are pediatricians using in this regard?  I can tell you that in my practice of public health, we follow the CDC's recommendations in everything.  If pediatricians are looking to the CDC or the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), then they are going to lean in favor of circumcision and recommend it for their patients.

This from the CDC:

And this from the AAP:

One questions however, how the CDC or the AAP could possible weigh the risk vs benefit when "there is no nationwide, standardized, prospective system in the United States or Canada for collecting data on circumcision complications in children, not even for the most serious outcomes."

Nor are parents educated on the role of the foreskin before decision making.  We simply can't expect lay people to know this stuff.

The CDC and AAP do rightly recommend the following:

That simply is not happening however - at least not in my case.  Again, I see this more as a failure of the medical community to uphold circumcision as an "important public health measure" and by failing to properly educate parents allowing them informed consent.  I am guessing that many pediatricians in the US are culturally biased in this regard as well. 

As a public health nurse, I am required by law to not only educate the patient verbally as to the risks vs. benefits of vaccination, but I am also required to give the patient a written document called a Vaccine Information Statement (VIS), outlining potential risks of vaccination before they can elect to receive one.  Now, when you think that such extensive education is happening for as simple a procedure as a vaccine, it makes you wonder why similar education is not happening before performing invasive surgery on an infants genitals, causing irreparable damage to the organ and posing serous health risks and unimaginable pain.  My pediatrician made it seem like we were taking him in to get his toe nails trimmed. 

While it is true, that medical providers cannot fully educate on risk vs benefit as the risks of circumcision are not fully understood in terms of statistics, they can at least be given a list of known documented complications that happen from the procedure, even if we don't know exactly how often they happen.  When the list of benefits includes extremely moderate potential reduced risk for UTI's and reduced risk for the extremely rare penile cancer, one wonders who would in their right mind elect for circumcision given the list of known complications - which ironically includes infections and cancer from scar tissue...  

Arrgh! When will the medical profession in the United States stop the madness?

Here is a web page published earlier this year by Doctors Opposing Circumcision that roundly rebuts the AAP's 2012 statement as well as the CDC draft published a bit later that liberally cribs from the AAP document.

https://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/for-professionals/medical-organization-statements/

The entire thing is worthy of careful consideration, but here is a summary conclusion:

 

Quote

 

Doctors Opposing Circumcision calls on the AAP to withdraw its circumcision policy, in the same way it withdrew its 2010 female genital cutting policy, in which it had recommended allowing a token – and illegal – ritual nick to baby girls. D.O.C further calls on the CDC to reject its draft guidelines.

The 2012 AAP’s male circumcision policy and the CDC’s draft guidelines seem bent on ignoring the healthy intact penis, while promoting an obsolete cultural practice that is outside evidence-based medicine. In doing so, it is out of step with numerous medical, legal, and ethical bodies in Europe and Australasia that have looked at the exact same evidence and concluded that there is no medical value to neonatal circumcision, that it violates the principles of medical ethics and human rights, and indeed, that it should probably be banned.[5,6,7] The AAP and the CDC, with their flawed policies, do a disservice to the growing number of boy babies being left intact, and to their parents. They do an even greater disservice to those boys who will be circumcised as a result of this ill-informed and misplaced advocacy – and to the men those boys will become.

 

 

[cherryTreez]

10 hours ago, pogi said:

My son is 28 months old, so it was very recent.  We told her that we wanted to think about it before making any decisions.  Her office called us like 5 times in 3 days telling us that we need to do it now and not delay as delaying can increase risks.  I don't know if or why that would be true, but that is what we were told.  So, we felt constrained to act quickly without having ample time to sufficiently study the issue out.  I feel like we were misinformed as to the strength of the benefits and were extremely under informed about the potential risks and consequences.  I had no idea about the role of the foreskin and why it might be beneficial and desirable to keep.  I would not call our consent "informed" by any stretch of the imagination, which is a serious ethical violation. 

Wow! That seems crazy to me. I have a 3 year old son. All his pediatrician said was 'oh you left him intact. Do you know how to take care of that?'  

 I wonder if that is because pediatricians don't do it here and OBs do. My Ob asked as he was leaving if I wanted it done. I said no and he said that's what he figured, but he still had to ask. 

