Natural Childbirth — Newborn Procedures

RSS

Circumcision In The News - Nov 2008 0

Circumcision In The News - Nov 2008 Of all the choices that parents can make surrounding birthing options, none is more permanent or devastating than routine infant circumcision which is usually done for cultural, cosmetic or religious reasons. It is permanent, mutilates your helpless little boy, is a human rights violation, is not the parent's choice (unless you think it is a batterer's choice to beat his wife as well) and yes, there is a thriving market for infant foreskins. Let your son make his own choice about changing his body at 18 or at least wait and see if he is REALLY being made fun of in the locker room. In recent news: From Denmark: http://politiken.dk/newsinenglish/article598875.ece The focus of this article is on the human rights violation side of the issue. Wait until your little boy can make up his own mind about this permanently disfiguring practice. "While there are laws preventing female genital mutilation in Denmark, there are none preventing male genital mutilation. Demands for action." "There is a deep problem here. Society is in no doubt that the genital mutilation of girls is unacceptable - but we accept it with boys and have tolerated it for many years because it is linked to religion. It is gender discrimination from birth that we make a distinction between boys and girls," says Gulberg, who adds that circumcision should be banned for boys under 15 years of age. According to tradition, young Jewish boys are circumcised at the age of eight days." From the land of sick and disgusting: http://www.babble.com/mom/3-strange-uses-for-infant-foreskins/ Most anti-circumcision advocates are aware that foreskins are sold to cosmetics companies, a fact that most of those who circumcise their sons without any research would rather not know. Ignorance is bliss, right? Let's just ignore the fact that doctors and hospitals have an ulterior motive for performing this cruel and unjust procedure on our most helpless and innocent arrivals. Sick - sick - sick. From Gloria Lemay:Are we getting anywhere with ending circumcision?: Gloria is discussing her battle to end circumcision in B.C., Canada where the circumcision rate is only 10% but is no less an outrage as she notes. (US rates vary by region but are well over 50% in many parts of the country). On the decline yes, but every single baby who is mutilated unnecessarily is an absolute and utter tragedy. and my favorite, and older post from one smarmy mama: Click over to read the whole post which is just hysterical (in a tragic sort of way) and includes comebacks to all the traditional arguments for circumcision. It really makes you wonder if ANYONE thinks before doing this to their innocent boy. From on circing which takes from a Livejournal article: "Why? Because of the slight possibility an infection might occur with the foreskin? Might as well start hacking out tonsils and appendixes at birth too, since the rate of infection with those later in life is much higher. Might as well chop off every prepubescent girl's breasts to avoid the chance of breast cancer later. Why? Because it's easier to "do it now than later"? How do you know it'll be needed later? Or he'll want to remove it later? Don't parents realize an adult will get much better anesthetic than an infant? Why? Because it's just easier now? Yeah, performing an amputation without a patient's permission is pretty damn easy. Why? Because you think it's ugly? Best excuse ever. Way to call your baby's gentitalia "ugly". Stop placing your sexual preferences on your newborn baby, douchebag. Why? Because he may get made fun of? Considering that only 11% of newborn boys were circumcised in Canada in 2003, I doubt that. And if a kid was staring at one of my son's penises in the locker room I'd have better questions. Why? Because you have to clean it? A foreskin is wash and wear until it retracts. Jayden's hasn't even yet. And when it does it will probably take me 10 minutes to show him how to pull it back and wipe in the bath. OHHHHHH THE WORK."

Homebirth in the News 11/2008 2

Generally speaking, when homebirth is covered in the media, it is usually with a condescending attitude or outright horror at the "risks" that women take for a homebirth. As many of us now know, that is nonsense and it appears that the trend of homebirth for well screened, low risk women is on the rise. Not just on the rise with the fringe either. Homebirthers are a highly educated, professional bunch. Homebirth in the News Yesterday's issue of the NY Times had a great piece on the rising trend of homebirths in the NY area with credit given to "The Business of Being Born" for bringing much needed attention to the ridiculous state of hospital births in America today. (Go Ricky! Go Ricky!) There was another very positive article on homebirthing in today's issue of TheLedger.com. In other news... Why do we (in N America) feel such righteous indignation toward those who practice genital mutilation on girls, yet we continue to look the other way when baby boys are routinely mutilated for religious, cultural or worse yet, cosmetic reasons?? A quote from the article: "The term “female circumcision” is synonymous with female genital mutilation, and acts as a blanket term for a variety of disfiguring surgical alterations. The World Health Organization firmly opposes female circumcision and considers the removal of the clitoral hood to be a prevailing form of genital mutilation. Male circumcision, however, is a term applied only to a single, familiar cultural practice, and is not considered mutilation. Male foreskin and the clitoral hood are biologically homologous and so mutilation of these body parts should be treated with similar concern. The acceptance of male genital mutilation is an outdated social construct that needs to be looked at from a less dichotomous perspective. It’s almost the same thing, so why treat it differently?" www.cordweekly.com Also see how high copper levels may have an influence on postpartum depression at wellpostpartum.com. Apparently blood copper levels rise in pregnancy and fail to go back down post partum in a number of PPD cases. Risk factors from the article: "Copper excess risk factors: Pregnancy Presently taking estrogen containing medication (e.g. OCP, HRT) Currently take multivitamin containing copper Regularly use copper tea kettles or pans Blue-green stains in bathtub, toilet or sink (suggestive of elevated copper content of water) Family history of: Postpartum depression ADD/ADHD/Autism Wilson’s Disease" www.wellpostpartum.com Last, check out these great tips from Gloria Lemay's wonderful blog about very specific ways you can really help out someone who just had a baby. Funny reading for someone who just had a baby and had to entertain tons of visitors and very useful information for someone who genuinely wants to help out.

