Waking up during surgery ---- a reality

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Chris127

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2005
Messages
454
Reaction score
2
Was just watching Dateline NBC, featured a story about a man who woke up during his open heart surgery, yet he could not move, talk, etc due to the anesthesia, but apparantly he felt everything. NBC's reporter also threw out the stat that up to 100 people a day experience this in the OR. Just thought this was interesting.
 
Chris127 said:
Was just watching Dateline NBC, featured a story about a man who woke up during his open heart surgery, yet he could not move, talk, etc due to the anesthesia, but apparantly he felt everything. NBC's reporter also threw out the stat that up to 100 people a day experience this in the OR. Just thought this was interesting.

Do these patients never inform their doctor of this, or report it to somebody who can rectify the problem?
 
Remember that Dateline and similar shows will hype up nearly anything to get ratings. Keep in mind this is the same programs that rigged trucks to explode during a story about the safety of gas tanks.

100 patients per day? I would like to see some hard evidence backing that up......
 
Chris127 said:
Was just watching Dateline NBC, featured a story about a man who woke up during his open heart surgery, yet he could not move, talk, etc due to the anesthesia, but apparantly he felt everything. NBC's reporter also threw out the stat that up to 100 people a day experience this in the OR. Just thought this was interesting.

It's called sensationalist journalism. I suspect that a lot of those alleged 100 people a day who answered the reporter in the affirmative that they felt pain were either confusing the pain they felt AFTER the surgery, or else they were still on heavy meds when interviewed. It probably happens, but it is rare, not common.
 
Law2Doc said:
It's called sensationalist journalism. I suspect that a lot of those alleged 100 people a day who answered the reporter in the affirmative that they felt pain were either confusing the pain they felt AFTER the surgery, or else they were still on heavy meds when interviewed. It probably happens, but it is rare, not common.

Yes. This type of reporting is often hilarious when the real details are exposed. The dateline researchers are paid to go out and find people who agree with something. It's not hard to find somebody to say "oh my god you're *RIGHT* there *was* pain during my surgery" if you promise that they'll get national airtime.
 
While I don't doubt that this has happened, I seriously doubt its 100 people a day, and I would also like to see data backing this up. I also question whether you would be able to remember if this occured to you or not. It is an interesting topic though, something we actually discussed in an animal rights course I took in relation to what pain actually was (i.e. is it pain if you don't remember it after the fact, and only experience it some short time, or if you can remember vaguly yet not relive the experience in your mind). Anyhow, I didn't see the show but it sounds interesting and certainly plausible though probably rare. So they rigged gas tanks to explode :laugh: never heard about that one, thats funny!
 
This same story line was run about a year ago and there were a couple articles publised around the same time. I think most of these cases occur in cardiac/shock type operations - if I were a in med school and a little more versed, I would probably be able to articulate this a little better. But as far as the 100 patients per day, that seems a bit absurd.

Adam
 
not the same thing as open heart surgery, but I was once (actually only several months ago) supposedly under anesthesia and was unable to move, but was aware of a good bit of was going on (although I felt no pain).

I mentioned it afterwards, and the nurse or whoever was there kinda dismissed it, but then the doctor asked about it and was surprised at what I remembered, said they should've used a higher dose. So I guess it can happen...I didn't think too much of it at the time (though my mom was horrified!)...I guess I could have made a stink about it...and probably would have if it had been open heart surgery! 😛
 
With my limited 2 year experience in anesthesia....100 people a days sounds like a lot. There was a discovery ( maybe TLC) story about people waking up during surgery. When under anesthesia you are given two drugs....one to paralyze and the other to put you to sleep. When you "wake up" during the procedure, it is usually the drug that puts you to sleep that wears off. Therefore you are aware of what is going on, but you cant move or say anything. The dosage of the drug is usually dependent on the weight of the patient. Soo when one wakes up from surgery, it is usually related to variations in the metabolism of the drug...not necessarily the dosage.