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, cherryTreez said:

Wow! That seems crazy to me. I have a 3 year old son. All his pediatrician said was 'oh you left him intact. Do you know how to take care of that?'  

 

The answer can be summed up in three words: "Leave it alone."

 

[cherryTreez]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

The answer can be summed up in three words: "Leave it alone."

 

I knew that. He is my second son and all the boys in my family are left intact. She was trying to be helpful.  I am thankful for that.

[rchorse]

All three of our boys are uncircumcised. The reaction from the doctors and nurses was mixed. Some acted surprised and seemed to think we were weirdos, while others said they were glad, and there's really no reason to do it.

Our boys are now 9, 7 and 4, and we've had exactly zero problems because they're not circumcised and we've had exactly zero extra work or care in terms of cleaning and hygiene.

[Hamba Tuhan]

16 hours ago, pogi said:

My son is 28 months old, so it was very recent.  We told her that we wanted to think about it before making any decisions.  Her office called us like 5 times in 3 days telling us that we need to do it now and not delay as delaying can increase risks.

Wow, I didn't realise this was all in recent years. The high pressure you experienced sounds unethical. Do you have a medical ombudsman where you live that you can make a report to? I certainly would.

[pogi]

5 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Wow, I didn't realise this was all in recent years. The high pressure you experienced sounds unethical. Do you have a medical ombudsman where you live that you can make a report to? I certainly would.

Good idea, that is something I will look into.  The sad part about it is that I really like his pediatrician.  She has really gone out to bat for us when we had some issues with the nurses in the hospital and has been incredibly supportive and helpful in addressing his needs with albinism, etc. , so I have a hard time confronting her - but something needs to change, so I do plan on talking to her myself as well to address my concerns. 

[Tacenda]

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

Good idea, that is something I will look into.  The sad part about it is that I really like his pediatrician.  She has really gone out to bat for us when we had some issues with the nurses in the hospital and has been incredibly supportive and helpful in addressing his needs with albinism, etc. , so I have a hard time confronting her - but something needs to change, so I do plan on talking to her myself as well to address my concerns. 

She might change her mind if she looks into it further. 

[pogi]

Just now, Tacenda said:

She might change her mind if she looks into it further. 

That's what I am hoping for 

If nothing else, I hope I can convince her to better inform her patients on the role of the foreskin and the documented risks associated with the procedure.  Parents NEED to be better informed, because this is not something that we can change our minds on.  I think if she finds out that parents have serious regrets about their decision based on the lack of information given to them at the time, she might take more care in the future to make sure they know what they are getting into, especially considering that someday this could be a legal issue for her. 

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Wow, I didn't realise this was all in recent years. The high pressure you experienced sounds unethical. Do you have a medical ombudsman where you live that you can make a report to? I certainly would.

Just before I became a father some 20-odd years ago, I educated myself on this topic, so I was loaded for bear in case I was subjected to any such pressure. To my satisfaction, I encountered nothing of the kind.

It would be a shame if the 2014 statements by the AAP and the CDC have walked society back from the enlightenment that had been occurring on this matter.

 

[RevTestament]

On 12/24/2018 at 12:59 PM, pogi said:

I thought it would be interesting to have a conversation about circumcision, it's history, religious circumcision, and the pros/cons of non-religious circumcision. 

1st, as far as I understand, the law of circumcision started with Abraham as a sign of the Lord's covenant people:

Questions I have regarding religious circumcision:

 

1) Why was this "everlasting covenant" not really everlasting?  Was that mistranslated?

It is everlasting for those males who entered into the covenant. And actually YHWH does say that He will remember the covenant He made with Abraham. Circumcision was only the token of the covenant. The covenant was not the law, but was before the law according to Paul. The law is still being fulfilled, but we now have a new and better covenant.

Quote

2) Why males only?  Were females not considered the Lord's covenant people?

Thank goodness the Lord was reasonable, and did not extend the practice to females. Females do not have any extra skin. The clitoris is not some extraneous piece of skin. Unfortunately for Muslims, Muhammed supposedly included females in desired circumcision in the Hadith, so many young female Muslims get mutilated in the name of their prophet - even in America, where it is done under the radar. Since circumcision was a sign of sacrifice in the male priesthood, it was the males who participated in preparation for the circumcision of their Savior, Yeshua Mashiach. 

