Circumcision: can any rational thinker defend it ? [Archive] - Page 4

HawkeyeMD

5th July 2007, 04:36 PM

Having second thoughts, I'll try one more time.This is your paranoia and defensiveness. The more I try to restate what I'm saying in response to your misinterpretations, the more defensive you get.

Why bother, really? You haven't restated anything--you're simply reiterating the same things without responding to either the things that I disagree with, or to the fact that, over and over again, despite what you say, you pepper your posts with statements that several people at least have no trouble as seeing as antagonistic towards the medical profession.

I am not paranoid. Neither do I think I am particularly defensive, certainly no more so than you are over denigrations of your own profession.

Medicine has changed a great deal in the last hundred years or so. Catch up, and quit blaming every doctor today for the attitudes of those of the 50's.

Perhaps you find that hard to believe because you still don't get the fact I believe what I say, that where the medical evidence is equivocal, then individual assignment of priorities is a neutral medical decision.

And perhaps you still don't get the fact that I believe what I say, that where the medical evidence is equivocal, I think that an infant's eventual right to choose for himself has a weight at least equal with that of the parents to decide for him.

It is a valid medical indication for a circumcision in a healthy infant. Either you, as a 4th year medical student, don't believe that the AAP or the AAFP committees who wrote the respective position statements for those organizations were sincere, or you must believe you have the qualifications to contradict their conclusions.

Boldface it all you want, it's still nonsense. You've posted those citations over and over again, and they still don't mean "we recommend circumcision". As a fourth-year medical student, I am perfectly capable of understanding what they say. They say to give the risks and benefits honestly. They do not say that a given provider is obligated to perform the procedure. There are numerous other organizations who have gone so far as to recommend against routine circumcision. I'm not going to bother to repost the citations; several of them came up earlier in this thread.

I believe the reduction in infection risk is reasonable. I don't believe the evidence for risk reduction is strong enough to override someone like Ivor or yourself who are convinced the foreskin is so important. And at the same time I have not seen any convincing empirical evidence that circumcisions are a big deal to a majority of men.

You're also clearly not reading what I've written. I don't consider the foreskin to be particularly important. I've said it in several places--I don't think the procedure is all that big a deal.

What I do think is important is the individual's right to choose for himself whether or not to permanently alter part of their body. Absent convincing--not "equivocal"--evidence to the contrary, I think that is a significant consideration. Having said that, I also pointed out in my previous post that a parent who was seriously concerned about UTI would be one I would consider performing the procedure for. If parents wish the procedure for other reasons, whether cultural or religious, then it is not unreasonable of me as a (future) medical professional to refer them elsewhere. (The fact is that I would probably send any child to another provider anyway--whoever does it should be experienced.)

The judgment you have decided you were hearing seems to be based in your own defensiveness and paranoia.

Actually, I haven't read it.

Well, it's good.

Either way, nurses are socialized to accept patient's values and work with them as part of the nursing role.

It's absurd to think I'm claiming one is better.

I don't think I can possibly add to what Linda said about this above, except to say that clearly it's not absurd.

Same question, how do you support your decision to go against two different physician organizations who, by consensus, do find the UTI risk reduction warrants consideration for circumcision of an otherwise healthy infant? At least one of which reversed an earlier position against circumcisions?

Piffle. I've done no such thing. I've said over and over that I do not intend to perform circumcisions routinely for non-medical reasons.

Does it help to continually boldface like that? Will you actually read what I've read if I do that?

And as far as respect vs allow, you have yet to address the parent's legitimacy weighing infection risk reduction above the harm from loss of the foreskin. My issue is with your judgment that such a parent value doesn't rise to the level of "medically indicated". It bothers me you would say that to parents who might have lost a previous child to infection.

And there you go again: not only misstating my position, not only utterly ignoring that I have not failed to address it, but self-righteously assuming that I would behave in an utterly inhumane way to a grieving parent.

Nice work, skeptigirl. Charming. I can only assume you find this fun. I think it's simply appalling.

Emperor

5th July 2007, 06:56 PM

Forget the term "G-spot" then, and call it "fold" as in this glossary:

"(...) where the outer skin folds inward and forms the sexually sensitive area of the penis."

As for the prostate, yes there are reports that a number of men react positively to stimulation of the prostate, but most of them not. I don't remember the percentages, I imagine that the positively reacting men were a remarkable share but still the minority.

---

Whee, that same website (not hand-picked by me, I swear) gives an interesting definition for "circumcision":

"circumcision = see penile reduction surgery"

"penile reduction surgery = a medical term for circumcision, referring to the surgical reduction of the sexually sensitive area of the penis; see foreskin"

The only thing I can think of regarding the area of skin you are referring to is the Frenulum. It acts as an "anchor" between the Glans and the foreskin opening/beginning of the outer foreskin, and is generally the most sensitive tissue on a penis, intact or circumcised. Perhaps this is the area you speak of? I suppose it fits the "where the outer skin folds inward" description rather nicely.

I also have never heard of circumcision being referred to as "penile reduction surgery". Very interesting!

Skeptic Ginger

5th July 2007, 08:01 PM

From your source, skeptigirl:

"In some cultures and religions, minor amputations or mutilations are considered a ritual accomplishment."

Is it not talking about circumcision or FGM? Seems like we CAN use the term amputation fairly.