I am not really sure what my point is...but since we are all nerds, i thought you may find it interesting
 
No doubt these stats are correct, everyone should undergo surgery without anesthesia to prevent any more occurences. 🙄

The reality is that in certain situations it can become necessary to use as little anesthetic agent as possible, and sometimes even none, to protect the patients LIFE. Most situations involving awareness occur in OB(emergent CSX), trauma(ie pt almost dead+anesthetic=pt dead) and primarily narcotic based anesthetics such as cardiac surgery when too little volatile or amnestic is used.
 
Not in med school at all, but I am a medic so I have some understanding of the body.

Would the person waking up once they recieve the signal from their nerves to their brain not increase their heart rate or blood pressure? From experience I know that people who are in pain or panicked tend to show such in their vitals. Would this not be picked up by the anesthesiologist and rectified?

I'm not saying that the person doesn't wake up, just that the problem should be caught way before the end of the surgery.
 
This is just random- But sometimes the problem with being awake during surgery has nothing to do with pain, but what you can hear 😛 .. I had a surgery once where I opted to do just morphine (or something similar) instead of actually going under. there was no pain, but hearing the doc instruct the resident on how to do everything (apparently it was nearly his first time 😛 ) was an experience I definitely do not want to repeat.
 
Ross434 said:
This is just random- But sometimes the problem with being awake during surgery has nothing to do with pain, but what you can hear 😛 .. I had a surgery once where I opted to do just morphine (or something similar) instead of actually going under. there was no pain, but hearing the doc instruct the resident on how to do everything (apparently it was nearly his first time 😛 ) was an experience I definitely do not want to repeat.

Auditory Evoked Potentials are well known to be the last to be suppressed and the first to return..often causing a sensation of being "awake" during surgery though it is usually not associated with pain and usually only occurs at induction and emergence. This is why many anesthesiologist like it very quiet during induction and emergence.
 
Weird...these patients should also experience amnesia after the surgery, so even if they did wake up they shouldn't remember anything anyway.

And are we talking about truly waking up (as in fully alert and oriented), or just stirring?
 
Blade28 said:
Weird...these patients should also experience amnesia after the surgery, so even if they did wake up they shouldn't remember anything anyway.

And are we talking about truly waking up (as in fully alert and oriented), or just stirring?


Well as a premed, I dont know a whole lot about this other than what was presented in the show. The program mentioned that before the suregry, medication is given to A)Restrict movement, B) Eradicate pain, and C)keep them asleep/not conscious

But they reported that these patients actually did wake up and feel what was happening to them, however, they could not talk, scream, move, open their eyes, or do anything. Afterwards they claim they could feel all the pain, and many complained of nightmares, trauma, etc after the operation.
 
All this talk makes me glad i was out cold when i had my C6/C7 fused. Waking up for that would not have been pleasant.
 
So Pratik, could you tell us why the patients could not move but could reportedly feel pain. Do the drugs act only on motor neuronal function and not sensory?
 
Alexander Pink said:
While I don't doubt that this has happened, I seriously doubt its 100 people a day, and I would also like to see data backing this up. I also question whether you would be able to remember if this occured to you or not. It is an interesting topic though, something we actually discussed in an animal rights course I took in relation to what pain actually was (i.e. is it pain if you don't remember it after the fact, and only experience it some short time, or if you can remember vaguly yet not relive the experience in your mind). Anyhow, I didn't see the show but it sounds interesting and certainly plausible though probably rare. So they rigged gas tanks to explode :laugh: never heard about that one, thats funny!

The amnesia point is interesting.. I've always been under the understanding the anesthesia's goals are paralysis, amnesia, and unconsciousness. If the last two were to fail, then that would cause the experience being described. It's a great question as to whether pain is really pain if you don't remember it, because isn't that one of the reasons that, so I've heard, they don't tend to use anesthetic during infant circumcision? Maybe I'm off base on that one (I certainly hope so!)
 
MattD said:
The amnesia point is interesting.. I've always been under the understanding the anesthesia's goals are paralysis, amnesia, and unconsciousness. If the last two were to fail, then that would cause the experience being described. It's a great question as to whether pain is really pain if you don't remember it, because isn't that one of the reasons that, so I've heard, they don't tend to use anesthetic during infant circumcision? Maybe I'm off base on that one (I certainly hope so!)