Quote

The Catholic Church has condemned religious circumcision but other Coptic and Orthodoxy religions still observe the practice.  According to the Book of Mormon the law is "done away".

Why was it done away?  What exactly did Christ do to fulfill the law of circumcision?  This seems to contradict the "everlasting covenant" of the Old Testament.

Given this passage in the BoM, why do Latter-day Saints still circumcise their boys?  Why circumcise boys and not girls?  

If I was to make a poll about female genital mutilation, I am sure that probably 100% would be opposed to it, but for some reason that I don't fully understand yet, we are not apposed to male genital mutilation (circumcision).  Any insights there?  If there is no religious reason for it, why is it so commonly practiced in the US when in other Christian nations it has become less popular?  What about you Saints on the Isles of the sea, is Latter-day Saint circumcision common where you are at?

After watching a documentary on circumcision on Netfilx, I am regretting and feeling much remorse for the decision I made to circumcise my son.  I wish I would have studied this topic out more before making the decision. 

The 2 main reasons I decided to circumcise was because 1) I was told it was more hygienic (I now question that assertion), and 2) because I was concerned about bullying in gym class etc. a concern that I now think does not justify such extreme measures.  

I was naive.  I feel terrible about mutilating God's perfect creation ("the whole need no physician") and removing the enhanced potential for sexual pleasure that I did not realize was so associated with the foreskin. 

Any thoughts?

When I reactivated in the Church, I took the Lord's words that circumcision was done away in Him seriously. So, discussing this with my wife, we decided to forego the procedure for any male children we had. However, as an adult male, I physically wash myself even though I am circumcised. As children at least one of my sons did have an infection, but we just made a little extra effort to clean and use a little antibiotic ointment, and that was basically it. As grown men they have had no issues. So, in a society in which regular daily bathing is practiced, the claim that hygiene is improved through circumcision is almost moot. Do not feel terrible. I do not feel particularly deprived. However, I do feel terrible for the millions of young Muslim women who have the major portion of their orgasmic physiology removed. There really is no comparison between male circumcision and female circumcision unless the male head is removed - somehow I doubt Arabs will do that.

 

[pogi]

4 hours ago, RevTestament said:

It is everlasting for those males who entered into the covenant. And actually YHWH does say that He will remember the covenant He made with Abraham. Circumcision was only the token of the covenant. The covenant was not the law, but was before the law according to Paul. The law is still being fulfilled, but we now have a new and better covenant.

It was not simply a covenant with Abraham, but it was with all of his posterity after him as well.  What in your opinion is the covenant that replaced the covenant entered in by circumcision, with references if you have any please?  I ask because the following  passage sure makes it sound like the original will stand "throughout their generations".

Quote

And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you

Also, what do you mean "the law is still being fulfilled"?  Moroni 8 states that the law is already done away in Christ. 

4 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Thank goodness the Lord was reasonable, and did not extend the practice to females. Females do not have any extra skin. The clitoris is not some extraneous piece of skin.

This is a common misconception about female genital mutilation and female genitalia in general.

The male and female genitalia are homologous and develop from the exact same fetal organ known as the genital ridge.  Up until week 7 there is literally no difference between the male and female genitalia.  They form from the exact same foundational parts.  The testes are equivalent to the labia and ovaries, and the penis is the equivalent of the clitoris, both equipped with foreskin covering the glans, and both can even become erect.  The foreskin is equivalent to the clitoral hood in the female.  To reduce it to "some extraneous piece of skin" is not appreciative of our bodily integrity and wholeness, it is a highly sensitive part of our genital anatomy that plays several roles.  It is in no way more important or integral to the female anatomy than it is to the male anatomy.

4 hours ago, RevTestament said:

However, I do feel terrible for the millions of young Muslim women who have the major portion of their orgasmic physiology removed. There really is no comparison between male circumcision and female circumcision unless the male head is removed - somehow I doubt Arabs will do that.

