Children Should Sleep Near Parents Until 5

By Sian Griffiths
One of Britain’s leading experts on children’s mental health has advised parents to reject years of convention and allow children to sleep next to them until the age of five.

Margot Sunderland, director of education at the Centre for Child Mental Health in London, says the practice, known as cosleeping, makes children more likely to grow up as calm, healthy adults. Sunderland, scientist and author of 20 books, outlines her advice in The Science of Parenting.

She is so sure of the findings in the new book, based on 800 scientific studies, that she is calling for health visitors to be issued with fact sheets to educate parents about co-sleeping. “These studies should be widely disseminated to parents,” said Sunderland. “I am sympathetic to parenting gurus — why should they know the science? 90% of it is so new they bloody well need to know it now. There is absolutely no study saying it is good to let your child cry.”

She argues that the practice common in Britain of training children to sleep alone from a few weeks old is harmful because any separation from parents increases the flow of stress hormones such as cortisol. Her findings are based on advances in scientific understanding over the past 20 years of how children’s brains develop, and on studies using scans to analyze how they react in particular circumstances. For example, a neurological study three years ago showed that a child separated from a parent experienced similar brain activity to one in physical pain.

Sunderland also believes current practice is based on social attitudes that should be abandoned. “There is a taboo in this country about children sleeping with their parents,” she said. “What I have done in this book is present the science. Studies from around the world show that co-sleeping until the age of five is an investment for the child. They can have separation anxiety up to the age of five and beyond, which can affect them in later life. This is calmed by co-sleeping.”

Symptoms can also be physical. Sunderland quotes one study that found some 70% of women who had not been comforted when they cried as children developed digestive difficulties as adults. Sunderland’s book puts her at odds with widely read authors such as Gina Ford, whose advice is still followed by thousands.

Ford advocates establishing sleep routines for babies from a very early age in cots “away from the rest of the house” and teaching babies to sleep “without the assistance of adults”. In her book, she writes that parents need time by themselves.

Annette Mountford, chief executive of the parenting organization, Family Links, confirmed that the norm for children in Britain was to be encouraged to sleep in cots and beds, often in separate bedrooms, from an early age. “Parents simply want their space,” she said.

Sunderland says moving children to their own beds from a few weeks old, even if they cry in the night, has been shown to increase the flow of cortisol. [High cortisol levels are associated with such health hazards as high blood pressure, hypertension, high vasocongestion, headaches, belly aches, indigestion, acid reflux, decreased attachment, decreased bonding, problems with breastfeeding, failure to thrive, decreased IQ, slow development, and social distrust.]

Studies of children under five have shown that for more than 90%, cortisol rises when they go to nursery. For 75%, it falls whenever they go home.

Professor Jaak Panksepp, a neuroscientist at Washington State University, who has written a foreword to the book, said Sunderland’s arguments were “a coherent story that is consistent with neuroscience. A wise society will take it to heart.”

Sunderland argues that putting children to sleep alone is a peculiarly western phenomenon that may increase the chance of cot death, also known as sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). This may be because the child misses the calming effect on breathing and heart function of lying next to its mother.

“In the UK, 500 children a year die of SIDS,” Sunderland writes. “In China, where cosleeping is taken for granted [as the normal way for babies to sleep], SIDS is so rare it does not even have a name.”


Additional research on sleep sharing can be found on the Baby Sleep Resources Page. 
Also see, Sleep Training: A Review of Research.

The CoSleeping Group:
FB.com/groups/CoSleeping

*******

Homebirth Rights Rally [VIDEO]

Today Sponge Re-introduced

In drug stores nation-wide and for discounts see: http://www.todaysponge.com/spongeworthyclub.html

It is safe, proven, hormone-free and spontaneous - with 24-hours of protection.

Always good to have more hormone-free, reliable options for women to select from.

Christiane Northrup (Women's Bodies, Women's Wisdom) on Circumcision

Excerpt from Dr. Christiane Northrup's, "Women's Bodies, Women's Wisdom: Creating Physical and Emotional Health and Healing" (1994). New York: Bantam Books.

Author Christiane Northrup, M.D., an obstetrician/gynecologist, co-directs the innovative Women to Women health care center in Yarmouth, Maine. She edits the national health newsletter "Health Wisdom for Women" and is Assistant Clinical Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Vermont School of Medicine.


Circumcision of baby boys is another example of a painful procedure that is unnecessary. Circumcision is a perfect example of the triumph of emotion and outdated and unproven beliefs over common sense and scientific data that it is unnecessary. Dr. George Dennison sums up the circumcision issue very nicely: "To me the idea of performing 100,000 mutilating procedures on newborns to possibly prevent cancer in one elderly man is absurd."

The discussion of circumcision is a perfect example of the strength and influence of tribal programming on our thought and emotional responses. This programming is so ingrained that many people cannot even discuss the subject of circumcision without guilt, denial, or other strong emotions. I know that even addressing the subject of the baby boy's bodily integrity, choices, and pain if the procedure is done can cause a "kill the messenger" reaction. But this programming can be successfully questioned and worked through, if desired. Many Jewish couples have rethought the entire circumcision issue and have decided not to have it done to their sons.

I've seen circumcision done in the delivery room. Welcome to the world, baby boy"now to initiate you properly, we're going to cut off one of the most sensitive parts of your body with no anesthesia!' Circumcision is known to cause sleep disturbances for at least three days. I believe that it also has profound implications for male sexuality that I cannot begin to address adequately in this book. In fact, it is a form of sexual abuse. We certainly feel that way about female clitoridectomy, circumcision, and infibulation, but we justify male infant circumcision by pretending that the babies don't feel it because they are too young and it will have no consequences when they are older.

The foreskin is a highly innervated part of the body. There is no doubt that circumcision toughens' the delicate skin of the tip of the penis. Men who have been circumcised later in life and who therefore know the difference report a decrease in their sexual sensations. One of my friends who is NOT circ'd says that he wonders if rape is less common in countries in which the men are not circumcised. His experience is that having intercourse with a woman who isn't aroused and well-lubricated is as painful to him as it is for her because of the delicacy of the foreskin!

Birth, A Play

Birth is a play based on over one hundred interviews Karen Brody conducted with mothers across America who gave birth between 2000-2004. It tells the true stories of 8 women painting a portrait of how low-risk, educated women are giving birth in America today.