That is certainly one justification for no anesthetic during circumcision, though I believe they actually do use a local now? (correct me if I a wrong). If youre interested you could check out Animal Experimentation: The Moral Issues by Robert M. Baird (Editor), Stuart E. Rosenbaum (Editor). It has some articles about the topic (not sure of the authors which is why I referenced the book).
 
If you Google this topic, you can obviously find a lot about this.

Actually on Dateline, they mentioned that many anesteisiologists were using this brain cap that they would place over the patients forhead, which would then pick up certain brain waves/nerves whatever (I'm premed!!!) which would inform the doctors of a potential awakening. The problem with this though is that the reporter said virtually any strong thought can be picked up and mistaken for consciousness, such as a dream.
 
I watched a few minutes of the show. I'm curious about one thing - the man mentioned waking up parazlyed and 'smelling the bone saw as it cut through his sternum'.

Hmmm, intubated patients can't smell anything - conscious or not. Nothing moves through their nasal passages.

I have no doubt that people do wake up during surgery, but that little touch made bells go off.
 
pratik7 said:
With my limited 2 year experience in anesthesia....100 people a days sounds like a lot. There was a discovery ( maybe TLC) story about people waking up during surgery. When under anesthesia you are given two drugs....one to paralyze and the other to put you to sleep. When you "wake up" during the procedure, it is usually the drug that puts you to sleep that wears off. Therefore you are aware of what is going on, but you cant move or say anything. The dosage of the drug is usually dependent on the weight of the patient. Soo when one wakes up from surgery, it is usually related to variations in the metabolism of the drug...not necessarily the dosage.

I am not really sure what my point is...but since we are all nerds, i thought you may find it interesting
i did find it interesting. However what a way to witness surgery first hand! 😀
 
Hi Folks,
I am a PGY-4 General Surgery resident. I have had people move during cases but never had anyone report that they were awake and felt pain. Most of the time, I can tell when the patient is "lightening" from anesthesia before the patient moves. Even patients that we do awake are given a pretty good anmestic sedative during the case. I can hear them snoring but they do not remember anything of the case.

Can a patient be awake but paralized? Yes, but I don't think that this happens much and it has never happened in my career.

nbjmd 🙂
 
I am not sure what the standard of care is elsewhere, but I know that at the hospitals I have rotated through for anesthesia and all of my surgical rotations the anesthesiologists almost always use Bispectral Index (aka BIS) to monitor patient conciousness. It funtions based on EEG and there is a certain threshold for monitoring.

I have seen instances of the BIS level going up and although unikely indicating patient semi-conciousness, but when this happens the amount of inhaled general anethetic (sevoflourane or isoflourane) is increased. In addition, patients are given an amnestic (usually midazolam) which prevents them from remembering quite a bit and gives them a euphoric sensation to reduce anxiety pre op. When speaking to patients, nearly all do not even remember being rolled into the OR or waking up in the OR after surgery. the first thing they usually remember is being in the PACU (recovery room).

The cases where pateints could be awake seem to be when a paralytic agent is used and general anesthesia (usually inhaled) is not used (I am guessing these are medical errors). If you want to read about paralytics look up drugs like vecuronium and pancuronium. the reason they only block motor fucntion is because they act at the neuromuscular junction by competing with ACh for cholinergic receptor sites. Sometimes these drugs are used only at induction to facilitate intubation, but many times are used to facilitate surgery like keeping the abdominal wall relaxed during procedure.

The statistic given from the OP about 100 patients waking up during surgery may in fact be correct, but it is likely very selective use of data as they apparently dont mention what patients remember, specific OR events, type of surgery and anesthesia used, etc.. It may even be based on minor day surgeries where general endotracheal anesthesia is not used, and patients are usually given an amnesntic and a narcotic along with local anesthesia or regional blocks. These day surgery patients many timmes do remember the procedure although the details are very very hazy.
 
