ACOG Smartens Up While DONA Throws Baby Boys To The Wolves...

I know. Has the world gone mad?! You read the post title right. I woke up this morning to find a published position from ACOG that discourages elective inductions and cesareans overall, and especially discourages either for macrosomia (big baby). Whaa??

Here are a few highlighted quotes from ACOG's statement:

“Let nature take its course.” Over the years, I’ve found this saying particularly applies to the process of giving birth. My personal experience as an ob-gyn and reams of scientific research demonstrate that Mother Nature knows best when a child is ready to be born."  - James Breeden, President of ACOG

Wait. Did you read that too? He said to let nature take its course. Sadly, I fear that these words are going to fall on the deaf ears of women who will still believe, due to long-time conditioning by Obstetricians themselves, that as long as baby is "term" then baby is ready. The funny thing is, state medical boards are ALL OVER regulating Midwives, citing the safety of women and babies as the reason. Where has the regulation been with Obstetricians who are happy to perform elective inductions and cesareans, which put baby's life at higher risk than home birth does? Where is the outcry for public safety?

Okay, okay...I give ACOG serious credit for taking a stance on this again. Yep, ACOG has long since discouraged elective anything, in favor of labor starting naturally. But, it seems that Obstetricians have not been held responsible when they do otherwise. Here's another quote from an article on Improving Birth:

"For one, induction or surgery for “suspected big baby” (macrosomia) is not medically indicated. This is one myth we hear about all the time, even though ACOG has been talking about the “imprecise” nature of diagnosing macrosomia for at least ten years. Bottom line: induction for big babies is NOT medically indicated.

Elective inductions prior to 39 weeks gestation is, again, not recommended. Studies have shown that babies do better when they are able to remain in utero until 39 weeks. In the article above, ACOG sais, “Early-term infants have higher rates of respiratory distress, respiratory failure, pneumonia, and admission to neonatal intensive care units compared with infants born at 39 to 40 weeks gestation. Infants born at 37 to 38 weeks also have a higher mortality rate than those born later." - Dr. Capetenakis, OBGYN in Encinitas, CA

So again, I have to ask where the accountability is? I am very excited that ACOG has published this. However, I am skeptical that all of a sudden Obstetricians will start practicing evidence-based medicine when it is more profitable for them and the hospital in which they have privileges to keep doing what they've been doing. And going back to the factor of women in all of this - it's going to take a LOT of effort if there is ever going to be a hope of women waking up and realizing that being uncomfortable is better than putting their baby at risk.

I was recently told a story. A friend of a friend is a L&D nurse. She kept saying that she was not going to term. She got a stomach bug at 36 weeks, contracted from the vomiting, and went in to L&D. Even though it was not causing any cervical change, she decided it was just time to get baby out. Because she was 36.6 though, they waited until just before midnight to induce, because otherwise it was against hospital policy. But she went ahead with it, with an epidural in place before the induction was started. Kept saying that she KNEW she wasn't going to term. After the delivery, she told everyone about what a blessing it was that she was in the hospital (and not at home, like my crazy friend) because baby ended up having complications.

I will keep my comments to myself here, because they aren't nice. They even include much foul language. But THIS - THIS is the type of system that women are in. The one where it's perfectly acceptable to choose to rip your baby out of the womb, just because you don't feel like being pregnant anymore. The one where it's perfectly acceptable for Obstetricians to manipulate, coerce, and even FORCE women into intervention, procedures, and consent when they had previously denied consent. My heart is heavy in knowing that we have a loooong way to go.

I also woke up this morning to a find that DONA (Doula certification organization) has published an article in their magazine that is in favor of routine infant circumcision.

"A family's decision about circumcision should come from personal values. Religious and cultural reasons usually win out over all other arguments. Otherwise, you can make the case that circumcision is mainly a cosmetic procedure, with some potential medical benefits. It typically takes less than five minutes, and complications are very rare."

:scream:  Actually, the medical need for a circumcision later in life is less than the risk of DEATH from routine circumcision. Complications are not, "very rare". From Dr.Momma.org:

Out of 100 Circumcised boys:

75 will not readily breastfeed post-op

55 will have adverse reactions from the surgery

35 will have post-op hemorrhaging to one degree or another

31 will develop meatal ulcers

10 will need to have the circumcision surgery repeated to fix prior surgical problems/error
8 will suffer infection at the surgical site

3 will develop post-operative phimosis

2 will have a more serious complication (seizure, heart attack, stroke, loss of penis, death)

1 will require additional immediate surgery and sutures to stop hemorrhage

1 will develop fibrosis

1 will develop phimosis

1 will be treated with antibiotics for a UTI (urinary tract infection)

1 will be treated with antibiotics for surgical site infection

Of those who do receive pain medication for the surgery (about 4% of those boys undergoing circumcision in the U.S.) some will have adverse reactions to the pain medication injected

Out of 100 Intact boys: 

2 will be treated with antibiotics for a UTI (fewer if the foreskin is never forcibly retracted)

1 will be told to get cut later in life for one reason or another (fewer if the foreskin is never forcibly retracted)

Note: One reader of these statistics (a man cut against his will at birth with 4 intact sons today) critiqued (quite accurately) that it is actually 100 of 100 circumcised boys who experience negative consequences as a result of circumcision. Each and every one has lost an organ responsible for a great deal of his life-long normal health and functioning.

