Canadian Med Assoc Journal calls for spanking to be illegal

[eohiken]

piercing != amputation

[Esther]

I just fail to see what the big deal is. Most men I know have actually been circumcised as a routine procedure - my brother, male cousins, etc. Whereas I think it's perfectly fine for parents (even Jewish parents) to say no if they feel it's intrusive and horrible, I also don't think it's mutilation or child abuse.

For me it's on the same level as piercing a baby's ears. Do I think it has much of a point? No. Would I most likely have it done on my own child? Probably not. Do I think it's awful and horrible and will cause a trauma later on? No.

[Esther]

I also don't think amputation is the correct word for it, since that word is usually reserved for the amputation of a limb or an extremity - arm, leg, foot, or at the very least a toe or finger.

ETA: Particularly since we can all agree that amputation for no reason is actually harmful to the child. Growing up without a leg or arm or toe or whatever is tough, because you have essentially created a disability for your child. Growing up without a foreskin... I'm not convinced is quite on the same level.

[eohiken]

This is a major big deal.

Studies estimate that more than 100 baby boys die from circumcision complications each year, including from anesthesia reaction, stroke, hemorrhage, and infection.

Tell me how many infants die from piercing complications.

[eohiken]

What this has to do with spanking in Canada, I do not know.

[valsa]

I just fail to see what the big deal is.

The "big deal" has to do with a person's right not to have their body permanently altered without their permission, unless there's a medical reason for it. A child's leg is wounded and infected, and needs to be amputated or it could spread and kill them? Fine. Circumcision because little Timmy's parents want his weewee to look like daddy's? No.

It's the same reason I wouldn't support, say, parents being able to tattoo their children (which is also just a piece of skin)

[Spider Burps]

This is a major big deal.

Studies estimate that more than 100 baby boys die from circumcision complications each year, including from anesthesia reaction, stroke, hemorrhage, and infection.

Tell me how many infants die from piercing complications.

"But the rate of complications resulting from circumcision is lower than ear piercing, between 0.2% and 0.6%, with some bleeding as the most frequent complication."

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-15/opin ... PM:OPINION

I don't believe in circumcising infants OR piercing them. They're both unnecessary risks that can lead to infection--and infection can lead to death.

[Esther]

This is a major big deal.

Studies estimate that more than 100 baby boys die from circumcision complications each year, including from anesthesia reaction, stroke, hemorrhage, and infection.

Tell me how many infants die from piercing complications.

That may be true. In fact, I will do some more research on the dangers of circumcision. I would like to say, however, that most Rabbis for example will actually tell parents that it is NOT okay to have your child circumcised if there is the slightest health risk that may lead to complications (blood clotting issues, heart troubles, etc). I once had a Rabbi ask me: "What do you call a Jewish boy who hasn't been circumcised?" Answer: A Jewish boy who hasn't been circumcised. So it's not like these 'immigrants' just march into it without considering the child at all, for the record.

That said, I agree. I'm not sure how we got here from spanking in Canada, LOL.

[eohiken]

FTR I don't think piercing is a good idea either, just less harmful.

Honestly, it's baffling that any one would consider cutting off anything from a newborn to be a good idea, let alone healthy genital tissue.

[MadameX]

Babies don't remember circumcision, but I promise you that your kid will remember being hit by you.

I can't understand how people expect children to understand being hit to teach them right from wrong. Hitting is wrong. It just teaches them that people who are bigger than them can do whatever they want. Great lesson.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I'll quote the actual policy statements.

American Academy of Pediatrics:

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cg ... ;103/3/686

"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child."

The AAP is not concluding that circumcision is harmful, nor is it recommending that it NOT be done. It is merely saying that there are both risks and benefits, so the parents should decide.

Canadian Pediatric Society:

http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/fn ... ONCLUSIONS

I had confused the CPS conclusions with those of the AAP.

"The overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so evenly balanced that it does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns. There is therefore no indication that the position taken by the CPS in 1982 should be changed. When parents are making a decision about circumcision, they should be advised of the present state of medical knowledge about its benefits and harms."

Again, there is no general consensus in the medical community here that infant circumcision is harmful.

[2xx1xy1JD]

http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/

Hypothetically, we could see government or health agencies in some countries actively promoting or even requiring circumcision. Protecting the rights of parents to decide what is best for their children, in that case, could mean protecting the right to refuse circumcision.

[MadameX]

Circumcision has so little to do with a (violent, inappropriate) method of discipline I'm not sure why it's even being brought up in this thread. Surely it deserves its own thread, obviously people have really strong opinions about it.

[eohiken]

You missed bolding out the part where they don't recommend routine infant circumcision.

One giant argument FOR circ is reducing the number of UTIs, which it most certainly does. What they consistently fail to mention is the fact that intact boys still get FEWER UTIs than girls, by a large margin. And yet we're still talking about simple, easily treated infections, nothing that threatens death or serious disease. Doesn't sound like a balanced argument to me.

And still, the same number of boys dying from the complications of this purely elective surgery is equivalent to the number of babies dying from SIDS. Hell of a persective.

Religious circumcision is a whole other ball of wax, it has nothing to do with health benefits.

[Sinister Rouge]

I'll quote the actual policy statements.

American Academy of Pediatrics:

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cg ... ;103/3/686

"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child."

The AAP is not concluding that circumcision is harmful, nor is it recommending that it NOT be done. It is merely saying that there are both risks and benefits, so the parents should decide.