Although I agree that journalists tend to focus on certain issues and magnify them beyond their true scope (ex. of when all that was in the news was shark attacks and the actual number of shark attacks at the time was one of the lowest recorded), I have heard one instance of this happening. My grandmother was having a hysterectomy and she said that she became conscious and could hear the doctors and she felt a pain like a hot iron across her stomach (this occurred years ago). When she woke up she asked one of the nurses about something one of the doctors said during surgery. They were shocked because she could quote them and they agreed that she must have been conscious for a time before drifting back out. She never sued or even wanted to do anything like that...and she also went on to willingly have more surgeries. However, I don't think it's a huge problem. And if it is, how can they prevent it? I just thought that her story was interesting so I thought I would post it.
 
Alexander Pink said:
So Pratik, could you tell us why the patients could not move but could reportedly feel pain. Do the drugs act only on motor neuronal function and not sensory?

well there are five major components to general anesthesia; amnesia, analgesia, loss of consciousness (sedation), immobility, and attenuation of autonomic reflexes. Single agents don't achieve optimal effects in all five catagories, although I guess inhalational (volitile) anesthetics come close, in general polypharmacy is the rule of thumb and you're using several agents to achieve complete, "balanced" anesthesia. Based on the story that he was aware and could sense pain I'd guess that maybe he was being maintained on IV anesthetics, which have become a more popular choice as IV delivery systems improve. The drawback of IV maintainence is that its much easier to monitor the delivery of inhaled agents and its therefore harder to assess the depth of anesthesia with IV maintainence. Plus IV anesthetics tend to produce less profound sedation (unconsciousness) and analgesia (loss of pain sensation), so if the depth of anesthesia is inadequate that would probably be the first thing one would notice.

So that's my guess. I don't know where Dateline gets its 100 patients a day stat, but those shows are all trash. I'm sure to hear them tell it we're all in immediate danger of killer bees....I mean terrorist dirty bomb...I mean waking up on the table. Sorry, its hard to keep the hystrionic, knee-jerk stories straight.
 
Medic_9 said:
Not in med school at all, but I am a medic so I have some understanding of the body.

Would the person waking up once they recieve the signal from their nerves to their brain not increase their heart rate or blood pressure? From experience I know that people who are in pain or panicked tend to show such in their vitals. Would this not be picked up by the anesthesiologist and rectified?

I'm not saying that the person doesn't wake up, just that the problem should be caught way before the end of the surgery.

Just coming off my anesthesiology rotation, thought I'd pipe in with a few points.

Medic_9 is exactly correct. Every day in the OR I would watch heart rate and blood pressure (among other thigns), and adjust the anesthetic accordingly. Frequently this means giving bumps of fentanyl (a powerful opioid) to treat pain, even though the patient is asleap. Prolonged tachycardia is not good, and there's evidence that receptor upregulation, etc, make for more post-op pain. So we treat pain aggressively and early.

You need to understand that anesthesia requires 4 things: amnesia, loss of consciousness, paralysis, and analgesia. Inhaled anesthetics (typically sevoflorane, isoflorane, desflorane) do all 4, other drugs only do some. We do give paralytic agents (frequently succinylcholine, rocuronium, or cisatrocurioum, all i.v.) regularly for induction and often throughout the case to allow the surgeon to operate, and yes, without any other anesthetic you can't move but are very much awake and aware. That is why some people advocate giving the muscle relaxant last - so that if you loose the i.v. you don't have a patient freaking out and unable to breathe (but the surgeon would be able to operate). Amnesia is part of many anesthetic agents, most notably the benzodiazapine (typically midazolam) that we give before heading into the room. And unconsciousness can be produced by any of the anesthetic drugs we regularly use, except the muscle relaxants.

The "head monitoring thing" is a BIS monitor. My understanding is that the company that makes these, Aspen Medical, was heavily involved in the Dateline piece. It's a highly processed EEG that gives you a number 0-100, where 0 indicates no brain activity, 100 is fully awake. They say for anesthesia you typically need 40-60. There are case reports of people being at all sorts of BIS levels that don't correlate with other data - one guy was talking post-op at a BIS of 52. The thought (largely by Aspen)is that the reflexes we typically look for are mediated by spinal nerves but we have no good way of knowing what the brain is doing, and that the BIS shows us the brain. I don't exactly buy that, but there's a grain of truth to it. The BIS is just another piece of data, which (IMO) can sometimes be of benefit. I've seen many cases done without the BIS which go just fine.

