What about circumcision and pain relief for baby

"Circe" wrote in message news:fl2Cb.36$BQ5.6@fed1read03...
"Shena Delian O'Brien" wrote in message
news:mc1Cb.363683$275.1193024@attbi_s53...
Carol Ann wrote:
I personally would circumcise my son (if I had one) AND I would ask for
them
to lessen the pain during and after the procedure.

I find an uncircumcised penis quite unattractive.

Since you wouldn't be having sex with your son, why do you need to find
his penis attractive?

Point!

Funny how the saying "a face only a mother could love" doesn't seen to
extend to this.

Larry McMahan wrote in message ...

Finally, the reason they are reluctant to anesthetise for a circ is
that babies often have very bad reactions to anesthesia. I think
that is one of the worst complications of circ.

It probably has more to do with time and convenience for the doc. The
EMLA cream has to be on for 45 min to an hour to work. The nerve
blocks require preparing a needle and then administering it and is
probably a skill most OB's don't have.

--
CBI, MD

"LisaBell" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:17:39 GMT, "Chotii"
wrote:


"Carol Ann" wrote in message
link.net...

I find an uncircumcised penis quite unattractive.

I find penises in general unattractive. I think they look, if you'll
pardon
my borrowing a phrase from 'Red Dwarf', like 'the last chicken in the
shop'.

There goes your cultural bias

However, since I've learned what the extra skin on an intact/unaltered
penis
*does*, I've begun seeing circ'ed penises as...mutilated. I don't think
that's attractive.

How about infant girls with pierced ears? Quite a few seem to think
that is attractive.

I don't think that's attractive, either. I have 4 daughters. They'll get
their ears pierced (or not) when they're old enough to decide on such a
thing.

--angela

"LisaBell" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:05:25 -0800, "Circe" wrote:

Frankly, I'm stunned that elective male circumcision is still permitted
in a
country which outlaws female circumcision outright despite the fact that
doing so abridges the freedom of religious practice of some communities
in
direct contradiction of the First Amendment. This is one arena in which
US
law definitely discriminates against males.

Or not, as the case may be. Given that the vast majority of those
eligible to legislate a ban on male circumcision are not only males,
but circumcised males. They must not feel that male circumcision is
nearly as horrific and traumatic as female circumcision. I can't help
feeling that way myself. After all, I know lots of circ'd men, all of
whom not only don't feel traumatized, but are glad to have been
circ'd. I don't know of a single woman advocate of the same.

But this begs the question. WHY are they glad they were cut? Is it because
"everybody else is"? Because they're glad they didn't have to endure it as
adult men (and if so, WHY would they have to endure it as adult men?) Is it
because they've no concept of what their sexual experience might have been,
and thus cannot conceptualise what has been lost?

I continue to challenge anybody who is still reading this thread, to sign up
with the foreskin restoration list on yahoogroups (where I am not, I should
point out, a member) or the restore list on eskimo.com (where I am) and just
listen to these men describe the difference in their experiences. Some of
them were cut as babies and have restored as adults. They can describe in
great detail how their experience has changed as they have created full
coverage for the glans. Others chose to be cut as adults, and have since
been working on restoring: they know EXACTLY what they lost(*), and are
trying to get some of it back. Just *read* what they have to say. Even if
they are not entirely representative of men who have been cut, so what? They
are very self-aware. Their opinions are based on personal experience on both
sides of the equation. They are worth listening to.

--angela

(*) There are other mailing lists where advocates of circumcision meet to
discuss their own surgeries as adults. Many of them are very happy with
their decisions. Good for them. As adults, they can make choices about their
own bodies, and they live with them.

"LisaBell" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:05:25 -0800, "Circe" wrote:
Frankly, I'm stunned that elective male circumcision is still permitted
in a
country which outlaws female circumcision outright despite the fact that
doing so abridges the freedom of religious practice of some communities
in
direct contradiction of the First Amendment. This is one arena in which
US
law definitely discriminates against males.

