The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding: Circumcision

By Danelle Frisbie © 2012



Genital cutting ('circumcision') can have a dramatic impact on successful breastfeeding, as can other forms of trauma in the first days, weeks and months of human life. An especially crucial time for mother/baby bonding and secure attachment development (instinctual and important for normal health, and contributing to mother's milk production and baby's suckling/feeding habits) is the first month of life. During this time it is paramount to protect baby from any and all unnecessary pain, stress and traumatic events. There are, of course, times when medical necessity wins out over baby's need for security, protection and avoidance of pain; circumcision, however, is not one of those times.

We receive a significantly large volume of mail from mothers who notice that their baby feeds differently (or no longer wants to nurse at all) post-circumcision. Those who note the most significant change are often mothers who dearly wish to breastfeed, but find they are returned with a baby who is "completely different - not himself" after genital cutting. Too often mothers ponder with tear-filled eyes, "Why didn't anyone tell me this could happen?"

And this is a justifiable question to ask. After all, we have mountains of literature and research on the science of human lactation and on intact care and circumcision. We know what factors lead to the most probable successful outcome of breastfeeding (and secure attachment), and we know which factors present a risk to successful breastfeeding, or increase failure to thrive potential. Genital cutting (on female or male babies) is one significant risk factor.

So powerful is the detrimental effect of circumcision on breastfeeding that many state hospitals (especially in the Western and some Southern U.S. states) have made the move to not allow circumcision to take place in the first week(s) post-birth. Instead, if a parent elects to surgically amputate the prepuce organ from their baby's body, they must schedule the surgery for a later date. Lactation consultants working within these hospitals have stated that failure to thrive rates decrease when genital cutting decreases. We've seen in other hospital records that the number of babies who suffer from failure to thrive and feeding complications (as well as parent-reported cases of 'colic' and overall agitation/fussiness) are positively correlated with two things: (1) male sex and (2) being circumcised.

If parental and professional observation exposes the realities of the circumcision / breastfeeding troubles connection; if research supports such notations; if hospital records and lactation consultants' cases reinforce the realities of it all; and if we have the resources to provide expecting mothers with all available information on the topic, why are we not doing so?

This was not always the case. Genital cutting began in the United States in an effort to curtail masturbation among boys and reduce sexual 'promiscuity' among men who were serving overseas. It was a failed attempt (promoted and pushed by Drs. Kellogg and Graham) but one that was so flooded within media at the time, that it seeped into our every day lives in birthing units around the nation by the 1950s/60s. Many baby boys born at the time were cut before their mothers even held them as perfect, whole babies, or had a chance to say, "No" to circumcision. However, thanks in part to the feminist movement of the 1960s/70s, women started to wake up to the realities of birth and what was happening to them - to their bodies - and to the bodies of their babies. Nurses and other medical professionals began speaking up to expose the old lie that "babies don't feel pain" and as the natural birth movement took hold, women who were awake and conscious for their births and first breastfeeding days began to question circumcision and see first hand how it changed their babies.

Newspaper and magazine articles, as well as books began to be published on the subject of circumcision, and in 1985 The National Organization of Circumcision Resource Centers (NOCIRC) was founded by Marilyn Milos, R.N., in California.

La Leche League International (LLLI) started its efforts in the latter half of the 1950s, and quickly became a trusted resource and refuge for nursing mothers and their babies. Several early authors seem to have been in-the-know on the harmful effect that genital cutting can have on breastfeeding, because cautions were in place in the early editions of La Leche League International's first book, The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding.

Prior to any national organizations gathering information on circumcision, LLLI had 'Circumcision' indexed in the text of its early editions:


When reading the books, expecting mothers learned that (1) circumcision is painful and unnecessary, (2) circumcision is an optional surgery that need never happen, (3) circumcision, even if chosen, can be done at a later date so as not to impair breastfeeding, (4) circumcision can harm bonding between mother and baby, and (5) additional academic resources are available to learn more about the realities of circumcision.

Although factually flawed in some information presented at the time (eg. there is zero medical evidence that supports the myth that a baby is less likely to hemorrhage at 8 days old versus any other time in the newborn's life as coagulation and clotting factors develop slowly over the first 6-12 months of a baby's life and prothrombin levels are at <80% throughout childhood), the following is an excerpt from the 1981 edition of The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding. (1) 