To correct another misconception - the vast majority of female genital mutilation that happen in the muslim culture is an extremely minor procedure compared to full blown male circumcision as performed today - there are exceptions however of more extreme measures.  It is usually just a tiny nick in the clitoral hood - almost all of the foreskin of the clitoris is left in tact; whereas modern male circumcision removes all of it - about 12 square inches of highly sensitive genital tissue, compared to a nick in FGM.  Why one is considered ethical and the other is not is beyond me.  Clear double standard.  

Highly recommend everyone to read this absolutely wonderful article for an ethical comparison:

https://www.dovepress.com/female-genital-mutilation-and-male-circumcision-toward-an-autonomy-bas-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-MB

Edited December 28, 2018 by pogi

[pogi]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Do not feel terrible. I do not feel particularly deprived.

Thanks for your concern.  I do give myself some slack, as I did the best I could with the info I had at the time.  I thought I could trust the CDC. 

Knowing what I know now, I can't help but feel terrible however. I don't think he will have any serious adverse consequences because of it, but he didn't need to unnecessarily suffer in pain and be placed at risk for adverse events.  But the part that gets me the most is that It was my sons genitals - not mine. That is what I feel worst about - It simply was not my decision to make.  That's really what it boils down to - I should not have been able to make the decision for him.  

[Stargazer]

On 12/26/2018 at 3:56 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

So the moral of this story is that neonatal circumcision as a routine practice is pretty much needless — a cure in search of a problem. 

I suppose so.  I tend to think that Hamba is right when he talks of how circumcision was originally performed under the law of Moses.

[Stargazer]

On 12/26/2018 at 4:49 PM, Tacenda said:

Watching the Netflix show now. And something stands out as a problem right away, why would God build a human body only to have it cut out when born?

Why are we even here?  He didn't even need to create us, let alone send us here into mortality and get bitten by mosquitoes! 

Why does the Universe exist?  If God were really perfect, he wouldn't need to create anything -- since he would be complete in and of Himself!

Is there no end to the questions?

[Stargazer]

On 12/26/2018 at 5:46 PM, pogi said:

I am not aware of any complications from my circumcision either.  But I no doubt experienced excruciating pain as anesthesia was not used in 1979, and is still not used enough or properly today.  Why should I have been subjected to that in my first days of life?  "Welcome to the cruel world, now I am going to cut your genitals up for no good reason"!   I no doubt experience less pleasure - and just because we don't know what it was like without it, doesn't justify anything.  That is like intentionally causing blindness to an infant and arguing that it is ok because he won't know any different later on.

I too don't necessarily feel cheated, because, like you mentioned, I haven't known any different and am satisfied with my lived experience, but we are fortunate than no complications happened - other than severe pain and permanent loss of pleasure - which if I let myself dwell on it gives me tinges of anger that I was subjected to that as a newborn for no good reason, but I don't blame my parents.

You ended up fine, but not all do.  The following is a list of some of the documented complications from circumcision.  

Oh yeah, lets not forget about death -

 

Death occurs even without unnecessary intervention.  My brother got a medical retirement from the US Air Force because he contracted Delayed Pressure Urticaria as an unintended consequence of a flu shot they forced him to get. Is this a reason why I should refuse to get a flu shot?  I was with my baby daughter when the nurse gave her the first of a number of immunization shots.  She screamed bloody murder at that.  Should I have refused this painful procedure?

All I'm saying is that just because there are occasional bad outcomes from a medical procedure, or it might be unpleasant, that is not a reason to forbid the procedure.  The primary question for a procedure should be if it is medically necessary.  If it isn't, don't do it.

I'm not an advocate of routine circumcision, by the way.  My three youngest boys were not circumcised.  When one of my grandsons was born I suggested to my daughter in law that she not have him circumcised (it was not routinely done in that hospital, just presented as an option).  She had it done anyway. 

[pogi]

8 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Death occurs even without unnecessary intervention.  My brother got a medical retirement from the US Air Force because he contracted Delayed Pressure Urticaria as an unintended consequence of a flu shot they forced him to get. Is this a reason why I should refuse to get a flu shot?  I was with my baby daughter when the nurse gave her the first of a number of immunization shots.  She screamed bloody murder at that.  Should I have refused this painful procedure?

All I'm saying is that just because there are occasional bad outcomes from a medical procedure, or it might be unpleasant, that is not a reason to forbid the procedure.  The primary question for a procedure should be if it is medically necessary.  If it isn't, don't do it.