DONA is taking a defensive stance, saying that the article does not reflect the organization's belief as a whole. If that's the case, I wonder if they would allow a guest post about elective inductions and cesareans being a perfectly acceptable choice? Or, as Gloria Lemay put it to them, what about an article endorsing the cutting of females? They have now pissed off a whole lot of people. Personally, I'm not a fan of DONA. Or of any organization, really, that capitalizes on making labor-support a certified position. I've always found that to be completely and utterly ridiculous, especially when said organizations are clear in restricting many Doulas from attending women who choose to birth unassisted, and who have made it a thing of status and income in disproportionate ways. And, as I have heard Nancy Wainer speak about the atrocities that occur in hospitals every day, and the doulas who stand by and are essentially part of the rape and injuries that happen, by holding the woman's hand and telling her that "it's okay".

But this is really a low point for DONA. Another quote from the doctor who wrote the article:

"Often dads have strong feelings about circumcision, so fathers should definitely be included in the decision-making. If the parents care about their son looking different from other boys in the neighborhood, they may research the rate of circumcision in the area." 

Right. Forgot about teaching our children that they need to look like everyone else. Except for the fact that intact is, right now, the majority. Does this apply to girls in the neighborhood who have smaller or larger breasts than average? Should we encourage breast enhancements or reductions in order for our daughters to not be made fun of? Should we start young children on contact lenses so that they will not be made fun of for wearing glasses? What about those who need to wear braces? What about children with Autism and Downs Syndrome? Should they be hidden from the general public so that they never face teasing?

This is a really shitty reason to permanently alter an infant's body without his consent. Period.

Another gem:

"But once they decide, they should be encouraged not to drive themselves crazy with second guesses - in the long run, it will probably be fine either way." - Marjorie Greenfield, MD. 

Yes. We wouldn't want parents to consider the gut feeling that they may be doing the wrong thing. After all, that's lost money! Err, I mean a child who might be ridiculed by his peers! I'm sorry, am I the only one seeing dollar signs here?!? Am I the only one seeing, "Doulas, keep your mouths shut. Do not encourage in-depth research into circumcision."?

Shame on you, DONA. Shame on you for allowing an article of this type in your print. Shame on you for essentially agreeing with the idea that Doulas should NOT be encouraging parents to keep their sons whole. I'm not sure it's possible, but I'm less of a supporter now, than I was before. You just made a joke of your entire organization.

Circumcision

I tried to think of a witty blog title for this, and finally came to the conclusion that everyone just simply needs to become informed about routine infant circumcision. Simple. Nothing complex about it. I circumcised my 7 1/2 year old son. I did not circumcise my 1 year old son. "When you know better, you do better."

Let's start with the basics:

Circumcision is an elective surgical procedure that removes healthy tissue from a healthy body. And, there's no solid medical basis behind non-medically indicated circumcision.

At this time, there is insufficient data to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. Although there are potential benefits and risks, the procedure is usually not essential to the child’s well being.

i

Approximately 117 infant boys die each year of circumcision complications. These deaths were 100% avoidable.

Baby boys can and do succumb as a result of having their foreskin removed. Circumcision-related mortality rates are not known with certainty; this study estimates the scale of this problem. This study finds that approximately 117 neonatal circumcision-related deaths (9.01/100,000) occur annually in the United States, about 1.3% of male neonatal deaths from all causes. Because infant circumcision is elective, all of these deaths are avoidable. This study also identifies reasons why accurate data on these deaths are not available, some of the obstacles to preventing these deaths, and some solutions to overcome them.

ii

The prepuce is highly vascularized, so it is likely to hemorrhage when cut, and severing the frenular artery is very common. Infants have a miniscule amount of blood in their tiny bodies and can tolerate only about a 20 percent blood loss before hypovolemia, hypovolemic shock, and death. A 4000 gram male newborn has only 11.5oz (340 ml) of total blood volume at birth, 85 ml per kilogram of weight. Blood loss of only 2.3oz, (68 ml), 20% of total blood volume at birth is sufficient to cause hypovolemia. Many newborns, and especially premature infants, weigh much less and a smaller amount of blood loss would be sufficient to trigger hypovolemic shock in those infants. Circumcision of infants, therefore, carries the inherent danger of hypovolemic shock and death.

iii

Circumcision should be a human rights issue, not parental choice.

