In my area, the caesarian rate is way above the recommended rate, and I've personally heard stories of laboring women who have been told the baby was at risk and a C-section was needed. But the women resisted and delivered healthy babies.
Epidurals are only available in hospitals, and delivering in hospitals is much more risky for low risk pregnancies. That's why I opted for 3 out-of-hospital births.

Epidurals require a specialist to perform, and they won't be covered under Obamacare, so why worry?

Or maybe they will since they are a women's issue.

Out of curiosity, why are you pro epidural and anti circumcision?

There is nothing wrong with mitigating pain, especially when you are going into major surgery, but everything has risks, and a cost benefit calculation is not unreasonable here.

Out of curiosity, why are you pro epidural and anti circumcision?

From the viewpoint of a circumcised male who now deeply regrets circumcising his three sons and who helped his wife deliver five children, that seems like a really silly question. Thanks, Amy, for taking a deep breath and answering it rationally and pointing out that those two things are not only unconnected but almost opposites. "Why are you pro-pain relief but anti-ritual mutilation?" Huhwut?

Contrary to the granola-crunching Whole Foods crowd assumption, "natural" is not always better, or life would still be "nasty, brutish, and short" for too many people. Whatever we can do to facilitate natural processes and make life easier for people, to increase their enjoyment thereof (without thereby impinging on the freedom and enjoyment of others) is generally OK by me. Not all things that are "perfectly natural" work perfectly for all people in all situations, which is why women have died in childbirth for millennia, and some immune systems aren't able to fight off infections, and some eyesight needs to be corrected, and I have hay fever. :(

"Circumcision is a medically unnecessary procedure -- a pain-causing one, surely -- performed on a non-consenting human being."

So is an epidural.

Also the consent thing is just bullshit. Faulty logic. All surgery on the unconscious or on a minor child is necessarily without consent, because informed consent is impossible.

Minor pain is a good thing. It tells you that something is being damaged, it is a symptom, not a medical problem.

Masking it, can cause you to damage things beyond repair.

Major pain, is a different story, but the idea, that we should never be in pain, and that we should immediately medicate, is a foolish one.

People take pride, in a lot of stupid accomplishments but the anti epidural people, may be doing the right thing, for a somewhat wrong headed reason, which is considerably better than doing the wrong things for the right reasons.

"From the viewpoint of a circumcised male who now deeply regrets circumcising his three sons and who helped his wife deliver five children, "

My 28 year old son is not circumcised which was my choice.

However, I see the campaign against it, as just another nanny state totalitarian control issue.

I want it to remain a parental choice, and not a mandate, one way or the other.

"However, I see the campaign against it, as just another nanny state totalitarian control issue. "

I support not doing it to infants (unless there is a medical necessity). Although it's rarely harmful, it is a permanant body alteration. I would support waiting until the boy is old enough to understand what his private parts are and what they are for, and then give him the choice. It is somewhat comparable to doing ear piercings -- we don't pierce the ears of infant girls; we let them get to teenage-hood and then give them the choice. (I will say that from the guys I've talked to, if given the choice, most would choose to be circumcized.)

"Minor pain is a good thing. It tells you that something is being damaged, it is a symptom, not a medical problem."

I'm not so sure about that. I knew several people, including my own wife, who deal with forms of chronic pain that is caused by, esentially, malfunctioning nerves. The underlying tissue that the nerve protects is fine; it's the nerve itself that is causing the pain. And although the pain isn't "Oh-my-God-I'm-dying" severe, its persistantly unpredictable nature destroys a lot of enjoyment of life.

Yes, sometimes pain is trying to tell you that something is wrong with your body that you need to get checked. But, like the check-engine light in your car, sometimes it comes on for no good reason. Life is too short to live with unnecessary pain.

"It is somewhat comparable to doing ear piercings -- we don't pierce the ears of infant girls; we let them get to teenage-hood and then give them the choice." - Cousin Dave

I hate to break this to you, Cousin Dave, but a lot (A LOT) of parents actually have their baby girls' ears pierced. You can even take them to Walmart to have it done. The justification is that they don't have to experience the pain when they're older. I don't agree with that and I think the piercings should be done when the girl is old enough to decide if she wants to wear earrings.