In the play we meet Jillian, a stay-at-home mother of four children, who always sees the humor in life, especially in her mixed-bag of birth experiences; and Beth, a 35-year-old successful, high-powered computer systems manager from New Jersey who confidently planned a cesarean.

We are introduced to Vanessa, a buyer for a major department store who never had a doubt that she wanted an epidural. We hear from Janet, a lesbian in her 40s, who despite her feminist background wanted a medicalized birth, fearing the safety of herself and the baby; and Lisa, an African-American who felt intimidated and used by her midwives and the medical system after her birth.

We get to know Sandy, who thought birth was “just one day,” but found out that having an emergency c-section on that day changed her world. We hear Natalie's intimate story of physical betrayl; and Amanda, an athletic, confident stay-at-home mother who believed her birthing mantra--”My Body Rocks”--gave her the attitude she needed to give birth naturally in the hospital.

Moving between first-person monologues, some dialogue, and the voices these women heard on the day they gave birth, Birth confronts, what City Lights Theater Company has called, "The naked truth about childbirth in America."

Getting Vertical Back!! ~Gentle Birth~

AMERICAN BABY MAGAZINE: Circumcision Lies & CDC Misquotes



This 'Health Brief' regarding circumcision, published on page 18 of the July 2009 issue of American Baby Magazine, is not only untrue, but disturbing on many levels. I will break down my response to the primary lies included in this 'brief' below.



Circumcision Statistics

The CDC (listed by American Baby as the source for this inaccurate information) has never made such statements regarding circumcision. They have, however, publicly released circumcision statistics for the past several decades and record/report that there has never been a nation-wide circumcision rate higher than the all-time high of 65% of baby boys cut at birth in the U.S. in 1980. AHRQ (The Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality) also cites the highest newborn circumcision rate at 65% in 1980. Furthermore, the rates of circumcision have steadily declined every year since 1980 as more parents research the topic ahead of time and become accurately and fully informed. By 2005, the CDC reports a nationwide circumcision rate of 56%, and even lower (31%) on the Coasts. In 2009 we are finally seeing a dip below the 50% mark - over 1/2 baby boys born today are remaining INTACT thanks to knowledgeable parents who care enough to research the topic fully before cutting their son.

As part of our medical research pertaining to the prepuce organ & genital cutting, we reviewed the past decade of CDC circumcision statistics, as well as disease/STD and UTI reports. The actual reports counter every aspect of this American Baby statement.

STDs


Unfortunately, the U.S. does still have the highest rate of circumcision of any Western nation. However, our rates (as atrocious as they are) are FAR below the quoted 79%. Rather, in 2008 about 50% of newborn boys were cut at birth. This is still much greater than ANY other developed nation -- Canada is second in line with a circumcision rate of 10% newborn boys being cut. Interestingly enough, the U.S. also has the HIGHEST rate of all STDs of any Western nation (including HIV). On the other hand, developed nations where 98-99% of boys/men remain intact, we find the lowest rates of STDs (including HIV). If circumcision 'protected' against diseases (which it certainly does not - it does JUST THE OPPOSITE)...but if it did, we would NOT see these figures to such an extreme and obvious degree.


There are no "African Studies" on circumcision and AIDS as the popular media loves to claim. There were three trials (that were not valid/reliable/repeatable or peer-reviewed in any way) conducted by a research team funded and propelled by Americans with the preliminary purpose of going into South Africa to circumcise the black adult men there. Countless medical groups from around the world have critiqued and called into question the methods used for this study. When their first "results" showed no difference between cut vs. uncut men, another small sample of African men was 'recruited' and divided ahead of time into those who tested positive vs. negative for HIV and those who were cut vs. uncut so the 'sample' could be an accurate picture of what they were hoping to show. Although this whole thing is bogus to begin with -- EVEN IF IT WEREN'T - it has NOTHING to do with the routine genital cutting of baby boys in the United States! A good article on this: http://www.mothering.com/truth-about-circumcision-and-hiv

By simply looking at the purposes/functions of the prepuce organ ('foreskin') we see that one of its primary reasons for existing is protection and to COMBAT illness/disease by naturally warding off bacteria/viruses with its own perfect concoction of antibodies. Remove it, and this most excellent source of protection is gone. When I reviewed EVERY SINGLE study done on the topic as part of my graduate study & dissertation publication, I found that it has been repeatedly demonstrated that circumcised men (in all countries) have higher rates of ALL STDs (HIV included) across the board. Intact men certainly are at a benefit as far as health is concerned.

And all this said -- why on earth are we focusing so much on cutting/not cutting genitals when it comes to STDs?! The only real protection is:
(1) to abstain from sex w/ infected partners or
(2) use condoms.
Maybe we should pour our $ and resources into condom use/education rather than trying to cut up men worldwide...

The race-related study imposed by white American men on black S.African men is reminiscent of another STD 'study' done years ago... Tuskegee, anyone?

UTIs

Women/girls have a 900x greater likelihood of getting a UTI than men/boys. Among men/boys a urinary tract infection is very rare, and when it does happen, is almost always due to an unknowledgeable adult messing with, forcibly retracting, or over-cleaning a baby boy's penis. Should we cut off the prepuce organ of all girls at birth? Obviously they would 'benefit' more than the boys...No, of course not. Because UTIs are minor and EASILY and quickly treated with antibiotics. UTIs among boys (especially in the first year of life) are even easier to PREVENT by following a simple rule of thumb:

INTACT = DON'T RETRACT! ONLY CLEAN WHAT IS SEEN!

Further More...

There are many reasons that NOT ONE Medical Organization in the entire WORLD (including the CDC) recommends circumcision. This tells us something and should have been reflected in American Baby's quip.

When we started removing the prepuce organ in a U.S. rampage at the end of WWII, we KNEW what it would do to men's sexuality - their sexual sensation, their sexual experience - and that of their partner. Our primary goal was to REDUCE sexual fulfillment among men by removing the ONE organ MOST responsible. We hoped (at least Kellogg and Graham hoped and preached) that it would curtail masturbation among boys and reduce promiscuity among men. Our soldiers would be "healthier" in future wars - more able to focus on the war at hand - rather than picking up women (and thereby diseases) around the world. Of course, it never did work to diminish masturbation, promiscuity, disease - or blindness for that matter! But it DID reduce a nation of men's natural sexuality & experience.

