Strollerderby

Why shouldn't he say that it's better? Don't we pay doctors to tell us what is good/better/best for our health? Anyone is free to disagree with a particular doctor or practice -- or medical evidence in general -- for whatever reason, but I PREFER that my doctor tell me, "This is the course of action that I recommend and here's why." This is what our doctor did when I had questions about immunizations, and I appreciate him far more than if he had hemmed and hawed and refused to take a side.

I have no regrets, no doubts about circumcising my two boys... none.  I witnessed my second sons circumcision and it was no big deal for him.

we chose not to circumcise the baby, because my circumcised husband wishes he weren't.  we've been happy with that decision so far.

So entirely glad we chose not to circumcise!

The thought of circumcision never even crossed my mind. I'm European and most men are not circumcised there. Just the thought of making my precious brand new baby have a part of him (that wasn't broken in any way) cut off just never seemed right to me. As far as cleanliness goes all you have to do as a parent is teach your little one to pull his foreskin back and clean underneath it.

we chose not to circumcise our son after MUCH thoughtful consideration. in the end we decided that it's his body... who are we to decide which parts belong and which parts don't?

Millions of uncircumcized men running around in Europe and the UK, not dropping dead or regularly clutching themselves in pain due to Skanky Pee-Pee Disease. I don't think the US or American men are so vastly different that circumcizing offers them a better life than their uncircumcized brethren in, say, Germany or Sweden.

Subsaharan Africa, different story. But since my family will not be living there, no circumcision chez nous if we should have a son.

We didn't circumcise our first, and we won't circumcise #2 when he arrives this fall.  So far the decision has worked out just fine for us.  I was not really sure which option was best, but my husband (who is circumcised) was really against it, and the research I did suggested that there was really no significant demonstrable benefit.

I don't have children, but I wouldn't make a son's decision for him when it's unnecessary.  In the unlikely event that he developed a problem, I'd seek the least invasive solution that would be effective.

As for Schoen, he's a propagandist.  On his website, he writes (www.medicirc.org/.../anti-circumcision-groups.html):

"The anti-circumcision groups argue that by agreeing to have their newborn sons circumcised parents are robbing the infants of their human rights. In a brazen example of hypocrisy they apparently feel that newborns themselves should have the right to choose or refuse circumcision, but poor parents should not."

That's a bizarre attempt at a smear, but it's generally on par with Schoen's credibility in the debate.  In his prior book, he used many of the same out-of-context scare tactics you hint at for his latest book.  He even wrapped infant circumcision in the American flag, suggesting that it's patriotic.

As for a doctor giving his or her opinion, I agree with the first commenter that that's what doctor's should do. They have the knowledge.  However, the doctor's responsibility is to his or her patient, not the patient's parents.  When the child is healthy, surgery is not indicated. Recommending it (with the inherent risks) is therefore irresponsible.

This is particularly so when the reasons include such  claims as what the boy's future sexual partner(s) might prefer.

We chose not to circumcise.  My husband, who is circumcised, felt strongly we not circumcise our son.  I was more inclined to go with local convention, but after much discussion we agreed not to circumcise.  The first hugely positive acknowledgement and support we got for that decision was from the neonatologist (male) who discharged our son from the NICU (Our son was full term and healthy, just a stressful delivery....).  I had a great deal of respect for this particular physician, based on the way he had cared for my son during his NICU stay.  His support meant a lot to me.  Anyway, that's our story.

No question that circumcision is much better, not just for the male but also for his female partners.  There's nothing wrong with a doctor telling you that.  In fact, the American Academy of Pediatrics is reviewing all the new evidence that supports newborn circumcision, and some of us hope their new statement will look like this: mandatorycircumcision.blogspot.com/.../american-academy-of-pediatrics.html

I figure Gardasil will do a better job than circumcision re: protecting both women and men against HPV infection, and therefore against cervical cancer. It's stupid not to vaccinate boys as well if we really want to cut down on HPV-related cancers (ano-rectal as well as cervical). And since any son of mine will grow up with comprehensive sexuality education + ready access to condoms and parents who will do their part to ensure that he uses them, I'll feel OK about my parental contribution to the public health while keeping him intact. He can get himself circumcised on his own if he wants -- I trust he'll be well able to make his own decision with the information available to him in adulthood.