ELECTIVE SURGERY FOR YOU OR BABY 
If you are going to be in the hospital anyway for the birth of your baby, you or you doctor may suggest that you have some other medical matter attended to. Examples of elective surgery for the mother include stripping the legs of varicose veins or tying the fallopian tubes (tubal ligation). As for the baby, it may be considered almost routine to circumcise boy babies when they are only a few hours or days old. But circumcision is an elective surgery and you have a choice of whether or not to have your baby circumcised. You can also choose to wait a while before having this done. We bring these subjects up because, physically and emotionally, these procedures all take their toll on mother and child. Since they represent elective surgery, their appropriateness at this critical time must be questioned.  
Circumcision is as painful a procedure to a newborn as it is to an adult. As a religious rite, circumcision is not performed until the baby is eight days old, when he is less apt to hemorrhage. The reasons given in the past for non-religious, almost routine circumcision of the newborn were generally hygienic and are no longer accepted by many physicians and parents. If you're interested in learning more about this subject, see the Book List at the end of this book.* 
The most important reason for siding against elective surgery following childbirth is that it interferes with a mother and her new baby being together and getting to know each other. While a mother may feel very good following the birth of her baby, her body nevertheless has some recovering to do. Adding the strain of recovering from a surgical procedure might lessen her enjoyment of these early days with her baby. 
In regard to tubal ligation, there can often be an unexpected emotional reaction in the mother. When it dawns on her that the baby in her arms is her last, there may be feelings of deep sadness. It might become difficult for her to keep a normal perspective on her mothering of this baby. She may become exceedingly anxious about doing everything just right.
Whatever the inconvenience you may experience by postponing such operations for you or your baby, it is slight compared to the upheaval such surgery can cause in your life at this time.
*At the end of the 1981 edition of The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding, Edward Wallerstein's scholarly text, Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy (1980) was listed in the Book List as a recommended resource. Today, there are many more well referenced books available on the study of circumcision and its detriments, and the intact body and healthy purposes of the prepuce organ ('foreskin' or 'clitoral hood'). Research on the subject is far from lacking, which would indicate the availability to provide The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding readers with more, rather than less, resources for further research.

Unfortunately, with the subsequent edition of The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding (1987), any mention of circumcision was omitted from the text. It was dropped from the index, and this section on elective surgery was removed. However, sections before and after this portion of the text remain somewhat similar, even into the 5th Edition (1991) suggesting the removal was deliberate.


The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding is now in its 8th edition (2010). Despite the fact that we now know more than ever about infant pain experience, neurological wellbeing, development and feeding as they pertain to the newborn period, over 30 years later information on circumcision's powerful potential detriment to successful breastfeeding has yet to be re-included in the LLLI text.


In response to this absence of information that breastfeeding women deserve to have before their babies are born, a petition was started by one Canadian mother and breastfeeding advocate (not affiliated with DrMomma.org in any manner) urging La Leche League International to once again include said information. You can view and sign the petition here. 

Replying to this petition, Diana West, IBCLC, La Leche League Leader and co-author of The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding 8th Edition, writes via Mothering.com, "I want to address the breastfeeding community directly about this petition." She continues: 
First, those supporting the petition are absolutely right that there are medical and psychological consequences to circumcision that clearly have the potential to negatively affect breastfeeding simply because most circumcisions are performed in the first week when breastfeeding is particularly vulnerable and research has clearly shown that pain negatively affects breastfeeding.  
I haven't yet dug into the research -- is there any particular to this issue? If so send to me at dwest@bfar.org -- But pain from circumcision is documented as an impediment to effective breastfeeding in Nancy Mohrbacher's excellent textbook, Breastfeeding Answers Made Simple (2010, Hale Publishing, page 114t, 116). So for this reason, I and my co-authors Diane Wiessinger and Teresa Pitman, absolutely agree that it should have been included in the 8th edition of The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding.  
So why wasn't it? 
No conspiracy here. We simply (to our shame) did not think of it. As you can see from the size of the book, we tried to include every single thing we possibly could think of, but that one honestly just slipped by us. We are really very, very human authors (just ask our families!). Also, Nancy's book was published at the exact same time as ours, so we didn't have it as a reference when we were in the writing stage.  
We, of course, completely understand that mentioning circumcision in The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding could be construed as mixing causes, but in light of the new documented information we now have about the negative effects of circumcision on breastfeeding, we absolutely will include it in the next edition if we are the authors, framing the discussion in terms of the documented medical and psychology contraindications in the context of breastfeeding FOR THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO CIRCUMCISE FOR NON-RELIGIOUS REASONS so as to avoid mixing causes.  
It would not be our intention to comment on religious circumcision, but only on the objective effect of the procedure relative to breastfeeding when it is done for reasons OTHER than religious. So please forgive us for not mentioning this important issue in the 8th edition. It was really just a human error and we are very sorry for it.  
Thankfully, there will always be future editions of The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding, because it is a uniquely "living" and ever-evolving book, so we'll absolutely have an opportunity to fix this oversight. In the meantime, if there are other changes that you'd like to see, feel free to send them to me at dwest@bfar.org. We can't promise all issues will be so easy to fix, or that we'll agree with every suggestion, but we absolutely want to hear your thoughts and ideas.  
Finally, we want you to know that we appreciate the support of the breastfeeding community more than we can express. Your warm reception of our complete re-write of this revered breastfeeding icon has been so touching to each of the three of us. We thank you all for your passion and dedication to helping breastfeeding mothers and babies. Together, we'll build even better resources for future mothers. 
Diana West, IBCLC 
La Leche League Leader  
DWest@bfar.org
We appreciate West's response to the present absence of information in LLLI's primary text, and hope to see it re-included in future editions. However, we do also wish to note that all babies, female and male, regardless of their parent's chosen faith, are born into this world equally deserving of genital autonomy and fully informed mothers. The implications of circumcision upon a newborn and his breastfeeding success do not only apply to those cutting for one reason versus another. My right to practice my religion ends where another human being's body/rights/wellbeing start -- and this applies to the stranger down the street as well as to the baby in my home. My success in breastfeeding, and the detriments that circumcision may have upon this success, are not nullified as a result of my faith.