Why is it that American Baby not only presents an inaccurate picture of circumcision (with an outright statistics lie) but also neglects to present an entire mountain of empirical research and information on the history of circumcision in the United States, as well as the real-life risks and consequences of the surgery? How about mentioning the rate that baby boys die, lose their penis, hemorrhage, go into pain-induced shock, coma, have seizures, heart-failure, trouble breastfeeding, bonding failure, poor attachments, increased colic for months following the assault, infections from the wound, sexual dysfunction and implications later in life, among countless other side effects.

If parents are really to make an informed decision, why not mention the fact that circumcision also hurts a boy's future partner - why not talk about how male circumcision impacts women? [Graphic, but informative site on this topic: http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com]

And none of this gets at the heart of the human rights violation of circumcision. In the end, a man's body is HIS body. If he wants to cut up his nether regions when he is old enough to say "CUT ME," then so be it. But at birth, a crucial time of primal attachment, bonding, hormone rushes, trust/distrust formation, heightened sensitivity - especially to pain, along with countless other things - it is NOT the time to play hack-saw with a boy's most sensitive organ. It is not anyone's right to remove 1/3-1/2 the penis surface, the most erogenous area, the ridged band, 20,000+nerve endings, mucus membranes, sebaceous glands, and more - forever impacting this man's future life/health/sexuality along with that of his partner, without his knowledge and full informed consent. It is a complete violation of human rights and genital integrity. Let us work toward the passing of the MGM Bill to protect the 40%+ newborn boys still cut at birth.

If American Baby really wishes to present an accurate (and full) picture of circumcision in the U.S. -- to actually empower parents in their decision with factual information, rather than to persuade the unknowing with rabidly pro-cutting false propaganda -- they will print a rebuttal and future retractions to this media atrocity.

I encourage you, Reader, to write to American Baby so that this does not go unnoticed or uncorrected.

Email:
ABLetters@americanbaby.com

Mail:
Judith Nolte, Editor-in-Chief
American Baby Magazine... Read More
c/o Meredith Corp.
375 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017



For additional information on intact care, the prepuce (foreskin) and circumcision, see books, articles and sites at: Are You Fully Informed? 




UPDATE:

After receiving many letters from parents, physicians, researchers, and even CDC members, "American Baby" stated that they based their little write-up on this one particular article abstract:

Prevalence of Circumcision and Herpes Simplex Virus Type 2 Infection in Men in the United States: The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 1999-2004.

It is obvious that the editor was searching for anything they could skew enough to misrepresent circumcision statistics today.

In 2008, I read a similar publication on this study (printed in a different medical journal).

This study does not present anything new -- yes, a lot of men were circumcised between the 1940s-1970s and it (thankfully) started to decrease in the 1980s. We already know this. The rate of men cut at birth decreased as the 1980s progressed (greatly due to parents who started learning of the horrors of circumcision and began speaking out in the late 1970s).

The fact that this small sample of adult men surveyed revealed a 79% circumcised rate (among those men returning the survey) does not change or impact the rate of newborns circumcised in any given year in the United States. According to the CDC, this rate has never been higher than 65% and today is down to 50%. This small sample survey study is also not a reliable representation of all U.S. males currently alive today.

Was this "American Baby" piece really written by someone who does not understand survey research and the way statistics are presented?

Making a blanket statement about the CDC's research and presenting the numbers as such is an outright lie.

Why "American Baby" ignores the 2nd part of the study that shows NO correlation between infection and circumcision is also cause for question.

The final line in the study's abstract repeats what ALL the other medical studies on circumcision and STDs have shown: "Circumcision was not associated with HSV-2 infection."

I had the opportunity to study this topic extensively while in graduate school, looked at every disease of the prepuce organ (in women and men), and know the circumcision research inside and out. "American Baby" is presenting mis-truths and outright lies and needs to print a correction and apology to all American parents and the CDC who they are misrepresenting.

Girl or Boy? Choose the sex of your next baby...

There are many parents today who would love to add a little baby girl or boy (specifically) to their family. While I don't typically advocate sex-selected divisions (after all, it is my wish that all genders/sexes would be equally valued - especially as little ones) there are some very basic and very 'natural' ways to influence the conception of your next baby. Having spent years studying and teaching in human sexuality, it sometimes comes as a surprise to me that this information is not common knowledge yet - but then again, most people are probably not as enamored with learning about the birds-and-the-bees as I am...

My own mother used this book long ago - 30+ years! - to get her babies - Girl, Boy, Girl, Boy. It has been used successfully by countless others. And while it may not be the most 'entertaining' of reads - it actually works (most of the time!). The advice found within - when put into practice - greatly increases your own likelihood of your next baby being a boy or girl.

So, if this is something that spikes your interest -- happy baby making!

How to Choose the Sex of Your Baby - L.B. Shettles & D.M. Rorvik

Circumcision: A Response To Skeptics

Someone asked today how I handle people who just want to circularly argue about circumcision without ever actually looking at the factual research and literature on the topic. Those people who do not know what the prepuce organ is, what it does, or is responsible for - who think that it is 'just skin' that is removed during infant circumcision. How do I respond, she asked, to people who repeatedly bring up the "African studies" or "cleanliness" without really knowing what they are talking about in the first place...


---


I don't argue with people who:
(1) really want to remain ignorant due to their own disturbed fascination with cutting boys penises
(2) have circumfetishes
(3) are too intellectually challenged to understand valid medical studies vs. propaganda, read empirical research, or study health-related topics in depth with 1/2 a brain.

It is just too exhausting and those are the rabidly pro-cutting people who are bound and determined to repeat the abuse no matter how unfounded it is. They are those you just hope do not have sons...(or girls if they are in a country that cuts the prepuce organ fr girls). And it is for these little ones that the MGM Bill is so vitally necessary in the United States.

Although I don't waste my time arguing with those who fit the above-mentioned categories, I DO give them and everyone who brings up the topic ample resources to accurate, factual information and well-done empirical studies. I make sure they have access to learn all they can, and dig into the literature and experience of the topic further on their own. I encourage them to watch circumcisions being done - to become WELL VERSED in the prepuce organ - all its many functions and purposes for existing. To thoroughly know the statistics and facts on the matter. I provide the starting point in research on the topic (it isn't difficult when there is SO much of it).

And, in the end, I remind them of a few things:

1) There are many reasons that NOT ONE Medical Organization in the entire WORLD recommends circumcision. This alone should tell us something.

