Botched circumcision on Ontario newborn

[Bill Bumface]

What a tragic waste of life. My brain cramps trying to comprehend this. Will the parents ever get over this? I don't really see how you would.

[The Yen Man]

What's really tragic for the parents is that they lost their child over something that was completely unnecessary. To lose a fully healthy child because of a useless medical procedure, I don't know how the parents will ever get over it TBQH.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

What's really tragic for the parents is that they lost their child over something that was completely unnecessary. To lose a fully healthy child because of a useless medical procedure, I don't know how the parents will ever get over it TBQH.

No doubt. Any surgery comes with the risk of complications. I don't understand the mentality of putting a newborn in harm's way for no reason whatsoever. I do believe we'll see it become illegal in our lifetimes, as it should.

[FlamesAddiction]

I mentioned this in the other thread, but when my wife and I were having a baby, we decided to keep the gender as a surprise. Closer to the due date, my wife mentioned something about circumcision if it was a boy which suggested that she thought it was a foregone conclusion (no pun intended) that we would have it done if it was a boy. I am pretty sure that I could have talked her out of it if I needed to, but we ended up having a girl so it was moot anyway.

A lot of people in our generation just had it done and no questions were asked. A lot of women I know think it looks funny if it isn't done and that seems to be one of the driving factors. It just became a cultural norm. It is so senseless that this baby died from something so unnecessary. I couldn't imagine the guilt they must feel.

[SeeGeeWhy]

If only we had some sort of hotline to report barbaric cultural practices. Where is Trudeau on this?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Was the ancient religious practice instituted to make it harder for a male to masturbate since you kinda need lube if circumcised?

Didn't the ancients have spit?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Sliver

No doubt. Any surgery comes with the risk of complications. I don't understand the mentality of putting a newborn in harm's way for no reason whatsoever. I do believe we'll see it become illegal in our lifetimes, as it should.

It's actually likely to be quite the opposite. As the impact circumcision has on the spread of disease becomes more well known, various major health organizations are reversing their stance on circumcision and beginning to push it.

Around 2010, the majority of the major organizations were saying it was unnecessary or recommending against it. Since then, the AMA, the WHO, and the CDC have all stated the health benefits likely outweigh the risks:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/sc...roup-says.html

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014...31063301112102

Here are the facts, based on published, peer-reviewed and independently monitored studies

The risk of complications from newborn circumcision in U.S. hospitals is estimated to be about 0.2%. The most common complication is bleeding, which can be readily controlled. Infection and penile injuries are very rare.

Fewer Infections

The benefits of circumcision that accrue during childhood include a marked reduction in urinary-tract infections, which affect one in 100 uncircumcised boys, mainly during the first two years of life, and inflammation or infection under the foreskin, which affects around 17 in 100 uncircumcised boys before the age of 8. Circumcision reduces the risk of these problems by around 60%. In adulthood, circumcision has been shown to reduce the risk of HIV infection in men by 50% to 60%, and is now recommended by the World Health Organization as an HIV prevention strategy.

But yes, this could all fit into the other thread on the exact same topic.

[troutman]

blankall - HIV infection risk is really related to Africans, and not very relevant in North America?

You seem to get your information from one camp, while there is another camp that is recommending the opposite. I'm not sure there is enough research yet for us to be confident in either position so far.

Anti-camp:

http://www.circumcision.org/studies.htm

Pro-camp:

http://www.circinfo.net/

[zamler]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

If only we had some sort of hotline to report barbaric cultural practices. Where is Trudeau on this?

It's no secret I am not JT's biggest fan but what exactly do you expect the PM to do?

[bigtmac19]

Absolutely devastating story.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by troutman

blankall - HIV infection risk is really related to Africans, and not very relevant in North America?

You seem to get your information from one camp, while there is another camp that is recommending the opposite. I'm not sure there is enough research yet for us to be confident in either position so far.

Anti-camp:

http://www.circumcision.org/studies.htm

Pro-camp:

http://www.circinfo.net/

If only there was something more effective than a foreskin to reduce the risk of HIV.

[OldDutch]

Really surprised to see the reaction here to this. Maybe because the article inflames people, but really not everyone who chooses to get this done for their children are barbaric monsters looking to mutilate their children for little or no informed reason.

I did a ton of research for my first son, and talked to several very respected local pediatricians for their candid take. You know the kind of people who value science and child well being. Both of them have got this procedure done for their children. They both endorse it. Religion had nothing to do with either of their endorsements, and I am not a very religious person.

Folks on here who are fathers and have not got it done I respect your opinion. Those who aren't fathers, your opinion is about as relevant to me as those "when I have a kid..." people. Just don't treat people who have done this for their children, as some kind of ignorant negligent morons. Not everyone is, and maybe take some time to read the arguments on the other side before demonizing a group you have no idea about.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by troutman

blankall - HIV infection risk is really related to Africans, and not very relevant in North America?

You seem to get your information from one camp, while there is another camp that is recommending the opposite. I'm not sure there is enough research yet for us to be confident in either position so far.

Anti-camp:

http://www.circumcision.org/studies.htm

Pro-camp:

http://www.circinfo.net/

There are over 3000 new HIV infections in Canada every year. On top of that you have deaths caused by other STIs like HPV.

Yes, circumcision comes with its risks. However, holding out a single case as a reason to ban circumcision is the same logic the anti-vaccination crowd follows. You hold out the tragic, yet extremely rare, case of harm as an example of the norm. Meanwhile the hundreds of HIV cases it prevents every year don't create the same shocking headlines.