Or not, as the case may be. Given that the vast majority of those
eligible to legislate a ban on male circumcision are not only males,
but circumcised males. They must not feel that male circumcision is
nearly as horrific and traumatic as female circumcision. I can't help
feeling that way myself. After all, I know lots of circ'd men, all of
whom not only don't feel traumatized, but are glad to have been
circ'd. I don't know of a single woman advocate of the same.

Well, there are plenty of men who are *not* happy they are circ'ed (a few of
whom have posted to this thread). And frankly, from what I have heard, it is
the *mothers* of daughters from Islamic cultures where female circumcision
is practiced who request to have it done to their daughters in the States.
So, while these women may not have enjoyed *undergoing* their circumcisions,
they are apparently happy with the results because they are culturally
disposed to be. This is no different than for the vast majority of
circumcised American males, who are perfectly happy being circumcised
because they don't know any differently and they are culturally disposed to
assume it's good.

Not that I think circumcision is such a good thing. I've no idea why
anyone with no religious decree to do it would chose to circ infant
boys. However I disagree that US law should outlaw it, not only
because it is now an American cultural (as well as religious)
practice, but because I believe that to do so would be incredibly
hostile to extensive religious communities in the US. Not a handful of
immigrants from some 3rd world tribe, but upstanding Americans of
several generations.

Ah, I see. Since it's just a few uneducated immigrants from underdeveloped,
backwater countries who practice female circumcision as part of their
religious observance, THEIR practice doesn't deserve the protection of the
First Amendment, while the Jewish practice of male circumcision does because
they've been American citizens for generations. I find that offensive on so
many levels, I can't quite find a proper response.

This is also why it isn't going to happen.

I agree it isn't going to happen any time soon. But I am willing to predict
that RIC for non-religious reasons *will* be virtually non-existent and may
well be outlawed within two generations.
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [a quarter to 2] mom)

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"Custom fabracation" -- Auto body shop sign

Daddy: You're up with the chickens this morning.
Aurora: No, I'm up with my dolls!

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

"Circe"
(snippage)
Frankly, I'm stunned that elective male circumcision is still permitted in
a
country which outlaws female circumcision outright despite the fact that
doing so abridges the freedom of religious practice of some communities in
direct contradiction of the First Amendment. This is one arena in which US
law definitely discriminates against males.

i think there are probably just too many circumcised males in power there &
the cultural balance towards not doing it hasn't tipped over to the "leave
it alone" side yet, & the tippage is being delayed by emotional investment
by circumcisees. the law need not be expected to change if cultural practice
changes, & since for some people it's a long-standing religious practice, i
can't see the law changing. fgm is a relatively new issue in western
nations - there's no "grounding" for that cultural practice, which frees
people to fully observe how repulsive it is.

my generation (i'm 33) of boys in australia were(are) 80-90% circumcised
(depending on location). my sons' generation are 80-90% UNcircumcised
(probably depending on1: religion - the jewish community is small but the
muslim community is growing; and 2: probably social class/location - purely
anecdotally, the working class seems far more inclined to use the "his dad's
done, so he will be too" justification).

between the two generations, the cultural balance tipped towards leaving it
alone without any brouhaha. at some point, medical recommendations changed
and people were free to go with their gut feeling to not have this surgery
on their little boys. when my brother was born, they were whacking them off
the newborns in hospital. once this pre-arrangement ceased to exist, &
parents had to go looking for a dr who would do it, the procedure as a
cultural practice had to, of necessity, come to an end because frankly it
goes against many people's grain to actively seek out a dr to cause their
baby pain when there is no demonstrable benefit.

you should expect the balance will tip at some point in your country
(whereupon the law suits will start flooding in ;-) but to be honest, i
think there are too many people there with an emotional investment in their
circumcision, & they don't want things to change, because it means
acknowledging that their parents were "wrong" and they themselves may have
been "wrong" (if they have circumcised sons). were the tippage to occur
naturally without the emotive public discussion, it would happen faster by
my speculation, & with more of the view that what used to happen doesn't
happen so much now, rather than the view that the old way was wrong (& the
implication thereby that "someone is to blame") - with the associated camp
who emotively claim circumcision is right & must be fought for. do you see
what i mean?