For the sake of argument, let's also assume my future son is gay and prefers to be the bottom/receptive partner during anal sex. Circumcising him isn't going to offer much protection against HIV in that case, nor if his primary risk is sharing syringes.

Addendum: Gardasil will also help with the "penile cancer" situation, since penile cancers are also almost exclusively caused by HPV.

I'm an atheist, but my son is as whole as God made 'em. My son has lots of extra wrinkles behind his ears and it's hard to keep them clean all the time. I better just cut his ears off... besides, the girls might like that clean headed look...

My Swedish husband was nevercircumsised.  He does not smell funny, he does not have AIDS/HIV or HPV and I have had the most pleasureable sex in my life with my husband (and I am not just saying that because we're married).  We will not be circumsising our kid.  Like a previous poster said a majorty of European men are not circumsised and I highly doubt that there is some rampant diseased riddled smelly population being covered up by the government.

I unfortunately did get HPV when I was younger from a circumsised long term boyfriend (we had been together for nearly two years).  Thankfully I am fine now and my immune system dealt with it and it was not a strain that would lead to cervical cancers (there are many many strains).  Circumsision did very little to protect me.

I have no personal opinion on circumcision either way - I think it is a matter of personal (or sometimes cultural) choice. However, I do have to LOL a little at the posters who say "Just teach him how to clean it properly, and there won't be a problem!" It makes me look back on my own childhood, and imagine all those times my parents tried to instill a sense of cleanliness and "germ-prevention" in me, their rebellious little girl.

"Did you brush your teeth?" Yes, of course...if by brushing you mean stand in the bathroom a while and wet my toothbrush in case you check it.

"Wash your hands...we're about to have dinner." Oh, sure...I'll tell you I washed 'em, but really I just ran the water and then crumpled the towel. On a good day, I rinsed them quickly, but didn't use soap.

"Did you wash behind your ears?" Well, actually, I just played with my toys in the tub until the water got cold. I didn't actually "wash" anything, and most certainly not behind my ears. But I'll tell you what you want to hear.

I don't think I was unusually dirty or unusually thick-headed about cleanliness - I think I was just being a kid.

By-the-by, my two stepsons are European (German nationals, born and raised). Neither was circumcised as an infant, and their mom and dad were diligent about keeping the boys clean and teaching them proper care of the uncut penis. However, when the boys got a little older, and were responsible for this care themselves, they both developed infections from not cleaning properly. They both ended up having to be circumcised much later - one at the age of eight, and one at six. OUCH.

So tired of this debate.  There is so much judgment on this issue, and it's incredibly irritating.  As with the breastfeeding issue, can we just stop judging?  I don't get it.  

I have a son, and it's nobody's business whether he's had a circ or not.  Jebus.

Anything that involves knifing a newborn bebe should be open to vigorous debate, if you ask me.

Just because something is common place, doesn't make it right, or good.

We did not cut our son, and we will not cut our second boy due in the fall.  We are both 100% happy with this decision and feel that it is the right one for our family and for our boys.  My boy is beautiful as he is, no modification needed.  

The cleanliness argument is what really gets to me---so circ'ed boys do not need to keep themselves clean???  That is just crazy...good hygiene means cleaning up the plumbing, cut or no cut.  

And kids probably don't make FUN of one another, since the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that only 69% of circumcised and 65% of uncircumcised adolescents know which one they are. When BRAIN cells no longer receive neural impulses from the gone foreskin these cells atrophy and die. Then the adjacent brain cells grow chaotically into the dead space. Taves used a single subject to test the actual FORCE required to penetrate a measuring apparatus. When the foreskin was retracted more than tenfold, increase in force was needed.[24] He argued that this confirms the belief of Morgan (1967) that the foreskin makes sexual penetration easier during sexual intercourse.[25] Whiddon (1953) and Foley (1966) also believed that the presence of the foreskin made sexual penetration easier.[26][27] #24 ^ Taves D (August 2002). "The intromission function of the foreskin". Med. Hypotheses 59 (2): 180–2. PMID 12208206. linkinghub.elsevier.com/.../S0306987702002505.