My guess is that many cases of intraoperative awareness are cases where the intent was NOT to fully anesthetise the patient. Some patients are given heavy sedation for a procedure, doze off to sleep (which is fine), but wake up and think that they were supposed to be fully asleap (not their fault, the anesthesiologist should have explain things better). I had a patient this week who got a dose of midazolam, and as we were walking down the hallway into the OR she asked if she was supposed to be unconscious (the answer is no, we just used the midazolam to relax her). It's possible the drug will have interfered with her memory, and she might remember being in the OR and not asleap, and worry that she had intraoperative awareness. Now, the resident I was with was great and explained things to her every step of the way so I doubt that, but it could happen. In fact, after the procedure she was thanking everybody profusly 🙂 Just another day at the office. I love this job.
 
I once had an experience where I was somewhat alert during wisdom tooth extraction. Now, this wasn't real surgery with me being in the OR, but I was told that I would be getting general anesthesia, which I thought would/should knock me out.

I had 2 real surgeries since then, one under general and one with MAC, and I felt no pain or anything. I did wake up in the OR near the end of the surgery with MAC, but I think that's the point of that type of anesthesia, right?
 
I dont understand one under general and one under MAC. Anesthesiologists monitor the MAC as a kind of marker for how much you are under.

Following up on adcadet, there are a number of cases where the patient is not suppose to be fully under. They are given a strong sedative or are put on a spinal (think most C-sections....no pain is felt, but pressure is). On a side note, I dont like journalists.
 
MattD said:
It's a great question as to whether pain is really pain if you don't remember it, because isn't that one of the reasons that, so I've heard, they don't tend to use anesthetic during infant circumcision? Maybe I'm off base on that one (I certainly hope so!)

From circumcision.com :

"There is disagreement among physicians about using anesthesia during circumcisions. Prior to the mid-1980s, anesthesia was not used because infant pain was denied by the medical community (see Chapter 2). That belief has changed among many physicians, but an anesthetic (local injection, the best option tested) still is not typically administered due to a lack of familiarity with its use, as well as the belief that it introduces additional risk.( 13) Although there is indication that the risk is minimal, most physicians who perform circumcisions do not use anesthetics even after they are taught how. When an anesthetic is used, it relieves only some but not all of the pain, and its effect wanes before the post-operative pain does.( 14) Because no experimental anesthetic has been found to be safe and effective in preventing circumcision pain, research in this area continues. Meanwhile, some physicians’ views about the use of anesthesia during circumcision grow more intense. In a recent medical article on the subject, the writers described circumcision without pain relief as “barbaric.”( 15) Another physician wrote that subjecting an adult to the same practice would be “unfathomable.”( 16)

Dear god I would never do that to my baby.
 
BooMed said:
From circumcision.com :

"There is disagreement among physicians about using anesthesia during circumcisions. Prior to the mid-1980s, anesthesia was not used because infant pain was denied by the medical community (see Chapter 2). That belief has changed among many physicians, but an anesthetic (local injection, the best option tested) still is not typically administered due to a lack of familiarity with its use, as well as the belief that it introduces additional risk.( 13) Although there is indication that the risk is minimal, most physicians who perform circumcisions do not use anesthetics even after they are taught how. When an anesthetic is used, it relieves only some but not all of the pain, and its effect wanes before the post-operative pain does.( 14) Because no experimental anesthetic has been found to be safe and effective in preventing circumcision pain, research in this area continues. Meanwhile, some physicians’ views about the use of anesthesia during circumcision grow more intense. In a recent medical article on the subject, the writers described circumcision without pain relief as “barbaric.”( 15) Another physician wrote that subjecting an adult to the same practice would be “unfathomable.”( 16)

Dear god I would never do that to my baby.

Interesting, thanks for finding that! I do think it's interesting that anesthetics are always used in adult circumcisions.. if it's safe for an adult, seems like it would be safe for a baby (oversimplification I know, but still...) I have mixed feelings about having my own son circumsized one day, but if I do decide on that route, it sure as heck won't be with no painkillers!
 
BaylorGuy said:
I dont understand one under general and one under MAC. Anesthesiologists monitor the MAC as a kind of marker for how much you are under.

