I just posted a response to a new blog post by Jim Wright over at Stonekettle Station in which he eviscerates Michele Bachmann for her recent comments about the HPV vaccine. It's a great post, as usual. I love Jim and you should go read everything he has to say because the man is brilliant.
But he ended the post with a warning saying anti-vaxxers need not comment, and the anti-vax folks were further mocked and belittled in the comments section. And that kind of thing always bugs me. I do not consider myself an anti-vaxxer, per se, as I think I mentioned in my blog post about measles. But I do identify with them to some extent.
Anyway, it got me thinking about our healthcare system in general, and I wanted to jot down my thoughts before they flew away.
I think one of the biggest problems in our healthcare system is the industrialization of it. Don't you ever kind of feel like you're on an assembly line conveyor belt when you go to the doctor? You're passed from nurse to nurse to PA to doctor to nurse, poked prodded and measured a little at every step, and then you're on your way and out the door. When did medicine become a manufacturing process? I'm sure it has everything to do with economies of scale, which begs the question: why is it still so damned expensive? Anyway, for some reason this is what our health care system has become. And because each patient is treated basically the same, there is no room or time for customized care. So we are all treated like the lowest common denominator. Which feels pretty crappy.
I am not at all blaming the doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals. They've spent a lot of time and effort and money and passion so that they can be in a profession that helps people. It must be a heartbreaking day when they discover they are essentially factory workers.
I don't know if it's the hospitals or the insurance companies or what it is, and I don't have a solution. But somewhere along the line something got broken and I don't think we're going to fix this mess until we address it. And that broken thing is the relationship between the us and our care providers.
We've got to somehow break away from this system of one-size-fits-most, assembly-line, COA medicine and get back a place where we are making conscientious healthcare choices in tandem with doctors and nurses we trust.
Ultimately, I think that's what the anti-vaxxers are revolting against. Some parents look at a system that treats every newborn the same, and that demands that every two-month-old be given 6 painful shots without a real explanation, and they say, "Wait a minute, that doesn't sound right..." Then they may ask, "Why are we doing this?" and they are given patronizing platitudes but no real explanation, and their trust in the motives of the system cracks a little. Then if, gods forbid, something happens to their child, who is at hand to conveniently blame?
I'm not saying it's right, that people spread misinformation and lies about the effects of vaccines. (And, once again for the record, it has been demonstrably shown that vaccines do NOT cause autism). But I can understand that it comes from a place of deep distrust which has been created by this major weakness in our healthcare system.
I can understand the distrust, because I feel it, too, and I wish I didn't.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Monday, September 12, 2011
Growing girl: weaned!
Back in January, I shared with you all my feelings about wanting to wean Ren before having a second child. Today, I believe that journey is finished! My friend Kari asked how I did it and in the interest of being lazy and not wanting to type it all out again. Here was my response:
Here she is with her new necklace. Looks pretty happy, no?
So, the weaning necklace. I got the inspiration somewhere online, but kinda made it up as I went along, too. I started by telling Ren about the concept of weaning, and tried to make it sound really good, "you're a big girl!" and all that stuff. Then I told her about the weaning necklace, and I told her that as soon as she was ready, we'd go buy some beads and supplies to make a weaning necklace, and that once the necklace was finished, she'd be all done nursing. Very soon she told me she was ready to get started, so we went and bought the beads as a family. I let her pick them out (about 40 of them), and the cord, and she even picked out a little charm with an "R" on it that I told her we'd put on at the end. After that, every time she asked to nurse, I'd give her the choice of nursing or stringing a bead. Whenever she was mostly awake, she'd always choose a bead. If we were in bed and she was half asleep, she'd choose nursing. We started this back in February, and very quickly she was down to only a VERY brief nursing session first thing in the morning. She pretty much stopped asking in the day time. For a while, I even stopped asking her about the necklace, because when we're both half-asleep I'd rather nurse her than try to wake her up and get her interested in the necklace. ;)OK, me again. Of course I'm feeling awfully bitter-sweet about all this, even with Baby Jay on the way, and another potentially long nursing relationship around the corner. Then again, it's not really about the nursing, is it? It's about my little girl, who's growing up and becoming so independent. You all know what it's like: with one hand you want to push them out the door and with the other you want to clutch them to your heart. Anyway, I'm a little sad and a little proud and a lot relieved, but mostly I'm glad that I was able to give my daughter this time and closeness together and to make the end as peaceful as possible.But since I got pregnant it's been painful to nurse, and there's no way I have any milk left anyway, so lately I've been encouraging her to string a bead now and then, even if she hasn't asked to nurse. I've always made it very clear that we're going at her pace and that she has a choice, but that once the necklace is done, that's it for good. These past couple days she's chosen to string a few beads each night, and tonight she was really happy to finish! Of course, she IMMEDIATELY asked to nurse, just to see what would happen and if I really meant it. I said no, you're all weaned now, and gave her some cuddles and hugs instead.
It's been a really gentle and fun way to urge her to self-wean, at a time when I needed her to be done. And I think she made a beautiful necklace, which will hopefully be a nice reminder of our nursing relationship for the rest of her life.