The only reason you saw an emotional appeal when you read the term amputation, skeptigirl, is because of your emotional response. If you had no emotional response to it, you wouldn't have a problem with the term amputationlDid you investigate what the minor amputations referred to?

I stand by my statement, the use of the term 'amputation' of the foreskin is an irregular use of the term. Would you say appendices are amputated? Are gall bladders amputated? It is you who are seeking the emotional response.

Skeptic Ginger

5th July 2007, 08:44 PM

I think that when doctors are taught to consider patients' emotional states, need for information, values, fears, etc. when caring for their patients, these considerations are not referred to as "nursing diagnoses". I also think that when comparing the actions of nurses and physicians working the ED vs. those working in a specialty clinic, time and priorities will lead to a difference in how those issues are handled regardless of profession. I agree that you may find that nurses are on average more nurturing than physicians, although I recognize that it's also possible that this perception is due to bias. I realize that you choose to compare disparate, rather than similar situations because you wish to emphasize differences. But that makes it unclear when those differences are due to the profession instead of the situation or other factors.

LindaYou are correct that each specialty is going to have different specialists. OR, ICU and ED nurses often have much narrower nursing roles that focus heavily on highly technical skills. Pediatric practices are much more inclusive of nursing interventions. And any physician who specializes in geriatrics has to be incredibly nurturing.

Still, I have observed physicians in many different settings focus on the pill or treatment much more so than on the patient. No doubt those are the incidents which stand out in my memory. I wonder though, if either because your practice is not like that, or perhaps you just haven't been looking, maybe there is more of this than you realize.

I'm not trying to push that overlapping curve apart, now, so don't get me wrong. But I think of the differences more in terms of the medical model and the nursing model. Physicians diagnose and prescribe, nurses assist the patient in carrying out the prescription and help the patient accommodate the illness. Sometimes you need more of one of those than the other. But you can see just from the description, the physician patient and nurse patient roles are inherently different.

The patient's medical care requires variable amounts of both so the roles of the providers are going to have considerable overlap. And we both recognize specialties make a big difference as well. So maybe differences are going to be individual, situational, or professional. I certainly agree with that. But I'm not willing to completely toss the educational/professional influence altogether.

Skeptic Ginger

5th July 2007, 09:42 PM

When considering whether HawkeyeMD is unreasonably defensive, you may want to take into consideration that there is an implied "and doctors aren't" at the end of that last sentence (regardless of what you meant). You rush in to defend your profession when you see statements that misrepresent it. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect her to do the same.

LindaIt was the third time she made false accusations about my posts meaning something other than what I had said.

"Your viewpoint is clear. You think circumcision is a good thing. Fine. You will have to accept the fact that there are other medical professionals who disagree with you. And the reason that people keep responding to the idea that you are espousing the concept of circumcising American boys for the purpose of avoiding HIV infection is that you keep responding this way to those of us who are making the point that it does not apply in non-Third-World nations with posts like these."

That is not my viewpoint, nor was I ever unclear about HIV risk and circumcision.

"...-please be careful with the innate assumption that all doctors are out there trampling patients' rights and being paternalistic."

A bit of an exaggeration and there is noting in my posts that are as ridiculous as that.

"Then stop bringing it up. Seriously. The more times you qualify your statements with things like "of course there are physicians who are less paternalistic than others", the more it sounds like your underlying message is "but of course they're all that way underneath." The very sentence you wrote implies it--if some are "less", then clearly all of us are."

Sorry, Linda, but this is defensive. How do you clarify a misunderstanding if "bringing it up" to make the point more clear is distrusted as disingenuous?

While I haven't read past this post yet, I'm still waiting for an answer how one views the parent who might judge the medical indication for a circumcision to be compelling. You have both the AAP and the AAFP agreeing this is sufficient evidence for supporting a legitimate medical reason. Am I the only one here who can empathize with a parent making that decision based on their value of reducing the risk of a UTI which they might legitimately believe is very important? Is it possible the difference in how I would view those parents is because I have a nursing background?

Maybe it doesn't have a thing to do with it. You made a reasonable case. That doesn't change the fact we do have different roles that have to have some impact on each of us. I bring it up, you and Katana say I haven't expressed myself well. I see your point. The discussion moves on.

But you can't move on if discussing it results in accusations of being disingenuous.

Skeptic Ginger

5th July 2007, 09:57 PM

...Having said that, I also pointed out in my previous post that a parent who was seriously concerned about UTI would be one I would consider performing the procedure for....If you show me in which past post you said this, I owe you an apology.

I have been asking repeatedly about how you viewed the wishes of a parent who might have lost a child to infection as an example of a legitimate but different value one could base the decision to circumcise on and it would be reasonable to conclude it was medically indicated in a healthy child.

Perhaps you answered in a post replying to someone else.

And re the AAP recommendation, "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child." The AAFP is more vague citing the evidence with no conclusion other than that of anesthesia. "The evidence indicates that neonatal circumcision prevents UTIs in the first year of life with an absolute risk reduction of about 1% and prevents the development of penile cancer with an absolute risk reduction of less than 0.2%. The evidence suggests that circumcision reduces the rate of acquiring an STD, but careful sexual practices and hygiene may be as effective. Circumcision appears to decrease the transmission of HIV in underdeveloped areas where the virus is highly prevalent. No study has systematically evaluated the utility of routine neonatal circumcision for preventing all medically-indicated circumcisions in later life. Evidence regarding the association between cervical cancer and a woman’s partner being circumcised or uncircumcised, and evidence regarding the effect of circumcision on sexual functioning is inconclusive. If the decision is made to circumcise, anesthesia should be used."

osmosis

5th July 2007, 11:41 PM

:boggled: Are you serious?