Because religion has surfaced (and has been suggested by some to be the reason that circumcision 'disappeared' from LLLI's texts in the first place), and because it seems to be the pivotal point upon which people become uncomfortable in their ability to educate openly and honestly about circumcision and breastfeeding, it is important to highlight the fact that Jewish mothers are just as deserving of information as are mothers of any other faith. What we do with this information is up to each of us. And in fact, there is an ever growing population of Jewish parents and professionals speaking up in favor of genital autonomy for their own sons, and making powerful, compelling points along the way. See:

Judaism and Circumcision Resources
Questioning Circumcision: A Jewish Perspective
Circumcision: Identity, Gender and Power
Jewish Circumcision Resource Center
Jews Against Circumcision
Beyond The Bris
The Intactivist Movement Within Judaism
Faith Considerations on Circumcision (Judaism, Christianity, Islam)

Why shouldn't a new, young, Jewish mother know that circumcision may be detrimental to her breastfeeding relationship, and that she has the option of a Brit Shalom instead of a Brit Milah? Is there any danger that comes in offering up a whole host of options (and research based, medical truths) as they pertain to breastfeeding?

If this is going to be the one area that causes an overall silencing of circumcision / breastfeeding discourse, then let's at least allow for the discussion and voices from within Judaism. There are many to be heard and listened to today. We would, of course, encourage the inclusion of medical and research-based information on genital cutting's impact on breastfeeding in future editions of The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding. But we'd also suggest that authors dive into some of the cultural happenings in related areas as well -- don't assume that all Jewish mothers do not also want (and deserve) this information. There are some of us who are thankful to have had it in our decision making and early mothering days.


Nancy Mohrbacher's comprehensive texts Breastfeeding Answers Made Simple and Breastfeeding Answers Made Simple (Pocket Guide), as mentioned by West in her response, contain information on circumcision's detrimental impact on the breastfeeding relationship. Mohrbacher is also co-author of the excellent book, Breastfeeding Made Simple -- a book that we highly recommend new nursing moms read before their baby's birth day. It is a superb text to use in understanding breastfeeding and baby basics, as well as to proactively ward off problems and to work through issues and concerns that sometimes surface.

Another book that discusses the implications of circumcision on breastfeeding, specific to multiples, is Having Twins and More by Elizabeth Noble, OB/GYN.



Reference: 

1) Lake, C. & Booker, P. (2004). Pediatric Cardiac Anesthesia. Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins: Baltimore, MD. pp. 304-316. [Discussion about the myth of clotting happening on/by the 8th day of life and the reality that clotting factors emerge over the course of many months and years in a baby/child's development. If genital cutting is to take place, the best time to do so is when a child has reached adulthood and is healthy and strong enough to undergo the surgery by his/her own choosing.]

Related Reading: 

The Effect of Circumcision on Breastfeeding http://www.drmomma.org/2009/12/effects-of-circumcision-on.html 

Breastfeeding and Circumcision [DrMomma] http://www.drmomma.org/2009/11/breastfeeding-circumcision.html 

Circumcision Increases Breastfeeding Complications http://www.drmomma.org/2009/11/circumcision-leads-to-breastfeeding.html

Circumcision and Breastfeeding [Circumstitions] http://www.circumstitions.com/Nursing.html 

Circumcision, Breastfeeding and Bonding [CIRP] http://www.cirp.org/library/birth

Circumcision and Breastfeeding [The Milk Mama] http://themilkmama.com/2011/05/03/circumcision-and-breastfeeding



LLLI Breastfeeding / Circumcision Information Petition http://www.petitiononline.com/170211FM/petition.html






Anna Lahr, CLC, Director of PPN Oahu and Co-Director of Intact Hawaii, shares a moment with her little one while wearing a 'Circumcision Harms Breastfeeding' shirt from Made By Momma. Lahr recently presented information on circumcision at Hawaii's large New Baby Expo event, which garnered the encouragement of Dr. William Sears, M.D. 


Request a set of the following informational cards to share in your area.
$3 = set of 25
$6 = set of 50
$10 = set of 100
Request Link: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=TGRMR2NL49WYL


1 comment:

Cleveland Clinic's Pediatric Surgeon Says NO To Circumcision

By Natalie Rivera © 2012

Carlo's onesie reads, "I was made perfect. My parents kept me that way!" 