Here she is with her new necklace. Looks pretty happy, no?
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Further thoughts on abortion
Here are a few more.
- Consent to have sex is not the same as consent to become pregnant any more than consent to drive is the same as consent to be in a traffic accident. Indulging in the former naturally carries with it the risk that the latter may occur, but they are not the same thing. We have technologies at our disposal to help mitigate that risk. So much of the pro-life movement seems to exist under the assumption that the pregnant woman was asking for it. But ultimately it just feels to me like they want to punish women for having sex.
- Pregnancy and childbirth is the most intimate human experience possible. Even women who have very easy pregnancies and fast, easy, painless births experience a kind of intimacy with their fetus that is quite literally unimaginable for those who haven't been through it. The sensation of having another being living inside you for nine months cannot be adequately described. Birth is even more intimate; I completely understand why women who have had terrible birth experiences talk about PTSD and "birth-rape." Forcing a woman to go through the experience of pregnancy and childbirth is, in my opinion, more of a violation than rape. It doesn't matter to me why she got pregnant or why she feels she cannot carry the fetus to term, if a woman wants to end a pregnancy, no one should be able to force her continue it.
- A blastocyst is not a human individual, it's a ball of cells. And the rights of a ball of cells should not trump the rights of a woman to bodily integrity. On the other hand, a fetus that is ready to be born is a human individual, and at that point the fetus' right to life trumps the mother's right to bodily integrity. So, at some point between week 3 and week 37 (or so), the scales tip. I don't know when that is, although I think there's a lot of merit to the idea of age of viability, which is currently around 25 weeks. It makes sense to me that if a fetus is capable of life outside the womb, it should no longer be considered a part of its mother, but rather an individual with its own rights. That is why efforts to delay or postpone abortions, like waiting periods and limiting access, piss me off so much. They just make the matter murkier, pushing fetal development closer to that indistinct tipping point. It's not about educating the mother at all, it's about forcing her hand. Which is a violation of her bodily integrity (see point 2).
- The new ultrasound laws are patronizing and misogynistic. It assumes that the pregnant woman is a child or an imbecile, someone who doesn't understand her body, the procedure, or basic biology. It is also a punishment. A shaming technique absolutely intended to provoke feelings of guilt and remorse. I can't imagine a woman who is seeking an abortion doesn't know what she's doing any more than a man who orders a steak doesn't understand what he is doing. So let's pass a law mandating that meat-eaters watch a video of a slaughter house before they are allowed to purchase ground beef or order filet mignon, shall we? Sometimes there's a good reason for not wanting to be able to accurately visualize the consequences of our actions.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Measles and Vaccination
As parents, we tend to be dramatically polarized on a number of topics. But one of the hottest these days is the subject of vaccination. So, inspired by the current measles outbreak in Minnesota, here I go into the fray to provide you all with my two cents.
As a parent who has been extremely conscientious of my vaccination decisions (we've gotten Ren most of the AAP-recommended vaccines, but delayed or declined a few), I've often mentally lumped myself in with the anti-vax crowd. This position has gotten me in some trouble with the pro-vax folks, who seem to think that any opposition or hint of opposition to the AAP vaccination schedule indicates superstitious ignorance at best and borderline child neglect at worst. I find that to be simplistic and insulting. For one, I'm not interested in a conversation about dangerous vs. safe. The research I've done indicates that vaccines are about as safe as any medication can be. So that issue is put to bed for me.
No, one of the things I'm most concerned about with regards to vaccines is the long-term consequences. (I'm also concerned about case-by-case necessity, but I'm not going to get into the necessity argument right now, other than to say that I don't care how safe the Hep-B vaccine is, it was not necessary to give my newborn medication to prevent that particular disease). And measles is the perfect disease to illustrate my point about long-term consequences.
With the current epidemic, most of the reports imply or state outright that measles is a very serious disease. They stress that people can die from measles. The truth is it can be a serious disease for some people, particularly the very old or very young, just like the flu or chickenpox/shingles. But, like those other diseases, it is generally not a serious illness in otherwise healthy people. So what we're really concerned about with a measles epidemic is protecting infants and the elderly.
The reports also suggest that vaccination is the answer. Well, actually, what they really suggest is that non-compliance with the AAP vaccination schedule (by wing-nuts like me) is the problem. The thing is, if we were to allow children to get measles naturally instead of vaccinating them, infants and the elderly would arguably be better protected:
"Recovery from natural measles infection confers lifelong immunity and a woman who has recovered from measles as a child passes maternal antibodies to her fetus, which often protects her newborn from measles for the first year of life. Young mothers today, who were vaccinated as children and never had measles do not have natural maternal measles antibodies to pass on to their babies and, so, most American babies born today are vulnerable to measles from the moment of birth." - http://www.nvic.org/Vaccines-and-Diseases/MMR.aspx (emphasis mine)
That is why I am concerned about the measles vaccine, not because of any claims about autism (thoroughly, utterly debunked, by the way). Currently, most older people had measles naturally as children, so they are protected. There will soon come a day, however, when they are not protected because they all got the vaccine as kids instead of the disease and their immune systems may be too compromised for a booster. At that point, those people most likely to suffer complications from the disease will be completely vulnerable should an outbreak occur; today's babies are already completely vulnerable.
