I'm not sure what I make of circumcising baby boys. I'm also aware that many religious groups perform the procedure without anaesthetic. Now, a grown man (I'm pretty sure of this one!) would probably not want to undertake the operation without the chance to agree or disagree and certainly not without anaesthetic.
What are people's views on it? Is it OK? Why do it? Why is no anaesthetic used? I'd be interested to hear the fors and againsts.
xx
2006-11-30 05:24:56 · 33 answers · asked by Anonymous in Health ➔ Other - Health
It's interesting to see that people would say it's OK for a baby but too painful for a man. Is it not an infringement of the child's human rights to inflict a painful and unnecessary procedure on them?
2006-11-30 05:31:00 · update #1
I understand that in America its pretty routine to circumcise boys because they believe that it's cleaner. I say leave it alone and give them a leaflet telling them how to wash properly.
2006-11-30 06:28:31 · answer #1 · answered by Carrie S 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Yes, fingernails and toenails can trap dirt, also ears. They should be removed at birth. And female genitals, the labial folds and clitoral hood---those should be removed by female circumcision. Oh, but wait, isn't that genital mutilation? I guess that it's okay to mutilate male babie's genitals, but females shouldn't be mutilated. And the last person to be allowed to make the choice should be the owner of the genitals, the boy whose sex life may be ruined or severely damaged by the mutilation. But that doesn't matter. At least in the more civilized countries they don't mutilate babies. Circumcision is the worst hoax ever perpetrated on the male sex. A foreskin is not a birth defect; it is a birthright. ERIC
2016-05-23 05:18:44 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
PRO'S: There are some good reasons why your son should be circumcised. These include:
Circumcision lowers your son’s chances of getting a urinary tract infection (UTI) in the first year of life.
Although a rare condition, cancer of the penis is essentially eliminated in circumcised males.
Research shows that males who are circumcised have a slightly lower risk of getting sexually transmitted diseases.
Circumcision eliminates foreskin infection that occur at the peak ages of 3 to 5 years.
Circumcision prevents phimosis, a narrow opening that makes it impossible to retract the foreskin at a later age.
Genital hygiene, which is particularly important in unsanitary conditions, may be easier after circumcision
CON'S: Circumcision may be more risky if done later in life. Parents should try to make a decision about circumcision before or soon after their son is born and not wait until later.
Although uncommon, complication such as local infection and bleeding can occur as a result of the circumcision. On rare occasions, the foreskin may be cut too short or too long, or circumcision may heal improperly.
Many also believe that the removal of the foreskin can desensitize the tip of the penis, causing a decrease in sexual pleasure later in life.
You also asked why no Anaesthetic is used.....I read that a local anesthetic can be injected to produce a penile nerve block and has been shown to lower pain and stress in infants.
2006-11-30 05:36:11 · answer #3 · answered by TRUSTME 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Yes, is a very good idea to have your son circumcised
Don't believe those who talk about mutilation and all that bullshit. Circumcision is NOT an amputation. Circumcision is NOT comparable at all to female circumcision, which is something completely different.
Circumcision is beneficial, keeps the penis cleaner and lowers the risk of urinary infections, as well as the risk of contracting STD's such as AIDS, herpes, or syphilis.
2006-11-30 09:20:04 · answer #4 · answered by Scuba 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
...had it done when I was a newborn, and wouldn't want it any other way. Who'd WANT a memory of that operation??
Later: well, this question has attracted quite a following. Does anyone else think those terming the operation "barbaric" and "perverted" are being just a bit melodramatic? I mean, take a breath, people! This is Planet Reality calling...for crying tears in a bucket, high school was a hell of a lot more traumatic than this operation, eh? And I survived both, but given the choice, if I had to repeat one of them, I'd take the operation any day...