Following up on adcadet, there are a number of cases where the patient is not suppose to be fully under. They are given a strong sedative or are put on a spinal (think most C-sections....no pain is felt, but pressure is). On a side note, I dont like journalists.


MAC can mean either Minimum Alveolar Concentration (what you're referring to) OR Monitored Anesthetic Care...it's kind of a bad acronym and obviously confusing!

And exactly, there are a number of cases where you are NOT supposed to be under, and somewhat awake is OK. And there are some cases where you are totally out but left breathing on your own. Bottom line: talk to your anesthesia provider(s) and ask questions until you are confortable. They should be happy to explain the plan to you.
 
Alexander Pink said:
That is certainly one justification for no anesthetic during circumcision, though I believe they actually do use a local now? (correct me if I a wrong). If youre interested you could check out Animal Experimentation: The Moral Issues by Robert M. Baird (Editor), Stuart E. Rosenbaum (Editor). It has some articles about the topic (not sure of the authors which is why I referenced the book).

When I was on my pediatrics rotation the pediatricians used local anesthetic - essentially a ring block. Before seeing them I was sort of thinking that there is no way I'd circ my son (if/when I have a son), but after seeing a few, I realize that it's really pretty minor. The kids probably cry more because they need to be strapped (gently) to a board to keep them still than due to the cutting.
 
I just don't understand what the point of cicumcision is. It seems so arbitrary to me. Why not chop off a woman's clitoris or nipples as well?

Here's some info on the foreskin's function, published in the British Journal of Urology:

"the outer foreskin’s concentration of nerves is “impressive” and its “sensitivity to light touch and pain are similar to that of the skin of the penis as a whole.” (1) The foreskin inner surface is different. It is mucous membrane similar to the inner surface of the mouth, also rich in nerves and blood vessels. Between the inner and outer layers of the foreskin is a unique structure they call a “ridged band” that contains “specialized nerve endings.”

"The foreskin represents at least a third of the penile skin. It protects the glans from abrasion and contact with clothes. (4) The foreskin also increases sexual pleasure by sliding up and down on the shaft, stimulating the glans by alternately covering and exposing it. This can occur during masturbation or intercourse. Friction is minimized, and supplementary lubrication is not needed. (5) Without the foreskin, the glans skin, which is normally moist mucous membrane, becomes dry and thickens considerably in response to continued exposure. This change reduces its sensitivity. (6)"

Here's some links to some other recent medical studies on circumcision.

I'm not an anti-circumcision crusader or anything, I was just interested in the topic so I did a little research.
 
Yeah, the medical validity of cicumcision has been a topic of debate for quite some time. There have been some studies on circumcision and reduction of infection, as well as its impact on sexual pleasure as you mentioned. While I wouldn't be so quick to make an analogy to female genital mutilation (a topic I have researched extensively), the major movement behind circumcision is largely religious and/or aesthetic. I have also debated whether or not to circumcise my child if/when I have one, and am still weighing the debate.
 
Seems silly. I dont know how many of you rotated through Surg or payed attention to the anesthesiologist. usually if you are in pain like that your BP goes up and so does your HR. Of course I could see that being an issue in an open heart case. Seems crazy, it could be more of the crazy dreams you can have and believing they are real. I dont know seems ridiculous to me.
 
Someone should start a poll with multiple options for those of us who have had general anesthesia. With options like "I remember being taken into the OR and being transferred to the table," and "I remember waking up in the OR after surgery before being take to recovery." Maybe then we'd get some answers. 😛

It's definitely an interesting topic and one that a lot of us think about. But perhaps because there are a lot of drugs being used, especially ones that affect your memory, these claims shouldn't be taken as seriously as Dateline seems to have done.
 
There has been an interesting study showing that HIV can bind better to foreskin. A relatively minor thing but something. Additionally, there are problems foreskin can cause, like phimosis and paraphimosis. But as stated above the main reasons are two fold 1) Religious 2) aesthetic

To compare it to genital mutilation is pretty silly. Men who are circed can still derive pleasure from sex, those with gential mutilation cannot. Additionally, some women have stated that they prefer men who are circed.. Just the facts out there. I am sure there are women out there who feel the opposite.
 