By using this vaccine we've put ourselves in a position where:
A) parents no longer recognize the disease
B) doctors no longer know how to treat it
and
C) the most vulnerable people (the very young and very old) don't have a natural immunity.
By vaccinating, we've done a good job of drastically reducing the number of measles cases, but in exchange the disease is that much more dangerous when there is an outbreak. And I'm afraid the same thing is happening with the chickenpox vaccine. I'm not saying there's an easy answer, I'm just trying to demonstrate that there are consequences to any decision.
All that being said, I chose to get Ren the MMR when she started going to day care because, whatever my personal qualms, I felt a duty to our community to protect all its vulnerable members. I'm just not 100% happy with that choice; it'd be nice if Ren could have natural immunity as an adult, and her babies could have protection as infants. It seems like a Catch-22 either way...
I know this is a hot-button issue for many people, and I hope I haven't offended anyone. What do you think?
As a parent who has been extremely conscientious of my vaccination decisions (we've gotten Ren most of the AAP-recommended vaccines, but delayed or declined a few), I've often mentally lumped myself in with the anti-vax crowd. This position has gotten me in some trouble with the pro-vax folks, who seem to think that any opposition or hint of opposition to the AAP vaccination schedule indicates superstitious ignorance at best and borderline child neglect at worst. I find that to be simplistic and insulting. For one, I'm not interested in a conversation about dangerous vs. safe. The research I've done indicates that vaccines are about as safe as any medication can be. So that issue is put to bed for me.
No, one of the things I'm most concerned about with regards to vaccines is the long-term consequences. (I'm also concerned about case-by-case necessity, but I'm not going to get into the necessity argument right now, other than to say that I don't care how safe the Hep-B vaccine is, it was not necessary to give my newborn medication to prevent that particular disease). And measles is the perfect disease to illustrate my point about long-term consequences.
With the current epidemic, most of the reports imply or state outright that measles is a very serious disease. They stress that people can die from measles. The truth is it can be a serious disease for some people, particularly the very old or very young, just like the flu or chickenpox/shingles. But, like those other diseases, it is generally not a serious illness in otherwise healthy people. So what we're really concerned about with a measles epidemic is protecting infants and the elderly.
The reports also suggest that vaccination is the answer. Well, actually, what they really suggest is that non-compliance with the AAP vaccination schedule (by wing-nuts like me) is the problem. The thing is, if we were to allow children to get measles naturally instead of vaccinating them, infants and the elderly would arguably be better protected:
"Recovery from natural measles infection confers lifelong immunity and a woman who has recovered from measles as a child passes maternal antibodies to her fetus, which often protects her newborn from measles for the first year of life. Young mothers today, who were vaccinated as children and never had measles do not have natural maternal measles antibodies to pass on to their babies and, so, most American babies born today are vulnerable to measles from the moment of birth." - http://www.nvic.org/Vaccines-and-Diseases/MMR.aspx (emphasis mine)
That is why I am concerned about the measles vaccine, not because of any claims about autism (thoroughly, utterly debunked, by the way). Currently, most older people had measles naturally as children, so they are protected. There will soon come a day, however, when they are not protected because they all got the vaccine as kids instead of the disease and their immune systems may be too compromised for a booster. At that point, those people most likely to suffer complications from the disease will be completely vulnerable should an outbreak occur; today's babies are already completely vulnerable.
By using this vaccine we've put ourselves in a position where:
A) parents no longer recognize the disease
B) doctors no longer know how to treat it
and
C) the most vulnerable people (the very young and very old) don't have a natural immunity.
By vaccinating, we've done a good job of drastically reducing the number of measles cases, but in exchange the disease is that much more dangerous when there is an outbreak. And I'm afraid the same thing is happening with the chickenpox vaccine. I'm not saying there's an easy answer, I'm just trying to demonstrate that there are consequences to any decision.
All that being said, I chose to get Ren the MMR when she started going to day care because, whatever my personal qualms, I felt a duty to our community to protect all its vulnerable members. I'm just not 100% happy with that choice; it'd be nice if Ren could have natural immunity as an adult, and her babies could have protection as infants. It seems like a Catch-22 either way...
I know this is a hot-button issue for many people, and I hope I haven't offended anyone. What do you think?
Friday, February 25, 2011
My Thoughts on Circumcision
I wrote the following when I was pregnant with Ren, but it came up again recently when a friend of mine posted a link to an anti-circumcision video on Facebook. So, here are my thoughts on routine infant male circumcision. Enjoy!
All right, March mamas, I’ll get the ball rolling.
DISCLAIMER: I’m just going to do a really basic overview of what I found when I looked into circumcision, before I learned that my baby is (most likely) a girl [Guess what? She was! ;) ]. I’m not always going to site specific statistics or articles, because I am too lazy to go re-find the sources I originally looked at. Quoted sources will be cited. All of this information (and a LOT more) can be found by browsing through the MDC Case Against Circumcision thread (http://www.mothering.com/discussions/forumdisplay.php?f=44)
Here are the main questions I had when looking for info:
What is the foreskin?