2006-11-30 05:27:04 · answer #5 · answered by Rusting 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
No anesthetic used to be the norm because it was mistakenly believed that the infants couldn't feel pain, which is of course nonsense! There are decided health advantages to circumcision, but if a little extra care is taken to keep the boy clean, it shouldn't really make all that much difference. A lot of folks will say its unnecessary (which is probably true if extra care is taken to keep the baby clean) but the latest research indicates that in the long run circumcision does have protective advantages against disease, including HIV/AIDS.
2006-11-30 05:31:29 · answer #6 · answered by Paul H 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
CIRCUMCISION IS VERY BENEFICIAL, its cleaner and several research bodies have concluded that circumcised men have less risk of contracting STD's such as AIDS-HIV or herpes.
Uncircumcised penises are difficult to keep clean, and more prone to infections and penile cancer, studies have shown.
A circumcised penis is naturally clean and virtually free from urinary infection. You will not have to worry again with careful washing of your penis.
Is it NOT true that the AAP (American Academy of Paediatrics) does not recommend circumcision. They simply say they leave the decision to parents. But recently, and specially after the New Zealand study, the AAP has been discussing if it may be necessary to change their policy and recommend circumcision to all newborns as they used to do, so in the future we may see that the AAP advocates again circumcision.
Have a look at: http://www.baby-health.net/articles/381.html
About STD's:
As I said, several studies carried out by prestigious research bodies have concluded that uncircumcised penises are more prone to infections and contraction of STD's, including AIDS-HIV. Circumcised men have been proved to be up to seven times less likely to be infected than those who are uncircumcised. Have a look at this site: http://icuxbridge.icnetwork.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=14095142&method=full&siteid=53340&headline=-circumcision-protects-against-aids--name_page.html
As for women, studies also show that circumcision also protects female partners from AIDS-HIV and other STD's. Browse this article: http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_releases/2006/02_08_06.html
About sensitivity of a circumcised penis:
No medical or physiological study has proved that circumcision reduces sensitivity, opposed to common belief. The American Academy of Paediatrics (AAP) confirms this on their web site; have a look at: http://www.aap.org/pubed/zzzjzmemh4c.htm
Circumcision is an easy and nowadays painless procedure, which has many benefits, and virtually no risks.
Circumcision is NOT an amputation. Circumcision is NOT comparable at all to female circumcision, which is something completely different.
Circumcision rates are INCREASING nowadays, both in the United States and overseas. Many African and South American countries with little circumcision tradition are starting to promote the procedure to help to reduce the AIDS-HIV infection rates.
I very much hope you make the right decision and choose, if you have a boy, to have him circumcised.
2006-11-30 08:48:00 · answer #7 · answered by popibz 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
This is a barbaric practice more common in the US than anywhere else. Don't believe all the hype about it being safer, cleaner etc. It is as stated a barbaric mutilation of an individual that cannot express his own opinion. It amazes me that people routinely have their newborns circumcised without giving it any thought but would be appalled if someone suggested mutilating a newborn daughter. Think about that for awhile. Meantime anesthetics are becoming common place even for newborns going through circumcision but that needs to be verified with your particular doctor before the procedure is performed.
2006-11-30 05:30:36 · answer #8 · answered by Tulip 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
When I have my son he will be circumcised. For me its not a question of religion, but one of cleanliness, and with regard to his future lover. I have never met a circumcised man who wished his parents would have left him as a baby with foreskin intact. And I think that no anesthetic is used on babys' because their small bodies have little tolerance to drugs, I not sure if absolutely no drugs are used. In any case, babys heal quickly and won't remember the pain for very long.
2006-11-30 05:48:45 · answer #9 · answered by Nae 1 · 2⤊ 2⤋
There is no anaesthetic used on newborns for religious circumcisions because it is not being preformed by a medical person. In the hospital there is an anaesthetic used. It is a good idea and better for penile health. If you run into problems in later life it is not a proceure you would want period.
2006-11-30 05:28:44 · answer #10 · answered by Gone fishin' 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