http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20...healthuscircumcision


Notice in this piece there is not a single mention of potential trauma to the infant:

http://health.yahoo.com/ency/healthwise/hw142449


You'd think with all this research documenting harm to the newborn, doctors would rediscover their connection with that horrible scream:

____________________________________

http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/brain_damage/


"Modern scientific research indicates that early childhood trauma, especially during the first two years of life when the brain is still rapidly developing, produces permanent adverse physical changes in brain development.

Although we know of no research specific to circumcision trauma causing brain damage, we include some of the related research that is applicable. Genital trauma cannot be different from trauma to other parts of the body in its potential to cause brain damage.

This page brings together articles that relate in some way to the risk of possible brain damage due to traumatic non-therapeutic circumcision. Articles are arranged in approximate chronological order of publication."


http://www.circumcision.org/

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


________________________________________

A book review:

http://primal-page.com/circum.htm

________________________________________


And a detailed literature review of the research:

http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/boyle6/


"Ramos and Boyle (2001) investigated the psychological effects associated with medical and ritual "operation tuli" circumcision procedures in the Philippines. Some 1577 boys aged 11 to 16 years (1072 boys circumcised under medical procedures; 505 subjected to ritual circumcision) were surveyed to see if genital cutting led to the development of PTSD. Interestingly, Mezey and Robbins (2001) estimated the incidence of PTSD as 1.0% to 7.8% in the general British population where circumcision is not very prevalent. On the other hand, using the PTSD-I questionnaire (Watson et al., 1991) in a predominantly circumcised population, Ramos and Boyle observed an incidence of PTSD of almost 70% among boys subjected to ritual circumcision, and 51% among boys subjected to medical circumcision (with local anaesthetic). Long-term follow-up would be needed to gauge the extent to which PTSD persists over the lifespan of these circumcised boys."

__________________________________

And another good link for education:


http://www.shirleys-wellness-c...com/circumcision.htm

This topic once came up in a medical staff meeting. Most of my colleagues are women, and virtually all of them had sons they had circumcized during infancy. The standard rationalization, even with these folks being nurses and doctors, was "better to have it done when they're little than when older," implying, of course, that infants feel little pain, or that the pain is eventually forgotten. And there is some unconvincing data showing an increased risk of urinary tract infection, although this seems to be mostly among babies whose parents irritate the foreskin with over-vigilant attention to hygiene. Along with this poorly corroborated concern is the one about the increase of sexually trasmitted disease, which is not only weak statistically, but rather moot, as the young man could, and should, be making that decision for himself along with other moral considerations.

Here is a summary of the research which invalidates the routine claims of the procedure's health benefits:

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

This was startling, as medical professionals know that infants cannot receive any anaesthesia, whereas young boys and men can, including pain meds afterward. But what lingered for me was the view of the newborn being a kind of incomplete psyche. Now, those same women may have been feeling guilty, or had mixed feelings, and knowing them I'd say most are fairly empathetic. So some probably caved to their husband's wish to have the child like the father, a sentiment that seems to reflect a fair amount of immaturity itself.

However, were the issue the cutting off of the infant girl's labia, I'm guessing the views and sentiments of my colleagues would have been quite different.

Not only is the pain of circumcision far beyond what any doctor would expect an adult patient to tolerate, the procedure being tolerated by the physician performing it raises questions, in my mind, as to the psychological character of the professional, not to mention the academic training reinforcing such callousness. How really different is the psyche of one capable of doing this procedure on a regular basis from those who torture for a living?

IOW, who would want their wife and child cared for by an obstetrician willing to do this?

______________________________________

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


"Circumcision pain is described in this research study by Howard Stang and his colleagues from the Department of Pediatrics, Group Health Inc., and the University of Minnesota Institute of Child Development: �There is no doubt that circumcisions are painful for the baby. Indeed, circumcision has become a model for the analysis of pain and stress responses in the newborn.� They report that the infant will �cry vigorously, tremble, and in some cases become mildly cyanotic [having blueness or lividness of the skin, caused by a deficiency of oxygen] because of prolonged crying.�( 7)

According to adult listeners in one study, the infant�s response during circumcision included a cry that changed with the level of pain being experienced. The most invasive part of the procedure caused the longest crying. These cries were high pitched and were judged most urgent.( 8) A subsequent study confirmed that cries with higher pitch were perceived to be more distressing and urgent.( 9) Excessive crying can itself cause harm. In a rare case, an infant cried vehemently for about ninety minutes and ruptured his stomach.( 10) Using a pacifier during circumcision reduced crying but did not affect hormonal pain response.( 11) Therefore, while crying may be absent, other body signals demonstrate that pain is always present during circumcision.