“The foreskin is not an inconsequential "flap of skin", as I had been led to believe all of my life. It is actually a highly specialized organ with tens of thousands of nerve endings and grows to be up to 15" square or more in area when a boy becomes an adult. Throughout life, it performs many functions. In infancy, the foreskin provides protection from urine and feces since it is closed and tightly adhered to the penis like a fingernail to a finger (it stays that way until about the age of five, but sometimes until the age of 18 or more). In adulthood, it provides protection from the rubbing of clothing and it provides intense sexual sensations for the man and his partner.”
source: http://www.stopcirc.com/ilearned.html
What exactly is circumcision?
“Circumcision is not a "little snip" as I had heard many refer to it. Approximately 2/3 of the penile skin and most of the sensitivity of the organ is removed. It is an extraordinarily painful procedure, as the delicate foreskin is forcibly ripped from the penis and then slit, crushed and cut away. It takes about 15-20 minutes, with the baby separated from his mother and strapped spread eagle to a plastic restraint. Pain relief is not normally administered although circumcision is classified as surgery. It was thought years ago that babies this young felt no pain, but this theory has since been disproved. A matter of fact, the opposite has been determined through numerous studies - babies feel pain much more intensely than adults. Today, the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) considers it unethical for a doctor to withhold pain relief during circumcision although many still do.”
source: http://www.stopcirc.com/ilearned.html
How common is male circumcision?
Not as common as most Americans think. In fact, it’s pretty rare in most non-Muslim parts of the world other than the US.
Why is it common in the US?
During the Victorian period (mid 1800s), male circumcision was introduced in the English-speaking world as a way to prevent masturbation. Popularity continued in the US through the 1950s and into the 1970s, with the new “medical” reason being that a circumcised penis is “healthier”. (I think they kept it up in order to keep making money from the procedure.)
How common is it in the US today?
It’s losing popularity, with about 50% of boys born in the US today being circumcised shortly after birth. Regional differences are big, though, with only about 30% of California boys being circumcised, versus up to 80% of Midwestern boys. [Since I wrote this back in 2007, the rate has dropped even more, down to around one-third of baby boys nation-wide in 2009 (http://www.drmomma.org/2010/08/us-circumcision-rate-falls-to-33.html)]
So, why would anyone choose this for non-religious reasons? (Common pro-circ reasons, and the rebuttals)
Circumcision prevents STDs and penile cancer - hmmmm... not really. Some studies may show a very slightly higher risk of contracting an STD for intact men, but your son’s foreskin status should NEVER be the first line of defense for STDs anyway. Teach your son to abstain or practice safe sex, and his foreskin won’t be an issue. The cancer thing has been pretty much debunked.
Circumcision prevents UTIs in infant males - although intact infant boys do have a slightly higher risk of UTIs in the first year of life, UTIs are still very rare in ALL male babies. It’s something between 1 in 100 to 1 in 800, depending on the study. Not a valid reason to deprive your son of a healthy body part.
Circumcision in infancy keeps him from having to be circumcised as an adult, when it would be more memorable/painful/scarring - There are a few medical conditions that might ultimately result in a medically necessary circumcision for an adult man, the main one being a persistent tight foreskin (phimosis). But again, this condition is rare, and not a valid reason to circumcise.
Basically, I see all the “medical” arguments this way: it makes the same amount of sense as ripping out our babies’ toenails (with little or no anesthetic) in order to save them from ingrown toenail infections and athlete’s foot in adulthood.
But isn’t an intact penis harder to keep clean? - No. The American Association of Pediatrics says: “Care of the uncircumcised boy is quite easy. ‘Leave it alone’ is good advice. External washing and rinsing on a daily basis is all that is required. Do not retract the foreskin in an infant, as it is almost always attached to the glans. Forcing the foreskin back may harm the penis, causing pain, bleeding, and possibly adhesions. The natural separation of the foreskin from the glans may take many years. After puberty, the adult male learns to retract the foreskin and cleanse under it on a daily basis.”
source: http://www.cirp.org/library/normal/aap/
So what about social reasons?
I want baby to look like dad - Huh. Yeah. Except a child’s penis looks NOTHING like an adult’s penis. What child compares himself that minutely to his father? If your son can handle the fact that he’s shorter than dad, less hairy, and may have different hair/eye/skin color, I don’t think he’s going to fret over foreskin differences.
Won’t he get teased in the locker room? - For one, circumcision is declining in the US, and rare practically everywhere else, so he’s not likely to be the only intact boy in his school. Plus, what adolescent boy points out another boy’s penis to his peers? Boys in locker rooms don’t generally announce that they’ve been checking out other boy’s penises. If your son notices he’s different, hopefully he has been raised with enough love and support that he has the self-esteem not to be bothered too much.
Religious reasons: I don’t really want to touch this, but there are a lot of resources for parents struggling with the religious aspect of circumcision. Many Christians feel circumcision is not at all required as part of their faith, since it is not part of the New Covanent (http://www.stopcirc.com/christian.html). Many Jewish and Muslim parents are also re-examining the roots of circumcision in their faiths, and coming to new conclusions (sorry I don’t have links).