2) The U.S. has the highest rate of circumcision of any Western nation (by FAR the highest as our rates are about 50% and the next closest is Canada with a rate around 10%). We also have the HIGHEST rate of all STDs of any Western nation (including HIV). Developed nations where 98-99% of their boys/men remain intact have the lowest rates of STDs (including HIV). If circumcision 'protected' against diseases (which it certainly does not - it does JUST THE OPPOSITE)...but if it did, we would NOT see these figures to such an extreme and obvious degree.

3) Men have a higher chance of getting BREAST CANCER (0.7% likelihood) than they do of getting penile cancer (0.09%). To argue that circumcision decreases the rate of penile cancer is like arguing that if we keep kids locked inside their bedroom their whole life they won't get struck by lightening outside. It is absurd. Yes, if you cut an organ off your body, you will not ever get cancer in that organ. Bright idea. Maybe we should severe all organs & limbs & live as vegetables.

4) Women/girls have a 900x greater likelihood of getting a UTI than men/boys. Among men/boys it is very rare, and when it does happen, is almost always due to an unknowledgeable adult messing with/forcibly retracting/over-cleaning a baby boy's penis. Should we cut off the prepuce organ of all girls at birth? Obviously they would 'benefit' more than the boys... No, of course not. Because UTIs are minor and EASILY and quickly treated with antibiotics.

5) There are no "African Studies" - there was ONE 'study' (that was not valid/reliable/repeatable or peer-reviewed in any way) conducted by a research team funded and propelled by Americans with the preliminary purpose of going into South Africa to circumcise the black adult men there. Countless medical groups from around the world have critiqued and called into question the methods used for this study. When their first "results" showed no difference between cut vs. uncut men, another small sample of African men was 'recruited' and divided ahead of time into those who tested positive vs. negative for HIV and those who were cut vs. uncut so the 'sample' could be an accurate picture of what they were hoping to show. Although this whole thing is bogus to begin with -- EVEN IF IT WEREN'T - it has NOTHING to do with the routine genital cutting of baby boys in the United States! Dr. Dean Edell discusses this here, along with additional articles on the subject.

6) By simply looking at the purposes/functions of the prepuce organ we see that one of its primary reasons for existing is for protection and to COMBAT illness/disease by naturally warding off bacteria/viruses with its own perfect concoction of antibodies. Remove this, and this most excellent source of protection is gone. When I reviewed EVERY SINGLE study done on the topic as part of my graduate study & thesis publication, I found that it has been repeatedly demonstrated that circumcised men (in all countries) have higher rates of ALL STDS (HIV included) across the board. Intact men certainly are at a benefit as far as health is concerned. And all that said -- why on earth are we focusing so much on cutting/not cutting genitals when it comes to STDs?! The only real protection is (1) to abstain from sex w/ infected partners or (2) use condoms. Maybe we should pour our $ and resources into condom use/education in South Africa rather than trying to cut them all up... This race-related study imposed by white American men on black S.African men sort of reminds me of another STD 'study' done years ago... Tuskegee, anyone?

7) When we started removing the prepuce organ in a U.S. rampage at the end of WWII, we KNEW what it would do to men's sexuality - their sexual sensation, their sexual experience - and that of their partner. Our primary goal was to REDUCE sexual fulfillment among men by removing the ONE organ MOST responsible. We hoped (or, at least Kellogg and Graham hoped and preached) that it would curtail masturbation among boys and reduce promiscuity among men. Our soldiers would be "healthier" in future wars - more able to focus on the war at hand - rather than picking up women (and thereby diseases) around the world. Of course, it never did work to diminish masturbation, promiscuity, disease - or blindness for that matter! But it DID reduce a nation of men's natural sexuality & experience. Kudos to N.O.R.M. for gathering together men who want to counter this assault upon their sexuality (and their partner's experience) as best they can. [More on restoration here.]

8) In the end, a man's body is HIS body. If he wants to cut up his nether regions when he is old enough to say "CUT ME" then so be it. But at birth, a crucial time of primal attachment, bonding, hormone rushes, trust/distrust formation, heightened sensitivity - especially to pain, along with countless other things - it is NOT the time to play hack-saw with a boy's most sensitive organ. It is not anyone's right to remove 1/3-1/2 the penis surface, the most erogenous area, the ridged band, 20,000+nerve endings, mucus membranes, sebaceous glands, and more - forever impacting this man's future life/health/sexuality along with that of his partner, without his knowledge and full informed consent. It is a complete violation of human rights and genital integrity.

I agree with Derek, a father who blogs about his experience w/ circumcision (http://naturalpapa.com/circumcision-will-you-make-the-cut/
http://naturalpapa.com/circumcision-barbaric-mutilation-videos/), when he says that any mother who is going to allow her son to be genitally mutilated at birth should have to hold her writhing baby - legs forced open, screaming bloody murder, lapsing in and out of comas/seizures/petit heart failure - to watch the physician stroke her baby's tiny member to achieve erection for the first time post-birth and get a better 'grip', to rip his prepuce off his glans (as a fingernail ripped from the finger), to stab a knife in between and separate the glans from the prepuce (firmly attached as one-and-the-same at birth), to clamp and slice, cut and sever (and then sell to cosmetic/pharmaceutical companies!) the #1 most sensitive organ that exists on men and women.

If we (as mothers especially) were not allowed to cowardly hand over our baby to be sexually abused as we hid in another room, maybe more mothers would SEE what takes place, do their research ahead of time, and speak out about what a horrifying tragedy is still taking place for the very unluckiest of boys born to parents ignorant or misinformed on this topic.

The Midwives and Mothers in Action (MAMA) Campaign

The Midwives and Mothers in Action (MAMA) Campaign is launched!

The MAMA campaign is a collaborative effort by the National Association of Certified Professional Midwives (NACPM), Midwives Alliance of North America (MANA), Citizens for Midwifery (CfM), International Center for Traditional Childbearing (ICTC), North American Registry of Midwives (NARM), and the Midwifery Education Accreditation Council (MEAC).

This partnership is now at work to gain federal recognition of Certified Professional Midwives so that women and families will have increased access to quality, affordable maternity care in the settings of their choice. Sign up below to receive news and action alerts. We will be sending out information about the ways that you can take action for CPMs. Please consider endorsing the campaign, making a donation, and sharing your birth story on our site.