Another perspective on the infant�s response to circumcision pain is provided by Marilyn Milos, who witnessed a circumcision during her training in nursing school:




We students filed into the newborn nursery to find a baby strapped spread-eagle to a plastic board on a counter top across the room. He was struggling against his restraints�tugging, whimpering, and then crying helplessly. . . . I stroked his little head and spoke softly to him. He began to relax and was momentarily quiet. The silence was soon broken by a piercing scream�the baby�s reaction to having his foreskin pinched and crushed as the doctor attached the clamp to his penis. The shriek intensified when the doctor inserted an instrument between the foreskin and the glans (head of the penis), tearing the two structures apart. The baby started shaking his head back and forth�the only part of his body free to move�as the doctor used another clamp to crush the foreskin lengthwise, which he then cut. This made the opening of the foreskin large enough to insert a circumcision instrument, the device used to protect the glans from being severed during the surgery. The baby began to gasp and choke, breathless from his shrill continuous screams. . . . During the next stage of the surgery, the doctor crushed the foreskin against the circumcision instrument and then, finally, amputated it. The baby was limp, exhausted, spent.( 12)


There is disagreement among physicians about using anesthesia during circumcisions. Prior to the mid-1980s, anesthesia was not used because infant pain was denied by the medical community (see Chapter 2). That belief has changed among many physicians, but an anesthetic (local injection, the best option tested) still is not typically administered due to a lack of familiarity with its use, as well as the belief that it introduces additional risk.( 13) Although there is indication that the risk is minimal, most physicians who perform circumcisions do not use anesthetics even after they are taught how. When an anesthetic is used, it relieves only some but not all of the pain, and its effect wanes before the post-operative pain does.( 14) Because no experimental anesthetic has been found to be safe and effective in preventing circumcision pain, research in this area continues. Meanwhile, some physicians� views about the use of anesthesia during circumcision grow more intense. In a recent medical article on the subject, the writers described circumcision without pain relief as �barbaric.�( 15) Another physician wrote that subjecting an adult to the same practice would be �unfathomable.�( 16)

BEHAVIORAL RESPONSE FOLLOWING CIRCUMCISION

Beginning in the 1970s, a few studies investigated the effect of circumcision on infant behavior. Some studies found differences in sleep patterns and more irritability among circumcised infants.( 17) In addition, changes in infant-maternal interaction were observed during the first twenty-four hours after circumcision.( 18) For example, breast- and bottle-fed infants� feeding behavior has been shown to deteriorate after circumcision.( 19) Other behavior differences have been noted on the day following the procedure.( 20) The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Task Force on Circumcision noted these various behavioral changes resulting from circumcision in their report.( 21)

Researchers found that European reports of newborn infant responses to hearing and taste stimulation showed little difference in responses between males and females, while related tests on American infants showed significant gender differences.( 22) Investigators suggested that these differences could be the result of circumcision and not gender.

In one of the most important studies, the behavior of nearly 90 percent of circumcised infants significantly changed after the circumcision.( 23) Some became more active, and some became less active. The quality of the change generally was associated with whether they were crying or quiet respectively at the start of the circumcision. This suggests the use of different coping styles by infants when they are subjected to extreme pain. In addition, the researchers observed that circumcised infants had lessened ability to comfort themselves or to be comforted by others.

