Oh the circumcisers are desperate and they have the lies to prove it. It’s been a while since I last woke up to two terrible YouTube videos full of half truths and obvious lies about circumcision.
So, let’s see. Intermountain Moms’ nurse Dani “tries to” answer this question: “Will a doctor numb a baby boy if he gets circumcised?”
Nurse Dani says “circumcision is usually done before a baby goes home from the hospital or two weeks later“… What about the other possibility, like, not doing it at all? Not mentioned, which reinforces the sense of normality that all boys are circumcised.
“And the good thing about doing it when a baby is very very new”, says nurse Dani, “is that they kinda are in a natural sleep state, this is almost a natural anesthetic”
Yes folks, that’s what she says. She must have missed that Oxford University study published in April and widely reported in the media, where “researchers at Oxford University have watched infants as young as a day old as their brains process a light prodding of their feet. The results confirm that yes, babies do indeed feel pain, and that they process it similarly to adults.”
The Time article reports that: “Until as recently as the 1980s, researchers assumed newborns did not have fully developed pain receptors, and believed that any responses babies had to pokes or pricks were merely muscular reactions.“, but clearly nurse Dani still believes it. In fact, as early as 1997, most of the neonatal circumcisions (some 95% or so) were performed without any anesthestic. The American Academy of Pediatrics on its last policy statement on circumcision states that “adequate analgesia should be provided whenever newborn circumcision is performed“.
Nurse Dani continues: “in addition to that, we give babies a binky that has sugar water on it, and let them suck on it, and that is very soothing to them“. The AAP indicates: “Nonpharmacologic techniques (eg, positioning, sucrose pacifiers) alone are insufficient to prevent procedural and postprocedural pain and are not recommended as the sole method of analgesia. They should be used only as analgesic adjuncts to improve infant comfort during circumcision.”
She then completes her statement: “and yes, they are also numbed”
So what was that all about? Why the “natural sleep state”? Why the “soothing binky with sugar water“? To make parents feel better?
Nurse Dani says “if you don’t want to watch, then that’s okay“. What’s that all about? As a parent, if anyone is going to do ANYTHING to my baby, it will be in front of me. And if it’s too horrible for me to watch, it’s probably too horrible for my baby to endure. And if on top of it all, it is unnecessary, then you better believe I’ll keep my baby safe.
No nurse Dani, I won’t recommend you to my friends or family. You are just too willing to hurt babies.
From there we go to Doctor R. who brings Dr. Geoffrey Nuss, an urologist with Urology Associates of Texas and a surgeon specialized in reconstruction of the urinary tract, to speak about circumcision.
Doctor R. spends some time making puns and jokes about circumcision.
Doctor Nuss describes the foreskin saying: “there is a redundant portion of skin that covers the glans“. How was it defined that the foreskin is “redundant“? Who ever made that call?
Asked what functions the foreskin has, doctor Nuss goes on: “mainly protecting the glans from the outside environment but really we don’t… we don’t have… it doesn’t have a major function today“. You can see him choking on his words.
Perhaps he needs to be reminded that “The amount of tissue loss estimated in the present study is more than most parents envisage from pre-operative counselling. Circumcision also ablates junctional mucosa that appears to be an important component of the overall sensory mechanism of the human penis.” Taylor JR, Lockwood AP, Taylor AJ. The prepuce: specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision. Br J Urol 1996;77:291-295.
“Why remove it, that’s a good question. Many people will remove it for religious reasons” (except that it’s not the person getting it removed the person who practices the religion, which means it is an intromission on a person’s physical integrity, an assault), he goes on: “health related reasons: the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends circumcision to prevent … ” STOP.
The AAP recommends? Let’s see what the AAP ACTUALLY says: “Although health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns, the benefits of circumcision are sufficient to justify access to this procedure for families choosing it and to warrant third-party payment for circumcision of male newborns.”
“And to prevent AIDS, AIDS, or HIV infection“. Unfortunately referring to the African studies in this non-specific way is irresponsible and does way more harm that good. Need we remind our readers that thousands of circumcised Americans have died of AIDS related complications?
“But that’s in very young boys, less than six months. Adult circumcision is much different“.
Here we have that other common myth. It’s easier when they are young. “Buy now and you will get!”. See, if the American medical community wished, they could do away with this myth by certifying for use in the United States the devices that were invented for adult circumcisions in Africa. The PrePex, the Shang Ring, the AccuCirc. With these devices the cost of an adult circumcision can decrease from thousands (due to required location and general anesthesia) to a few hundred, like infant circumcision is now. But of course that’s not a good business for the American medical community, as many adults won’t submit since they would know that their foreskin is pleasurable, and the hospitals would lose their role as suppliers of human tissue to the biomedical industry.
Asked if the foreskin makes a different for sex, dr. Nuss answers “I tell men, what you have is what you should have“. He says “changing your foreskin or altering in any way will not provide any benefit” (so what happened with those health benefits he was touting for young boys?) “ and in fact some men will complain that it’s different and they don’t like it. So I don’t recommend circumcision for enhancing sexual performance or sensation”
He says he doesn’t recommend that men get circumcised for aesthetic reasons, and he says that when men go to him for circumcision it is due to phimosis.
He says: “Unless kids are [at least] 6 months they don’t have the sensation developed to have a painful experience.” We just discussed this point at the beginning of the article. Apparently the medical community was too busy in April to read the news.
Asked what is the current trend, he says: “to circumcise most men still in America however there are many people who are advocating against it.”
Let’s think about this one point. If he knows that adult men who get circumcised often do not like it afterwards, what makes it okay for parents to decide (or for doctors to coerce parents into “deciding”) to alter a baby into a state which, if he had reach as an adult, he would not have liked it?
Asked about complications he says: “Potential complications would be shortening of the foreskin and just an altered cosmetic appearance as an adult. As a kid, you obviously will not know what the difference was as you grow up with it.”
Can we send these guys back to the 19th century, where they truly belong?