Federal recognition that enables Certified Professional Midwives to be Medicaid providers would:

  • Increase the number of safe, qualified, affordable maternity care providers
  • Eliminate current discriminatory policies that prevent low-income women on Medicaid from access to CPM services in their communities
  • Save money and add no extra costs: women on Medicaid who choose an out-of-hospital birth with a Certified Professional Midwife would incur lower costs for Medicaid than if they had used a physician in a hospital

Increased access to Certified Professional Midwives (CPMs) can address the goals of health care reform:

  • Ensure quality care for every American – CPMs provide evidence-based, prevention-oriented and health-promoting care, with more babies that are healthy, full weight and full term, and much lower rates of cesarean section and medical interventions.

  • Reduce costs – The reduction in interventions, unnecessary cesarean sections, and the associated increased health status of mothers and babies under the care of CPMs would lead to a cost savings to the US health care system.
  • Guarantee choice – If CPMs are included in Medicaid reimbursement or a federal insurance program, CPMs and out-of- hospital birth would be available to all women, not just those who can afford to pay out-of-pocket.


Maternity Care & Health Care Reform:
Access, Quality & Costs

Maternity care must be given priority if health care reform is to succeed:

  • 4.3 million American women give birth each year
  • 23% of all hospital discharges are related to childbearing
  • Cesarean section is the most common operating room procedure in the U.S.
  • Charges associated with pregnancy, delivery and newborn care are the most costly hospital condition for both Medicaid and private insurers
  • The U.S. ranks behind most industrialized countries in basic indicators such as maternal and neonatal mortality


    Midwives are the key to increasing access to effective maternity care:

  • The American Public Health Association and the World Health Organization recommend midwives as the primary maternity care providers for the majority of women
  • Nations with the lowest infant mortality employ midwives as the primary maternity care providers for the majority of women
  • Mounting evidence supports the value and cost-savings potential of midwifery care
  • CPMs are trained skilled credentialed attendants for out-of-hospital births
  • Birth centers and planned home birth have been shown to be safe for low-risk women, with demonstrated potential to significantly reduce costs to the system
  • CPMs are currently licensed in 25 states and own approximately half of the birth centers in the U.S.

The Milbank Report “Evidence-Based Maternity Care: What It Is and What It Can Achieve”

Key Findings : Midwives provide high-quality, cost-effective care – access to nationally credentialed midwives should be increased

  • Policy Recommendation: “Foster broad access to safe, effective maternity care by setting adequate Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement rates for certified nurse-midwives (CNM), certified midwives (CM), and certified professional midwives”(CPM). (p. 70)
  • “The low CPM study rates of intervention are benchmarks for what the majority of childbearing women and babies who are in good health might achieve.” (p. 29)
  • “Projected cost savings from shifting to a system of care with midwives as primary care givers for most U.S. birthing women are considerable”. (p. 63)

View the Milbank Report and Childbirth Connection's Summary

Federal action is needed now to support on-going state efforts to increase access to quality maternity care and reduce costs:

  • Reimburse and/or employ CPMs in publicly subsidized health care plans and services, including, but not limited to, Medicaid and Medicare, the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan, the National Health Service Corps, and the Indian Health Service
  • Establish equitable reimbursement rates within applicable federal legislation
  • Mandate reimbursement for birth centers
  • Expand federal resources to educate more midwives
  • Implement guidelines for evidence-based practice and cost-effective care in federal health care reform initiatives

To view resources and references for the statements above click HERE.

The Importance of Baby's Position During Labor

By Misha Safranski

With the cesarean rate now over 30% and climbing in the United States, many of those unnecessary according to the World Heath Organization, it is vital for women to be informed about ways to reduce their risk of cesarean section as well as difficult and/or instrumental vaginal delivery. There are many aspects to this complex issue, one of the major ones being the position of baby at delivery.

When a mother is delivered by cesarean, often it is blamed on "CPD" - cephalopelvic disproportion or dystocia. What is more often the case is that the baby is misaligned in a number of possible ways; asynclitic - baby's head is tilted slightly to one side, posterior - the baby is facing forward in the womb with his/her back to the mother's spine, occipital transverse - baby facing to the side while trying to enter the pelvis, and rarely face-presentation - baby's head is flexed with the face pointing down toward the vaginal opening.

Obstetricians have lost the art of palpation, which allows the care provider to assess the baby's position during late pregnancy and labor. Mothers can, and should, learn to do this themselves by studying books like Optimal Foetal Positioning by Jean Sutton and Pauline Scott, and websites such as Spinningbabies.

This will help the mother identify a malposition and attempt to correct it by specific positioning exercises. Chiropractic care can also be very useful, both for malpositioning and general pregnancy aches. If you seek out chiropractic care, try to find a practitioner who knows how to perform the Webster Technique - a maneuver that can help open the pelvis so that the baby can align properly. A Webster chiropractor can be found by searching the ICPA website.

There are also steps a mother can take to prevent a well-positioned baby from getting into a bad position during labor, or to maximize baby's chances of turning if she or he is still badly positioned when labor starts.

Avoid epidural anesthesia. Being flat on the back encourages a baby to stay, or turn, posterior, as well as keeps mom's pelvis in a restricted position which doesn't allow it to open as fully as possible. It also numbs the mother's sensations which can prevent her from being able to tell if she needs to adjust her own position to help baby along.

Stay mobile. Mobility allows mom to do things such as lunges, knee-chest, hands and knees and squatting, all of which can assist in getting a baby well aligned.

Do not allow AROM (artificial rupture of membranes). This is perhaps the most important thing a mother can do. AROM robs the baby of the cushion of water, which can be a great help in allowing baby to get into position for birth. If baby is already malpositioned, AROM can jam him or her into the pelvis in a way that prevents any further adjustment. AROM is not necessary; research shows it does not significantly shorten the length of labor and in fact increases the risk of cesarean delivery. AROM also puts mom on the clock, most hospitals "require" that she deliver within 24 hrs. due to the perceived risk of infection (which is raised, for the most part, because of excessive vaginal exams).

Knowledge is power. Most obstetricians and even some midwives do not tell mothers about the importance of baby's position in the womb. Be informed, and you will greatly increase your chance for a safe, satisfying birth experience.

References: Amniotomy for shortening spontaneous labour. Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Jan;111(1):204-5.

La Leche League Statement on Vitamin D & Breastfeeding


The great thing about Vitamin D is that it is free and readily available most times of the year, in most places via natural sunlight. Just 10 minutes a day of direct sunlight, 3 times a week, or 20 minutes of direct sunlight, once a week, provides a baby and child's body with all the Vit D necessary. It is more easily and readily used (and more natural) than pill-form supplements.