Ivor, I have pointed out before that I think basically we agree on this issue. Why on earth you would use the implication that rape, child abuse and slavery are exact equivalents to circumcision is beyond me. You are abandoning your very cogent arguments for nonintervention for the sake of a pithy, oversimplistic smart answer. Please don't do that, and don't let your emotional involvement in the issue lead you into making such comparisons.

I have worked in a rape-crisis center. The very idea of implying that there is no long-term harm involved, or that the long-term harm is no more than that of a minor medical procedure, is absolutely unconscionable.

I understand what you're saying, the problem is he's right. I don't think you quite understand what he's getting at though.

Firstly, he's talking about physical harm not emotional harm, and his point is quite valid. The point I see him making is that one cannot dismiss circumcision as "harmless" or "minor" without simultaneously dismissing a host of other things that are generally regarded as horrible, such as rape, beatings, etc, on the very same logical grounds.

He didn't say they were "exactly equivalent", but they are equivalent in every way that matters to the discussion at hand. I understand why you got defensive about his statement - you work at a rape crisis center and have to deal with the emotional scars rape causes (I know it does, I've known women who have been raped, in one case several times). But that's really an emotional response, one that would be unnecessary had you read his post a little more closely.

Abooga

6th July 2007, 01:41 AM

Did you investigate what the minor amputations referred to?

I stand by my statement, the use of the term 'amputation' of the foreskin is an irregular use of the term. Would you say appendices are amputated? Are gall bladders amputated? It is you who are seeking the emotional response.

Who knows what the wikipedia article writer had in mind? However, as we are talking about ROUTINE INFANT CIRCUMCISION (RIC), your appendix analogy is not valid. And still, reading "In some cultures and religions, minor amputations or mutilations are considered a ritual accomplishment", the first things that come to my mind are Circ. and FGM...

HawkeyeMD

6th July 2007, 02:26 AM

I understand what you're saying, the problem is he's right. I don't think you quite understand what he's getting at though.

Firstly, he's talking about physical harm not emotional harm, and his point is quite valid. The point I see him making is that one cannot dismiss circumcision as "harmless" or "minor" without simultaneously dismissing a host of other things that are generally regarded as horrible, such as rape, beatings, etc, on the very same logical grounds.

I don't believe it is. If he were saying, look, we used to accept these things as matters of course too, and now we think they're horrible, I would accept that as an analogy. To say "how much harm does rape do? No more than circumcision" is to make a direct comparison and, frankly, invite a heated response.

As Katana also pointed out, rape and beatings are liable to cause more than minor physical harm.

JJM 777

6th July 2007, 02:29 AM

HawkeyeMD

6th July 2007, 02:29 AM

If you show me in which past post you said this, I owe you an apology.

I have been asking repeatedly about how you viewed the wishes of a parent who might have lost a child to infection as an example of a legitimate but different value one could base the decision to circumcise on and it would be reasonable to conclude it was medically indicated in a healthy child.

Perhaps you answered in a post replying to someone else.

Yes, let's, shall we? Only let's deal with my actual position. My position is that based on the medical evidence, I do not believe circumcision is warranted for every male child. Therefore, since I am considering it as a medical procedure, I don't intend to perform them routinely. As fls has pointed out, most parents are not primarily concerned with the risk of infection (whether of HIV, which seemed to be the predominant example early in the thread, or of UTIs, which have taken over lately) when considering circumcision. If a parent is concerned about UTI, then that is a medical question and a situation in which I would consider the procedure.

This is part of my last response to you. I will not bother going through the thread and finding previous discussions.

Awaiting apology.

fls

6th July 2007, 05:10 AM

The question was:

"Circumcision: can any rational thinker defend it ?"

And the answer: "Yes, on emotional grounds, or by asserting that the injustice done to the person is neutralized by the apparently very small importance of the issue."

Stealing, wrong.
Stealing one penny from a millionaire... okay let this one go uninspected.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that it's unreasonable for anyone to point out that necessarily subjective considerations come into play?

ETA: Or maybe the disagreement is over the "necessarily"?

Linda

Ivor the Engineer

6th July 2007, 05:17 AM

I don't believe it is. If he were saying, look, we used to accept these things as matters of course too, and now we think they're horrible, I would accept that as an analogy. To say "how much harm does rape do? No more than circumcision" is to make a direct comparison and, frankly, invite a heated response.

As Katana also pointed out, rape and beatings are liable to cause more than minor physical harm.

Circumcision, when performed in a 21st century hospital by a skilled medical professional using proper anesthesia is an extremely safe and pain free procedure. I would expect nothing less, would you? However, just because it has become hi-tech and sanitized does not change the physical reality of removing healthy, functional tissue or the ethical one of a procedure being performed on a non-consenting individual, for benefits that most men do not see as significant when they are able to choose for themselves.