Canadian Pediatric Society:

http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/fn ... ONCLUSIONS

I had confused the CPS conclusions with those of the AAP.

"The overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so evenly balanced that it does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns. There is therefore no indication that the position taken by the CPS in 1982 should be changed. When parents are making a decision about circumcision, they should be advised of the present state of medical knowledge about its benefits and harms."

Again, there is no general consensus in the medical community here that infant circumcision is harmful.

Funnily enough, the vast majority of Canadian baby boys are left intact. In fact, it's getting to a point where it's almost countercultural in many areas to circumcise your baby. Funny what can happen when it's no longer offered for free and parents have to pay for it themselves - could it be that they acually look into it more carefully and realize that it's basically a cosmetic procedure done on an infant?

[fundifugee]

I didn't get access to the full original article. What was the exact methodology? How did they prove causation, and not just association? In other words - is it spanking that CAUSES poor results, or is it that parents who spank are likely to be poorer and less educated, or that children who are spanked are likely to be more challenging, etc. Also, was the study looking at all forms of physical discipline, or specifically looking at the effects of occasional legal physical discipline?

It is a literature review, referenced (of course).

[emmiedahl]

There is some evidence that spanking is harmful. It is definitely confounded by issues of class and race. But there is no evidence that slapping my grocery clerk will cause her long-term harm, yet I am not allowed to slap her. Maybe slapping her would teach her to be more polite or to work more quickly, but I doubt it.

Lots of people do annoying shit that pisses me off, yet I have the self-control to not hit them. It would be wrong to hit them. I do not have the right to hurt people simply because they piss me off. My children are the same.

I am against spanking and believe it should be illegal. However, if there is no apparent physical or emotional harm to the children, I think that parents should merely have to take a parenting class. Most people who spank believe that it is the only effective means of discipline and are reacting to pressure from others.

I am a former spanker who has learned gentler ways of handling my children. I was a very young mother working two jobs and going to school, with very few coping strategies and no knowledge of child management. My major in college involved many classes on child development, so I learned better ways of dealing with children and began to use those rather than hitting them.

[MadameX]

I think this is a good reason why we should nip physical abuse in the bud and make spanking illegal. It is never okay to hit someone, especially a defenseless, smaller than you someone who relies on you to keep them safe.

http://jezebel.com/5882911/just-how-bad ... erica-very

[2xx1xy1JD]

You missed bolding out the part where they don't recommend routine infant circumcision.

One giant argument FOR circ is reducing the number of UTIs, which it most certainly does. What they consistently fail to mention is the fact that intact boys still get FEWER UTIs than girls, by a large margin. And yet we're still talking about simple, easily treated infections, nothing that threatens death or serious disease. Doesn't sound like a balanced argument to me.

And still, the same number of boys dying from the complications of this purely elective surgery is equivalent to the number of babies dying from SIDS. Hell of a persective.

Religious circumcision is a whole other ball of wax, it has nothing to do with health benefits.

Any reputable source for the claim that circ deaths = SIDS deaths? By reputable source, I don't mean the Journal of Boyhood Studies, but an actual peer-reviewed medical journal.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I'll see if I can get access to the full article through hubby.

[Austin]

It won't happen in America, at least for another generation. Spanking is too ingrained in the culture.

I live in a conservative area. So many people spank that it isn't even questioned. The general attitude is that if you are a good parent, you must spank your kids. I don't know how you fight against that perception.

I think you're right. Even one more generation is probably optimistic. I hear a lot of younger people say, "I was spanked and it never hurt me!" :roll:

[Guest Anonymous]

I've spanked my daughter a few times - but never hard enough to make any difference. Taking away her stuffed animals or putting her in time out are usually more effective.

There is a fine line to walk between a pat on the butt to get a kid's attention to actual assault. I don't think I could ever spank my daughter hard enough that it would actually hurt / leave a mark / etc.

This is a response that I just don't understand at all - why would you bother to hit a child at all if it doesn't hurt or 'make a difference'?

[Koala]

I've spanked my daughter a few times - but never hard enough to make any difference. Taking away her stuffed animals or putting her in time out are usually more effective.

There is a fine line to walk between a pat on the butt to get a kid's attention to actual assault. I don't think I could ever spank my daughter hard enough that it would actually hurt / leave a mark / etc.

If you hit her at all you are hurting her. You might not be able to see the mark, but trust me, you've left one. :(

[acheronbeach]

Someone asked if there's education re: alternatives to spanking.

My best friend was reported to FACS/CAS because her kid told the daycare teacher that he'd been hit by his father (which he was - spanking for misbehaviour, though no marks). The family and children's services worker came to their house and discussed spanking and offered them literature and classes on alternatives.

[browngrl]

regarding circumcision:

As someone who used to do circumcisions (and stopped doing them because they bothered me so much) let me tell you: babies feel pain. That is my biggest problem with circumcision - inadequate (IMO) pain control. No new nerves grow into the foreskin as the child becomes an adult but show me an adult man who would consent to having the last centimetre of the skin covering his penis cut off with no more pain control than a soother and perhaps some acetaminophen. Even topical analgesics are inadequate IMO.

As for hygiene - perhaps in a third world environment where there might be no access to clean water and soap this might be an issue but in our first world environment this is really a non issue.

As for protection against HIV - I think consistent condom use and knowing your partner well are better protections

Really the only reason I think is a valid reason to circumcise is : religion.