| More On Circumcision | 4 comments |
 15 Mar 2003 @ 15:04, by Raymond PowersThis comes from Jock Doubleday,author and founder of Natural Woman, Natural Man,Inc. , a California Non-Profit corporation. He distributes his NWNM newletter occassionally and this time the topic rides piggyback on my previous post about the physical and psychological risks of circumcision. One thing he asks is "Where is the men's movement's voice when it come to circumsion. Seemingly quiet. ---------------------------------------------------- Welcome to another issue of NWNM Today! This issue is concerned with the myriad hazards of circumcision and the myriad benefits of keeping the male foreskin intact. "Savages?" Many people think that ritual genital mutilation is practiced only by ignorant tribes deep in uncivilized territories of the world. But here in the United States, and in many other Western nations, genital mutilation is practiced on a daily basis. 3,300 baby boys are wounded every 24 hours. Infant males are routinely circumcised as part of the hospital birth process--for the ostensible purpose of helping them keep their penises clean and free from infection in their later years. To medical people, circumcision makes everybody a winner. The boy gets a smooth and easy-to-clean penis and "gets to look like his dad." The fee-for-service surgeon gets a paycheck. The hospital coffers are replenished. In the upside-down world of modern-day medicine, it makes more sense to cut off parts of babies that might become dirty or infected than to expect parents to teach their children good hygiene. I wonder what the culture of the Western world would look like today if half of its members were not brought into the world in pain. Following is the chapter on circumcision from my upcoming book "Spontaneous Creation: 101 Reasons Not To Have Your Baby in a Hospital." Read on... 76. You don't want your boy baby circumcised. I'm an R.N. who has worked for one-and-a-half years in a newborn nursery in a hospital. . . . When I have to set up a baby for circumcision, I feel like crying and often do. I feel like I'm betraying that being behind those eyes, as I calmly and easily strap him on the "circboard." I talk to him about what will be happening and apologize. After witnessing many circumcisions, I can say: "Yes, it hurts. It's pure and simple torture." --Hospital nurse If you ask an obstetrician why male babies are routinely circumcised in Western hospitals, he will probably give you one of 10 standard answers. 1. Removing the penile foreskin guards against urinary tract infection. There is no evidence that this claim is true. There is, however, significant evidence that the hospital setting for birth, particularly the newborn nursery, is responsible for a significant increase in the rate of infant urinary tract infection. Babies (of either sex) born in the hospital and taken to the newborn nursery are at much greater risk of urinary tract infection from stray bacteria than are home-birthed infants. (See Reason #71, "You don't want your baby exposed to hospital germs.") 2. An intact foreskin makes proper cleaning of the penis difficult. If hygiene were really the concern, obstetricians would also cut off your baby's ears and toes at birth. Since obstetricians don't do that, we know that cleanliness is not the issue. Further, a girl's genitals are far more difficult to keep clean than a boy's, and we don't see clitoral circumcision gaining acceptance in Western hospitals. Obviously there is another reason besides concern over "cleanliness" that compels obstetricians to cut off the most sensitive tissue on your baby boy's body, often without anesthesia and in some cases without informing you beforehand. 3. An intact foreskin increases the risk of cancer. There is no evidence that this claim is true. 4. Men who remain intact may give their wives vaginal disorders. There is no evidence that this claim is true. In fact, the foreskin protects the vagina from frictional irritation during intercourse. 5. An intact boy may be confused by the difference between his penis and his circumcised father's penis, and he may suffer psychological problems as a result. There is no evidence that this claim is true. 6. Circumcision guards against contracting sexually transmitted diseases. There is no evidence that this claim is true. Contrary to popular belief, circumcising male infants does not reduce their risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases, a benefit that physicians have long been associated with the practice. In fact, circumcised men were found to be slightly more likely to contract a sexually transmitted disease in a study of 1,410 American men. While none of the intact men in this study ever had chlamydia, for instance, 26 of the circumcised men had contracted the disease. 