If the same benefits (e.g., absolute reduction in childhood UTI's of ~1%) were provided to infant females from a similar procedure, such as labia reduction, would any of the pro-circumcision or evidence-based nurse practitioners seriously consider it for their child? My guess is that you would not, simply because the concept of FGM is distasteful to us in the developed world because we don't do it.

Back to my examples:

Caning in schools was incredibly safe too. I'm sure only a insignificant little bit of skin was removed. It soon healed.

A man raping his wife would not have had to use force because she would know that it was his right. She may of had a few bruises after, but nothing life-threatening. Have you heard of learned helplessness?

I'll concede that the life of a slave was likely to be shorter than that of a free person.

HawkeyeMD, you are correct I wanted a response. I was hoping for some initial rage then hopefully some recognition (a light-bulb moment) that the similarities, at societal and ethical levels is almost exact. Only a few people seem to have understood this.

However, it seems that most people posting here have constructed an ethical difference between their own societies' behaviour and what those 'horrible people' in the past (maybe their (great-)grandparents?) used to do in theirs.

My argument is that this construction is a delusion. It is exactly the same delusion that the men raping their wives, the teachers caning children and the households with slaves used to justify their behaviour. They have created it to protect their idea of self (e.g., I am a good person), in a similar way to people who create the delusion of an afterlife or God to protect the self from the realization of death.

Ivor the Engineer

6th July 2007, 05:37 AM

I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that it's unreasonable for anyone to point out that necessarily subjective considerations come into play?

ETA: Or maybe the disagreement is over the "necessarily"?

Linda

Subjectivity is fine so long as your subjective opinion does not change for equivalent situations. That's called being delusional, or if you realize they are the same, a hypocrite.

fls

6th July 2007, 05:57 AM

Still, I have observed physicians in many different settings focus on the pill or treatment much more so than on the patient. No doubt those are the incidents which stand out in my memory. I wonder though, if either because your practice is not like that, or perhaps you just haven't been looking, maybe there is more of this than you realize.

That's not the reason - I pay attention to issues of bias, so I wouldn't be so foolish as to think that my personal experience is likely to be representative.

I'm not trying to push that overlapping curve apart, now, so don't get me wrong. But I think of the differences more in terms of the medical model and the nursing model. Physicians diagnose and prescribe, nurses assist the patient in carrying out the prescription and help the patient accommodate the illness. Sometimes you need more of one of those than the other. But you can see just from the description, the physician patient and nurse patient roles are inherently different.

Yes, I can see that if you choose to describe things in a particular way then the roles will differ in the way that you have described.

The patient's medical care requires variable amounts of both so the roles of the providers are going to have considerable overlap. And we both recognize specialties make a big difference as well. So maybe differences are going to be individual, situational, or professional. I certainly agree with that. But I'm not willing to completely toss the educational/professional influence altogether.

But no one asked you to toss the educational/professional influence. I suggested that comparing dissimilar situations doesn't really serve to elucidate the educational/professional influence.

Linda

NewtonTrino

6th July 2007, 09:39 AM

Would anyone on the "pro-circumcision" side feel differently if it was proven that it did cause a "siginificant" loss of sexual function? I think that's the main point here. If it truly has no difference at all, then who cares really (although I still think it's silly if nothing else). However, if sexual function is reduced by even a small amount (or even has a chance of being reduced due to side effects) then I think it's immoral to do to a child that cannot make the decision himself.

Blue Bubble

6th July 2007, 09:54 AM

Would anyone on the "pro-circumcision" side feel differently if it was proven that it did cause a "siginificant" loss of sexual function?

Edited-to-delete. Misread the original question.

I think that's the main point here. If it truly has no difference at all, then who cares really (although I still think it's silly if nothing else).No, that is not the main point at all.

However, if sexual function is reduced by even a small amount (or even has a chance of being reduced due to side effects) then I think it's immoral to do to a child that cannot make the decision himself.A chance of being reduced due to side effects ? There is always a chance of something going seriously wrong in any surgery, whether it's for cosmetic or medical purposes. So that's you convinced then ?

kellyb

6th July 2007, 11:45 AM

To me, it seems sort of similar to this (though admittedly not nearly as extreme):

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/325/7367/771

A deaf lesbian couple in the United States have deliberately created a deaf child. Sharon Duchesneau and Candy McCullough used their own sperm donor, a deaf friend with five generations of deafness in his family. Like others in the deaf community, Duchesneau and McCullough don't see deafness as a disability. They see being deaf as defining their cultural identity and see signing as a sophisticated, unique form of communication.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In the case of Duchesneau and McCullough, there is no ethical issuethe couple have the right to procreate with whomever they want. And many couples with a family history of deafness or disability seek to have a child without that disability.5 But some deaf couples have expressed the desire to use prenatal genetic testing of their fetus6 or in vitro fertilisation and preimplantation genetic diagnosis to select a deaf child. These choices are not unique to deafness. Dwarves may wish to have a dwarf child.7 People with intellectual disability may wish to have a child like them.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Many people believe that doctors should not help couples to have a deaf child. It is important to distinguish between two meanings of "having a disabled child." Some deaf couples refuse to consent to the insertion of a cochlear implant for a child who is born deaf but who could hear if given the implant.

JJM 777

6th July 2007, 11:54 AM

Are you saying that it's unreasonable for anyone to point out that necessarily subjective considerations come into play?
You can make subjective decisions about your own health.