So, what are the drawbacks of circumcision?
Pain, infection, breastfeeding difficulties, and loss of sexual sensitivity are just a few. I didn’t look too deeply into this aspect of the issue when I was doing my research, since I went in with a “Why should I?” attitude rather than a “Why not?” As you can imagine, there’s a ton of resources out there on this subject.
Tons of pages of links to various external websites can be found in the web resources thread of the MDC CAC board: http://www.mothering.com/discussions/showthread.php?t=207626
I hope you all find this helpful! (and also not too preachy) Mamas with more experience, PLEASE add your advice and stories.
Wishing you all happy and healthy babies!
All right, March mamas, I’ll get the ball rolling.
DISCLAIMER: I’m just going to do a really basic overview of what I found when I looked into circumcision, before I learned that my baby is (most likely) a girl [Guess what? She was! ;) ]. I’m not always going to site specific statistics or articles, because I am too lazy to go re-find the sources I originally looked at. Quoted sources will be cited. All of this information (and a LOT more) can be found by browsing through the MDC Case Against Circumcision thread (http://www.mothering.com/discussions/forumdisplay.php?f=44)
Here are the main questions I had when looking for info:
What is the foreskin?
“The foreskin is not an inconsequential "flap of skin", as I had been led to believe all of my life. It is actually a highly specialized organ with tens of thousands of nerve endings and grows to be up to 15" square or more in area when a boy becomes an adult. Throughout life, it performs many functions. In infancy, the foreskin provides protection from urine and feces since it is closed and tightly adhered to the penis like a fingernail to a finger (it stays that way until about the age of five, but sometimes until the age of 18 or more). In adulthood, it provides protection from the rubbing of clothing and it provides intense sexual sensations for the man and his partner.”
source: http://www.stopcirc.com/ilearned.html
What exactly is circumcision?
“Circumcision is not a "little snip" as I had heard many refer to it. Approximately 2/3 of the penile skin and most of the sensitivity of the organ is removed. It is an extraordinarily painful procedure, as the delicate foreskin is forcibly ripped from the penis and then slit, crushed and cut away. It takes about 15-20 minutes, with the baby separated from his mother and strapped spread eagle to a plastic restraint. Pain relief is not normally administered although circumcision is classified as surgery. It was thought years ago that babies this young felt no pain, but this theory has since been disproved. A matter of fact, the opposite has been determined through numerous studies - babies feel pain much more intensely than adults. Today, the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) considers it unethical for a doctor to withhold pain relief during circumcision although many still do.”
source: http://www.stopcirc.com/ilearned.html
How common is male circumcision?
Not as common as most Americans think. In fact, it’s pretty rare in most non-Muslim parts of the world other than the US.
Why is it common in the US?
During the Victorian period (mid 1800s), male circumcision was introduced in the English-speaking world as a way to prevent masturbation. Popularity continued in the US through the 1950s and into the 1970s, with the new “medical” reason being that a circumcised penis is “healthier”. (I think they kept it up in order to keep making money from the procedure.)
How common is it in the US today?
It’s losing popularity, with about 50% of boys born in the US today being circumcised shortly after birth. Regional differences are big, though, with only about 30% of California boys being circumcised, versus up to 80% of Midwestern boys. [Since I wrote this back in 2007, the rate has dropped even more, down to around one-third of baby boys nation-wide in 2009 (http://www.drmomma.org/2010/08/us-circumcision-rate-falls-to-33.html)]
So, why would anyone choose this for non-religious reasons? (Common pro-circ reasons, and the rebuttals)
Circumcision prevents STDs and penile cancer - hmmmm... not really. Some studies may show a very slightly higher risk of contracting an STD for intact men, but your son’s foreskin status should NEVER be the first line of defense for STDs anyway. Teach your son to abstain or practice safe sex, and his foreskin won’t be an issue. The cancer thing has been pretty much debunked.
Circumcision prevents UTIs in infant males - although intact infant boys do have a slightly higher risk of UTIs in the first year of life, UTIs are still very rare in ALL male babies. It’s something between 1 in 100 to 1 in 800, depending on the study. Not a valid reason to deprive your son of a healthy body part.
Circumcision in infancy keeps him from having to be circumcised as an adult, when it would be more memorable/painful/scarring - There are a few medical conditions that might ultimately result in a medically necessary circumcision for an adult man, the main one being a persistent tight foreskin (phimosis). But again, this condition is rare, and not a valid reason to circumcise.
Basically, I see all the “medical” arguments this way: it makes the same amount of sense as ripping out our babies’ toenails (with little or no anesthetic) in order to save them from ingrown toenail infections and athlete’s foot in adulthood.
But isn’t an intact penis harder to keep clean? - No. The American Association of Pediatrics says: “Care of the uncircumcised boy is quite easy. ‘Leave it alone’ is good advice. External washing and rinsing on a daily basis is all that is required. Do not retract the foreskin in an infant, as it is almost always attached to the glans. Forcing the foreskin back may harm the penis, causing pain, bleeding, and possibly adhesions. The natural separation of the foreskin from the glans may take many years. After puberty, the adult male learns to retract the foreskin and cleanse under it on a daily basis.”
source: http://www.cirp.org/library/normal/aap/
So what about social reasons?