7. Circumcision guards against herpes. There is no evidence that this claim is true. 8. Circumcision guards against AIDS. There is no evidence that this claim is true. 9. Circumcision reduces the risk of "sexual perversion." Although circumcision has been performed for religious reasons for centuries, the practice became widespread in the 1870s when physicians thought it would limit sexual practices such as masturbation and oral sex. But studies show that men who have been circumcised are more likely to engage in varied sexual practices. One study shows that circumcised men are 40 percent more likely than non-circumcised men to masturbate at least once a month. They are also more likely to have had homosexual oral sex and heterosexual anal intercourse. 10. That's just the way it is. Interestingly, this answer, while devoid of scientific information or expert analysis of any kind--analysis that one might expect from a graduate of years of medical schooling--is the best answer your obstetrician can give. That is, it's the best for him. Since no scientific studies support circumcision, and since evidence clearly shows that there is no medical or health benefit derived from circumcision, obstetricians have at least a vague understanding that linking circumcision with medicine is to perpetrate fraud. "That's just the way it is" is your obstetrician's best answer to the question, "Why circumcise?" because it's an answer that he rightly sees as the easiest way around the briar patch of parental questioning on this thorny subject. The subtext of "That's just the way it is" is, "Stop asking me questions." Of course, although obstetricians are loathe to think about, or speak the truth about, the issue of circumcision, childbirth educators, midwives and doulas cannot be so squeamish. Circumcision rates for male newborns are currently at 60 percent in U.S. hospitals--an unconscionably high rate. "That's just the way it is" isn't good enough for caregivers who truly value their clients' health. For these caregivers, a true answer to the question, "Why are boy babies circumcised?" must be found. Discovering the answer to this question is the first step in debunking the myth of the benefit of circumcision and eventually vanquishing the ritual of genital mutilation. In trying to find an answer to our question, we turn to possible psychological motivations on the part of physicians. Although it is not an easy task to pin down motivation--a "quantity" notoriously difficult to discover or measure--several reasonable theories have been put forth as to the prevalent urge on the part of obstetricians to cut off up to a third of boy babies' sensitive penile skin, thus taking away a significant portion of their future genital pleasure. 1. Obstetricians desire to "go along" with parents who want circumcision to be performed on their babies. This desire is probably prevalent among obstetricians. But one must ask, "Why should it be so?" If parents wanted a physician to give their newborn intravenous Coca-Cola, would the physician "go along" with it? Would the physician disregard scientific studies that show Coca-Cola's caramel coloring to be a documented carcinogen, and its refined sugar to be an immune system inhibitor? What is it that allows physicians to "go along" with parents on the issue of circumcision but to dismiss parents' requests for fewer interventions in general during and after birth? 2. Obstetricians feel that religious belief should take precedence over medical science. If this is true, then obstetricians should condone home birth for members of technology-wary pagan religions. Although it may be true that some obstetricians genuinely bow to members of Jewish and other faiths who demand infant circumcision, it is obvious that this acquiescencedoes not extend to members of faiths who honor the divinity in nature. Home birthers of whatever faith who choose to forego expensive birth technology receive no support from hospital obstetricians on religious grounds. Obstetricians put themselves in an extremely precarious position when they allow into the maternity ward only those religious practices that supplement physician and hospital income. 3. Obstetricians who are themselves circumcised want boy babies to "be like them." This urge is probably common among male obstetricians, although there is no way to know if it is the primary reason circumcision is so frequently performed in Western hospitals. If the "make them like me" urge is a significant contributing factor, one wonders what percentage of the urge is grounded in a desire to pass on pain. Do some obstetricians perform circumcision in anger, anger that they themselves were subjected to the pain of circumcision? Is circumcision a generational hand-me-down? Does trauma automatically beget trauma? 