# Dangers of putting a child under general anesthesia



## sandals (Sep 2, 2006)

I just saw a clip on our local news that talked about a girl who was sedated for a dental surgery and never woke up. The clip continued on to talk about the renewed concern about putting children under. This made me think about the posts I have seen on other forums about children needing to be recirced and having to be given general anesthesia to do the procedure.

Does anyone know if there have been any studies done on the incidents of cases like this for boys who were put under general for a "re circ" (cases where the child had a reaction like this girl)?


----------



## KrystalC (Aug 1, 2006)

I'm not aware of anything that specific, but I'm sure you can find studies on reactions to anesthesia for people in general, and probably children in general as well.


----------



## glongley (Jun 30, 2004)

Yes, general anesthesia carries greater risks than local. Wiswell, I believe, put out an article about this a while back. This is one of the reasons docs often will push for getting the baby circumcised within the first few weeks, because if it "has to be done" later, there is the added risk of the anesthesia. Of course, the main reason you can get away with local anesthesic in a baby and not an older child, is not that it hurts any less then, but that the older and stronger they get, the more they are able to resist being strapped down to a board and have a part of their body amputated with only partial pain relief.







Grrrr.

Gillian


----------



## baybee (Jan 24, 2005)

Hmmm, I was waiting to post about this because I'm still researching the place, date and names involved but I'm in communication with a former Baltimore crime investigator who says the following:

Subject: Circumcision - What Swayed Me.

> Hi all -
I am of the opinion that
> the decision to/not to =
> circumcise is personal and that there are cultural,
> medical, social, and =
> physiological factors that rightfully influence each
> family's decision =
> to or not to entertain thoughts of a such procedure.
> Prior to the =
> finalization of my older son's adoption, my husband
> leaned toward =
> wanting to have him circumcised so that he would
> look like the other =
> boys in the locker room.
>
> At this time I was a crime scene investigator with the
Baltimore metro police
department and I routinely investigated deaths of
all minors, as well as
> all individuals that died within 24 hours of
> receiving a =
> hospital/surgical procedure. Only two days after
> having the =
> circumcision discussion with my husband, I arrived
> at a very well known =
> regional hospital to investigate the death of a
> one-year old child. =
> This little boy had been a NICU patient and couldn't
> be circumcised as
> an infant. Consequently, the family elected to have
> the procedure done =
> at 14 months of age. At that time, this hospital
> did it in-patient and =
> the procedure required general anesthesia. The
> child survived their =
> NICU crisis, but died from the anesthesia
> administered during the =
> circumcision.

Apparently this happened in 2004. I'm trying to find out more details at this time. Baybee


----------



## MCatLvrMom2A&X (Nov 18, 2004)

Quote:

have a part of their body amputated with only partial pain relief.
Or in the majority of cases no pain relief at all or just sugar water.







:


----------



## mamaverdi (Apr 5, 2005)

Sedation in general is more dangerous than general anesthesia. Local anesthetic carries the least risks...though it depends on the person and how their body works. General anesthesia problems tend to run in families. Also, a pediatric anesthesiologist would be your best bet.

This is another argument for not doing ANY elective procedure before a person has a well-established medical history.


----------



## enstar780 (Jun 15, 2006)

I think general anesthetic can be used on children and infants (and, it must be used if needed to eliminate the pain), but that indeed it does carry risks and great care must be taken to assure the right dosage, etc. However, the alternative is significant suffering which is unacceptable. Given the risks of general anesthetic on children, I dont think any elective surgery should be performed on children that requires it. I dont think elective surgeries on children should be performed at all, but specially for this reason. The infant, it has been shown, can feel pain, and even MORE intensely than an adult. It is also a lie that the child will "forget" it. I think the effects of circumcision can cause harm psychologically to the childs development which can impact the child later on, and that in fact these very traumatic memories may emotionally scar the child, a scar which can remain with them well into childhood. Some also report a memory of circumcision when they are infant, which although unusual, I dont think it is impossible or unheard of. I know people who claim to have a memory of being born. Many including myself have a memory of circumcision as an infant, and of it being a deeply traumatising and extremely harmful event.


----------



## enstar780 (Jun 15, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *baybee* 
> Hi all -
I am of the opinion that
> the decision to/not to =
> circumcise is personal and that there are cultural,
> medical, social, and =
> physiological factors that rightfully influence each
> family's decision =
> to or not to entertain thoughts of a such procedure.