I talk to women all the time who are horrified over the idea of female circumcision. Why? Girls get infections FAR more often than boys do. Yeast, UTI, irritation (especially in young girls), etc. If you claim that male circumcision is necessary for infection prevention, then we should be circumcising our daughters as well. Bottom line? If you are horrified over the idea of girls being strapped down and circumcised, you ABSOLUTELY need to be horrified over the idea of boys being strapped down.

Watch this video. Is this okay to you? Would you be okay with someone strapping you down without your consent, forever changing your genital anatomy? Decreasing the amount of nerve endings, increasing the risk of sexual dysfunction, and putting you at pointless risk of death? All to look "nicer"?



Circumcision changes sexual function for both men and their female partners.

Now researchers prodding dozens of male penises with a fine-tipped tool have found that the five areas most receptive to fine-touch are routinely removed by the surgery.

iiii

Circumcision removes the most important sensory component of the foreskin - thousands of coiled fine-touch receptors called Meissner's corpuscles. Also lost are branches of the dorsal nerve, and between 10,000 and 20,000 specialized erotogenic nerve endings of several types. Together these detect subtle changes in motion and temperature, as well as fine gradations in texture. iv

The New Zealand study found that females experience an orgasm twice as often from an intact man than the cut one. When it is cut, the coronal ridge is abnormally exposed, which causes undue friction on the vaginal walls that would not occur if the lubricating and gliding mechanism of the foreskin remained intact. The cut penis usually prefers an unnatural elongated an arrhythmic stroke, breaking the delicate build up the female arousal system.

vi

Most likely, reported vaginal dryness and the related clinical designation ‘female arousal disorder’ is but a normal female response to coitus with a man with an iatrogenically deficient penis.

vi

The prepuce is primary, erogenous tissue necessary for normal sexual function. The complex interaction between the sensitivity of the corpuscular receptor-deficient glans penis and the corpuscular receptor-rich ridged band of the male prepuce is required for normal copulatory behavior. – Dr. Christopher Cold, M.D. and Dr. John Taylor, M.D.

But I don't want my son to look different than his father/peers!

There are SO many things wrong with this reasoning, most of the time I don't even know where to begin. First of all, don't MOST of us parents try to instill in our children that they should strive for individuality? That they don't need to look like everyone else, or act like everyone else? That they should be themselves? What about when your daughter comes home from high school every day after P.E. in tears because her breasts are smaller/larger than the other girl's? Will you take her in for breast augmentation? Or will you explain to her that her body is her own, and she is beautiful?

I could also go into the possible hidden implications of a father wanting his son's genitalia to become disfigured just so that he looks like him...but I'll leave that as something to ponder. I still have to wonder - how many men would *volunteer* to undergo the experience that the baby had in the video above? Would they still if they knew that it would remove vital tissue containing extremely sensitive nerve endings? If not, then why on earth are they turning around and inflicting this on their sons, just to look the same?!

I have women tell me constantly that the decision is not theirs. That it is out of their hands, up to their husband/partner. WHY? Why is the decision to permanently alter your son's body, putting him at risk of death and sexual dysfunction as an adult, any less YOUR decision? If someone was holding a knife to your baby's ear, wanting to remove it, would you not risk life and limb to rescue your baby? HOW is this any different? My husband wasn't fully on board when I said that I would not allow any of our future sons to be circumcised. He thought I had gone nuts. Until I showed him the research. Until I showed him just what purpose a foreskin has, and what risks we took by doing so to our older son. Stand firm. Most intelligent, caring men will be receptive if you show them why you are so concerned about this. Many then question why their parents did it to them. We are living in a society full of men who were robbed of their full sexual function. Why don't more people see a problem with this?


Circumcision cannot be claimed as "religious" unless done in a Synagogue by a Mohel

I get so tired of hearing people claim religious reasons for routine infant male circumcision. However, not only is this 100% irrelevant and UNbiblical for those who are not Jewish, many Jewish people are shying away from the practice as well. If you had your baby strapped down to a plastic board and circumcised in a hospital or doctor's office, there was nothing spiritual about it. For those who aren't Jewish, Paul in the New Testament speaks about NOT circumcising, that it is ritualistic and holds no favor. Circumcision of the heart is much more valuable to God, than complete removal of the foreskin that He designed with a purpose. There are scholars who have studied Biblical text regarding how circumcision was done. Most of the circumcision spoken about on the Bible was done to adult males. And when it was done, it was NOT the complete removal of the whole foreskin. Some suggest that there is evidence of it being a nick in the skin, as a blood offering. Others suggest that it is a fraction of what is removed in routine infant circumcision done by hospitals and pediatricians. And again, Paul in the New Testament speaks out against circumcision.