It is unreasonable to claim that circumcision hardly ever benefits a person before he reaches an age when he would be able to do the decision himself too.

If and when the alleged benefits are expected only later in life, there is no need to do it at an age when the person is not capable of making an informed personal decision about it.

Ivor the Engineer

6th July 2007, 12:48 PM

fls

6th July 2007, 01:49 PM

You can make subjective decisions about your own health.

It is unreasonable to claim that circumcision hardly ever benefits a person before he reaches an age when he would be able to do the decision himself too.

If and when the alleged benefits are expected only later in life, there is no need to do it at an age when the person is not capable of making an informed personal decision about it.

Did you mean "reasonable" in that second sentence?

Linda

Loss Leader

6th July 2007, 01:58 PM

However, just because it has become hi-tech and sanitized does not change the physical reality of removing healthy, functional tissue or the ethical one of a procedure being performed on a non-consenting individual, for benefits that most men do not see as significant when they are able to choose for themselves.

I don't disagree with much in your post except the bolded part above.

An infant is not a non-consenting individual. An infant has the exact same power to consent to a medical procedure as an adult. It's just that the parent exercises that power for the infant. The infant is not non-consenting; he is incompetent to consent and requires someone to do it for him. A parent who consents to circumcision of an infant stands in exactly the same place as an adult who consents to circumcision on himself.

Lack of ability to consent does not equal lack of consent.

Disclaimer - As a Jew, I had my first son circumcised and will have my next one circumcised as well. No rational argument that has been produced can trump in my mind the fact that Jewish children are circumcised.

ImaginalDisc

6th July 2007, 02:01 PM

Disclaimer - As a Jew, I had my first son circumcised and will have my next one circumcised as well. No rational argument that has been produced can trump in my mind the fact that Jewish children are circumcised.

No amount of evidence could dissaude you from perpetuating ritual genital mutilation?

:jaw-dropp

That's frightening. It would be one thing if you said that the evidence presented has failed to change your mind, but this kind of single-minded adherence to a bronze-age tribal scarring ritual is bizarre.

Loss Leader

6th July 2007, 02:24 PM

No amount of evidence could dissaude you from perpetuating ritual genital mutilation?

That's frightening. It would be one thing if you said that the evidence presented has failed to change your mind, but this kind of single-minded adherence to a bronze-age tribal scarring ritual is bizarre.

Um ... that's exactly what I did say. I said that no argument that has been produced has changed my mind. I did not say that no amount of evidence could change my mind. Here were my exact words:

No rational argument that has been produced can trump in my mind the fact that Jewish children are circumcised.

ImaginalDisc

6th July 2007, 02:34 PM

Um ... that's exactly what I did say. I said that no argument that has been produced has changed my mind. I did not say that no amount of evidence could change my mind. Here were my exact words:

Oh. To quote Optimus Prime from the new Transformers movie, "My bad."

:boxedin:

Morrigan

6th July 2007, 02:36 PM

Why do you cling to stupid tribal beliefs?

Loss Leader

6th July 2007, 04:19 PM

Why do you cling to stupid tribal beliefs?

Remember what they say, stupid is just diputs spelled backwards.

HawkeyeMD

6th July 2007, 04:58 PM

You're also clearly not reading what I've written. I don't consider the foreskin to be particularly important. I've said it in several places--I don't think the procedure is all that big a deal.

What I do think is important is the individual's right to choose for himself whether or not to permanently alter part of their body. Absent convincing--not "equivocal"--evidence to the contrary, I think that is a significant consideration. Having said that, I also pointed out in my previous post that a parent who was seriously concerned about UTI would be one I would consider performing the procedure for. If parents wish the procedure for other reasons, whether cultural or religious, then it is not unreasonable of me as a (future) medical professional to refer them elsewhere. (The fact is that I would probably send any child to another provider anyway--whoever does it should be experienced.)

Oops, small correction. The previous post quotes my next-to-last response to you; this is from the last one.

So that's twice I've said it, in no uncertain terms.

Still awaiting apology.

Skeptic Ginger

6th July 2007, 06:14 PM

This is part of my last response to you. I will not bother going through the thread and finding previous discussions.

Awaiting apology.
I said if you could show me your statement was true, that you had already acknowledged you would consider a parent's value of infection risk reduction as meeting your definition of "medically indicated". Obviously you never said that until now.

So instead of simply saying, maybe I have a point, you pretend that was always your position?

Right.

HawkeyeMD

6th July 2007, 07:18 PM

That is the silliest, sulkiest response I could have imagined.

"Until now"? Um, yeah. As in, as soon as I responded to you after the subject of UTI came up (as opposed to HIV). Several days ago.

Yes indeedy. Very obviously. :rolleyes: Well, thank you for acknowledging that I did say it.

Apology accepted.

fuelair

6th July 2007, 08:19 PM

If Columbus hadn't circumsized the Earth, America might never have been esposed!!

Skeptic Ginger

6th July 2007, 08:55 PM

That's not the reason - I pay attention to issues of bias, so I wouldn't be so foolish as to think that my personal experience is likely to be representative.

Yes, I can see that if you choose to describe things in a particular way then the roles will differ in the way that you have described.

