Facebook Pixel

Comment Reply

I never intended to get into this debate. My [step]daughter asked me
about circumcision, because she's expecting, her husband is intact, and
most of our family is circumcised, so she wanted to know which is best.
She's only a couple of weeks away from going into hospital, and doesn't
have extensive time to gather information on the issue. So I told her
I'd go do some research. It started with the hospital circ info sheet
I got from my own hospital. It said (though her hospital sheet had
a little different wording). "Considerations for Circumcision: (3)
Prevention of Cervical Cancer in Females - Circumcision was once
believed to reduce the incidence of cervical cancer in females, but
recent studies in Great Britain and the U.S show no significant
relationship between male circumcision status and incidence of
cervical cancer in their partners."

My daughter is going to have to pay for this out of her own pocket,
and couldn't understand if there no relationship to cervical cancer,
why this is one of the things she's paying for?? Later, I took the
sheet back to the hospital and asked to speak to someone about it.
I got the head of the ObGyn department. I told him that the
cervical cancer item appeared to me to be irrelevant to circumcision,
and might belong to a handout on cervical cancer (if there is such a
thing) and would indicate that one of the risks for cervical cancer is
NOT an uncircumcised partner. So why was it an argument FOR
circumcision? He said I should take it up with my daughters service
provider. I told him she will, but we were just gathering information
and surely the hospital was in the best situation to clarify information
on its own handout? He said, "we stand by our position." I didn't want
to get into an argument, so I left. As I thought about it myself, I
have to ask why cervical cancer is transmissible (no other cancers are)?
And how can a cancer associated with adult sexual activity be relevant
to neonatal circumcision? Responsible adults might decide they wish
to reduce that risk (if there is one) by getting the man circumcised.
But babies can't transmit cancer to anyone; babies don't have sex.

It got even weirder when I saw my own doctor to renew my prescription
(I've known him for 30 years). I took the hospital info sheet, and
asked him about item (3), and he said "there are certain lifetime
benefits to the procedure". He avoided directly answering. We
went back and forth a few times about this, cancer of the penis,
UTIs and etc. I told him it seemed lke a lot of mights and maybes
in the distant future, but she had to pay for it now. Then he switched
bases, and said, "she'll want him to look like his father." I was
flabbergasted, because father is intact. But again, I didn't want to
start an argument. But I did ask, did you circumcise your own sons?
And he changed bases again when he said, "well, you know it comes
down to personal choice." I said, "you were telling me there were
medical reasons now you're saying they don't matter?" He said,
I'm saying that it could go either way, and the parents should make
the decision." I wanted advice, and I didn't get any. So I finally
said, "How should parents be in a position of advising a doctor about a
surgical procedure?" He answered "It's customary".

I don't like this. I don't like it at all. I'm feel like I'm getting the
run around, and comparing notes with my daughter, she got the same
thing. She wants to know "why are we paying for this: like (1), (2),
(3) and here's the risks (1) (2) (3). I agree, and the answers should
make sense, and they shouldn't change. But it looks like nobody
really knows why baby boys should be circumcised at birth. If
parents are having to pay for something they need, at least, they
should wait until it IS needed? UTIs in boys (both doctors mentioned
them) haven't happened in our family (but a couple of parents in the
neighborhood say their girls get UTIs). So it looks like probably,
most boy children won't need it at all. Maybe they should focus
their efforts on girls instead... (I just had a horrible thought: no, I
didn't mean THAT).

I did find out that in our state of Oregon, that the neonatal circumcision
rate is only 25%, and has been falling about 1% a year. Less than 50%
of all males in the state are circed, and the vast majority of them are
older than 20. Looks like people are deciding it's not worth paying for.
It's got to make you think. Me (and my daughter) would certainly
pay for a vaccine, even out of pocket, because it *prevents* mumps,
etc. But if money is the only reason something gets done, that says
something. We shouldn't even be in this mess. I'm disgusted.

April 16, 2011 - 6:39pm

Reply

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.
By submitting this form, you agree to EmpowHER's terms of service and privacy policy