Gal. 5:6: "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love."

Gal. 6:15: "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation."

Col 3:9-11: "Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds, and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him, where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all."

1 Cor. 7:17b-20: "This is my rule in all the churches. Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing; but obeying the commandments of God is everything. Let each of you remain in the condition in which you were called.'

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Healthy male foreskin has many purposes. Your son's foreskin is "knit together" in his mother's womb. There is no valid medical reason to routinely strap infant males down to a plastic table and remove it. It puts his life at risk, his sexual function and pleasure at risk, and robs his wife of a normal sex life. I don't even know what my sex life could be like with an intact man. My husband is circumcised, and he's the only man I have ever been with. It frustrates me to know that because of this routine, senseless procedure I will never know how much better sex can be with a man whose body is just how God intended it to be. It frustrates me even further that we have this idea in our culture that removing healthy tissue without our sons' consent is OKAY. I did it to one son. Not to my other one. The son I did it to, I did it to out of complete ignorance. I will never make that mistake again.

Parents, I urge you to do your research. The only thing that cannot be undone is a circumcision. If later in life your son experiences problems that cannot be resolved with other measures, by all means pay for him to have it done. At least he will be the one making the decision. Take a long, hard (no pun intended) look at what you are thinking of doing to your innocent baby, who has absolutely no choice in the matter. Please, keep your whole baby whole.

"I support the choice to circumcise when the man whose body will forever be changed is the one making the choice."

i: American Academy of Pediatrics Policy Statements on Circumcision and Urinary Tract Infection
ii: Lost Boys: An Estimate of U.S. Circumcision-Related Infant Deaths
iii: Increased Danger of Neonatal Circumcision
iiii: Study: Circumcision Removes Most Sensitive Parts
iv: Losses from Circumcision
vi: Effects of male circumcision on female arousal and orgasm

A Moment of Realization

Yesterday I saw a post about Female Circumcision in America, going back to as late as 1960. I was shocked. This isn't ( or wasn't ) my topic of passion, so I never learned much about it. I learned enough about male circumcision so that I have decided that if we ever have another boy, that I will not have him circ'd. But I never really cared enough to dig deeper.

So I was reading, shocked, about female circumcision here in America, and I was appalled that it happened here and not just in Muslim or African regions. One quote absolutely blew me away and enraged me at the same time. This is from a medical journal in 1959:

"If the husband is unusually akward or difficult to educate, one should
at times make the clitoris easier to find [by amputating the clitoral hood]."
-Female Circumcision : Indications and a New Technique, 1959

That's right Ladies! You'd better hope and pray that your husband can figure out how to find your clitoris, otherwise you might just have the clitoral hood removed for his ease of discovery. I was absolutely DISGUSTED by this!

I watched a pro-female circumcision video on YouTube, posted by a Muslim woman who tried to show the "joy" in GIRLS being circumcised. I was even more disgusted that this was touted as a joyful thing, instead of something barbaric being done against young girls, to strip them of any sexual pleasure they might enjoy as a woman. I was horrified.

And then it hit me. We do this to our boys. It's still socially and culturally acceptable to remove newborn boys' foreskins. And under what justification? So that he'll look like everyone else? When should parents EVER want their children to conform to what society deems "fashionable" ( which is essentially what this is )? So that he'll reduce the risk of infection and disease? ( which is actually a HIGHLY erroneous belief ) Studies have proven that with good hygiene, the risk of infection and disease is just the same as a circumcised man. So there goes that argument.

Even worse, justified just as the Muslims do for women - as a religious belief? For those Christians out there who ignorantly claim Biblical reasons for circumcision - I expect the women to have long hair and have it covered at all times. I expect them to remove themselves from the company of their husbands for the duration of their menstruation. I expect the men to offer livestock as sacrifice to God. Sounds wonky, right? Well, that's because we're no longer held to the laws of the Old Testament. Circumcision used to be used to show salvation. To be set apart from the Gentiles. That's no longer needed. The bible states in 1 Corinthians 7:18-19:

18 Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters.

God calls for the circumcision of the heart, NOT of the flesh. It is absolutely ridiculous to uphold the ONE biblical law of the Old Testament that causes genital mutilation to our sons. And let's face it - it is RARE anymore for someone to circumcise their sons because of true religious conviction, for salvation.

Let us please stop mutilating our sons' genitals, and keep them intact. Isn't it much better to teach them to be clean ( both in hygiene and sex? ), and to have a circumcised heart? There *are* risks and side effects to circumcision. And people who don't think that their baby was bothered by it, don't want to face up to what they actually just did to their helpless newborn.

It's a horrific act done in modern times, when we ought to know, and be doing, better.