EctopicFetus said:
There has been an interesting study showing that HIV can bind better to foreskin. A relatively minor thing but something. Additionally, there are problems foreskin can cause, like phimosis and paraphimosis. But as stated above the main reasons are two fold 1) Religious 2) aesthetic

To compare it to genital mutilation is pretty silly. Men who are circed can still derive pleasure from sex, those with gential mutilation cannot. Additionally, some women have stated that they prefer men who are circed.. Just the facts out there. I am sure there are women out there who feel the opposite.

Probably because if they live in the U.S. and date men who were born here, you've never seen anyone who isn't.
 
EctopicFetus said:
There has been an interesting study showing that HIV can bind better to foreskin. A relatively minor thing but something. Additionally, there are problems foreskin can cause, like phimosis and paraphimosis. But as stated above the main reasons are two fold 1) Religious 2) aesthetic

To compare it to genital mutilation is pretty silly. Men who are circed can still derive pleasure from sex, those with gential mutilation cannot. Additionally, some women have stated that they prefer men who are circed.. Just the facts out there. I am sure there are women out there who feel the opposite.

Well, I'm not a man, so I can only imagine, but pretend that tomorrow you were to go to the doctor, be strapped down to a board with your legs and arms outstretched, probably receive no painkillers, have your foreskin grasped with forceps, and the opening forcibly widened. Then, the membrane that connects it to the glands would be ripped apart, causing the glans to bleed and swell. Finally, a slit would be made in the foreskin so it could be peeled back from the glans, wrapped around a piece of metal and crushed by a special instrument that makes it easier to eventually cut off.

Circumcision removes (on average) one third of the penile skin system (sensitive inner and outer preputial layers), including the peripenic dartos muscle, the frenar band, and part of the frenulum.

Assuming that you are an adult who was circumcised as an infant, how can you say that circumcision doesn't affect sexual function? How about some actual studies? Click http://circumcision.org/studies.htm .

Here's some info. on the "medical benefits:" http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/STD/.
 
My father was 13 when he was circumsized....no anesthesic. All they did was numb it with ice and cut. I'm the youngest of 4 kids...and as far as i know, there is still sexual function going on.

However, I will reiterate what was already said...most of the reasons people are circumsized are a) religion and b) aesthetic. And this is me playing devils advocate but does anyone remember anything before they were like 1 year old??? So what, you were circumsized, its not like you remember it or anything...dont go having post-traumatic stress about it.
 
BaylorGuy said:
My father was 13 when he was circumsized....no anesthesic. All they did was numb it with ice and cut. I'm the youngest of 4 kids...and as far as i know, there is still sexual function going on.

However, I will reiterate what was already said...most of the reasons people are circumsized are a) religion and b) aesthetic. And this is me playing devils advocate but does anyone remember anything before they were like 1 year old??? So what, you were circumsized, its not like you remember it or anything...dont go having post-traumatic stress about it.

Well, if you do any research on the subject at all, you can see that numerous studies published in all of the major medical journals say that 1) Things that happen to you as a baby do affect you later in life and 2) Sexual function is affected as men get older. I've linked to all of this info. It's fine if you simply choose not to believe the studies that have been done, but clearly you haven't done any actual research on the subject besides having your own subjective opinions. Oh, and post-traumatic stress disorder is observed in circumcised individuals.

The only reasons women undergo genital mutilation are aesthetic and religious as well, and yet we have condemned that practice. I just don't agree with performing pointless surgeries on babies because "that's what everyone does."
 
Does anyone remeber Steve Irwin (The Crocodile Hunter)? I used to watch that show and on one episode he tore up his knee (ACL or something) when going after a Croc. The next episode he had the surgery done on his knee and he wanted to watch the whole thing and ask questions while the doctor was working so they paralyzed from the waist down if I recall. He sat up and watched the whole surgery and talked to the camera the whole time. It was hilarious. :laugh:
 
I love that guy. 😍 Did you know that his wife is totally the female crocodile hunter and they take their little kids with them everywhere? That's got to be an awesome childhood.
 
Top