This statement highlights the fact that as long as Mom has all the Vit D she needs, her baby gets plenty from her milk. No additional supplements are needed. It is the perfect feeding design! So get out and enjoy a little sunlight now and then...and let your baby do the same on occasion as well.

It should be noted that it is best to not wash all your skin (or baby's) with soap too often - Vit D needs to absorb via the skin and daily scrubs interfere with this. Many doctors specializing in immunity and nutrition recommend a "pits and bits" soap wash for adults and occasionally for baby (as well as hands, of course). All over daily washes are not needed, and may actually deter from health and natural immunity building.

According to the Vitamin D Council:

The single most important fact anyone needs to know about vitamin D is how much nature supplies if we behave naturally, i.e., go into the sun. Humans make at least 10,000 units of vitamin D within 30 minutes of full body exposure to the sun.

Fear of the fatal form of skin cancer, malignant melanoma, keeps many people out of the sun. The problem with the theory is that the incidence of melanoma continues to increase dramatically although many people have been completely avoiding the sun for years. We are not saying sunburns are safe, they are not. We are saying that brief, full-body sun exposure is a much smarter thing to do than suffering from vitamin D deficiency.

For more info on the topic:

An article on safe sun exposure (pdf)

Physician and lactation expert, Dr. Jack Newman's, information on breastfeeding and vitamins.

