If the New York Times Wrote about Circumcision the Way They do About Tongue-Ties
What if they brought the same level of skepticism to a totally useless and harmful procedure that's been normalized?
Last week, ‘the paper of record’, published a splashy exposé on the “booming business” of tongue-tie releases. For the uninitiated, a problem for some nursing mothers is that their infant is born with their tongue still attached to the floor of their mouth or their upper is attached to their gum line. A quick snip or laser, releases the tie and the baby can have a better latch for nursing. This reduces pain for the mother, can increase milk production, and help with milk transfer. Why the dramatic increase in this procedure over the last 10 years? It could be more awareness, it could be environmental factors, but the notion that this is some shady money grab carried out by unscrupulous lactation consultants (there’s only one mentioned in the story), greedy doctors, and the “intensifying pressure to nurse” is ridiculous. The tone of the article is one of deep skepticism and concern over a procedure that has helped countless babies ingest their mothers’ breastmilk, the most life-giving, healthy, perfect source of nutrition tailor made for their vulnerable bodies. Meanwhile there’s another procedure that requires some snipping or lasering of an even more sensitive body part which NYT treats with a subtly encouraging tone and cheeky illustrations. But what if…
MAIMI, FL — Andy Watkins, 29, suffers from “severe, prolonged pain” from a procedure his mother had performed on him as an infant.
Watkins is a scuba instructor for tourists honeymooning in Biscayne Bay. While he lives a demanding physical life, he still deals with residual pain from an operation he had when he was three days old. The procedure has caused Watkins to suffer embarrassment as well as damaging some his intimate relationships.
“I didn’t know,”says his mother, Stephanie Watkins, 58. “I was rushed into a C-section and they asked me if I wanted the procedure. I figured they wouldn’t offer it if it wasn’t safe.”
The same procedure is preformed on thousands of infants, everyday, without anesthesia or antibiotics. There is around a ten percent ‘revision rate’ due frequent complications such as penile adhesions, skin bridges, narrowing of the urethra, inability to retract remaining the foreskin, and penile rotation. While more serious complications are rare, they are profound. They can include body part amputation, infected wounds and even death.
Moreover, there is limited evidence supporting the notion that this procedure enhances health outcomes for infants. While certain medical justifications exist, the overall evidence suggests the existence of more effective and less invasive methods to prevent potential transmission of disease.
Andrea Haskins opted to not have the procedure done on her son. “I delivered in a hospital and the staff repeatedly asked me to consent to this procedure multiple times before and after the birth of my baby,” Haskins recalls while nursing her now 4 year-old son. “They offered no discussion of the risks or the benefits of the procedure. The staff seemed adamant that this procedure should be performed but nobody could give me a definitive answer as to why.”
So if this procedure doesn’t have clear evidence to prove its benefits, is not common in most other parts of the world, and may actually cause harm, why are health providers pressuring parents into having this procedure done?
While some studies show that this procedure lower the risk for urinary tract infections and the transmission of HIV, the amount of risk reduction is too low for even the American Academy of Pediatrics to recommend the procedure.
“I was charged $750 on my medical bill for Andy’s procedure,” Mrs. Watkins recalls.
Hospitals can charge anywhere from $200-$2,000 per patient for the procedure. In some rural hospitals, doctors have refused to perform the procedure because health care dollars are limited. “We provide good health care for people and necessary health care for people,” says Dr. Charles Ryan, a pediatrician working in a suburb of Anchorage, Alaska. “And when the health care dollar is being milked off by charges that just seem out of proportion to what the cost of delivering those services is, then those are dollars that can't be used for more essential things.”
In recent years, the popularity of the procedure has started to decline, despite pressure remaining high.
"I convinced my wife to get the procedure done on our first boy without any factual reasons,” says one father who wants to remain anonymous. “As soon as I witnessed my oldest get cut, I immediately knew I had made a bad decision."
Introducing: The Radical Mom Grievance Hotline 😤
We’re currently accepting complaints, resentments, gossip, questions, and overall vent-sessions. We offer advice or just vehement head nodding. This week we want to hear about: YOUR MOTHER-IN-LAW.
You might also dig:
We think we’re worth $5 bucks a month
❤️🔥This newsletter helps us pay for all the organizing odds and ends we need to keep thousands of moms connected. When you upgrade to a paid subscription you get a pin for your sourdough apron. 😎
I also don't think it is appropriate to expose the glands of a baby's penis, which on an intact adult would only be exposed during sex. I don't see why it it is more hygienic, either--does poop get on the ridges under the head? An intact baby is very easy to clean, and can be cleaned without grasping the most sensitive part of his body. (By the time the foreskin must be pulled back, he is old enough to do it himself with education.)
I’m from Europe, it’s not very common to circumcise here. I watched this Candace Owens doc recently and thought it was quite interesting https://youtu.be/sV3D8idXMDE?si=6hVudennqloEnhYO