When I had my first son 10 years ago I had no idea what circumcision involved. It was just the 'thing to do' so I did it and never questioned anything about it. My son was not crying when they brought him back post-circumcision, so I thought it was 'no big deal...' That's the lie we are told as uninformed parents. What I did not know is some babies scream and fight while others slip into shock from the severe pain of genital cutting. It's not 'just a simple snip'... the foreskin is fused together with the glans (head) of the penis and must be cut apart with a surgical knife. It must be dug open and cut off. There is no such thing as a non-cutting method of circumcision. I feel horrible for allowing someone to do this to my first precious baby. I did not do my job to protect him, and I am so sorry.

This time we had a homebirth. A few weeks before my second son, Carlo, was born (January 2012) I was calling around to find someone to do the procedure (I still had not looked into circumcision and actually thought people who called it 'mutilation' were insane... After all, I was not cutting his arms or legs off!).

I called the Cleveland Clinic Children's Hospital (Ohio) and when I asked the nurse about circumcision the pediatric surgeon said he wished to speak to me. He got on the phone and explained the entire circumcision procedure to me. This was the first time anyone had done so. He said that in his medical and personal opinion he would NOT circumcise. He said that if it was his son he wouldn't have it done. More and more people are leaving their sons intact today and by the time my son is sexually active the norm will be INTACT. This physician also mentioned that God doesn't make mistakes and there is no medical reason to circumcise. He reminded me that it is purely 'cosmetic' and almost exclusive to the United States.

I decided that if a surgeon (who would be making money off of this procedure) advised not to do it, I'd better look into things further, so I did some research. I read up on the 'pros' and the cons of circumcision and I watched a video of it being done. When I showed my husband he immediately said, "No way are we going to put our son through that!" I talked with a few people who have intact sons and husbands and they all assured me they are GREAT the way God made them and wouldn't want to be any other way!

I'm so thankful that someone took the time to inform and educate me on this subject. It saved Carlo from this mutilation... Yes, I said it: mutilation. When it comes to circumcision, we need to step up and speak out on behalf of our sons, because if they could speak at birth, they would say NO!

~~~~

Natalie Rivera mothers her four children and homeschools in the Cleveland, OH area. She hopes that by sharing her experience and volunteering with Intact Ohio, other expecting parents are encouraged to look into circumcision before their own baby boy arrives. Natalie says she will always be thankful to this surgeon at the Cleveland Clinic for taking the time to speak with her about the realities of circumcision, and sparing her second son. She and her husband are two of the multiple thousands today in North America who are becoming informed and keeping future sons intact.

Read more from parents raising both circumcised and intact sons at I Circumcised My Son: Healing From Regret.

Research, resources and references at Are You Fully Informed?




.
1 comment:

Why I Speak Up

By Anna Bilyeu © 2012

"Why don't you just mind your own business?"

"This is a private matter - butt out!"

"Why are you shoving your opinion down our throats? You're so judgmental!"

These are examples of responses I have heard and seen, given to people who speak up for babies in regards to RIC (Routine Infant Circumcision). This is the story of why I continue to speak up, despite my discomfort, or unease, or any negativity I might receive in response. These are the reasons I refuse to stay silent when I see misinformation being spread.

My education about the male body was the same as most kids growing up in the Midwest in the 1980/90s. I don't recall even hearing the word "circumcision" until I was at least 16. It was only about 5 minutes of the human sexuality class at my Catholic high school. It consisted of our teacher basically saying, "The foreskin is a flap of skin on the end of the penis that is removed soon after birth, for hygienic reasons. I once knew a man who needed to be circumcised in old age, and the recovery was horrible. So it's better to do it early..." 

I remember my B.S. meter going off at the time, but I didn't revisit the issue until years later. What I found out horrified and angered me. The foreskin wasn't just a “flap of skin”, it was a healthy and functional part of the male body, with a purpose. I looked into the history of circumcision in this country, and saw that it wasn't health concerns that had driven its rise at all, and that in fact, there were no health benefits to doing it. Once I learned that no health organization in the world recommends routine infant circumcision, that was it. No way would I even consider doing such things to a child of mine. 

I was so angry. I felt like I had been actively deceived. I was also immensely grateful to be learning all of this before I was pregnant. I was suddenly broken hearted for all of the parents who had believed the lies and consented to it, all the while thinking they were doing the best thing for their child. I was angry and sad for all of the boys who endured the pain of the surgery as well as the recovery period, and for all of the men who experienced difficulty because of their circumcisions. For all of the partners of those men who would also be impacted. It felt like waking up and realizing that something I had believed to be true my whole life was not. Something I thought was helpful, or not a big deal, was in fact very harmful.




I had my first son in 2005. He was born in a hospital, after transferring from a homebirth. Everything ended up going fairly smoothly, and he was born 4 hours after we arrived. I remember my midwife asking if we were going to have him circumcised. When our answer of "No Way" was heard, she sighed with relief and said, "Good!" We were asked several other times by doctors and nurses during our short stay. Each time we got the same response - clear relief on their faces and "Oh good!" I still wonder what kind of responses we would have had received if we had said "yes" or "we aren't sure..." 

I continued to educate myself about circumcision during the next few years. I came across stories about complications that can occur, how it can drastically change the function of the penis. I was saddened to read that an average of 117 babies a year die from complications. I was able to see my son's body functioning normally, and there were several times, after some really messy diaper blowouts, that I was very thankful his glans was protected. It was easy to take care of him, as I knew proper intact care. i.e. - only wipe the outside like a finger, and do not retract. I saw the natural changes that come as a boy gets older, as the foreskin becomes retractable on its own, and only by the boy himself. It was becoming very clear to me that everything I had ever been told before about the intact male body was just wrong. Seeing the way it all really worked fueled my desire to spread the word.

I started to speak up to friends and family members who were expecting. I recalled my anger, wanting desperately to inform so that there would be no more regret. I tried my best to speak with love -- to consider and reconsider everything I was saying -- so that I would be heard. It wasn't enough. I did not fully realize how huge the lie about circumcision was, how long it had been repeated, and that it had really been believed by so many people. I was not listened to. My information was ignored, several times, and I felt defeated. I was starting to think that maybe I should "butt out" -- that I should just leave others to make this decision -- even if they were doing it without having all of the facts. I started to become self-conscious. Surely everyone must have thought I was a freak or a weirdo for even talking about this. I started to forget how important the facts really were, and started believing that it wasn't my problem. I didn't want to step outside my comfort zone anymore.

Soon after those experiences, I was asked by a friend who was expecting a boy if I had my son circumcised. I froze. I was just getting to know this woman; I did not want to seem like a freak right off the bat. I considered the fact that she was planning a homebirth, and told myself that she would likely come across the information on her own. I knew she was researching a lot of natural birth and parenting information, and assumed that surely she would research this as well. So I gave up my power. I failed. I didn't point her in the direction of the truth. All I said was "It isn't necessary, so we didn't do it." I had 'minded my own business' and left it to her and her husband to decide, with no attempt to open their eyes. 

 I was ashamed of myself because I let my insecurities get in the way of what was really important. After her son was born she casually mentioned that they had circumcised him. I was shocked. I carefully tried not to show it, as I did not want to offend her. Turns out, she bought into the whole 'it's cleaner' myth. She had also handed the decision over to her husband 'because he has a penis' and he took the, 'Well, it works for me!' approach, and that was that. No further research was done. 