Book: The Healing Sun: Sunlight and Health in the 21st Century

Pregnant women not getting enough Vit D (it is best to take prenatal vitamins for 3 months prior to conception, during pregnancy, and after for the duration of time you are breastfeeding)

~~~~

La Leche League International encourages all mothers to recognize the importance of vitamin D to the health of their children. Recent research shows that due to current lifestyles, breastfeeding mothers may not have enough vitamin D in their own bodies to pass to their infants through breastmilk.

In October 2008, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that infants receive 400 IU a day of vitamin D, beginning in the first few days of life. Children who do not receive enough vitamin D are at risk for rickets and increased risk for infections, autoimmune diseases, cancer, diabetes, and osteoporosis.

Vitamin D is mainly acquired through exposure to sunlight and secondarily through food. Research shows that the adoption of indoor lifestyles and the use of sunscreen have seriously depleted vitamin D in most women. The ability to acquire adequate amounts of vitamin D through sunlight depends on skin color and geographic location.

Dark-skinned people can require up to six times the amount of sunlight as light-skinned people. People living near the equator can obtain vitamin D for 12 months of the year while those living in northern and southern climates may only absorb vitamin D for six or fewer months of the year.

For many years, La Leche League International has offered the research-based recommendation that exclusively breastfed babies received all the vitamin D necessary through mother’s milk. Health care professionals now have a better understanding of the function of vitamin D and the amounts required, and the newest research shows this is only true when mothers themselves have enough vitamin D. Statistics indicate that a large percentage of women do not have adequate amounts of vitamin D in their bodies.

La Leche League International acknowledges that breastfeeding mothers who have adequate amounts of vitamin D in their bodies can successfully provide enough vitamin D to their children through breastmilk. It is recommended that pregnant and nursing mothers obtain adequate vitamin D or supplement as necessary. Health care providers may recommend that women who are unsure of their vitamin D status undergo a simple blood test before choosing not to supplement.

Parents or health care providers who want more information on rickets, vitamin D in human milk, or other information on breastfeeding issues visit: La Leche League International


Born in late winter, Sophie, a few days old, sunbathing in an *open* window (direct sunlight), as Vitamin D cannot be produced in the body from sun rays which are filtered through glass/windows.

.

Take Your Whole Baby Home


10 Reasons to Bring Your Whole Baby Home
adapted from Intact America
photo by Danelle Frisbie
  1. Because there is no medical reason for "routine" circumcision of baby boys. No professional medical association in the United States or the entire world recommends routine neonatal circumcision. The American Medical Association calls it "non-therapeutic." At no time in its 75 years has the American Academy of Pediatrics ever recommended infant circumcision. The World Health Organization also stands against the practice.
  2. Because the foreskin is not a birth defect. The foreskin is a normal, sensitive, functional part of the body. In infant boys, the foreskin is attached to the head of the penis (glans) and protects it from urine, feces, and irritation; it also protects the urinary opening, keeping contaminants from entering the sterile urinary tract. Throughout life, the foreskin keeps the glans moist and protects it from injury. The foreskin also has an important role in sexual pleasure, due to its specialized, erogenous nerve endings and its natural gliding and lubricating functions.
  3. Because you wouldn't circumcise your baby girl. In the United States, girls of all ages are protected by federal and state laws from genital surgery to which they do not consent, whether practiced in medical or non-medical settings, and regardless of the religious or cultural preferences of their parents. There is no ethical rationale for distinguishing between female and male genital alteration. The prepuce organ is made of the same nerves, blood vessels, membranes, and tissues on both boys and girls. If it is wrong to remove part of a baby girl's healthy genitals, then it is wrong to do the same to those of a baby boy.
  4. Because your baby does not want to be circumcised. Circumcision painfully and permanently alters a baby boy's genitals, removing healthy, protective, functional tissue from the penis and exposing the child to unnecessary pain and medical risks – all for no medical benefit. What do you think your baby boy would say if he could tell you? Of course, no baby boy can consent for himself, and parents cannot ethically consent to surgery on behalf of a child unless the child's health or life is at risk.
  5. Because removing part of a baby's penis is painful, risky and harmful. Babies are sensitive to pain, just like older children and adults. Many circumcisions in the United States are performed with no pain control at all. But even when pain control is employed, the analgesics used for circumcision can only decrease pain; they do not eliminate it. As with any surgery, complications – even including death – do often occur with circumcision. Infection and abnormal bleeding are the most common complications. Other complications include removal of too much skin, loss of part or all of the penis, life-threatening infection, and urinary problems. All circumcisions result in the loss of the foreskin and its functions, and a penile scar.
  6. Because times and attitudes have changed. Today, nearly half of all baby boys in the United States leave the hospital intact. The circumcision rate in the U.S. was 50% in 2008 (and much lower on the East & West Coasts), down from 65% in 1981. More and more parents today keep their sons intact.
  7. Because most medically advanced nations do not circumcise baby boys. People in Europe, Asia and Latin America are often appalled to hear that American doctors and hospitals routinely remove part of a boy's penis shortly after birth. Approximately 85% of the men in the world are not circumcised and remain intact throughout their lives.
  8. Because caring for and cleaning the foreskin is easy. A natural, intact penis requires no special care. Gently wash the genital area with warm water while bathing. That's it. Later, when the foreskin can be retracted (something that often does not occur until adolescence), a boy can be taught to pull back his foreskin to wash his penis. The boy should be the first person to retract his foreskin, since forcible retraction by anyone else results in pain and injury.
  9. Because circumcision does not prevent HIV or other diseases. Despite common misinformation, studies show no link between circumcision and sexually transmitted disease (STD) prevention. Over the years, the claims that circumcision prevents various diseases have repeatedly been proven to be exaggerated or outright fabrications. Most men in the United States are circumcised, but our STD rates are higher than those in countries where circumcision is rare; it is obvious that circumcision does not protect against STDs.
  10. Because children should be protected from permanent bodily alteration inflicted on them without their consent in the name of culture, religion, profit, or parental preference. Under accepted bioethical principles, parents can consent to surgery on behalf of a child only if it is necessary to protect that child's life or health. "Routine" circumcision fails this simple ethics test because it painfully and permanently removes a normal and healthy part of a boy's penis, does not protect the child’s life or health, and in fact creates new risks. Medically unnecessary surgery to alter a baby’s penis is no more justified than removing a finger or any other healthy body part.

Bebé Glotón: The Breastfeeding Doll

Photo of the Bebe Gloton doll inside its product box.


Some people like the idea - a baby doll who eats as normal human babies eat - at the breast. And yet, it comes with a pacifier?! (A long-known deterrent to a healthy breastfeeding relationship, especially in the early months). Many La Leche League leaders are not too sure it is such a good thing. After all, we can just give our sons and daughters 'regular' dolls and they can nurse them any way they wish. Do we really need the "glurp glurp" sound effects and the pretty petaled bra? Yet, some also feel it is a fun way to imagine you are nursing a real baby. And this encouragement - this life-like imitation of Mom - may just serve to normalize human milk for human babies. Something that could put a small crack in our hardcore nipplephobic state in North America.

So, what do you think?



Bye-Bye Bottles: The Breastfeeding Dolls are Here!

Bebé Glotón is a baby doll made by Berjuan, a toy maker in Spain, for the express purpose of promoting breastfeeding. The idea is to impress upon youngsters that breastfeeding is the natural, normal way to feed a human baby. I would hope they already see Mom nursing (not to mention aunts, relatives, strangers at the park, etc) but maybe my wishful thinking of a ubiquitously breastfeeding-friendly world is not yet reality.

Children can wear the colorful bra-like top adorned with small flowers over their chest. When the doll is placed at the flowers, s/he makes a nursing motion and suckling sound.


The doll is available as either a girl or boy infant (both intact of course).

Bebé Glotón (which translates as 'Baby Glutton' or, in more common American English slang, the little 'Piggy Baby') sells for 44 Euro or about $65 U.S. dollars. Although you will be hard pressed to find one here at this time, unless you are ready to search online and pay international shipping fees.


See Bebé Glotón in action:

Click here for more video news on the release of Bebé Glotón in Spain.


Two photos showing the flowery nursing bra being tied on a girl and then the girl pretend nursing her baby doll.

Circumcision - Information for Circumcised Fathers Making the Decision for Their Son

A colleague asked me to put together a short list of resources for circumcised men who were thinking about whether or not to keep their own sons intact. Unfortunately, because of the massive misinformation abounding in the 1970s and 80s on the issue, a lot of today's fathers were cut at birth. Fortunately, however, parents today are starting to really dig into the medical literature and research this topic before they subject their own baby boys to the same genital cutting that was done to "Dear Ol' Dad." A LOT is taken away from a boy (and future man) when he is cut at birth. And most fathers deeply desire to give their sons the very best -- even MORE than they had themselves. So here are some resources for circumcised fathers to tap into when beginning this exploration for the sake of their son.