4. Obstetricians want to comply with the "standard of care." As mentioned in Reason #3, "You don't want a cesarean section," when the Hippocratic Oath and the standard of care butt heads, the standard of care prevails. Why? Because the standard of care is legally defensible and the Hippocratic Oath is not. Doctors who say, "I did what other doctors do" (i.e., followed the standard of care) have virtually no vulnerability in court. But doctors who say "I did no harm" are legally vulnerable if "doing no harm" conflicts with the standard of care. Thus the urge on the part of obstetricians to conform to "how it is usually done" is a fully reasonable urge--from their perspective. It is only when one looks at the harmful effect on babies that the urge is seen in a different light. Above we ascertained that the routine "scientific answers" obstetricians give to the question, "Why are male babies routinely circumcised in Western hospitals?" have no basis in fact. We acknowledged that the answer, "It's just the way it is," may be the best answer an obstetrician can give without incriminating himself and the members of his profession. We plumbed the depths of medical motivation for circumcision. Now let's turn to what science tells us are the specific effects of circumcision. What exactly is your baby "in for" if you allow him to be circumcised? Physical wounding A circumcised penis needs to be treated as a painful and infection-prone wound for several weeks after the procedure is performed. Parents of a circumcised child must take extra care when bathing their son's genitals, for instance--care not to further wound and care to keep the wound clean. The penis is both in the process of healing and subject to frequent complications such as meatal ulcers. Excessive loss of blood, both at the time of circumcision and afterward, is also a common danger. Hospital circumcision routinely takes place on the first or second day of life, when blood loss is especially dangerous. Traditional Jewish ritual circumcision, or bris, is performed on the eighth day of life and is thus the lesser of two evils, although certainly not endorsed by this author. Because circumcision carries risks of infection and hemorrhage, it can also lead to infant death. Psychological wounding Although for many years debate raged as to whether or not newborn boys feel pain during circumcision, there is no longer debate on this issue. David B. Chamberlain tells one new father's story that would be all too common, were it not for the fact that parents are usually prevented from watching their babies being circumcised: "A client told me about his experience in the delivery room when his son was born. He and his wife had prepared well for this great event, and the birth was smooth. The baby made not one cry and seemed perfectly content. To this father's surprise, however, the obstetrician proceeded to circumcise the baby, whereupon the baby let out screams of anguish! Not one cry from the birth, but a howling protest about circumcision." Empirical data (observation) alone are conclusive. But observation is further backed by science. There is considerable scientific evidence that newborns who are circumcised without anesthesia (yes, this still happens) experience pain and physiologic stress. Physical responses to circumcision include oxygen saturation and changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and cortisol levels. One report has noted that circumcised infants exhibit a stronger pain response to subsequent routine immunization than do intact infants. (The babies who were circumcised showed more signs of pain and cried longer than intact boys, suggesting a long-term effect.) In case you're still skeptical that babies feel pain from the circumcising knife, you may be interested in this graphic description of the procedure of circumcision as performed in today's hospitals. Granju and Kennedy write in their book Attachment Parenting: "The newborn baby is strapped to a restraining board, with hands and feet secured. Approximately one-third of the nerve rich skin of the penis is then lifted, clamped and sliced off, generally without benefit of any pain relief at all." The question is, if infants don't perceive circumcision as painful, why do they have to be strapped to a restraining board to undergo the operation? Interestingly, of pediatricians who recommend anesthesia for circumcision, only half actually use any form of anesthesia. Twelve percent of pediatricians believe babies do not feel pain, and 35 percent believe babies do not remember pain. Shock If you want your baby to go into shock during his first hours of life, circumcision may be a good bet. Some post-circumcision babies retreat into a deep sleep that indicates a type of mild shock. In one experiment, an EEG (brain-wave recorder) was attached to infants while circumcision was performed. The babies' brain wave patterns showed serious disturbance while they screamed. Afterwards, the babies did not just "go to sleep," they went into shock: their brain-wave patterns showed no resemblance to ordinary infant sleep-patterns for several days. Sleep-cycle alteration Newly circumcised babies have trouble sleeping for hours, even days after the operation. Following circumcision without anesthesia, the normal progression of sleep cycles is reversed, indicated by an immediate and prolonged lunge into non-REM sleep. Researchers have observed that prolonged periods of non-rapid-eye-movement sleep occur in circumcised newborns. Interactional alteration After circumcision, boy babies withdraw. They are no longer "themselves." They change their social interactions with their mothers, if indeed they have been allowed by hospital staff to interact with their mothers. In a double-blind, randomized controlled study using the