 I was crushed, but again, said little for fear of offending her. Months later, she stumbled across some of the same information I would/should have sent her. She told me she cried for three days straight out of regret. She called me and said, "Why didn't you tell me everything? Why didn't I know?" I told her about my other experiences -- that I felt beat down and defeated -- and how this all kept me from saying what I should have said. She assured me that it wasn't my fault. That she had dropped the ball on researching it, and that it was ultimately her decision. I knew that it wasn't really my fault, but I also knew in my heart that I could have stopped it from happening. Here was the one person who would have looked at all of the information and decided against it, and I hadn't shared any of it. I knew right then that I needed to push past any discomfort or worry about how others would see me. I felt a renewed sense of responsibility -- as an educated person on the matter -- to speak up, and speak loudly. My friend went on to have another son, who was left intact. She is now an outspoken advocate, in a way that sometimes only mothers who have done it, and regret it can be.


Sliding an intact info card into preemie and newborn boxes of diapers is one effective way
to reach expecting parents with information before they have their baby.


I carefully considered the best way to be heard on the subject. It seemed to be a difficult thing to just bring up out of nowhere, or to work into a conversation with friends, let alone strangers. I am an introverted and sensitive person, and I find it difficult to speak up around people I don’t know. I take care to always speak without offending; something that often feels impossible with a subject like this. When I found the info cards and info packs on the Saving Our Sons website, it felt like I had found the perfect way to get the word out in my area, as the rates in my state are still very high. I ordered some cards and started hiding them in baby books in book stores. I also tuck them inside newborn and preemie diaper boxes. I hide them inside other baby products and items, so that they won't be found until later, when the item is home and being opened by expecting and new parents. I figure that this is a great way to get information out there, without confrontation. I ordered an info pack, so that I could have something to lend to expecting families, and they could make a truly informed decision. Facebook is also a huge help in sharing intact information. I post on my local Intact Network chapter, answer questions from parents, and pass on any information I think might be that 'light bulb' moment for people to look at circumcision in a whole new light.


It is my goal to change the dialogue, to get people to look at circumcision another way. The burden of proof is on those who wish to do it, not the other way around. A parent should never be in the position of stopping another parent from having it done. If one parent desires circumcision, they need to do the convincing. I work to empower mothers to stand up for their sons, to not take the easy way out in saying, "Well, my husband has the penis, so it's his decision." I wrote a letter to my high school, saying that I was concerned about the way they were teaching incorrect information on the topic. I pointed them to Catholics Against Circumcision, and said that I was still disturbed that so many of my classmates may have taken that information as truth, and never looked into it further.

I am no longer afraid of what people might think of me. I know that my intentions are good and if I speak the truth -- with love and thoughtfulness -- I will be heard. Things are turning around. People are looking deeper and finding out the truth. If we all speak up, our collective voice will be strong, and we can drown out the lies. I have two sons now, and I rest easy knowing I will never have to have a conversation with them about why I altered the most sensitive part of their bodies. My friend is dreading the day she will have to explain things to her older son, and that fact still weighs on my heart. I am willing to push past the discomfort that comes with discussing this issue, because I never again want to have to answer the question, "Why didn't you tell me?"


Tshirt from Made By Momma's Intact Collection
Anna Bilyeu lives with her husband and two sons in Missouri. In addition to her work as Director of Intact Missouri, she works part time from home and is pursuing a Bachelor of Health Sciences at The University of Missouri. She hopes to use her education and passion to help parents make informed choices that will positively affect their families and communities. 

Additional resources on circumcision and intact care at Should I Circumcise? The pros and cons of infant circumcision.

Join with other families like Anna's friend who are Keeping Future Sons Intact here. 

 Materials for seed-planting: SavingSons.org/p/info-cards.html or at Etsy: Etsy.com/shop/SavingOurSons


*******
No comments:

2 Week Old Baby Dies From Circumcision in Norway

As reported by the Norwegian VG
Source: Gutt døde etter omskjæring i Oslo


Reidar Hjermann, Children's Ombudsman in Norway would like to see, at minimum,
an age restriction on any male genital cutting in Norway. This would protect children under the age of 15-16 from circumcision.


Another baby has died from circumcision. At two weeks old he faced complications of circumcision after he was circumcised by a doctor in Oslo, Norway. The circumcision took place at the physician's office on Oslo's East side. Currently police and the county physician are investigating the case. The baby boy was circumcised on Sunday, May 6th and died 48 hours later.  County medical officer, Peter Schou, confirms that the baby died of complications following circumcision. "We have created a formal supervision against two unnamed doctors," said Schou.

He stated that there have been several cases of circumcision gone wrong in Oslo that currently have physicians under supervision. "These are very difficult cases to investigate because patients rarely complain about circumcision, but we have serious concern from hospitals that get these kids into therapy later," he added. Each year an estimated 2,000 boys are circumcised in Norway - many of them privately and without professional control.

Health and Care Services is now considering tighter laws on circumcision, but there are intense disagreements on circumcision laws both within government and coalition parties. Some strongly advocate a ban on all genital cutting, while others wish to offer the surgical procedure through the public health system. A bill has recently circulated that would limit or ban circumcision of minors altogether.

Child Ombudsman, Reidar Hjermann, would like to see a limitation on the minimum age a child could be circumcised and feels that ritual circumcision should be banned for any child under 15-16 years of age as a matter of health and safety. Justice Policy Center spokeswoman, Jenny Klinge, said ritual circumcision of young boys should be banned altogether just as circumcision of young girls is banned across the nation.


~~~~

Additional information on newborn circumcision-related complications in the United States:

Bollinger, Dan. Lost Boys: An Estimate of U.S. Circumcision-Related Infant Deaths. Thymos: Journal of Boyhood Studies. 2010;4(1):78-90.

Baker RL. Newborn male circumcision: needless and dangerous. Sexual Medicine Today. 1979;3(11):35-36.

Death From Circumcision

Circumcision Information Resource Pages - Death

Doctors Opposing Circumcision - Statement

Circumstitions - Complications

NOHARMM - Complicaitons Incidence



Baby Dies After Circumcision Surgery Blood Loss and Heart Failure


Newborn Baby Survives Heart Failure From Circumcision


Queens Baby Dies on Table During Circumcision


Baby Dies from Circumcision in South Dakota


Baby Dies from Circumcision During Jewish Bris


New York Baby Dies from Circumcision
No comments:

Circumcision Costs Man His Penis Two Weeks Before Wedding

Tianjin is the third largest metropolitan in China and is home to some of the first and most well renowned medical institutions in the nation.

Imagine just two weeks before you are married, being convinced that a surgical procedure to remove a part of your genitals will protect you from potential sexually transmitted infections you may encounter in your new union.

You consent to the surgical amputation, not fully informed of the risks or side-effects involved, and end up losing your penis...

This is just what happened to a 21-year-old young man, Xiao He, in China this past November, 2011. Four months after he checked out, He is now suing Boadi Bohai Hospital in Tianjin where circumcision left him without a penis.

Over the first week following circumcision, He found his penis gradually changing in color from the bright (painful) red of a fresh amputation site, to a very dark, deep color. He checked himself into Shanghai Jiaotong University Affiliated Ninth People's Hospital on December 21st and soon after underwent another surgery on his penis for 'glans penis necrosis' due to circumcision.

The physician performing repeat surgery completed a penis debridement and local flap angioplasty of the urethra to try and save He's penis. However, the damage resulting from circumcision was too severe and He's entire penis was removed.

He was discharged from the hospital on December 31st, and claims the hospital was responsible for the circumcision which cost him his penis. He is seeking $150,000 yuan (equivalent of $24,000 U.S. dollars) to cover medical expenses. He's newlywed bride also attempted to file suit against the hospital for emotional damages, but was denied on the basis of her age. Legal age for a woman to marry in China is 20 years, and Xiaoli had not yet reached her 20th birthday when they married in December, 2011.