But no one asked you to toss the educational/professional influence. I suggested that comparing dissimilar situations doesn't really serve to elucidate the educational/professional influence.

LindaWe could go on forever on this. From my 30 years of experience, I have seen a philosophical difference in nursing and medical approaches to patient care. And while I understand the limits of anecdotal observations, that 30 years has included a really broad number and kind of practice settings. I've worked in a 35 bed rural hospital, a small city hospital and several large urban ones. I've worked in public health, drug rehab, ICU, pediatrics, family practice (NP, not nurse), occupational health, employee health, infectious disease and infection control. I've gone back to college 3 separate times, lived in 4 states and traveled extensively. So I do have quite an extensive collection of observations which I am drawing conclusions from.

As I try to describe just what the difference in professions I speak of is, it has conjured up all sorts of misunderstandings about what I am describing.

The example I gave about the blood exposure patient care was a good example. You can look at the practice settings and say that accounts for the difference. So are you then claiming there is not a fundamental difference in patient interactions between the two professions?

If you think I am talking about 'good' and 'bad' patient care, then I can understand why you might look at the problems in the comparison. But if you stop looking at that aspect, which is not anything I am communicating, and you look instead at how the nursing and medical professions might complement each other because of the differences, then the example is one which merely illustrates a concept. That concept is where nursing and medicine do differ.

This originally started when Dr Hawk made a declarative statement that she would not want to do a circumcision unless it was medically indicated. Since infection risk reduction is a medical indication, then the procedure could be medically indicated for any healthy child. If the statement had instead been, "unless the parents want the procedure for a medical reason" then I wouldn't have reacted to her position in the same way.

The second place we differed was our respective definitions of what constituted "respect" for the parent's values in the decision making. While Dr Hawk has objected to my description that respect meant acceptance and not simply "allowing" the decision, nonetheless, I have a different perspective of what respecting the parent's decision means in this situation. It was an argument over semantics. But there was still an overlying philosophical difference in our professions that likely impacts, in some unknown variable degree, our positions.

While there are a multitude of possible reasons for Dr H's and my different perspectives. I still contend both nursing and medicine approach problems differently. That approach is a layer on top of how individuals practice their respective professions. The individuals themselves are the same. Maybe there are some differences which lead people to each profession, certainly the admission requirements differ. But there are all ranges of values, competence, and mixing of nursing and medicine within each field.

Take the nursing role of patient advocacy, for example. Nursing Spectrum (http://community.nursingspectrum.com/MagazineArticles/article.cfm?AID=22001) is not the most sophisticated publication, but this interview describes the role well.Interview with Karen Stanley, RN, MSN, AOCN, FAAN, president of the Pittsburgh-based Oncology Nursing Society.

Q: Would you please tell us your definition of nursing advocacy?

Advocacy is an essential role for all nurses. It addresses one’s individual responsibility to be informed about issues, to educate one’s colleagues and the public about those issues, to collaborate with those who can offer solutions to identified problems, and to effect change in nursing practice that delivers better outcomes.

Q: Describe the need for advocacy as a function of nursing.

Advocacy, on behalf of an improved health care system and the patients for whom we care, ensures that nursing is part of the solution to a growing problem. Nurses are well qualified to speak on behalf of patients and their families.

It is difficult to be a strong self-advocate when one is ill and vulnerable, unfamiliar with the health care system, and/or doesn’t know what rights one has. In these instances, the patient and family must rely on health care providers to advocate for them, and it is our ethical obligation to do so.

There is an unequal relationship between the health care system and the patients it serves. The goal of advocacy is to equalize that relationship by assessing patient/family needs and understanding the circumstances, providing culturally sensitive information and education, ensuring equal access to appropriate care, and supporting the patient and family’s decisions within the context of a multidisciplinary team.

Q: How has the philosophy of advocacy changed?

Historically, advocacy was viewed as ensuring that physician’s orders were carried out. Nurses helped patients conform or comply in order to be well. Today, nursing advocacy requires critical thinking skills, appropriate assessment and intervention, speaking for the patient within the context of the multidisciplinary team approach, and ensuring that patient’s wishes are honored and care is respectfully delivered.

Q: Describe some of the responsibilities nurses undertake in the new paradigm of advocacy for patients.

In addition to being informed about issues and speaking to patients in a way that improves their outcomes, nursing has an ethical obligation to address priority patient needs — physical, psychosocial, and spiritual. It can take courage to speak out for the most appropriate intervention when there is disagreement among the members of the multidisciplinary team. Collegiality is to be honored, but nursing’s responsibility to the patient trumps all else.

[snip]

Q: Give a clinical example of how an oncology nurse can speak up courageously for a vulnerable patient.

Individual patient advocacy occurs on a daily basis in a multitude of settings. In one instance, I consulted about a patient with metastatic cancer who had been admitted with a bowel obstruction and a tremendous pain burden. The obstruction was attended to, but there was an order for “no narcotics,” since the obstruction had been secondary to the use of oral opioids without a concurrent bowel regimen.

Patient-centered advocacy requires the safe and effective management of pain. After consulting with the physician, who was extremely reluctant to order opioids, I was able to initiate intravenous opioids and a concurrent aggressive bowel regimen. I personally administered the first opioid dosage and watched the patient break into tears when his pain was relieved for the first time in several weeks. [Nurses may perceive these kinds of actions differently than the physician. After this thread discussion, I think upon reassessment, this may not be much different from two physicians advocating for different medical interventions.]

