Circumcision?

While there are "studies" that say intact males have a higher risk of penile cancer, the percentage is so insignificant it is not even considered a "pro" to the procedure.

here's a pretty neat site i found about a year ago  www.thewholenetwork.org/3/post/2010/11/50-reasons-to-leave-i t-alone.html

Hey Kerri,
I'm not going to start a debate either, but I will respond to your post since you feel I shouldn't have an opinion since I am having another girl. Your logic is really not very substancial. By your reasoning, I shouldn't have an opinion on a great many things because I don't have them within the four walls of my home, and that's just, well , silly. It is my job as a woman and a mother to become as educated as I can about the rights of my children and all of them really. I choose to educate myself globally so I can make the most informed decisions possible.
Yes, there was a time when it was thought that uncirced boys were at higher risk for cancer. There was also a time when it was thought that people of color in this country were not worthy of basic civil rights. Thank God we progress in our knowledge as time goes on, right?
My point in bringing up labioplasty is that is as completly arbitrary as circumcision. If it were medically neccesary for a child to have part of his or her genetalia removed, yes, it probably would be covered. Fortunately, neither proceedure is neccesary for either gender.
Regarding the cost being "dumped" on parents, having children is no joke. It is expensive. No one owes you anything.
Like any issue in parenting, I would encourage anyone considering circing their son to be fully informed with current studies related to the issues, not years of hearsay or tradition.
For the record, before we knew we were having girls the decision to leave any sons we had in tact was made based on our research.

I do not feel that you don't have an opinion- I just meant that possibly take a look from another standpoint. I think every parent should have the opportunity to make decisions based on their beliefs as well. I don't fault people for not wanting to have their boys circed. This is your right as I stated, but now that insurance companies have decided not to cover them- they are "dumping" the cost on parents who want to go along with their beliefs. Yes, children are expensive and are a lifetime of financial burden, but this is just one decision I don't agree with that parents should have to fork over. I don't believe that anyone "owes" me anything as well. I simply meant that mothers having baby girls don't have to deal with making this decision and then realizing that they may not be able to go forth with their decision because of the ridiculous prices doctors and hospitals want to charge. There are many things that are "chosen" versus necessary when dealing with children and child birth. For example, epidurals are not always necessary in the delivery of a child- yet insurance companies cover them (and they outweigh the cost of a circ by almost triple to quadruple the amount after the insurance companies are billed). Drs in current day practices are very quick to jump to scheduling inductions and c-sections because it's more time conforming to their own personal schedules- yet insurance companies some how manage to cover them as well. I totally sympathize with the fact that there are many times when inductions and C sections are in fact medically necessary, as I was one of these cases. I was under a tremendous amount of back labor and my BP was rising because of it and therefore I was induced. I also ended up having a C-section because my baby was posterior and was not coming down and was having decels, so they felt the C was necessary- however, not the route of childbirth I had imagined or planned for.

I guess it's an apples and oranges type of comparison, but I was just simply saying that I agreed with Caley's perspective that it was ridiculous for insurance companies to drop this procedure as a covered procedure. I think there are many other instances and procedures that insurance companies could choose to drop without effecting a mother's decision to go with or without the circ simply because she can't afford the high price up front.

Thank you Kerri :-)  I was only giving my opinion also...I do think it's so controversial now because like you said, they just changed it from being covered...all I'm going to say is, I'm thankful my insurance still covers it...it's definitely a preference and each parent is entitled to their preference..no one needs to be bashed for that, just sayin ;-)  I prefer for my son to be circumcised and that's that...movin on ppl!

You know I agree with you!!  Didn't want to go into it but SINCE you brought it up!!  DH isn't circumcised (he will kill me if he knew I was saying this) and after researching it in depth when I was pregnant the first time I would never have my son circumcised.  It's becoming more of the norm to keep your babies intact. 

I also had to pay for my little guy's circumcision prior to his due date for them to perform it at the hospital. I only paid 185 though because my Dr's office only charged the going rate that insurance would pay minus their write off. I think it's a shame that other Drs are charging so much because insurance would have only paid them around the rate I paid and they write off the rest of what the insurance doesnt pay at the end of the year on their taxes. Also, I was so angry with mine because this policy took effect on February 1, 2011 and go figure I was due with him on March 1 and ended up having him February 27, but they still would not cover it.

Good luck! I know it's rough to come up with that kind of cash at the spur of the moment and have that dropped in your lap like that.

 I don't mean to start a controversy-- only give another perspective...., but I would urge anyone to really consider leaving their beautiful newborn boy whole, the way God made him.
I am the mom of 2 intact boys and I am SO happy I made the choice to leave them alone. Their penises require no extra care and have yielded no complications whatsoever. (Also, most of the adult men in my family are intact and no one has had any penis issues in adulthood)
There is not one medical organization in the world that recommends routine infant circumcision anymore. And, in many areas of the US, only 33% of boys are being circumcised, so it's no longer a question of 'fitting in'.  

You may have to copy-and-paste this YouTube link, but if anyone thinks that it is "just a little snip", I defy you to watch the following video (with the sound on):  http://youtu.be/MDuDhkiDdns

Also, Here is a great webpage with circ info: http://www.circumcision.org/

Again, just giving my perspective.

-V

There is not one medical organization in the world that recommends routine infant circumcision anymore.

...not necessarily.  It may not be recommended to circumcise boys routinely yet, but the World Health Organization (WHO) released a study a few years ago that showed that there was a substantial reduction in the number of HIV cases for circumcised men verses uncircumcised (the studies were done in Africa, to the best of my recollection).  In countries in the world where HIV/AIDS is such a huge problem and a huge killer...if that study is true...I'd say if it's not already a recommendation...it should be.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=circumcisio n-penis-microbiome-hiv-infection

Additional studies in the same report state that:

'...the incidence of genital herpes and human papillomavirus were about 27 and 35 percent lower, respectively, in circumcised men.'

and

'... two of the most abundant anaerobic organisms present on uncircumcised penises, Clostridiales and Prevotellaceae, have been associated with bacterial vaginosis, an uncomfortable condition in which the vagina's bacterial balance is upset. This finding could help explain why there are reduced rates of bacterial vaginosis in the wives of circumcised men...'

They're still doing more studies to find out the whys and wherefores...but there does appear to be some medical benefits to circumcision.  I do, however, believe that it is something that everyone should be able to decide upon for their sons on their own, without pressure in either direction from the 'outside' world...and since there does appear to be some medical benefits to it, it should be covered by insurance.

Very well stated Holly and I TOTALLY agree with your last statement :)