Does Anybody Really Know ? Circumcision rules and practices timelines

[TheRifleman]

Reading the "Someday, I'm going to be a parent . . . " thread on this board, which relates to American hospitals continuing to harass and badger parents to have their sons cut, has gotten me to wondering just what the history of hospital RIC has been.

We Intactivists have our own version of history, which we continally repeat, which has caused me to ask this question: Does anybody really know or have any specific documentation on just what the history of hospital RIC is in the USA?

One thing that is continually repeated is that at one time some hospitals required all male babies born on their premises to be cut, and no consent forms were ever even presented to parents for cutting male babies.

The Intactivist Legend & Lore I've read is that possibly in the 1960s or the 1970s, hospitals finally were required to have parents sign consent forms for their sons to be cut.

The hospitals were reqired to obtain consent, by who, or what?

By a law?

A state law in all 50 states?

A Federal law?

And, prior to this law? or laws? how could it be legal for hospitals to have doctors cut off parts of baby boys' penises without consent of the parents?

Under the laws of all 50 states, wouldn't that have been an illegal assault on a baby boy?

Did someone sue a hospital for assault on their baby boy because they cut him, the reason whatever change in law? came about requiring hospitals to obtain consent before cutting baby boys.

I think we present day Intactivists need to know a little bit more about all of this, in specific detail, before we tell our version of history relating to hospital RIC in the USA.

[Cresaiyan]

Hey,


I aggree with you. Having a non-debatable, FACTUAL account of history would do wonders for the intactivist argument, (despite the fact that the only necessary argument needed to reject RIC is that in a free society, individuals have the right to control their own bodies),

I think it would be worth while for all of us to acquire some FACTS. For some people out there, "Don't cause pain to your baby" is not a good enough reason to leave someones' body alone.

[TheRifleman]

Cresaiyan:

Thanks for the reply. I agree with you that simply stating that everyone has the right to a whole body, should be sufficient in the U.S.A., and no arguments for or against MGM should need to be made.

But, with the way things are, we Intactivists are going to have to present our message to the public at large, and discuss things that might not be directly related to Human Rights, and this does require accurage Facts.

At one time, I fancied myself as a historian and documentarian of Intactivism, saving every single issue of the NOCIRC newsleter, and getting tapes of the first 3 Symposia that Marilyn held.

That way, I could find references for any statement I wanted to make.

But, the reality that I don't have the money to keep such things hit me very hard, and I had to give up my fantasies of keeping every document I had gotten related to Intactivism.

Originally Posted by Cresaiyan

Hey,


I aggree with you. Having a non-debatable, FACTUAL account of history would do wonders for the intactivist argument, (despite the fact that the only necessary argument needed to reject RIC is that in a free society, individuals have the right to control their own bodies),

I think it would be worth while for all of us to acquire some FACTS. For some people out there, "Don't cause pain to your baby" is not a good enough reason to leave someones' body alone.

[Dasher]

Some hospitals in the U.S. used to circumcise baby boys, whether the parents wanted the operation done or not. I found this out when a mother complained that the Monadnock Community Hospital in Peterborough, NH circumcised her baby boy even though she did not want him circumcised. This took place around 1980. Peterborough is an elite town where those in positions of authority no doubt consider themselves above the stinking hoi polloi and all its populist madness, such as a preference to keep baby boys intact. However, I'm told the situation at the hospital has since changed, after someone threatened to sue the hospital following an unrequested circumcision. No doubt, the hospital used to think that being a prestigious institution in such an elite place, it had an invisible shield protecting it from lawsuits by people who had to work for a living...and sued for such frivolous reasons as challenging circumcision (it's cleaner and healthier, ya know).

Catholic hospitals, at least the ones in some northeastern dioceses, used to have a no circumcision policy, probably because the Catholic Church forbids circumcision (see Catechism entry No. 2297), not to mention papal orders etc. However, Catholic hospitals are not what they used to be, the bishops have lost control of them, and many of the doctors practicing in them nowadays are Jewish or Muslim and come from cutting backgrounds. To say nothing of the Cafeteria Catholics of today, some of whom probably want their baby boy circumcised anyway, no matter what Catholic doctrine is on the subject. One of the biggest circumcision lawsuits in recent years was filed against a Catholic hospital on Long Island.

[TheRifleman]

Dasher,

Thanks for your reply. I was told by a prominent Intactivist, probably in the mid to late 1990s, that cutting baby boys was no longer considered routine in US hospitals, and that it never would again be considered routine.

Well, I was a bit skeptical at that time, and thought the guy was being overly optimistic.

The more experiences I read of parents to this very day, telling hospitals they they not want their sons cut, and the nurses and doctors continuing to harass them, and using all kind of dirty tricks to "accidently" cut the baby boys without consent, confirm my belief that there has been virtually no change in US hospitals, even into the 21st century.

Of course, I don't know everything, and I always consider the possiblity that I could be wrong.

That is why I started this thread. We do need as defninitve facts as possible in relation to US hospitals pushing RIC, both in the past, and into the present.