Q: You’ve said that evidence-based practice, almost a buzzword, relates to advocacy today. How does it relate to oncology nursing?

The Oncology Nursing Society has done a significant amount of work defining evidence-based practice in the oncology nursing arena. We see this as another part of our organization’s advocacy role for oncology nurses and patients. We have compiled a meta-analysis of evidence-based practice in oncology nursing care. Topics include management of symptoms such as fatigue, nausea and vomiting, and depression, as well as other physical and psychosocial symptomatology. We have compiled evidence that supports best practice for oncology nurses and improved outcomes for patients. The next step is to educate oncology nurses so that practice can be changed.

[snip]

Skeptic Ginger

6th July 2007, 09:57 PM

... Having said that, I also pointed out in my previous post that a parent who was seriously concerned about UTI would be one I would consider performing the procedure for. If parents wish the procedure for other reasons, whether cultural or religious, then it is not unreasonable of me as a (future) medical professional to refer them elsewhere. ....Well I'll be.. this was your second mention of accepting the validity of a parent valuing UTI prevention.

Post 442: I do not intend to perform circumcisions unless I think there's a medical reason for it.

Poat 450: At this time, my opinion is that for a child who will grow up in a country like the USA--which is where I will practice--there is not sufficient medical justification for circumcision.

Post 460: exactly what I said: that I don't plan to perform circumcisions routinely, on a medical-evidence basis.

Post 465: the basis of the comparison--if there is no significant benefit, why perform it--is the crux of the disagreement about circumcision, which is why I addressed it.

before any procedure is performed that can't be undone, I need to feel that there is a medical necessity for it.

Post 470: At some point, that may mean saying, "Well, you understand my point of view. If you still want it done, I can give you some names of doctors who do perform the procedure." I don't think that's making a show of advocacy. It's just that in the course of a career, you are not going to win every fight. If they listen to me, and they still want it done, well...it's not illegal and I can't say that I think it's hugely harmful. I just don't think it's necessary.

Post 476: It wouldn't make me feel better to pass it off, but it would make me feel better to know that I've refused to do something I don't agree with.

Post 479: Well, it may be only a matter of time before this 'elective medical procedure' is considered differently. Things change, you see.

But tonsils are a very good example of an 'elective' surgery that has become largely extinct because of awareness by both parents and physicians that it did not do what it was intended to do.

Post 484: Your viewpoint is clear. You think circumcision is a good thing. Fine. You will have to accept the fact that there are other medical professionals who disagree with you. And the reason that people keep responding to the idea that you are espousing the concept of circumcising American boys for the purpose of avoiding HIV infection is that you keep responding this way to those of us who are making the point that it does not apply in non-Third-World nations with posts like these.

[Completely missing the fact I was talking about UTIs in all infants and HIV only in high prevalence areas.]

That is why I feel I should give them the benefit of the knowledge I have worked so hard to acquire. To suggest acquiescing to anything else in the name of "values" is to condescend to them. I have made it clear that I would never try to prevent a parent who, having heard my opinion, still wanted the procedure, from having it done.

Exactly where do you find an attack on a patient's parents values in that?

Post 493: That's the thing--I don't see it as a huge moral issue, I just see it as medically unnecessary,

Post 503: My main issue with it is the permanent alteration, for no good medical reason that I can see.

Then finally, after all those proclamations, we get to your reluctant admission in post 709: Yes, let's, shall we? Only let's deal with my actual position. My position is that based on the medical evidence, I do not believe circumcision is warranted for every male child. Therefore, since I am considering it as a medical procedure, I don't intend to perform them routinely. As fls has pointed out, most parents are not primarily concerned with the risk of infection (whether of HIV, which seemed to be the predominant example early in the thread, or of UTIs, which have taken over lately) when considering circumcision. If a parent is concerned about UTI, then that is a medical question and a situation in which I would consider the procedure.

I really don't think circumcision is harmful. I think it's unncessary.So, I don't care that you don't like me. I do believe I have been successful in getting you to recognize your medical opinion in this case, that a circumcision is unnecessary, is not the only way to interpret the medical evidence.

Now if you could just get over being annoyed at bolded text and not assume a different opinion is necessarily an insult...

osmosis

7th July 2007, 12:06 AM

osmosis

7th July 2007, 12:15 AM

I was hoping for some initial rage then hopefully some recognition (a light-bulb moment) that the similarities, at societal and ethical levels is almost exact. Only a few people seem to have understood this.

Ivor, you da man. You are so right.

My argument is that this construction is a delusion. It is exactly the same delusion that the men raping their wives, the teachers caning children and the households with slaves used to justify their behaviour. They have created it to protect their idea of self (e.g., I am a good person), in a similar way to people who create the delusion of an afterlife or God to protect the self from the realization of death.

Yes, nobody wants to admit to themselves that they are ignorant, barbaric, brainwashed, in denial, intellectually lazy or just plain wrong. That's why they refuse to see the real underlying issue as you present it.

osmosis

7th July 2007, 12:28 AM

Disclaimer - As a Jew, I had my first son circumcised and will have my next one circumcised as well. No rational argument that has been produced can trump in my mind the fact that Jewish children are circumcised.