Answering your questions: I'm really angry being circumcised and I chose it. The negatives were never mentioned and I had to live to find out. Loss of sensitivity was the biggest. (Finally confirmed by Sorrells et al). Dr. Edgar Schoen is what they call a circumcisionist. I think he has an unhealthy view towards children's penises. He's obsessive. It's obscene. It has to make one wonder what he gets out of it. Nature knows best. Read "Sex as Nature Intended". One can over clean the foreskin. Just plain water is best. Soaps can irritate and change the pH balance causing inflammation, yeast infection. Premature retraction (tearing the foreskin and glans skin) should only be done by the boy never by anyone else even healthcare professionals. They should instruct the boy to retract himself as far as comfortably possible. Equal rights are absolute. I support mgmbill.org.

I honestly didn't have a strong opinion one way or the other, so I let my husband choose. He's circumsized, and was horrified that I even considered not doing it! If I had had to amke the choice on my own, I probably wouldn't have, not because I find it wrong, but just because it was an extra procedure to pay for.

I don't have sons and I don't really care whether other people choose to circumcise their sons or not. I think it's a personal choice for a family to make.

I do, however, take issue with some of those who are rabidly anti-circumcision. I think they just take things too far (a foreskin is not a clitoris people - and comparing circs to FGM is just wrong!!). Plus I think a lot of it just smacks of anti-semitism as well.

Live and let live people.

We're trying for a baby - had this discussion ad nauseum, read all the literature, quizzed the family members. Eventually decided for ourselves that if it's a boy, he'll not be circumcized. Who am I to cut someone else? If he wants to be circ'd when he's older, his decision...you can snip it later, but you can't put it back later.

And I don't think being anti-circumcision is even close to being anti-Semitic.

Many of the comments touch on the central issue without quite hitting it - human rights. Whose penis is it? And don't tell me "parents have to make many decisions for their childen". This is a decision they simply don't have to make, a decision unlike any other - to cut a healthy, functional part of his body off that he was only going to use once he's adult. It wouldn't be legal if it were any other part of a boy's body, or any part at all of a girl's. Leaving it to a circumcised father? "Should we let our baby have X? You don't have X so you know all about it." Not.

A poll on another site is showing exactly half of circumcised men are unhappy about it. That's a pretty poor satisfaction rate for an optional intervention.

Having to be circumcised later? In Finland, where it's never been customary and doctors know more about the foreskin than how to cut it off, the lifetime risk of circumcision is less than one in 6000.

Seven out of ten men in the world are as they were born, and they're not falling over from all those dreaded diseases - on the contrary, in Europe and Scandinavia, men commonly enjoy better health in just this area than US men. The rest of the English-speaking world tried circumcision, found it did no good and gave it up. In New Zealand, you can't find a doctor outside the biggest cities who will do it (They hated doing it and they were glad to give it up). No wonder Schoen wraps the flag around circumcision - the US is alone in the developed world in still non-religously doing it to a majority of baby boys. The rest of the world rolls its eyes.

Why shouldn't this Doctor be allowed to say what he reccomends and why? Dr. Sears does, and he's the most quoted Doctor in the parenting realm.  We'll be circumcising our twin boys, for all the reasons most pro-circ people relate, but also because neither of us has any idea how to care for an uncircumsised penis.  As the primary caregiver I would be daunted to have to take meticulous care of something so unfamiliar.  I wonder if that lack of familiarity is why so many little boys get those infections here in the US.  People like my SIL choose not to circ, despite never having seen an uncirced penis and simply have no idea how to maintain it or teach the boy to clean it.  Perhaps there should be classes.  Anti-circ people always say as long as it's properly cared for there is little risk of infection, but how can someone who has never even seen it, much less taken care of it be expected to do so properly?