Originally Posted by Dasher

Some hospitals in the U.S. used to circumcise baby boys, whether the parents wanted the operation done or not. I found this out when a mother complained that the Monadnock Community Hospital in Peterborough, NH circumcised her baby boy even though she did not want him circumcised. This took place around 1980. Peterborough is an elite town where those in positions of authority no doubt consider themselves above the stinking hoi polloi and all its populist madness, such as a preference to keep baby boys intact. However, I'm told the situation at the hospital has since changed, after someone threatened to sue the hospital following an unrequested circumcision. No doubt, the hospital used to think that being a prestigious institution in such an elite place, it had an invisible shield protecting it from lawsuits by people who had to work for a living...and sued for such frivolous reasons as challenging circumcision (it's cleaner and healthier, ya know).

Catholic hospitals, at least the ones in some northeastern dioceses, used to have a no circumcision policy, probably because the Catholic Church forbids circumcision (see Catechism entry No. 2297), not to mention papal orders etc. However, Catholic hospitals are not what they used to be, the bishops have lost control of them, and many of the doctors practicing in them nowadays are Jewish or Muslim and come from cutting backgrounds. To say nothing of the Cafeteria Catholics of today, some of whom probably want their baby boy circumcised anyway, no matter what Catholic doctrine is on the subject. One of the biggest circumcision lawsuits in recent years was filed against a Catholic hospital on Long Island.

[ctrclckws]

Personal Opinion Only.

There are no clear demarkations on a timeline for the growth and decline of circumcision. One can only compile trends. These trends can be categorized as national, regional, local, or even to one hospital.

There is evidence of this around.
Example: Circumcision rates in the US peaked in the 60's, but in the UK, the rate peaked earlier and started dropping off after National Health Service was institututed.

Regional example:
Western states have a lower circ rate than the rest of the country.


The only way to prove this is to survey and gather data.

So for those who are interested, here are three data points.
1. 1964, Chattanooga, TN, Secular Hospital associated with University of TN at Chattanooga. Mother relayed to son, me, that she had me cut. Dad was out of town at my birth, so no final input. He was cut at 8 years old, not as an infant.
2. 1978, Pensacola, FL, Baptist Hospital, My brother came home cut. probably because my mother told them to.
3. 2006, Summit, NJ. Commercial Hospital. At the birth, a consent form was required. The wording on the consent form had to be read very carefully as it implied that cutting little baby boys was the right thing to do.

Separately, I have asked my daughter's pediatricians (group practice) what they recommend, no surprise, it's snip, snip. She's 6 so that consent form didn't apply to her. FGM was not mentioned at all.

[photenman]

I can answer part of the question.

It was without question unlawful for physicians to circumcise boys without parental consent. Reportedly that often happened before 1971.

It is just a very basic concept in the law that any medical procedure without valid consent (from the person or a proxy) is an assault and battery.

What that means is that most circumcisions ever performed in the U.S. were illegal!

So my guess is that sometime around 1971, parents successfully sued a physician or hospital. 1971 is when the American Academy of Pediatrics said that circumcision is the parent's choice to make. That implies that parental consent is required.

[Dasher]

One of the biggest milestones in the battle to wake Americans up to the dangers and harms of infant circumcision took place during the 1970s, when Benjamin Spock M.D. turned against the practice.

Dr. Spock wrote baby guides for new parents, and most of them read every word and took his books very seriously. When he flipped, and recommended against circumcision, it had a big impact on a lot of parents. The circumcision rate in the U.S. no doubt began to drop just from this major change alone.

Maybe it was a coincidence, but around this time, hospitals suddenly started requiring written permission of parents to circumcise their baby boys.

Getting back to the legal thing, there was a right at Common Law to be secure in your body. Since the U.S. is a Common Law country, and some states (like New Hampshire) even now retain common law pleading, this is a big deal legally.

[HOTW]

When I was PG 18 years ago there was intense pressure to cut if it was a boy, I was lucky that I had good books(we didnt have internet at that point) and a family that was anticirc(EU parents). I was aksed at every Dr appt about circing and given all the standard excuses(look like Dad, UTI's, locker room) and had te right answers for every question. MY DH felt the baby should look like him( whenI asked him if he ever saw his Dads penis he admitted to not knowing if his Dad was circed or not) and by giving an edcuated answer every time I kep getting resistance. When my son was born I wrote on his bassinet card NO CIRC! and kept him in my room at all times because I did not trust the staff! He only went back to the nursery whenI was forced to take him back. I escaped the Hospital with 36hoursof his birth because they kept asking me if I was going to circ!

Despite the fact that the Dr said I would need to sign away on th eline I didnt feel comfortable tiwh the pressure I was receiving and as soon as I was allowed to leave(What you dont want to stay another night " Your insuranc ewill allow it!") I was gone. The sad thing is that despite the fact you are adament they feel they can change your mind! I told my midwife I did not need to know my sons foreskin was nothign but a stem cell burn skin growth or acosmetic aging product,I think I startled her because that was not such wide knowledge in 1994. I was glad I stuck to my guns a few year slater I et a woman who felt like me but gave into her DH and they cut the tip of her sons penis off during the circ.