I'm not an advocate of routine circumcision, by the way.  My three youngest boys were not circumcised.  When one of my grandsons was born I suggested to my daughter in law that she not have him circumcised (it was not routinely done in that hospital, just presented as an option).  She had it done anyway. 

It’s all about risk vs benefit.  Are you at greater risk of dying from the flu shot or the flu?

Now apply the same logic to circumcision...

[Stargazer]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

It’s all about risk vs benefit.  Are you at greater risk of dying from the flu shot or the flu?

Now apply the same logic to circumcision...

You seem to be challenging me to change my mind.  As if I were disagreeing with you.  I'm not

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Why are we even here?  He didn't even need to create us, let alone send us here into mortality and get bitten by mosquitoes! 

Why does the Universe exist?  If God were really perfect, he wouldn't need to create anything -- since he would be complete in and of Himself!

Is there no end to the questions?

Read what I said again, I wasn't questioning God, I was questioning the practice by saying God didn't design our bodies to be cut at. 

[Storm Rider]

As far as I am concerned it is a personal choice and is no concern to anyone outside the family. I had to laugh out loud when I read the list of potential problems if one circumcised their son. I have never met a single person that had any problem with such problems. I am only attacking the logic and form of attack on circumcising boys and not which choice is better. It just struck me as odd due to minimizing any potential problems with non-circumcision while blowing up the risks of circumcision. 

If one is making a charge that one provides a better sexual life....I can only say that it does not appear to have affected anyone and the sex lives of individuals have carried on without effect.  

I have never spent one moment of ennui about our sons being circumcised and they have never mentioned it or seemed worried about it themselves.  This seems more like making a mountain out of a molehill than anything else. Do what you think is right and forget about it. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

26 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

As far as I am concerned it is a personal choice and is no concern to anyone outside the family.

Wouldn't a 'personal choice' be made, well, by the person, not the person's family?

Quote

I have never met a single person that had any problem with such problems.

And as I've noted, when I was Young Men president, we had at least half a dozen boys in our ward who were suffering from and complaining about the consequences of their circumcisions. Many of them were very angry about it. Not cool. I'm glad you and your sons don't have any problems, but it seems rather calloused (pun intended) not to care about the suffering and discomfort of others.

Edited December 30, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Read what I said again, I wasn't questioning God, I was questioning the practice by saying God didn't design our bodies to be cut at. 

Your pardon, dear sister.  It sounded like you were. 

It appears that God commanded circumcision: Genesis 17:10-11.

So, I would say that while God didn't design our bodies to be cut (I am picturing a dotted line with "cut here" LOL), He intended the cutting to be done upon His command.  Since circumcision does not have a covenantal force any longer -- due to Christ's atonement -- circumcision is no longer important.  But at one time, it was.

Edited December 30, 2018 by Stargazer

[Tacenda]

13 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Your pardon, dear sister.  It sounded like you were. 

It appears that God commanded circumcision: Genesis 17:10-11.

So, I would say that while God didn't design our bodies to be cut (I am picturing a dotted line with "cut here" LOL), He intended the cutting to be done upon His command.  Since circumcision does not have a covenantal force any longer -- due to Christ's atonement -- circumcision is no longer important.  But at one time, it was.

I'm not very good with scriptures and had forgotten that this was once a commandment in Genesis. Is there any commandment that mentions it's no longer needed? And BTW, I don't have a lot of trust in the Bible, since it comes from men saying that they've received this or that from God. How do I know if it's really so? 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I'm not very good with scriptures and had forgotten that this was once a commandment in Genesis. Is there any commandment that mentions it's no longer needed? And BTW, I don't have a lot of trust in the Bible, since it comes from men saying that they've received this or that from God. How do I know if it's really so? 

The statement that it’s no longer needed has been mentioned here repeatedly. Christ Himself told the Nephites during His visit to them that the law of circumcision is “done away” in Him. 

Edited December 30, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The statement that it’s no longer needed has been mentioned here repeatedly. Christ Himself told the Nephites during Hus visit to them that the law of circumcision is “done away” in Him. 

Missed that, Alz kicking in, thanks Scott.