Before we found out the sex of our child (which was a boy), this had become a major issue of discussion between my wife and me, and my mother sided with her.

I call bullshit on piercing baby girls' ears "so they won't have to experience the pain when they're older."

People do it so they can buy cute little earrings for their cute little babies, and also so people will look at their babies and be able to tell it's a girl.

How would you even know your daughter will want to pierce her ears when she grows up?

Although it's rarely harmful, it is a permanant body alteration.

Umm, it kill more infants each year than the average crib/car seat/toy that gets recalled for safety reasons does over three decades.

Isab, your comment was stupid for the reasons Amy pointed out: consent and purpose. There is no relationship between circumcision and an epidural; they are non-analogous. One is performed on a non-consenting human, one is not. One causes pain, one prevents it. One has no medical reason, the other does.

Your tangential objection to the potential harm of masking pain is amply dealt with - in the original material by noting the rarity of complications (i.e., the cost/benefit analysis comes out heavily in favor of the benefits), and by the fact that there are very few natural, painful functions more carefully medically observed and monitored than childbirth. It's highly unlikely that a serious issue is going to come up during labor that goes unaddressed because the poor woman is too numbed to say "ouch."

And I think Amy is advocating choice; however, if you're trying to make the circumcision issue all about elective medical procedures performed on minors with or without consent of parents as an issue of parental choice, that's a much broader issue of medical ethics and your comparison to epidurals is inapplicable.

In short, it was a silly question and you doubled down on it.

My wife tells me that in the Philippines, girl babies' ears are pierced within hours of being born. They'll come out of the hospital with holes in their tiny earlobes, kept open by thread instead of studs.

Good lord people, get an epidural if you want one, don't if you don't.

The article is a bit disingenuous as it does say that epidurals lead to a slightly higher oxytocin need, and fails to connect the dots between oxytocin and c-sections (so the c-section cause is indirect, but it's there, low though it might be), and fails to note the correlation between epidurals and nursing issues (low though it may be). Do your research, weigh your risks, weigh your ability to tolerate pain, and decide accordingly. And MYOB when it comes to what other people do.

What? How can anyone compare infant circumcision to epidurals done on laboring women? Are there babies getting epiduals?

I'm also amazed that someone in the US or Canada (I'm assuming) has never seen a girl under 10 with her ears pierced.

Isab, your comment was stupid for the reasons Amy pointed out: consent and purpose. There is no relationship between circumcision and an epidural; they are non-analogous. One is performed on a non-consenting human, one is not. One causes pain, one prevents it. One has no medical reason, the other does."

Your logic is flawed.

Epidurals are medically unnecessary, just like circumcision. There are medical befits to circumcision, even though you claim there are not.
Any anesthetic, or drug given to a woman in labor affects the baby. The baby doesn't consent, nor is he capable of consenting to an late term abortion, or open heart surgery.

There is no bright line between necessary medical procedures, and unnecessary ones, sometimes, in spite of all precautions, bad things happen with the best of intentions.

But either parents have the right to make those decisions, or the state does...

Which do you prefer?

You and Amy just have an emotional bias against circumcision, so you refuse to evaluate both on the merits.

"How can anyone compare infant circumcision to epidurals done on laboring women?" - Jenny Had A Chance

Yeah, we somehow managed to really get off the topic here.

Isab, are you honestly claiming you CANNOT see ANY substantive differences between chopping off a piece of a baby boy's penis, and applying an anaesthetic to reduce pain?

Sorry, but anyone who claims they can't see any difference, is being intellectually dishonest with themselves and/or others.

Here's one difference: Chopping a baby's penis is an of violence. Applying an epidural is not an act of violence (unless you're seriously going to count 'sticking in a needle', which is anyway performed on a consenting adult).

@"But either parents have the right to make those decisions, or the state does..."

Fallacy of false choice, there's a third (reasonable) option: Parents should have the right to make such decisions, PROVIDED those decisions don't involve committing acts of violence against innocent newborns - if they do, then (and only then) the state has the right to intervene and prevent it.