http://www.noharmm.org/raising.htm is a site specifically for men who were circumcised at birth but are considering keeping their boys intact.

Here is an appeal to new (circumcised) fathers to give their sons all that was taken from them: http://www.noharmm.org/appeal.htm

This man, Derek - aka "Natural Papa" - was cut at birth. His first son was born in the hospital and was cut "to be like him" before he knew any better. He said it was the most horrible thing to witness (he was by his son's side through the whole ordeal) and after this experience, he learned about the procedure, the prepuce organ, and what the surgery had robbed his son (and himself) of. His next son was kept intact, and if he has any more boys, they too, will be intact. His story is especially good for other fathers who maybe cut their first son, but are now expecting another. Just because it was done to one boy, it does NOT need to be repeated. Derek sometimes blogs about it:
http://naturalpapa.com/circumcision-will-you-make-the-cut/
http://naturalpapa.com/circumcision-barbaric-mutilation-videos/

This is a video clip in which Greg Hartley spoke on this very topic in D.C. this year. Greg (and his son) are also willing to exchange email and talk with new dads on this issue and their experience (drop me a message and I will get you his contact info):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fofyk2MK__M

Parents discuss the circumcision process and why they regret they did not know ahead of time in this piece, "Considering Circumcision? Why I'm An Intactivist, Will Not Circ Again & Wish My Boy Was Whole" http://motheringchoices.blogspot.com/2006/12/considering-circumcision-why-im.html

This site has good tips for fathers (and mothers) who are new to the whole intact-penis thing... as well as addressing some of the common misconceptions out there (that little boys 'squirt' or spray -- this tends to only be the case with cut boys; that the foreskin must retract and be cleaned - NO!; teasing; father-son 'matching'; etc.): http://www.geocities.com/raisingintactsons/

Circumcision & Prepuce (Foreskin) Information Part 1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHVvB1oHAgg

Circumcision & Prepuce Information Part 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAo1PCDtgBY

This is a hypothetical conversation between parents (father circumcised) and their young, intact boy after he was teased at school. I genuinely do not think that teasing is as much an issue today (or, that soon it will be REVERSED - that cut boys will be the ones teased) because the rates of U.S. baby boys left intact vs. cut at birth are 50/50 nationwide and 75/25 (3/4 kept intact) on the coasts. As more parents educate themselves prior to birth, as accurate medical information is shared, as doctors speak out, and as fewer insurance companies cover the procedure, we are seeing the numbers change quickly. Kids also tease each other about anything that can be found - hair, eyes, glasses, shoes - girls with small breasts get teased (should we give 14-yr-olds breast enlargements?) girls with large breasts get teased (should they have reductions in junior high?). The possibility of teasing is certainly not a reason to permanently amputate healthy, essential body organs from babies. All this aside, here is an 'old' example of a conversation that may be had... http://www.circumstitions.com/Different.html

Protect Your Son - A Father & Doctor/Expert in the Prepuce (Foreskin) and Circumcision speaks: http://www.mothering.com/health/protect-your-uncircumcised-son-expert-medical-advice-parents

Many video clips from an assortment of fathers (and others) tell their stories and take on circumcision: http://www.youtube.com/user/Bonobo3D

Penn & Teller take on the topic of circumcision in a recent episode of their show (if you have not watched Penn & Teller before, know that there is 'adult' content and language used):
Part One: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIZLna_uzLQ
Part Two: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzBJoW-iJ6E
Part Three: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pfkq9EIprYY


ESPECIALLY FOR CHRISTIAN MEN

This is the statement and story of a (circumcised) Christian father with 6 sons who turned to the Bible and medical literature when questioning whether or not to repeat the cutting with his own boys. He found there to be no medical, social, or Christian reason to cut, and they all remain intact. It may be a good story for other Christian (circumcised) fathers. http://www.noharmm.org/huswife.htm

Circumcision and Christian parents: http://www.noharmm.org/christianparent.htm

Circumcision and Christianity: A Call to Christian Action: http://www.cirp.org/pages/cultural/lewis1/

Circumcision Within Christianity (a parent's story): http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/33931/the_truth_about_circumcision_within.html?cat=25

What the Bible Says About Circumcision: http://www.stopcirc.com/christian.html

A video documenting various places in the Bible where circumcision is discussed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF2O9AmT5sQ

*In the video listed below ("CUT") circumcision among Christians (or, rather, the absence of circumcision among Christians throughout human history until it was started in the United States in an effort to curtail masturbation) is discussed.

Especially for Catholic Men - http://www.catholicsagainstcircumcision.org/



ESPECIALLY FOR JEWISH MEN

The video "CUT: Slicing Through the Myths of Circumcision" is an excellent examination by a Jewish man who was circumcised himself, but made a different decision for his son after researching for this film. Video Website: http://www.cutthefilm.com/Cut_Website/Home.html
Abridged Version of "CUT": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx89xECfHG4

A Jewish Doctor & Father speaks: http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/DOC/mposition.html

"My Son, The Little Jew with a Foreskin": http://www.mothering.com/my-son-little-jew-foreskin

Judaism & Circumcision http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.com/

Jewish Circumcision Resource Center: http://www.jewishcircumcision.org/index.htm

Many Jewish fathers today are electing to have a Brit Shalom in place of cutting their son. For more information, and to talk with other Jewish men making this choice for their sons, see:

http://www.britshalom.org/

http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/bris/

http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/brisshalom.htm

--

My friend - Dr. Joel Wells - (circumcised at birth, did not cut his sons in the early 70s when everyone else was still 'doing it') would be happy to talk with/exchange experience with anyone - I can give you his email/phone privately if you like. Joe has also taught at the University level and conducted research in human sexuality for 30+ years, so he has heard all the questions and has oodles of good (accurate!) answers. My husband is willing to talk/exchange email on this as it was a decision he made just 10 months ago. There may be other men reading this who have gone through the same experience who would be willing to talk to a new dad as well? (drop me a note, or leave a comment below if you are one willing to do so)


Additional Helpful Sites for more information:

http://www.circinfosite.com/

http://www.nocirc.org/

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/ - a site especially for physicians and others in the medical field

http://www.intactamerica.org/

http://www.icgi.org/

http://www.noharmm.org/r>raising.htm

http://www.circumstitions.com/

http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/

http://www.cirp.org/

http://www.theridgedband.info

http://www.mgmbill.org/

http://www.stopinfantcircumcision.org/

http://www.sicsociety.org/

http://www.notjustskin.org/

http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com/ - discusses ways that male circumcision hurts women & women's sexual health as well as adult men [site has graphic images]

http://www.tlctugger.com/ - for men who were cut at birth

http://www.arclaw.org/ - legal representation for men cut against their will at birth

http://www.norm.org/ - for men who were cut at birth



"Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope." -Robert F. Kennedy

Video: The Circumcision Decision


Avoiding the Cobra Pose

Circumcision: Echoes in the Body
By Jeane Rhodes, Ph.D.


Recently, I completed a doctoral research project in which I investigated the possible link between the way children do selected yoga postures for the first time and their individual birth experiences. The body language of 22 children, five to nine years old, was carefully videotaped and analyzed. To learn about the children's birth experiences I interviewed the parents. After analysis of the data, I was able to identify specific elements in the performance of the yoga postures that could be perceived as clues to the child's prenatal and birth experience.

In the course of this research, I made an unexpected observation related to male circumcision. It can only be considered preliminary at this point, as the study was not designed to focus on this issue, and, had it not been so evident in this small sample, I probably would not have noticed it. Asking about circumcision had not been on my original list of questions for the interview with parents. Fortunately, the first father inter-viewed mentioned it, so I included a question about circumcision for all of the boys in the study.

What I observed was that the seven boys in the study who had been circumcised did not place their hips on the floor when doing an abdominal-lying-arch posture (the "cobra" pose for those of you familiar with yoga postures). In contrast, the two boys in the study who had not been circumcised did it easily.

When I mentioned this observation to a colleague who is a body-worker, she said she had noticed that her clients who had been circumcised were much more rigid in the pelvic area than those who had not been circumcised. If this very preliminary observation is confirmed, it would be coherent with a recent finding on the long-term effect of circumcision on pain tolerance. A team at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, Ontario (1995) studied the pain responses of children having routine vaccinations four to six months after birth. They discovered that boys circumcised as infants had higher behavioral pain scores and cried longer.


Email Dr. Rhodes for more information at: drjeane@comcast.net

~~~~

A visitor is shocked...

I was messaged with this comment today (below)...found it interesting, and yet not surprising - how barbaric must we look to the rest of the world. And how hypocritical -- to speak out so loudly about the mutilation and abuse of girls, yet continue doing the exact same thing to boys. What a very sad state of affairs.

"A friend of mine was visiting from S. America, and somehow, the subject came around to circumcision. When I mentioned that a lot of American men are cut, he said, disbelievingly, "What?? WHY?? You have GOT to be kidding me!! WHY would somebody do that??" He was shocked."

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails