Parents face so many difficult decisions when it comes to having a child: decisions about nursing, sleep patterns, discipline, teaching methods and, in the case of boys, whether or not to circumcise. In addition to being the most common surgery for males in the U.S., circumcision has been practiced in various cultures for centuries. Yet when it comes to the health and best interest of your newborn, is circumcision the way to go?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
13
8
8
9
11
2
1
2
7
4
4
3
5
4
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
The Anti-Circs are Living in the Past
- From Dr Brian Morris
By Dr. Brian Morris - Professor of Molecular Medical Sciences
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It is the circumcisors who are living in the past
Morris: "The anti-circs are living in the past (as usual)."
Well, excuse me, but it's not us who repeatedly, monotonously post the same picture (a colourful piece of papyrus mass-produced for modern tourists, touched up from an ambiguous carving) of a religious rite 2500 years old, again and again to show how wonderful circumcision is because it's so old.
- Hugh7
August 26, 2008 9:27PM
Reply to this Recommend (5)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
EMLA
Morris: "Anesthetic is strongly advised. It needs only be a local moreover. EMLA cream, for example,"
Until May 21, 1999, the makers of EMLA cream advised: "Pediatric Use: Controlled studies of EMLA Cream in children under the age of seven years have shown less overall benefit than in older children or adults... Due to the potential risk of methemoglobinemia and the lack of proven efficacy, EMLA Cream is not recommended for use prior to circumcision in pediatric patients."
The warning was required by the US Food and Drug Administration since February 4, 1998. On May 21, 1999, the makers of EMLA announced that the FDA had reversed this policy and now allows the use of EMLA on babies older than 37 weeks of gestation. No reason was given. No new research was cited. The makers of EMLA added: "EMLA is not recommended for use on mucous membranes."
- Hugh7
August 26, 2008 9:33PM
Reply to this Recommend (6)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
"No cutting" Yeah, right.
Morris: "if applied 2 hours before the op" - and just how many babies are prepped two hours before their circumcision? - "means no pain during or after, since the effect lasts 6 hours."
Pain occurs whenever urine gets in the wound until it is healed, every few hours for a period of one to two weeks.
"This is often used with the Plastibell - a plastic device that slips on to the head of the peni.s, and the foreskin is then tied. The foreskin and plastic device drops off after a few days. The foreskin is not cut off the shaft of the penis."
Strictly speaking this is true, since the foreskin only covers the shaft of the penis during an erection, in someone old enough for it to have separated from the glans, but if Prof. Morris is trying to suggest that there is less pain because the foreskin is not cut, he is being less than candid. The foreskin is clamped. A slit is made in the dorsal side of the foreskin.The foreskin is sliced off. The surgeon trims as much tissue as possible.
- Hugh7
August 26, 2008 9:38PM
Reply to this Recommend (6)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
gangrene is painful
Hugh, you might not know if you haven't tried it, but tying off a highly sensitive part of the body is extremely painful. Cutting off the blood supply affects the nerves, as well, and they react strongly.
Morris is being shamefully untruthful, again.
- geskoi
August 26, 2008 10:18PM
Reply to this Recommend (6)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Respiratory tract infections now?
Morris: "Recent research on a birth cohort followed closely for over 25 years has shown that circumcision has NO effect on breastfeeding, learning ability, and every other index of the many factors studied (Fergusson et al. 2008)."
This is the same birth cohort that allegedly showed circumcision protected against STDs, a claim later withdrawn, and then contradicted by a birth cohort with more circumcised men in it.
"The only adverse effect was in the uncircumcised group, who exhibited a higher incidence of lower respiratory tract infections."
So is Prof. Morris now claiming circumcision protects against lower respiratory tract infection? This is about as likely as the 19th century claims about TB and epilepsy.
"Isn't it interesting that NOCIRC chooses to ignore high quality research findings when they contradict their claims."
The way Prof. Morris ignores e.g. the Dickson study showing no protection against STDs, or the many studies showing no protection against HIV or UTI?
- Hugh7
August 26, 2008 9:42PM
Reply to this Recommend (5)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Who's ignoring the evidence?
"There are no long term memories associated with circumcision. This myth is perpetrated by the anti-circs to prey on those who are psychologically (or psychiatrically) vulnerable or disturbed, or those who are foolish enough to be duped into believing their sexual problems have something to do with their circumcision --- this ploy is used for not only propaganda but to increase their membership."
So what does Prof. Morris have to say about Taddio A, Goldbach M, Ipp M, Stevens B, Koren G. Effect of neonatal circumcision on pain responses during vaccination in boys.
Lancet 1995; 345: 291-2. which showed that circumcised babies reacted more strongly to the pain of being vaccinated than intact ones, months after their circumcisions?
- Hugh7
August 26, 2008 10:06PM
Reply to this Recommend (5)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Anaesthetic "not the standard of care"
Morris: "Their historical diatribe about pain felt by children is a waste of time, when all agree that anesthetic should be used."
Not quite all. Doctor X claimed:
“* he/she had tried using local anaesthetic … but found that the infant appeard to be in just as much pain, if not more * the needle to inject the anaesthetic is very painful, as is the local anaesthetic itself * there is a concern about the increased chance of infection … * there is a concern regarding potential allergic reaction to the anaesthetic * local anaesthetic tends to distort the site of the circumcision and make it more difficult to perform * the period of restraint for the infant in the cirucmsion board is prolonged when using local anaesthetic, and the restraint causes the infant distress * in the community, local anaesthetic is not used, and not the standard of care”
and this was in the report absolving Dr X from blame in the death of a baby after a Plastibell(TM) blocked his urethra.
- Hugh7
August 26, 2008 10:11PM
Reply to this Recommend (5)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Respiratory tract infections?
I can't but feel that all your numerous charges of desperation in defeat, emotive rants, propagandist statements are all amusingly ironic incidences of the pot calling the kettle black.
I think this particular extract will go a small way to illustrating that point.
"This is all purile [sic] propaganda and scare tactics to confuddle the reader... The only adverse effect was in the uncircumcised group, who exhibited a higher incidence of lower respiratory tract infections."
And are you HONESTLY trying to imply that the foreskin might induce lower respiratory infections?
If so - it is most certainly YOU who is living in the past. I thought all the self-respecting pro-circs had quietly buried the more outrageous sounding purported health benefits from male and female circumcision a few decades back. If not, it would be good for you to name which benefits from this list that you endorse - so that we might more fully understand your condition and position.
Prevention/cure of: masturbation, bed-wetting, epilepsy, paralysis, convulsions, headache, insanity, idiocy, paralysis, strabismus, rectal prolapse, hydrocephalus, clubfoot, alcoholism, arthritic hips, asthma, balanitis, blindness, boils, cervical cancer, chicken pox, epididymitis, epilepsy, gallstones, gout, hernia, HIV, hydrocephaly, hydrocoele, hypertension, insanity, kidney disease, kleptomaina, leprosy, moral depravity, paraphimosis, penile cancer, plague, phimosis, posthitis, prostate cancer, rheumatism, schistosoma, spinal curvature, stomach infection, tuberculosis, urinary tract infections and/or yeast infections.
- lordpasternack
December 7, 2008 5:29PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.