Newborn Baby Eye Drops Explained 42

newborn baby eye dropsAuthor: Tom Sample Shortly after your baby is born, the nurse will probably take your baby to a warming table where they clean up your baby a little bit, weigh and measure him, and bring him back to you. When he comes back though you will probably notice that his eyes look wet or greasy. This is the result of him being given newborn baby eye drops. Sometimes it's more like a cream that the nurse rubs on the eye. This is rarely talked about, and most people don't even know why their child is given eye drops at birth. Eye drops at birth are given for the main purpose of helping to prevent any possible infection in your baby's eyes from their trip down the birth canal during labor. Eye infections used to be a major cause of blindness in children, and were often due to the same bacteria that cause gonorrhea or chlamydia in women. When a woman is infected with these bacteria (about 20 percent of women with gonorrhea and 70 percent of women with chlamydia don't have identifiable symptoms), they're present in her vagina. As a baby travels through the birth canal, s/he can pick up bacteria present in the mother's vaginal secretions or fluids. The eye drops are just a precaution. It is a practice that is accepted and done in much of the world, and is even a law in many states. The most common antibiotic given today is erythromycin, however some places still administer silver nitrate which is the first antibiotic that was given starting back in the late 1800's. Silver Nitrate, however, has been found to irritate the baby's eyes, and cause much discomfort. You might want to talk to your doctor about which drug they administer. The hospital should have both on hand. Just state your preferences. Some women will question why their baby was given eye drops after a c-section delivery. Because the possible infection only occurs during the trip down the birth canal, it would seem that it is unnecessary in a c-section. The opinions on this vary. Some people believe that if a woman's water was broken before delivery either naturally or by the doctor, that there is a chance that the baby could still have made contact with any infection that might be present. Also, when given vaginal exams, had internal monitors, etc that infection might have reached the baby. If your doctor or nurse believes this is possible, they might give your baby eye drops after your cesarean delivery. Other times it is routinely done by the hospital as part of the newborn care, whether you have a c-section or vaginal delivery, much like the Hepatitis B shot and hearing tests are routinely done in most hospitals today. If you have any concerns over your baby receiving eye drops, or any other of the routine baby care methods, you should be sure to talk to your doctor or midwife prior to your delivery, as well as put your instructions and concerns in your birth plan so that everyone is aware of your wishes on the day of delivery. Some states have laws stating that the eye drops are mandatory. The drawback of the eye drops is that it makes the baby's vision blurry for a little while. If the baby is given the drops right after birth, it can impede on the bonding process with the mother and father. This is something that you may wish to be delayed until after that first hour of life. Most states have laws that say it is up to the practitioner to provide the eye drops, with no specific time indicated. Oftentimes it is not medically necessary to apply the eye drops within the first hour after birth. Sheryl's comment: This is just one more example of why women are choosing unassisted childbirth and homebirth. If you are 100% certain that you do not have gonorrhea or chlamydia, then there is no reason the world that your newborn should receive painful/irritating eye drops as a "welcome to earth". It is part of the overall "psychology of birth" in which the mother is considered "dirty" and the product (baby) of that "unclean mother" must be removed and sterilized immediately or it is in grave danger of catching her dirty ways. I have heard stories of women arguing with their doctors about their sexual habits to try to protect their newborn. "Wow doctor! Thank you very much for implying that I am cheating on my husband - or that he is cheating on me".  The reality is that people do cheat and the laws are in place to protect those newborns from a mother who is in fact infected whether or not she knows or admits it. Nobody wants a blind baby. You can get tested for gonorrhea or chlamydia while pregnant and then have a peaceful homebirth free of eye drops. Know your rights and refuse the drops if you know you do not have an STD and are birthing in a hospital or birthing center. Image Source: http://flickr.com/photos/64939463@N00/377834503/

