Unnecessary procedures will not be allowed in hospital.
Not really. The Saskatoon Health Region is just restricting access to circumcisions at Royal University Hospital. You know … the hospital where babies are born and where it would be most convenient for circumcisions to take place. For now at least, circumcisions can be performed at City Hospital and St. Paul’s. Where babies are not born.
What’s with the activist nurses on maternity? Pushing breast feeding. Discouraging circumcision. What’s next?
Shouldn’t the health region look at evidence based healthcare decision making? Circumcision has documented health benefits.
And don’t even start with the “it’s not necessary so we shouldn’t use scarce health resources to provide it” blather. If that’s the argument, stop using scarce health resources for cosmetic surgery.
There are some slight medical benefits to circumcision, but before considering these, it’s crucial to look at what the purpose of the foreskin is, and what’s lost when it is removed. It’s not just a purposeless piece of skin after all–but it is a nerve-rich sheath, and when it’s not there, it adversely affects intercourse for both men and women. Look at the website or book “Sex as Nature Intended It.” Once I realized what the foreskin actually was and how it functioned, there was no way I would have it removed from my son for some negligible medical benefits. A reduction in UTIs? They are unlikely anyway, and if it happened, could be treated with antibiotics, just as with an infant girl. The HIV studies are not convincing–and even if they were, who wants to rely on circumcision to protect them–why are the HIV rates higher in the US where circ is common than in mostly intact Britain? Do you and your readers understand that in most western countries, circumcision is rarely done? No medical society recommends it, and many directly oppose it. Not to mention the risks of the surgery–sure, most go OK, but when they are botched? Circumcision can’t be reverese, although many men try to do foreskin restoration. It can be done at any time–why not let men choose? If they choose to be circumcised, it can be done more accurately on an adult penis, and with much more heavy duty pain relief than a baby can be given. Respectfully, H (who used to think the idea of not circumcising a baby boy was totally weird, and now is so relieved I learned the truth before I had my son).
Men need more pain relief because it’s a more complicated procedure in an adult.
In which countries is circumcision rare? It’s certainly not rare in the United States and Canada.
I don’t have the stats in front of me, but I think it’s about 50% in the US and dropping. Israel also has high rates understandably. Canada’s rate is surely less than 20% these days. And if you look at western Europe and Australia, the rates are less than 10%. I think I have estimated high.
Why is it more complicated for an adult man to be circed? For one thing, the foreskin has already separated from the glans. In an infant, they are fused together, much like the fingernail to the nail bed. A doctor has to guess when deciding how much foreskin to remove from an infant. It can be much more exact with an adult male. And why would the pain be greater for an adult than a baby? Just because a baby does not have a conscious memory of the procedure? Did you know that in the UK, if the National Health Service agrees to do a circumcision for medical or religious reasons (and the latter they really discourage), they insist that the parents wait until the baby is 6 months old. Why? Because they insist the baby undergo general anesthesia if they are circumcised and that’s the earliest they consider it safe. I mean, it’s not just a snip!
http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/
32% circumcision rate in Canada is not “rare”. Not even close.
And the overall rate in the US of about 66% of men being circumcised is also not “rare.”
Unless you’re using some new definition of the word.
32% is likely high–I’ve been searching around and seen lower stats for more recent years. But OK, in Canada, I will concede that it is not rare. But it is not the decision of the majority of parents by any stretch. In the US, it is definitely not rare, but the rates are falling, and it is no longer 66%. The US is an outlier among western nations with the high rates of non-medical and non-religious reasons for circumcision.
I would say that the rates in the UK, the rest of western Europe, Australia, and New Zealand are low enough that we could say the procedure is rare there.
I believe the rates will continue to fall as more people begin to understand what the foreskin is and that it has an important purpose. I do understand why it continues though–like I said, when I was first pregnant, I thought the idea of not circumcising was very strange–it’s a good thing my first child was a girl.