The physician who performed circumcision on He is believed to be licensed in one Chinese city (Anlu City) and not Tianjin. This may play into the Peace District court proceedings which will begin next week between He and the hospital where he was circumcised.

The local Tianjin Times is reporting on He's case.



Additional resources on circumcision at: Are You Fully Informed?

~~~~

No comments:

Cameron Diaz on Circumcision



Today on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon, Cameron Diaz got quickly to the heart of things as she's been doing in all her interviews lately when she turned to the audience and said, "Can we just talk about circumcision for a second?" And continued, "Gentlemen, are you comfortable with circumcision? Are you comfortable talking about that?" With Fallon chuckling in the background and an audience making light of a subject many likely know very little about, Diaz said, "It's funny how many men actually want circumcision for their children... I would think that men would be like, 'No - don't touch it. Leave it alone.' But apparently many men are not comfortable with foreskin..." And Diaz may just be out to change that.

In the new film, What to Expect When You're Expecting, Diaz and co-star, Matthew Morrison, play a couple who venture through many new territories as they move toward parenthood. One of the subjects that comes up - and one which their characters, Jules and Evan don't see eye to eye on at first - is circumcision. Evan is Jewish, but after diving into research on the subject, Jules learns more and more just how unnecessary and barbaric infant genital cutting is.

What to Expect originally included a detailed description of just how infant circumcision happens in North America. This description of circumcision (essentially the same no matter if surgical amputation is done via Plastibell or Gomco clamp) landed on the cutting room floor.

Cameron explained in a CafeMom interview:
We knew [people were skittish] when they made us cut out a bunch about circumcision. To get a PG-13 rating we had to cut out the actual description of circumcision. So apparently it is very uncomfortable for people to hear how it works -- when you have to clamp on the foreskin, pull it over [the glans], and then slice it off. That is apparently really uncomfortable for people to hear. But I think it is important to know. America is the same way about their beef - they just want it delivered in a styrofoam package with saran wrap over it. They don't want to know how it got to you. Same thing with circumcision...
The shocker in this is not that Americans remain ignorant to the realities of circumcision, or even that this big film chance to educate the masses on infant genital cutting was passed up. Rather, it is that describing such truths would earn the film an "R" rating, while at the same time we continue to subject the most innocent of our little ones to such horrors each day...

We DO it. We just don't talk about it.

How many perfect, healthy newborn baby boys will be cut this coming Friday on the day What to Expect is released in theaters? How many of those babies will face one of the many negative consequences of circumcision? How many of their parents will regretfully find this information too late - because no one was willing to share with them? How many American boys will have their bodies permanently altered, and experience a life-long change in function? How many of those boys will grow to be men who would have liked to have their whole penis?

Who is going to speak up?

Diaz tried.

Will you?

Question circumcision. Research genital cutting. Being fully informed will never hurt you... but it may just benefit your children.

Diaz and Morrison CafeMom Interview:



Diaz TODAY Interview (includes circumcision clip from What to Expect):



Diaz on Jay Leno (includes film clip):



Diaz on Jimmy Fallon (includes film clip):



"His Body, His Choice" advocacy bracelets available at SavingSons.org
Photo courtesy of Intact Washington


Books, websites and articles on circumcision and intact care at: Are You Fully Informed?


*******
8 comments:

The Circumcision Decision: Who Made You The Decider?

By Nina Cohen © 2012

An open letter of response to Norine Dworkin-McDaniel's essay Circumcision Decision which won the 2012 Third Annual Two Kinds of People Essay Contest.

Photograph by Danelle Frisbie, Genital Integrity Awareness Week 2012, Washington D.C. 

Dear Norine,

Your sexual preference for circumcised penises aside, the genitals you chose to have cosmetically, functionally, permanently and surgically altered belong to your son. He may grow up to have preferences different from yours. His future lovers may have preferences different from yours. Your husband's preference differed from yours. As a woman who has been fortunate to have both intact and circumcised lovers, I can assure you that my preferences differ from yours.

Key men in my life would also beg to differ; my partner thanked his mother for "letting him keep" his foreskin. My brother wishes that our parents had told the doctor to leave his alone. It pains me to think about how different his introduction to life outside the womb was from mine, and how I got to keep the body I was born with, but he did not. Circumcised boys will never know what it's like to have a whole sex organ. They will never experience the full range of pleasure they were meant to have, and are likely to lose sensation as they age. Countries with lower rates of circumcision have lower rates of ED. The sensitive glans, meant to be an internal organ and protected by the foreskin, grows calloused from years of rubbing against fabric, and the most sensitive areas of the penis, such as the frenulum, are amputated in circumcision.

As for wanting your son to fit in, a significant percentage of parents are now choosing to "bring their whole baby home," which means many of your son's peers will be au naturale. The stigma around having one's whole penis is fading - as well it should! Why should human bodies in their natural form garner distaste?

As for sexual health (which should be a non-issue for babies and little boys) I recommend that you examine the studies that show that the incidence of sexually transmitted infections is lower in circumcised men. The statistical methodology is flawed. In fact, the rates of HIV infection are higher in the United States, where more sexually active men are cut than in similarly developed regions where intact men are the majority, such as in Europe.

Again, you are neither the person whose penis is being forever diminished by your choice, nor are you a "special someone" who will ever engage in sexual activity with said penis. You are mother to the boy, not "owner." You are not a doctor making a necessary medical decision; no major health organization recommends routine infant circumcision. So why should your preference to have your son's penis surgically tailored to suit you be prioritized?

Personally, I feel truly blessed to have been born a girl in America, not a boy, such that the choice to keep my body intact as nature intended was not taken away from me by parents who felt it was their right to do so. Should I happen to want my prepuce ("clitoral hood") amputated I would want to be able to make that decision for myself, as an autonomous adult.

After all, one can always make the choice to remove healthy skin for personal reasons; whereas your son cannot choose to have himself un-circumcised should he wish to have his foreskin back. At best, he could choose foreskin restoration, a process by which the remaining skin is expanded to cover the glans. Hundreds of thousands of men are restoring, though they will never truly get back what was taken from them against their will.

Furthermore, as an adult, I could be fully anesthetized prior to surgery, as well as have effective pain relief during the recovery period. Infants are not afforded this option, as it is too dangerous to properly medicate them, and local numbing agents neither suffice to fully block the pain of circumcision, nor are they consistently used on neonates. Moreover, the recovery period is spent in diapers, where the fresh surgical wound is in frequent contact with urine and feces.

I suspect that if you were to witness a circumcision (YouTube makes such things possible for all to see) the baby's cries of pain as the foreskin is ripped and clamped and cut from the glans will likely ring in your ears for some time. In young boys, the foreskin is not yet retractable, and must be severed from the glans in a manner similar to peeling fingernails away from the nail bed. Currently, I cannot hear a baby cry without flashing back to the screams of the baby boy I watched on video, as he lay strapped spread-eagled to a Circumstraint while a doctor calmly amputated the most sensitive part of his body. How the doctor could ignore the baby's obvious agony and continue with the unnecessary surgery is beyond me. The baby went from uttering heartrending shrieks to an abrupt and eery silence. Studies show that cortisol levels skyrocket in infants traumatized in this manner, followed by their systems going into shock. They withdraw physiologically to escape the unbearable pain. Some vomit and defecate; sometimes their stomachs are pumped so the surgery can proceed. Many babies have trouble breastfeeding following circumcision. Some suffer "botched" circumcisions which require corrective surgery, or worse: some die. Why we Americans think this is "normal" is beyond me.

There are profound reasons so many of the responses to your essay are intensely negative and emotional. One of the phrases invoked by those of us who fight for the rights of girls and boys (and ultimately the men those boys will one day be) to keep their genitals intact is "Circumcision: the more you know, the more you are against it." Also favored is "His body, His choice."

For dedicated advocates of universal human rights - and most especially children's rights - there is no middle ground when these rights are at stake. In routine infant circumcision the rights of newborn males to bodily integrity are violated by parents who mean well but do not see the whole picture, as well as by a medical establishment that profits from needless penile-reduction surgery on healthy intact infants.

Please do not let prejudice and parental power blind you to the sacrifice of erogenous flesh you mandate for the man your baby will one day become when you "choose circumcision" for a son. Please let him keep the body he was born with. If all were right in the world, gratuitous genital surgery would not be a "choice" parents could inflict upon their children. To cut a male infant would be as illegal is it is to cut a female infant.

It has been against federal law to cut the genitals of girls in any way, for any reason, in the United States since the 1996 FGM law went into effect (March 30, 1997). Why are male infants undeserving of similar protection, bodily autonomy and genital integrity? What is so wrong with the bodies of baby boys that amputative surgery on their healthy penises is culturally acceptable?

Babies come into this world perfect and trusting and intact. They want comfort, safety, pleasure - not fear, separation and pain. They need nurturing in loving arms and at the breasts of their mothers - not excruciating, terrifying genital surgery at the hands of callous strangers who know full well that circumcision is medically unnecessary. Circumcision is elective surgery chosen by the parents of unwitting patients - not the patients themselves, who are too young to speak for or defend themselves.

In the hope that a more empathic perspective will dawn, I urge all of us to reread Circumcision Decision with "girl" and "daughter" in place of "boy" and "son" - with the organ known as "foreskin" replaced with "clitoral hood," and with clitorises in place of penises. We protect one, why do we chop up the other?

Imagine a father telling a mother, in no uncertain terms, after all other propaganda has failed because there is no true rationale for elective genital surgery on an intact and healthy infant: "Trust me, Sweetie - if you ever want a guy to go down on our daughter, cut off the skin around her clit. She and her future boyfriends will thank us."


Cohen is a Jewish performer and teacher who grew up in Ithaca, NY, and moved to Austin, TX for the arts scene and the sunshine. When she's not at the piano or on the stage, she puts time and energy into saving babies through her work with Intact Austin.
1 comment:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...