Some mothers and nurses who contacted the Circumcision Resource Center also noted behavior changes. Sally Hughes, an obstetrical nurse who has seen many circumcised infants before they go home, reported,




When you lay them on their stomachs they scream. When their diaper is wet they scream. Normally, they don�t scream if their diaper is wet. Baby boys who are not circumcised do not scream like that. The circumcised babies are more irritable, and they nurse poorly.( 24)


Mothers reported that their infants changed temperament after the circumcision, cried for extended periods at home, and seemed inconsolable.
Researchers at Children�s Hospital in Boston noted changes in sleep patterns, activity level, irritability, and mother-infant interaction. They concluded,




The persistence of specific behavioral changes after circumcision in neonates implies the presence of memory. In the short term, these behavioral changes may disrupt the adaptation of newborn infants to their postnatal environment, the development of parent-infant bonding, and feeding schedules.( 25)


There is one study of the impact of circumcision several months after the event. A group of investigators at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto reported that male infants aged four to six months had a stronger response than females to pain during vaccinations. They wondered whether circumcision was a factor and reviewed the data to test that hypothesis. Researchers found that the circumcised boys had increased behavioral pain response and cried for significantly longer periods than the uncircumcised boys.( 26)"

I find this barbaric as well. Knowing the facts I wish I had been given a choice later in life. It would have probably been "No".

I tried to discuss this with my wife when our son was born. I was against the procedure but she argued for it. After her extremely difficult delivery I submitted. I didn't want to stress her out anymore.

The doctors seemed to automatically assume we wanted it too and tried to hurry us towards it.

I wish I would have stuck to my guns.

Your story sounds pretty familiar. A dear friend of mine had to fight off the doctors and nurses from routine invasive procedures with both of her daughters, and so most hospital environments seem typically inhospitable for parents wanting to make choices that aren't considered standard practice. If parents are accustomed to accepting their doctor's word as absolute authority for themselves, then they'll do the same for their kids, assuming the doctors really know what is best.

After working with doctors closely for the past five years, it is pretty clear the profession is complicated by a high I.Q. and a drug-profit and surgical bias that keeps otherwise caring practitioners from scrutinizing their own profession; it can be questioned, but the training, which has a strong quality of brain-washing to it, habituates them in an almost mechanical compliance.

I wonder if it could be ranked up there with female genital mutilation.

It seems that the western world embraces circumcision but abhors clitorectomy.

Why the double standard?

Also, what are your thoughts on this from the Biblical perspective of circumcision? Is it part of the "old law"? Or should it still be considered by non-Jewish Christians?

There are some links you can google for re: female genital mutilation, which is still practiced in some Moslem countries; this gruesome procedure can involve cutting off not only the girl's labia, but her clitoris as well. The event apparently takes place as she is passing into puberty, consistent with widespread fear in men in Moslem societies of the power of a woman's sexuality. Moreover, it is performed, and perpetuated, by older woman who have already been disembodied themselves.

For a general read of Moslem culture's misogynist tendencies, Fatema Mernissi's book "Islam and Democracy: Fear of the Modern World" is a good read.

As for the west's double standard, my sense is that we are translating a fear of man's sexuality, even though it is mostly men raping men, as in Moslem cultures where women assault there own gender.

There is a need among abused women, at least those who haven't resolved significant subconscious conflicts, to take out their pain on their male children, especially the oldest most likely to trigger memories of the mother's own father. The idea that mothers simply don't know the pain their male infants must endure, as the procedure is hidden from them, requires one to believe the mother's capacity for empathy in seriously impaired. And this may really be the case, as . . . . .

Most women giving birth in hospitals are seriously disempowered, drugged, hooked up to all manner of machines to cover the doctor's liability, and made to fight gravity so the doctor can perform the birth as a surgical procedure. I think all of this goes a long way in brain washing the mother of her right, and power, to protect her infant, who is more the property of the doctor and nurses than a member of the family.

As for the Jewish-Christian conflict, St. Paul and the early church resolved this with great clarity. There is simply no ambiguity on this issue from a dogmatic perspective, as far as I'm concerned.

I am really glad that I fought my ex-husband on this issue. As an ex staff nurse I was aware of the trauma, the potential for infection and haemorrhage (sp?) and scarring. I just don't see why this procedure is still carried out! I think in many ways it is very similar to female genital mutilation.
Interesting point you make w.c. about the same sex issue. It is clearly a type of sexual assault in my mind!
I'm not sure whether its routine in the UK - can't remember how or when it came up for us. I do know most adult males of my acquaintance are circumcised.
FrancesB