I want baby to look like dad - Huh. Yeah. Except a child’s penis looks NOTHING like an adult’s penis. What child compares himself that minutely to his father? If your son can handle the fact that he’s shorter than dad, less hairy, and may have different hair/eye/skin color, I don’t think he’s going to fret over foreskin differences.
Won’t he get teased in the locker room? - For one, circumcision is declining in the US, and rare practically everywhere else, so he’s not likely to be the only intact boy in his school. Plus, what adolescent boy points out another boy’s penis to his peers? Boys in locker rooms don’t generally announce that they’ve been checking out other boy’s penises. If your son notices he’s different, hopefully he has been raised with enough love and support that he has the self-esteem not to be bothered too much.
Religious reasons: I don’t really want to touch this, but there are a lot of resources for parents struggling with the religious aspect of circumcision. Many Christians feel circumcision is not at all required as part of their faith, since it is not part of the New Covanent (http://www.stopcirc.com/christian.html). Many Jewish and Muslim parents are also re-examining the roots of circumcision in their faiths, and coming to new conclusions (sorry I don’t have links).
So, what are the drawbacks of circumcision?
Pain, infection, breastfeeding difficulties, and loss of sexual sensitivity are just a few. I didn’t look too deeply into this aspect of the issue when I was doing my research, since I went in with a “Why should I?” attitude rather than a “Why not?” As you can imagine, there’s a ton of resources out there on this subject.
Tons of pages of links to various external websites can be found in the web resources thread of the MDC CAC board: http://www.mothering.com/discussions/showthread.php?t=207626
I hope you all find this helpful! (and also not too preachy) Mamas with more experience, PLEASE add your advice and stories.
Wishing you all happy and healthy babies!
Sunday, January 30, 2011
On Nursing a Growing Girl
Yay, insomnia!
This is a little different than my normal political rants, but I can't sleep and I've got something on my mind, so here goes.
As Ren gets closer to being three, and as Erik and I prepare to start trying for a second child, I find myself more and more conflicted about continuing to nurse. It's not that I'm leaning more towards weaning, it's more that both the pros and cons are getting weightier.
For reference, I don't nurse Ren that much. She's cut way down in the last 6 months or so. We night-weaned (for my sanity) at around 18 months. We stopped nursing in public for the most part when she was around two, and now we don't do it at all. That pretty much went hand in hand with other forms of modesty. I've started feeling uncomfortable even nursing at other people's homes, although it does depend quite a bit on the person. So now it's pretty much just sometimes when we're hanging out at home in the morning, or right before bed. But she's showing no signs of wanting to stop entirely.
Before having Ren, I was one of those women who said that once my kids could eat food (or ask to nurse, or pull up my shirt), there'd be no reason to continue to nurse. Ha! Boy, was I ever wrong!
Once I realized what a boob-hog I had, I swung the other the direction. Child-led weaning FTW! I'd just let her stop when she was ready, right? After all, it's perfectly natural to breastfeed well into early childhood, right?
Well, I still believe that (and here's a really great article by Kathy Dettwyler that offers compelling evidence). But, gosh, she's getting so big. She's not a toddler, anymore; she's really a little girl. And I can't imagine she's going to give it up on her own any time soon, but sometimes I look down at her and it does seem a little strange.
I'd like to believe that I'm not being influenced by other people's opinions, that I'm only taking my needs and Ren's needs into account. But I don't think that's entirely true. Because we live in a culture where nursing a 2 year old is rare, and nursing a 3 year old is often seen as downright sick. So far I've been blessed with an army of friends and family who have been supportive of extended nursing. But I'm starting to feel that support subtly dry up, although that may be just paranoia or projection on my part.
It's always been vitally important to me to follow Ren's cues. It is my instinct to do so, and without that instinct I would have been utterly lost for the past (almost) three years. I believe that by following Ren's cues about things like breastfeeding, sleep, food, etc., Erik and I have been very successful in raising a happy, caring, curious, secure, boisterous little girl. It is my instinct that if were to try to wean Ren soon, even gently, it would be extremely painful for her, and it might cause undue strain on her relationship with me. It is such a haven for her.
But I'm not sure. Maybe she's ready, and all she needs is a little nudge.
I certainly don't want to wait until I'm very pregnant, or worse, have a new baby, because I really don't want her to connect weaning with the new baby in any way. I will not be able to deny her that comfort if I'm offering it to her sibling.
So, it seems like it's gotta be now, or much later. But I don't know, I don't know...
I'm going to have to figure it out soon, aren't I?
This is a little different than my normal political rants, but I can't sleep and I've got something on my mind, so here goes.
As Ren gets closer to being three, and as Erik and I prepare to start trying for a second child, I find myself more and more conflicted about continuing to nurse. It's not that I'm leaning more towards weaning, it's more that both the pros and cons are getting weightier.
For reference, I don't nurse Ren that much. She's cut way down in the last 6 months or so. We night-weaned (for my sanity) at around 18 months. We stopped nursing in public for the most part when she was around two, and now we don't do it at all. That pretty much went hand in hand with other forms of modesty. I've started feeling uncomfortable even nursing at other people's homes, although it does depend quite a bit on the person. So now it's pretty much just sometimes when we're hanging out at home in the morning, or right before bed. But she's showing no signs of wanting to stop entirely.
Before having Ren, I was one of those women who said that once my kids could eat food (or ask to nurse, or pull up my shirt), there'd be no reason to continue to nurse. Ha! Boy, was I ever wrong!
Once I realized what a boob-hog I had, I swung the other the direction. Child-led weaning FTW! I'd just let her stop when she was ready, right? After all, it's perfectly natural to breastfeed well into early childhood, right?
Well, I still believe that (and here's a really great article by Kathy Dettwyler that offers compelling evidence). But, gosh, she's getting so big. She's not a toddler, anymore; she's really a little girl. And I can't imagine she's going to give it up on her own any time soon, but sometimes I look down at her and it does seem a little strange.
I'd like to believe that I'm not being influenced by other people's opinions, that I'm only taking my needs and Ren's needs into account. But I don't think that's entirely true. Because we live in a culture where nursing a 2 year old is rare, and nursing a 3 year old is often seen as downright sick. So far I've been blessed with an army of friends and family who have been supportive of extended nursing. But I'm starting to feel that support subtly dry up, although that may be just paranoia or projection on my part.
It's always been vitally important to me to follow Ren's cues. It is my instinct to do so, and without that instinct I would have been utterly lost for the past (almost) three years. I believe that by following Ren's cues about things like breastfeeding, sleep, food, etc., Erik and I have been very successful in raising a happy, caring, curious, secure, boisterous little girl. It is my instinct that if were to try to wean Ren soon, even gently, it would be extremely painful for her, and it might cause undue strain on her relationship with me. It is such a haven for her.
But I'm not sure. Maybe she's ready, and all she needs is a little nudge.
I certainly don't want to wait until I'm very pregnant, or worse, have a new baby, because I really don't want her to connect weaning with the new baby in any way. I will not be able to deny her that comfort if I'm offering it to her sibling.
So, it seems like it's gotta be now, or much later. But I don't know, I don't know...
I'm going to have to figure it out soon, aren't I?
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Another Wellstone Memorial?
It pains me to say that it looks like conservative pundits like Michelle Malkin and Rush Limbaugh are turning the memorial for the shootings in Tuscon into another Wellstone Memorial.
I just need to get this all out of my system, because it upsets me so much; sorry if there is little or no coherence to my thoughts. [I'm also fixing typos as I can, sorry]
They're saying that the White House, Obama, the Democrats, the liberals, or whoever cynically turned the Tuscon memorial into a political pep rally, complete with T-shirts with a logo and a slogan. I'll admit that the T-shirts are a weird idea, and an incredibly tacky one if they, in fact, have a Rock the Vote slogan on them, which is as-yet unconfirmed, and I don't really believe it. They're even recycling that old chestnut from the Wellstone Memorial smear: that the closed captioning on the JumboTron was actually an applause sign. Seriously? Are people really this stupid?
OK. The thing is: I attended the Wellstone Memorial and I personally knew some of the people who organized it. So I feel like I have a little insight into what really happened there. It was NEVER intended to be a pep rally or a campaign event. It was four hours of intense emotions shared by tens of thousands of people. Did some people boo conservative politicians? Yes. But only a few out of the vast crowd. There are bound to be a few assholes in any crowd. Did some of the speeches get a little political? Yes. Especially Rick Kahn's. But you know what? Rick was Paul's best friend. He was crazy with grief. Everyone involved in organizing the memorial, all those people who had worked for and loved Paul and Sheila and Will and the other victims, they were all crazy with grief. So crazy that they didn't vet the speeches. It didn't even occur to them. So when Rick went insane in front of a national viewing audience, it was like, holy shit! And when the SAME DAMN pundits who are doing it again now used the "inappropriate", "don't-let-a-crisis-go-to-waste" spin to get Coleman elected, a little part of me died.
[One quick side note: the whole "don't let a crisis go to waste" thing? Lemme see, how'd that work out for Bush? Seems to me he converted 9/11 into that illegal war he wanted, PLUS a second term!]
But that's not the crux of it, I realized tonight. I think the main problem is a real disconnect between the way Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin view the memorials and how they should have been, and the emotional truth of those memorials. So let me spell it out. Because this is surely an honest mistake, right?
Sometimes, when people go through a terrible tragedy, they don't act the way one might think they ought to. In the case of both the Wellstone and the Tuscon memorials, we had all been through a rough few days. Most of us didn't know the victims personally; it was more a symbolic hurt, a symbolic grief. But truly felt, to be sure. The shooting in Tuscon felt like our democracy was under siege, to me, at least. For a member of Congress, a symbol of our government, our democracy and our way of life, to be gunned down on a street corner along with some of her constituents, while she was engaged in her civic duty to those constituents, felt like an attack on all I hold Holy about our nation. Based on the national reaction, I can't be the only one who felt that way. And so for days I felt adrift, hurt, scared. Then I watched the memorial, and here was finally a place where I felt understood and validated, but also uplifted. Our nation is still strong; we have been hurt but we will rise up; and, most important, we are all in this together!