Video: Actual Male Circumcision 8

Genital Integrity RibbonWould you cut off your daughter's breasts at birth so she doesn't get breast cancer? Would you cut off your baby's ears so they don't become infected? It is illogical and absurd to think of amputating any working, healthy part of your trusting, helpless infant. Why are most Americans aghast at female genital mutilations happening on the other side of the world yet they think nothing of mutilating and permanently disfiguring innocent infant boys right here at home? Circumcision crushes or rips off a healthy part of a human body. No medical or pediatric association recommends it because there is no valid scientific reason to engage in this practice. Your doctor does it for the money. As sick and abominable as that is, it is true. On top of charging for the procedure, the hospital will turn around and sell your baby boy's foreskin for profit. I get very fired up about childbirth. I believe in my heart that the atrocities visited upon women and children by the obstetrics community for profit is beyond deplorable. It makes me sick and I will do what I can in this lifetime to change it. Western women are able to read and research during their pregnancy however. They are able to rip out IVs, kick the doctor , check themselves out and run if they have to. They can, on many levels, protect themselves. A newborn boy cannot protect himself. He has to rely on his parents to protect him. This is the reason that I find the wholesale mutilation of boys so mind-bogglingly sick and wrong. It literally makes me sick to my stomach to think of the horror that is seared into the brain of up to 70% of boys in this country. What a ghastly way to be welcomed into the world. Circumcision is a barbaric, cruel, unethical, morally reprehensible, sickening, irreversible, excruciating, human rights violation. Circumcision is a crime against the most innocent and helpless among us. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmX6RdRNoqk

Circumcised Penis Myths and Facts 18

Circumcised Penis Myths and FactsI didn't want to post about circumcised penis myths and facts to raise an open debate on pros or cons about this very ancient practice. Should our boys go through this pain for their benefit? Circumcision is a completely elective surgery, meaning that it is not necessary. And for this reason I would prefer to leave my newborn boy uncircumcised. Let him decide what suits him best once he becomes adult. Myth 1 : A circumcised penis is more hygienic and cleaner. A substance which consists of oils, dead skin an antibody called smegma will accumulate beneath the foreskin of uncircumcised penis thus provide an ideal environment for bacteria colonization. This condition will increase the risk of infection. Fact 1: Smegma has been wrongly accused as unclean or dirty. In fact, it is very clean. The antibodies in fresh smegma actually prevent bacteria colonization. It is true that if the accumulation of smegma goes unchecked it could be unhealthy but any penis that is not properly washed is at high risk of infection since dirt and bacteria can collect everywhere from your foreskin, scrotum and your pubic hairs. Myth 2: Foreskin does not have any significant function in our body but to provide a place for germs causing UTI, HPV and HIV to easily invade our body thus circumcision serves as diseases prevention. It is minor surgery and not so painful. Fact 2: The foreskin is a functional organ with a purpose, which is to protect the penis from bacterial infection, to provide lubrication during intercourse, and to enhance the sexual experience of the man. The truth is that germs causing UTI, HPV, HIV and other diseases can be absorbed through membranes in the penis, whether circumcised or not. Another fact is that circumcision is very painful even when pain relief is administered to the patient; the penis is sore throughout the recovery time and very prone to infection.

Myth 3: Circumcision effectively prevents UTI (urinary tract infection)

Fact 3: There is no reason to recommend circumcision to prevent potential or recurrent UTI, as there is no indicator that having a foreskin creates a greater incidence of urinary tract infection. There is not enough evidence for any pediatric organizations including the American Academy of Pediatrics to recommend routine infant circumcision. Myth 4: Circumcision can reduce cervical cancer rates Fact 4: The above statement probably derived from an article in New England Journal of Medicine in 2002 that claimed that circumcision reduced the risk of causing cervical cancer. Despite the study being flawed and the conclusions exaggerated, many still cite it as "proof" that circumcision can reduce cervical cancer rates. That fact is most medical institutions such as American Cancer Society, The Cancer Research UK, The American Academy of Pediatrics and Canadian Paediatric Society do not link non-circumcision to cervical cancer. Consider this fact: 91% of American men born in 1970 and 83% of American men born in 1980 were circumcised and U.S is considered to have very high rate of circumcision rate but strangely U.S is also reported as country with highest cervical cancer rates compared to countries with the lowest rates of circumcision like Holland, Belgium, France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Scandinavia, the U.S.S.R., China, and Japan. It is obvious that circumcision rates do not affect the cervical cancer rates across the globe. Myth 5: Circumcision may offer some protection against HIV for men. Fact 5: It does not. A man has the same risk of getting infected by HIV whether intact or cut. There are many other factors may be involved in the likelihood of men to contract HIV. An even better way to protect oneself against HIV might be to practice safe sex than cutting off your foreskin. Myth 6: Circumcision is more aesthetic look Fact 6: Hmm.... why don't we let the boy decide that for himself when he reaches adulthood. Myth 7: Circumcision provides better sexual experience, stronger erection and bigger penis Fact 7: Come on...Don't be silly. You know it has nothing to do with it. Author: eking About the author:http://all-about-men.blogspot.com Image Source: http://flickr.com/photos/elijahcalebtan/126385498/