Marj, At the risk of giving anti-circs more ammo, one thing neither my husband or I knew about circumsizing is that even after the site has healed completely, every time you change the boys' dipes, you're supposed to retract that skin just like you did right after the circumsision, until about age 3 or 4, apparently. We didn't know this, and our son's skin started to reattach. At his 4-week checkup, the doctor pointed it out and then had to pull the skin back. Essentially, he had to tear the skin, there was a bit of blood, and our poor baby was screaming. It was mildly traumatic. Not horrible, but bad enough, and I still can't believe that neither hospital that our boys were born at was clear about this information! Anyway, maybe you already know this, but none of my friends with boy babies did, either, when I asked them.

Even with that, we don't regret circumsizing.

Taking care of an uncircumcised infant penis involves one thing - leaving it alone. The foreskin will eventually separate from the glans on its own, but in the meantime you do nothing... no retraction, no special soaps or creams, no "Q-tips and 409" (to quote Anne Lamott). Every now and then you'll get a little pearl of smegma on the tip, which you wipe away.

I don't have a personal investment in other people's circumcision decisions, but the notion that male smegma is this filthy substance which must be pummeled into submission with bleach and Brillo pads disturbs me. Women make smegma too, so what's the big deal? Cleaning away the smegma from between your infant daughter's labia is much more involved than anything you will do for your uncircumcised infant son. We teach our daughters how to clean their genitals properly once they're bathing on their own, and help them occasionally if necessary, right? So why all the concern about an uncircumcised son's ability to do so? As Hugh7 and many other men will tell you, it's not a big deal.

Simple info here:

www.drugs.com/.../penis-care-uncircumcised.html

More detailed info here:

www.cirp.org/.../aap

Taking care of an uncircumcised infant penis involves one thing - leaving it alone. The foreskin will eventually separate from the glans on its own, but in the meantime you do nothing... no retraction, no special soaps or creams, no "Q-tips and 409" (to quote Anne Lamott). Every now and then you'll get a little pearl of smegma on the tip, which you wipe away.

I don't have a personal investment in other people's circumcision decisions, but the notion that male smegma is this filthy substance which must be pummeled into submission with bleach and Brillo pads disturbs me. Women make smegma too, so what's the big deal? Cleaning away the smegma from between your infant daughter's labia is much more involved than anything you will do for your uncircumcised infant son. We teach our daughters how to clean their genitals properly once they're bathing on their own, and help them occasionally if necessary, right? So why all the concern about an uncircumcised son's ability to do so? As Hugh7 and many other men will tell you, it's not a big deal.

Simple info here:

www.drugs.com/.../penis-care-uncircumcised.html

More detailed info here:

www.cirp.org/.../aap

I never like this debate as I always feel bad, regardless of what is said. I have two sons - the first was circumcised and the second is not circumcised. Supporters of both sides must think I'm horrible, but here are my reasons for what I did.

The first was circed to match his father. We just thought that's what should be done. My OB doctor, the one who did the circ, advocated strongly FOR circumcision and said it was something that MUST be done sooner or later, best to do it early where baby won't remember. So we did. I instantly felt I had let a painful thing happen to my baby and felt like I hadn't protected him. The poor baby cried everytime he wet his pants. But I was still okay with the decision (I guess I still am, I did what I thought was best at that time and I can't change it now). When I later received the bill for the circ, I realized why the doctor advocated so much FOR doing it - he made $425 for the surgery! And our insurance didn't cover it (found that out after the fact). The doctor sent us 4 notices until we paid him. I imagine the doctor would have told us not to do it if he wouldn't have gotten paid for it.

Fast forward 4 years - we had our second son. Ironically, our insurance does cover circ now but we opted not to do it. We figured if it HAD to be done later, we'd face it, otherwise, just leave well enough alone. 7 years later, our uncircumcised son is still healthy and fine and doesn't have any problems. I wish we would have left the first son alone, but what can I do to change it? Nothing. So that's my story, I have one son of each kind.

It's fine to have doctors recommend procedures but I think they should be biased and present both sides of the story. I'd guess this Dr. Schoen stands to make a profit if parents circumcise their boys, or at least a profit from selling books on the subject. That doesn't seem very objective to me. He should support his patients parents in whatever decision they choose.

Dr. Schoen is featured very prominently in Penn and Teller's Bullshit: Circumcision. He even wears a fetching bowtie. It's worth watching to see his arguments get destroyed by other pediatricians.  

www.youtube.com/watch