I do agree that it is a personal decision, so personal, that it should only be made by the person whose body it is and no one else. The childs body is not the property of the parents to do with what they please. The parents do not have a right to amputate healthy body parts from a childs body for medically unessential purposes. Religion, beleifs, culture, medical myths, prophylaxis, are all invalid reasons to amputate healthy parts of a childs body that have nothing wrong with them. There has never been hesitation of condemning FGM. MGM like FGM is a mutilation of a healthy and normal body part, for no medically valid reasons, oif a helpless and defenceless child, and that alone makes it unacceptable and far beyond the right of any parent to inflict such acts on their child. Everyone has a right to a whole body, and to not be tortured or assaulted, and if cutting into and ripping off healthy body parts is not assault, then I dont know what is. Furthermore, circumcision is a significant loss, it is a sensory castration that can deprive a man of up to 95% of his erogenous touch sensitivity, the most sensitive parts of his body, and is a massive alteration of a persons ability to sense pleasure and joy sensations that have been forever denied to that person for the rest of their lives. It is like taking away colour vision so a person can only see in black or white, or taking away the sense of smell. It is that serious and severe and may have profound psychological, developmental and emotional effects on the person. The practice is also extremely painful and can cause serious emotional scars and harm to the person throughout their lives, including feelings of betrayal and resentment and of having ones rights violated, of being assaulted and of ones rights to well being, happiness, comfort and security have been brutally and barbarically violated in one of the most horrific ways, feelings of being raped, violated, of ingorance and indifference to ones feelings, emotions and rights.

If an adult is fully aware of the possible harm from circumcision and who is aware of its lack of necessity, is free to consent to having this procedure inflicted upon themselves. But we must protect the children, who cannot fully consent to an amputation, and no one has the right to inflict these children with this brutal, barbaric and criminal act which is a sexual assault and mutilation of the child. That we as a society continue to permit children to be brutally tortured and mutilated, and then to turn around and claim that our laws protect children from harm and do not allow children to be assaulted and mutilated, is simply insane. Circumcision is a medically unnecessary and unethical assault of a child and has no place in any truly decent and civilised society.

By limiting circumcision to fully consenting adults, we are assuring that every person can make this decision for themselves as a fully consenting adult, and not have it inflicted on them as a helpless, vulnerable and defenceless child who can be forced and coerced into it.

If a person If the children are not safe and their bodily integrity rights are not protected, none of us have bodily integrity rights, since we were all helpless children once.

Circumcision under medical necessity, may be performed on an unconsenting person only if there is a true, sound, solid, bona fide, convincing, compelling, significant, substantial, urgent, immediate, and essential medical need and necessity to do so to treat a current and present clinically verifiable medical abdormal disease condition that severely threatens the essential health or life of the person, and where it cannot be deferred to when the person can give their own consent on the matter, and where there are no lesser alternatives. This is to protect the persons own right to make decisions regarding procedures which are elective and non essential to preserving their life when they are able to. Prophlyaxis is always an invalid rationale to amputate body parts. If we allow prophlyaxis to be used as a rationale, we could justify the cutting off of any body part since any part could have something go wrong with it at a later time. Amputation is only a very last resort and one to be used in only absolute necessity to protect a persons life.

The only circumstances where circumcision is actually necessary are frostbite, gangrene and penile cancer. This is due to the fact that the other conditions can be treated via less invasive means, without surgery. In some cases, some conditions for which circumcision is deemed necessary, are so minor, that no action is needed, or certianly, are so minor as to not necessitate the need for circumcision.

Body parts cannot be amputate simply because they seem non essential. The entire body is an important part of a persons life, since the body parts do not only have a function for maintanence and systemic function of the body, but also, especially with the foreskin, serve a function of providing for sensory input, which is a big part of life as well. It is sensory input which connects us to this world.

People have always asked what function do the male nipples serve. Simply because something doesn't have an apparent function, does this mean we can cut it off. I say the only person who can judge its usefulness and value is the persons whose body it is. They should make all such choicesHas anyone considered that perhaps the male nipples have an pleasure purpose? people assume that certain parts of the body have no function, since they play no systems function for the body. But the sole purpose of all body parts is not only upkeep, but also sensory and pleasurable, and in fact, the body is our basic interface to this world. It is basically like a software program that connects you to the internet. If you delete a part of the program, lets say the part that displays images, you will not be able in that case to see any images. just text.

An important part of life is being able to interact with the world, and to feel and sense pleasurures, to see, and to enjoy it. Without eyes you cannot see. Without skin you do not have nerves, and without nerves you cannot feel.It seems odd that there is such an obsessive focus on deleting and removing the erogenous and pleasure parts of the interface program from the childrens bodies. The body is what connects a persons consciousness to this world, deleting a part of it, disconnects a person from this world. It essentially deletes, steals and deprives, a person from a part of their life. It seems like this are trying to screw around with peoples minds, to artificially manipulate people, the experiences they can appreciate, and intrude on the most basic aspects of their lives through removing their bodies most sensitive and pleasurable, intensely erogenous part.

CIrcumcision has other possible harmful effects. The infliction of the severe trauma on the child could disrupt normal neurological and psychological development. Different parts of the body are said to be mapped to different areas of the brain, when one part of the body is removed, the part of the brain that corresponds to it may not be activated or utilised in the same manner. Especially with the foreskin, which is heavily loaded with nerve endings of a sort found nowhere else on the body, removing this permentantly deprives and eliminates certian signals being delivered to the brain and may inhibit or eliminate certian physiological or neurological, and psychological reactions and states. Some have suggested that the removal of the foreskin may remove triggers for certian hormone releases and neurological triggers.

Circumcision is a barbaric practice, which steals a persons most sacred birthright and posession, a part of their body, which can never be replaced. It deserves to be safely confined to the history books where it cannot torture, maim, inflict injury and suffering on, and traumatise any more children.


----------