Brazelton Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale, 90 percent of neonates changed behavioral states for more than 22 hours after circumcision. A similar randomized study showed the absence of these behavioral changes in babies given local anesthetics for circumcision. For two days after circumcision, "neonates who had received [local] anesthetics were more attentive to various stimuli and had greater orientation, better motor responses, decreased irritability, and a greater ability to quiet themselves when disturbed." No studies have been done that show that babies ever fully recover from the shock and trauma of this painful operation. Breastfeeding interference It need not be said that babies trying to recover from the physical and psychological trauma of circumcision are less likely to be successful breastfeeders. Although no studies have been performed comparing the breastfeeding success of circumcised and intact males, reason gives us to understand that a baby in shock cannot suckle. Conclusion In 1999, joining the major pediatric organizations in countries like Great Britain, Canada and Australia in opposing routine circumcision, the American Academy of Pediatrics released a new policy on routine infant circumcision, which reads in part: "After analysis of almost 40 years of available medical research on circumcision, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has issued new recommendations stating that the benefits are not significant enough for the AAP to recommend circumcision as a routine procedure . . . The new policy recommendations are based on analysis of all available medical literature on circumcision currently available, including new studies published in the last 10 years." Although doctor-performed circumcision violates all seven principles of the AMA Code of Ethics, and is illegal (removal of normal tissue for no medical reason is not covered by any medical license), this practice continues in modern-day hospitals. Doctors who have taken the Hippocratic Oath to "Above all, do no harm," nonchalantly compromise the integrity of male babies' bodies. Joseph Chilton Pearce writes that "the barbaric practice of circumcision bestowed wholesale on American males plays its part in the current massive and growing epidemic of violence and sexual dysfunctions of every kind" (see Reason #82, "You don't want your child to become violent). Some scientists postulate that circumcision encodes violence into the brain at a highly susceptible moment in its development. Pearce continues: "I can only dare parents, if they are going to allow this criminal act, to demand they be allowed to watch the performance. Just go watch, remembering that the infant registers pain just as you do." Author Diana Scully echoes Pearce: "Circumcision involves surgery without local anesthesia and is the most inhuman ritual I have ever observed." There is no medical or rational justification for subjecting newborns to the painful procedure of circumcision. Unfortunately, even if you write in your hospital birth plan that you don't want your boy baby circumcised, this is no guarantee that your son's genitals will remain intact. (See Reason #46, "You're not fooled by the term 'birth plan.'") The best and only way to certainly avoid circumcision is to avoid the hospital altogether. All physicians have taken the Hippocratic Oath: "Above all, do no harm." Any physician performing circumcision should have his license revoked. If parents want to circumcise their baby, they should either perform the operation themselves (taking full responsibility for all adverse outcomes, including the question, "What happened to my foreskin, Mom?"), or hire a surgical technician who has not taken the Hippocratic Oath to perform the operation, if such a technician can be found and can be stomached. There are some (a very few) midwives who will perform a circumcision if asked. Among true midwives, these practitioners are known as "medwives." The word midwife, as you remember, means "with woman," not "mutilator of male genitals." Only a midwife who has forgotten her calling and embraced the gruesome glitter of technology could find herself in the position of agreeing to cut a newborn's flesh. Fortunately, these wolves in sheep's clothing are few and far between. When seeking out a midwife, querying her on the issue of circumcision is a good way to separate the midwife wheat from the medwife chaff. If she is willing to perform (or even if she condones) circumcision, run, don't walk, to the nearest exit. In conclusion, genital mutilation is barbaric. It has no rational justification. One can imagine the general (especially feminist) uproar if clitoral "circumcision" began to be practiced in Western hospitals. But because it is boys who are being mutilated, both the general population and feminists are silent. Why? And where is leadership from the men's movement when boys too young to defend themselves are brought to the cutting board? Where are the fathers stepping forward to claim their sons intact out of the arms of medical malpractitioners? Who is it that will finally stop the cycle of pain? |