having said that, the thought of circumcising healthy babies makes me
cringe, but the thought of doing it without anaesthetic or analgesia of any
kind makes me cringe much, much more. *that* is unjustifiable on any
grounds. it's just brutal. it amazes me that cultural practices combined
with emotional investment can be used to continue brutal practices that
benefit nobody. i'd suggest people need to step back from the idea that it's
their decision to make about their son's penis. i cannot see how this could
be. it is their son's penis, not theirs. they'd find precious few of these
sons would go ahead with a medically unwarranted circumcision if they were
required to wait until the age of 18 & make the decision themselves.

i do think the current crop of americans who pursue circumcision for their
sons are stepping into a minefield.
kylie

"Circe" wrote in message
news:%k8Cb.144$BQ5.5@fed1read03...

Well, there are plenty of men who are *not* happy they are circ'ed (a few
of
whom have posted to this thread). And frankly, from what I have heard, it
is
the *mothers* of daughters from Islamic cultures where female circumcision
is practiced who request to have it done to their daughters in the States.
So, while these women may not have enjoyed *undergoing* their
circumcisions,
they are apparently happy with the results because they are culturally
disposed to be. This is no different than for the vast majority of
circumcised American males, who are perfectly happy being circumcised
because they don't know any differently and they are culturally disposed
to
assume it's good.

Bingo - you hit it right on the head. (no pun intended).

The problem with all of the adult testimonials is that it is simply
impossible to tell what is biological and what is psychological. People have
a strong tendancy to alter their perceptions to fit their views. The mind is
a terible thing.

As for female circs - I think that is mixing apples with organges
(or.....no, won't go there). The female circ's (of which there are many
different procedures) are (usually) much more radical surgeries designed to
make sex unenjoyable or impossible. Despite the claims of some there is no
evidence that this was the original intent or the result of male circ (and
it certainly wasn't the reason it became widespread amongst Christians)

..
I agree it isn't going to happen any time soon. But I am willing to
predict
that RIC for non-religious reasons *will* be virtually non-existent and
may
well be outlawed within two generations.

My prediction is that insurers will stop paying for it and when that happens
the rates will rapidly diminish. I think most of us will see it happen. I
doubt there will be an outright ban anytime soon because of outrage from
those who practice it as a religious right. Besides, when they become the
only ones doing it the others will loose interest.

--
CBI, MD

"0tterbot" wrote in message
...

between the two generations, the cultural balance tipped towards leaving
it
alone without any brouhaha. at some point, medical recommendations changed
and people were free to go with their gut feeling to not have this surgery
on their little boys. when my brother was born, they were whacking them
off
the newborns in hospital. once this pre-arrangement ceased to exist, &
parents had to go looking for a dr who would do it, the procedure as a
cultural practice had to, of necessity, come to an end because frankly it
goes against many people's grain to actively seek out a dr to cause their
baby pain when there is no demonstrable benefit.

A similar thing happened in England. It was as popular as in the US and then
the national health service stopped paying for it and the rates plummetted.
Chances are something similar will eventually happen in the US


it amazes me that cultural practices combined
with emotional investment can be used to continue brutal practices that
benefit nobody.

It's amazing what a closed door will do.

--
CBI, MD

"T" wrote in message
et...
Do you know the name of the cream?

One popular one in the US us EMLA (eutactic mixture of lidocaine and
prilocaine). It is available by prescription and must be applied about 1
hour in advance. Since you will never either get a the doc to announce one
hour ahead of time exactly when he will be there or wait an hour after he
arives it is good that it is effective if left in place for up to 4 hours -
so at least you have half a chance.

--
CBI, MD

"Daye" wrote in message
...

Someone tried to convince me that my DD didn't remember the pain of
having her vaccinations.

Boy was that person off.

Not only do they remember them (in the short term - like until the next
visit) but they also often remember that it was the the assistant that gave
them and not the doc.


I am not convinced that infants don't remember pain.

Adults and older children generally don;t have specific memories of
infancy - painful or otherwise. But it is hard to believe that the
experiences aren't affecting later perceptions and attitudes. In fact, there
is ample evidence that painful experiences in the neonatal period affect
pain perceptions in later infancy.

--
CBI, MD