The CDC and AMA are now stating that the health benefits outweigh the risks. The Canadian Pediatrics Society recently reversed their position recommending against it towards an entirely balanced approach:

http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision

Essentially, the health benefits are clear, but "ethics" are a consideration which prevents these organizations from recommending it across the board.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

If only there was something more effective than a foreskin to reduce the risk of HIV.

It's been shown time and time again that contraceptives have failures and people don't always use them. The most effective strategies are those that take a multi-pronged approach that would also include avoiding high risk behaviour to begin with.

[evman150]

Barbaric.

I don't give a flying fata if there are "maybe" some health benefits to it, I'm not cutting off a part of my son's penis.

I mean, run that through your head a couple of times. Penis. Cutting off part of. Blood. Pain. Seriously?

[GGG]

If you read what the CDC position is its hard to call it an endorsement. They even acknowledge that the benefits seen in African populations may not be seen in American pops.

There final recommendations is that there shouldn't be barriers to it and that the religious practices of the parents should be considered.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

Really surprised to see the reaction here to this. Maybe because the article inflames people, but really not everyone who chooses to get this done for their children are barbaric monsters looking to mutilate their children for little or no informed reason.

I did a ton of research for my first son, and talked to several very respected local pediatricians for their candid take. You know the kind of people who value science and child well being. Both of them have got this procedure done for their children. They both endorse it. Religion had nothing to do with either of their endorsements, and I am not a very religious person.

Folks on here who are fathers and have not got it done I respect your opinion. Those who aren't fathers, your opinion is about as relevant to me as those "when I have a kid..." people. Just don't treat people who have done this for their children, as some kind of ignorant negligent morons. Not everyone is, and maybe take some time to read the arguments on the other side before demonizing a group you have no idea about.

I would think that "have a penis" allows someone to have a relevant opinion on this topic. Why do we have to have kids to have an opinion on the affect of circumcision? Especially when a lot of the talk in here isn't necessarily about health as much as it is about perceptions and traditions. Single people (people most likely to be exposed to the health risks of STIs and the like) will have a totally different perspective on this than people who are contemplating it for their own children. You don't find that perspective relevant?

[Armchair Quarterback]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

Really surprised to see the reaction here to this. Maybe because the article inflames people, but really not everyone who chooses to get this done for their children are barbaric monsters looking to mutilate their children for little or no informed reason.

I did a ton of research for my first son, and talked to several very respected local pediatricians for their candid take. You know the kind of people who value science and child well being. Both of them have got this procedure done for their children. They both endorse it. Religion had nothing to do with either of their endorsements, and I am not a very religious person.

Folks on here who are fathers and have not got it done I respect your opinion. Those who aren't fathers, your opinion is about as relevant to me as those "when I have a kid..." people. Just don't treat people who have done this for their children, as some kind of ignorant negligent morons. Not everyone is, and maybe take some time to read the arguments on the other side before demonizing a group you have no idea about.

I'm not sure if everyone actually read the article. It clearly says that the circumcision was done, then when signs of excessive bleeding occurred, they took the baby to emergency. The emergency doctor misdiagnosed the shock and delayed treatment which ended up killing the baby. So it wasn't just the procedure but some medical screwing up that helped it along.

I don't have strong views on getting snipped or not but it doesn't seem to be really that medically necessary. Of course, aesthetically speaking, women probably have less affinity for the anteater look. And whether or not it should be permitted for religious reasons is a very touchy subject.

But I would like to add to the conversation that sometimes circumcision has to be performed on adult or adolescent males who have consistent histories of infections. And I bet you those guys wish they had had it done when they were too little to remember...because from what I hear, it sucks having it done when you're older. Like really sucks.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by blankall

Essentially, the health benefits are clear, but "ethics" are a consideration which prevents these organizations from recommending it across the board.

I disagree that anything is "clear". I can post just as many links from other medical organizations recommending the opposite. Where do you get your information?

[Coach]

Originally Posted by blankall

There are over 3000 new HIV infections in Canada every year. On top of that you have deaths caused by other STIs like HPV.

Yes, circumcision comes with its risks. However, holding out a single case as a reason to ban circumcision is the same logic the anti-vaccination crowd follows. You hold out the tragic, yet extremely rare, case of harm as an example of the norm. Meanwhile the hundreds of HIV cases it prevents every year don't create the same shocking headlines.

The CDC and AMA are now stating that the health benefits outweigh the risks. The Canadian Pediatrics Society recently reversed their position recommending against it towards an entirely balanced approach:

http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision

Essentially, the health benefits are clear, but "ethics" are a consideration which prevents these organizations from recommending it across the board.

Yet there are ways to try and prevent STIs that make a practice like circumcision completely redundant. Championing it as an effective method for preventing disease when there are better and easier ways to do so seems very odd to me. Why are we continuing to cut off pieces of kids when we could be teaching them how to care for/protect themselves properly instead? How is that a better option?

Originally Posted by Armchair Quarterback

Of course, aesthetically speaking, women probably have less affinity for the anteater look. .

I'm interested in hearing women chime in on this. It was a notion that seemed pretty prevalent when I was young, leading to teasing of anyone who was revealed to be that way. It bred a sexual self-consciousness in me, something that kids definitely don;t need on top of everything else.

As an adult, I have rarely even had a woman mention it, and the few that have say they don't really notice a difference. Could be just lip service, but there were never complaints and we continued to go about our business. I have a few friends who are uncut as well and none of us have ever had a girl decide she wasn't hopping on because we weren't cut.

So I'm genuinely interested in a woman's take. Why is there a stigma against it, or is that just a social perception? If you DO find it more attractive, can you explain why you prefer something cut after the fact vs what it is actually supposed to be?