"I hate to break this to you, Cousin Dave, but a lot (A LOT) of parents actually have their baby girls' ears pierced."

Did not know that was the case these days. In my day, I never heard of a pre-teen getting pierced, and I think most providers would have refused to do it on a girl younger than 12 or so, becuase I remember my stepsister telling me about that. Wow.

I don't think a child should be given any non-medically-necessary body modification before they are old enough to understand what is going on.

Good grief. I thought we were going to talk about childbirth.

I had an epidural with my daughter's birth. It didn't go perfectly; I'm very short, and the amount of medication I was receiving would have been appropriate for a much taller person. I couldn't feel a damn thing, and this may have complicated the whole pushing thing. In fact, after 2 hours I heard the doctor say, "Get the vacuum," and I thought, the hell with that, and made it through the home stretch unassisted.

Painless childbirth is nonetheless exhausting. It would have been much more so if I was also having to deal with killer contractions.

In my experience the natural childbirth crowd are also the ones who don't vaccinate their children.

Heh, when I got mine they failed to tell me that I wouldn't be able to walk. I had the opposite... just enough to take the edge off, but it was still very painful. So I was pretty active and I swung myself off the cot, as the nurses' faces fell and they shouted "Non!" too late... and I crumpled to the floor on my useless legs.

Cousin Dave ear piercing babies is a cultural thing. Old RPM mentioned Phillipinos, it's the same with Latin Americans. Maybe it's a Spanish thing they exported?

I had mine pierced as a baby too, it's not seen as anything. I was always confused when on t.v. parents made a big deal of it their teenage daughters getting their ears pierced. Huh? Mine were always like that.

*I heard the doctor say, "Get the vacuum," *

They were cleaning the room while you were in labor?

That's just rude.

'In my experience the natural childbirth crowd are also the ones who don't vaccinate their children.'

The natural childbirth crowd has many factions, like those who give birth at home, water birth devotees, those how choose a birthing center in a hospital complex. It covers a broad slice of society. Not all natural birthers are anti-vaxxers. They are, I think, a sub-group of those who elect to have natural birth.

The natural birth movement was a backlash against the way many of our mothers gave birth, either by C-section or with 'twilight sleep' anesthesia. These women could not remember the births of their own babies, and often took time to warm up to them. Not knocking women out for birth, a good idea!

But then it all went to hell in a handbasket, with women (like they often do) dividing up into different camps, 'no drugs under any circumstances', 'drugs if necessary' 'drugs anyway, I don't need the pain' 'birth in a hospital setting is ok', 'birth in a hospital is unforgivable' etc and then the battle began. Vast feelings of superiority on all sides, hurt feelings on all sides as the no-epidural ever group insinuates that the epidural moms are wusses, the epidural moms shoot back that the non-drugged moms are intent on becoming martyrs...

Women seem to have a real THING about other women making choices that aren't the same as their own. I gave birth in 1983 just when it was 'Lamaze or you're doing it wrong'. There was a lot of talk in Lamaze class about not being judgmental if moms decide they need pain relief, but at the reunion there were mothers beating themselves up for having not met the implied goal of drug-free birth. Of course! The course material goes on and on about how much BETTER, really it's so much BETTER not to use drugs(but well, it's ok if you need to). No wonder they come out feeling like losers.

I was a La Leche League Leader for 12 or 13 years and even though we are told time and time again that each mother and each family must make its own decisions, you still got this unspoken hierarchy of 'totally breastfeeding', 'partially breastfeeding', and then 'rank' by length of breastfeeding, 6 mos, 1 year, 2 years, tandem nursing (nursing a toddler and a newborn) that just sort of leaked out (no pun intended) in the glowing ways some mothers were talked about. Not official LLL policy at all, just mothers trying to one-up each other.

I wish that women would give it a rest and let other women decide for themselves how to live....work or not, breastfeed or not, give birth in a pool or not, give store-bought snacks to their kids or not, cloth or paper (which is actually a war-starter on Mommy boards). Sheesh....I've often thought that women won't be 'liberated' until they stop giving a crap what their neighbors are doing.