So I can fully understand the reaction from the crowd in Tuscon that night. Here was a group of thousands who had been through a lot. No one stands in a line for a memorial for hours if they are not carrying some pretty heavy baggage about it. And then? Catharsis! We're OK! We're going to get through this! The PRESIDENT HIMSELF says so! The relief! So of course they cheered. And yes, it was loud and boisterous, but people in the extremes of emotion may react in myriad ways.
Cut these people some slack. And please don't let's turn this into another Wellstone Memorial.
Kick ass speech by the President, by the way. Here's my favorite part:
"Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together."
"Sharpen our instincts for empathy...", that is just beautiful.
[ETA: I originally posted that Jeff Blodgett was the close friend who gave the inappropriately political speech at the Wellstone memorial, instead of Rick Kahn. My mistake, I was writing from memory. Jeff Blodgett was Paul's campaign manager, who also subsequently apologized for the tone of the memorial. My apologies to Mr. Blodgett.]
I just need to get this all out of my system, because it upsets me so much; sorry if there is little or no coherence to my thoughts. [I'm also fixing typos as I can, sorry]
They're saying that the White House, Obama, the Democrats, the liberals, or whoever cynically turned the Tuscon memorial into a political pep rally, complete with T-shirts with a logo and a slogan. I'll admit that the T-shirts are a weird idea, and an incredibly tacky one if they, in fact, have a Rock the Vote slogan on them, which is as-yet unconfirmed, and I don't really believe it. They're even recycling that old chestnut from the Wellstone Memorial smear: that the closed captioning on the JumboTron was actually an applause sign. Seriously? Are people really this stupid?
OK. The thing is: I attended the Wellstone Memorial and I personally knew some of the people who organized it. So I feel like I have a little insight into what really happened there. It was NEVER intended to be a pep rally or a campaign event. It was four hours of intense emotions shared by tens of thousands of people. Did some people boo conservative politicians? Yes. But only a few out of the vast crowd. There are bound to be a few assholes in any crowd. Did some of the speeches get a little political? Yes. Especially Rick Kahn's. But you know what? Rick was Paul's best friend. He was crazy with grief. Everyone involved in organizing the memorial, all those people who had worked for and loved Paul and Sheila and Will and the other victims, they were all crazy with grief. So crazy that they didn't vet the speeches. It didn't even occur to them. So when Rick went insane in front of a national viewing audience, it was like, holy shit! And when the SAME DAMN pundits who are doing it again now used the "inappropriate", "don't-let-a-crisis-go-to-waste" spin to get Coleman elected, a little part of me died.
[One quick side note: the whole "don't let a crisis go to waste" thing? Lemme see, how'd that work out for Bush? Seems to me he converted 9/11 into that illegal war he wanted, PLUS a second term!]
But that's not the crux of it, I realized tonight. I think the main problem is a real disconnect between the way Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin view the memorials and how they should have been, and the emotional truth of those memorials. So let me spell it out. Because this is surely an honest mistake, right?
Sometimes, when people go through a terrible tragedy, they don't act the way one might think they ought to. In the case of both the Wellstone and the Tuscon memorials, we had all been through a rough few days. Most of us didn't know the victims personally; it was more a symbolic hurt, a symbolic grief. But truly felt, to be sure. The shooting in Tuscon felt like our democracy was under siege, to me, at least. For a member of Congress, a symbol of our government, our democracy and our way of life, to be gunned down on a street corner along with some of her constituents, while she was engaged in her civic duty to those constituents, felt like an attack on all I hold Holy about our nation. Based on the national reaction, I can't be the only one who felt that way. And so for days I felt adrift, hurt, scared. Then I watched the memorial, and here was finally a place where I felt understood and validated, but also uplifted. Our nation is still strong; we have been hurt but we will rise up; and, most important, we are all in this together!
So I can fully understand the reaction from the crowd in Tuscon that night. Here was a group of thousands who had been through a lot. No one stands in a line for a memorial for hours if they are not carrying some pretty heavy baggage about it. And then? Catharsis! We're OK! We're going to get through this! The PRESIDENT HIMSELF says so! The relief! So of course they cheered. And yes, it was loud and boisterous, but people in the extremes of emotion may react in myriad ways.
Cut these people some slack. And please don't let's turn this into another Wellstone Memorial.
Kick ass speech by the President, by the way. Here's my favorite part:
"Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together."
"Sharpen our instincts for empathy...", that is just beautiful.
[ETA: I originally posted that Jeff Blodgett was the close friend who gave the inappropriately political speech at the Wellstone memorial, instead of Rick Kahn. My mistake, I was writing from memory. Jeff Blodgett was Paul's campaign manager, who also subsequently apologized for the tone of the memorial. My apologies to Mr. Blodgett.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)