I've had an epidural with all of my deliveries so far. They allowed me to be more confortable and even nap during labor. Technically I was numb but could still tell when I had contractions and I was able to push my babies out without issue or needing assistance. My third was an emergency c-section because she flipped breech when I was 8 cm and then came out feet first and got stuck when my water broke. Fortunately because I already had my epidural line in they were able to get my baby out rapidly, within 5 minutes, and prevent and major or permanent complications. This time I'm attempting a VBAC, but I am required to have at least the port in just in case I need another emergency c-section.

My daughter got her ears pierced at 2 months old, the earliest it's allowed in my state. I got mine pierced for my second birthday because I'd been begging my mom for it.

I got both my sons circumcised as well (although I don't really see a connection between that and epidurals). There are medical reasons for and against circumcision, so it's not black and white. Some of the reasons given against are complete fallacies like circumcision causes loss of length and girth (Circumcision actually results in the head enlarging and does nothing at all to the length). There are claims that sex feels better uncircumcised, but there is literally no way to determine that by any reliable measure. There are potential risks and pros and cons, as with anything else. I still think it's a choice the parents should have, not the government.

Luj, in 2012 there were 17 babies who died from circumcision, although they were from complications related to care and cleanliness after the fact, mostly due to infections resulting from poor hygeine and a couple of instances of bleeding from the Plastibell method where the ring got pulled on and tore stitches and parents either not noticing or not taking them in for care promptly.

So if a baby dies form blood loss or and infection directly linked to the circumcision it isnt a circumcision related death?

And unless medically indicated there is no need for circumcision at all. The only real reason for a circumcision is if the foreskin fails to retract properly by puberty and that outcome can not be known until the onset of puberty

As to the supposed heath benefits. There is a .09% reduction in penile cancer in the 9th decade of life.

There is a less than 1% decrease in the risk of certain STD infections, usually bacterial and exterior in nature.

Unfortunately that is directly linked to an INCREASE in risk for women to contract blood born STDs, the drier texture of a circumcised penis leading to micro tears in the vaginal lining.

In all fairness I should point out that the supposed decreased risk in males and increased risk in females for STD contraction is less than one quarter of the margin of error most studies include in their boilerplate.

Which is all a moot point as the supposed medical benefits are post hoc justifications to continue a practice that came into vogue on the notion that circumcision would curb the sexual appetites and needs of men.

The man who very nearly single handedly made circumcision a household practice in america also wanted to start a programs to use acid to burn off infant females clitorises.

Anytime a mother in labor is given anything, there is the added possibility of a drug reaction.

More people die in hospitals from anesthesia issues, than the actual surgeries. Although post surgical infections are the biggest killer.

I was given Demerol while in labor with my son. It sorta worked, but I had an allergic reaction to it, and my eyes swelled shut.

You gotta wonder how many of the c sections are a result of anesthesia retarding labor, or slowing the baby's vitals

Flat on your back is also not a good way to labor or give birth, but it is convenient for the hospital, and the doctor.

Nothing is risk free, and most people are very poor at calculating the actual risk so they ride the new age folk wisdom for all it is worth, as a talisman against bad things happening to them.

An infected circumcision site doesn't mean the infection was contracted at the time of procedure, and it rarely is. It is most often contracted days later due to poor hygeine and lack of proper care of it while healing by the parents/caregivers. It's hard to argue it was caused by the procedure itself if you're not promptly changing diapers and cleaning the area including putting the necessary ointments over it to prevent sticking, bleeding, etc. Arguably, if a circumcision wasn't done you'd have nothing to take special care of and healing. People get infected surgical sites all the time due to not cleaning or covering it and from something as simple as the wound getting wet with bathing. It's not directly related to the procedure itself.

I generally don't debate circumcision with others because no matter what is said or what evidence is presented (and it's very contradictory depending on the source) you won't change anyone's mind. People are very set in what they think is right or not. Since you did bring up women being at increased risk of STDs from circumcised men (I've never run across that info before), they are also at a much decreased risk of UTIs, yeast infections, and BV because there is nothing for it to grow under with if the foreskin is gone and hygeine is better and more easily done with minimal effort in circumcised men. I don't care one way or the other if someone chooses to, or not, get their son circumcised. I just care about people trying to take away the option for everyone else in the belief that their view is right and morally superior to the other side.

And why is it your right to preform needless cosmetic surgery on an infant?

You know why hospitals still push it? Money. Big bucks in foreskin. Cosmetics companies love it. Put it in a nutrient bath and you get all sorts of compounds for the makeup lines.

For one, there is plenty of evidence that says it's not just "needless cosmetic surgery" being performed, but this is where there is the argument with pro and anti and each side has their own sets of contradictory evidence that don't agree with each other. You should have the right to choose for your own child what you feel is proper for them in terms of medical care, schooling, etc.

Just my experience, but no one tried to push circumcision on me for my sons. My first son I had to ask them if it was done in hospital or if it would be done as an outpatient and then request the forms for it. There was a box to check in the admission paperwork asking if you were interested in circumcision or not so someone could talk to you about it (same as there was about breast or formula feeding, epidurals, etc.). When I was in labor with my second son the nurse just asked if I was interested in circumcision as she read down the form. I said yes, the doctor came to talk to me about it the day after he was born. I don't consider that pushing anything, although my friend did. Also, circumcision is a $200 charge, hardly a big moneymaker.

They charge you a couple hundred. Cosmetics companies make millions off the hormones and compounds foreskins produce for their makeups.

And it is cosmetic, any supposed benefits are less than the margin of error for reputable studies

Look I'm the first to admit anti circumcision people can be fanatics.

But to date I've yet to hear a single argument for circumcision that doesn't ultimately boil down to
1) tradition
2) boys dont care enough about their dicks to wash them
3) I can do what ever I want to my kids

I'm aware they use cells from foreskin in cosmetics. They can grow collagen from the cells. They also grow skin grafts with it.

There are benefits in preventing or treating hypospadias, infections in both men and women (uncircumcised men are often linked to recurrent UTIs and yeast infections in women with stable sex partners, typically cleared up once the male partner gets circumcised), there is often a lot of tightening and stricture of the foreskin as men age. There are others as well.

Some feel it's purely cosmetic, others don't. The ones that are anti typically just say it's mutilation. The most legit argument I've heard is that it cuts off nerves and blood vessels in the foreskin. However, those all end near the base of the foreskin where it attaches (per my biology and urology classes). They also grossly exaggerate the number of nerve endings in the foreskin (again per classes). Doctors and medical organizations recognize benefits and risks to it. It comes down to whether you feel those are legitimate benefits or not or if they outweigh the potential risks associated. There end up being fanatics on both sides of the debate, primarily with the anti group calling the pro group ignorant and uninformed as if no one that is pro could have possibly done any research because they've come to a different opinion on it (much like pro and anti vax groups).

http://www.circumcisioninformation.com/circ_record.html

http://www.circinfo.com/myths/myths_and_lies1.html

My general view on circumcision is that if you've done your research and have come to an informed decision either for or against, good for you and that is your right as a parent.

Every time the circumcision debate comes up online, the issue of "hygiene" comes up. It astonishes me. Seriously fellows, how difficult is it to wash your own dick?

My general view on [female] circumcision is that if you've done your research and have come to an informed decision either for or against, good for you and that is your right as a parent.

My general view on [foot binding] is that if you've done your research and have come to an informed decision either for or against, good for you and that is your right as a parent.

My general view on [corseting] is that if you've done your research and have come to an informed decision either for or against, good for you and that is your right as a parent.

My general view on [head binding] is that if you've done your research and have come to an informed decision either for or against, good for you and that is your right as a parent.

My general view on [breast ironing] is that if you've done your research and have come to an informed decision either for or against, good for you and that is your right as a parent.

My general view on [branding] is that if you've done your research and have come to an informed decision either for or against, good for you and that is your right as a parent.

My general view on [ear cropping] is that if you've done your research and have come to an informed decision either for or against, good for you and that is your right as a parent.

Every time the circumcision debate comes up online, the issue of "hygiene" comes up. It astonishes me. Seriously fellows, how difficult is it to wash your own dick?

Its been my experience that its mainly women pushing this.