"Jewish children are circumsized."

Since you're talking about a primitive superstition, I will also assume that no evidence WHATSOEVER could trump your religious belief.

Too bad for your children. I can't imagine how I would feel if my parents had mutilated me just because it felt right to them. You should not have the right to impose your barbaric notions on your defenseless children.

If there were any justice, I could just call 911 and have you arrested.

Ivor the Engineer

7th July 2007, 01:55 AM

I don't disagree with much in your post except the bolded part above.

An infant is not a non-consenting individual. An infant has the exact same power to consent to a medical procedure as an adult. It's just that the parent exercises that power for the infant. The infant is not non-consenting; he is incompetent to consent and requires someone to do it for him. A parent who consents to circumcision of an infant stands in exactly the same place as an adult who consents to circumcision on himself.

Lack of ability to consent does not equal lack of consent.

Disclaimer - As a Jew, I had my first son circumcised and will have my next one circumcised as well. No rational argument that has been produced can trump in my mind the fact that Jewish children are circumcised.

Where I think your argument falls down is that unless it is expected that the patient will never be able to decide for himself and the procedure can be performed later in life, then a non-essential physical alteration should not be carried out.

All you have effectively done is used a period in the life of the individual when he was unable to choose to inflict your will on them.

Can you conceive of a man not wanting to be circumcised?

What is your opinion of uncircumcised men?

If you believe the ~1% absolute risk reduction of UTI is significant, will you be taking action to reduce similar risks by a similar amount?

Once you have answered these questions honestly I think it should be obvious if you are able to make an unbiased, rational choice for your child.

Skeptic Ginger

7th July 2007, 04:28 AM

Well, circumcision has the potential to cause more harm than the loss of a little bit of skin. Some poor little kids have lost their peckers just because their parents were too ignorant to consider NOT mutilating their child.

As for rape, well, there can be lots of harm, or there can be no real harm at all. In and of itself, however, there isn't necessarily any harm done. Sure, people might not LIKE being held down and screwed, but it's otherwise a relatively MINOR PROCEDURE.

And most people recover from a beating soon enough.This isn't a rational way to weigh risk and benefit. Some poor little kids have lost their lives from kidney failure and sepsis too. That risk is greater if you are not circumcised.

Skeptic Ginger

7th July 2007, 04:30 AM

Ivor, you continue to think we should all share your view. But the fact is we don't. It isn't a matter of honesty, bias or irrational thinking.

fls

7th July 2007, 05:55 AM

We could go on forever on this. From my 30 years of experience, I have seen a philosophical difference in nursing and medical approaches to patient care. And while I understand the limits of anecdotal observations, that 30 years has included a really broad number and kind of practice settings. I've worked in a 35 bed rural hospital, a small city hospital and several large urban ones. I've worked in public health, drug rehab, ICU, pediatrics, family practice (NP, not nurse), occupational health, employee health, infectious disease and infection control. I've gone back to college 3 separate times, lived in 4 states and traveled extensively. So I do have quite an extensive collection of observations which I am drawing conclusions from.

Do you think your conclusions could differ if your perspective was from within, rather than from without, with regards to medicine?

As I try to describe just what the difference in professions I speak of is, it has conjured up all sorts of misunderstandings about what I am describing.

The example I gave about the blood exposure patient care was a good example. You can look at the practice settings and say that accounts for the difference. So are you then claiming there is not a fundamental difference in patient interactions between the two professions?

No, I'm not claiming that. I think that even if the underlying philosophies were identical that there would necessarily be differences in patient interactions between the two professions.

If you think I am talking about 'good' and 'bad' patient care, then I can understand why you might look at the problems in the comparison. But if you stop looking at that aspect, which is not anything I am communicating, and you look instead at how the nursing and medical professions might complement each other because of the differences, then the example is one which merely illustrates a concept. That concept is where nursing and medicine do differ.

I do believe that you are sincere when you say that you are not talking about "good" and "bad". But the way in which you have chosen to illustrate your points, does communicate this judgment. When you say that physicians and nurses are different because nurses do "this", the implication is that physicians do not, regardless of whether or not you say it out loud. What you may really mean is that physicians do it in a different way, but that is not the message that is conveyed. When the "this" I referred to is "advocate for patients" or "consider patient values", I really find it difficult to believe that anyone wouldn't consider those characteristics "good", and consider "ignore patient values" and "take no responsibility for patients" as "bad", regardless of whether or not you formally applied those labels.

I am not saying that I am unable to look past that and make some attempt to understand what you may be trying to convey. Or that I disagree with or fail to understand the point I think you are trying to make.

This originally started when Dr Hawk made a declarative statement that she would not want to do a circumcision unless it was medically indicated. Since infection risk reduction is a medical indication, then the procedure could be medically indicated for any healthy child. If the statement had instead been, "unless the parents want the procedure for a medical reason" then I wouldn't have reacted to her position in the same way.

Yet, when I read her statement, it seemed to me that that was what she was trying to convey - that for the average or usual situation, the risk reduction for infection is insufficient to overcome the ethical considerations (hence the AAP recommendations), but that in individual situations, the weighing of the medical issues may lead to a different recommendation. If she meant to exclude that possibility, then I would have expected her to state it differently. Who knows. She has clarified the issue for you, now.

The second place we differed was our respective definitions of what constituted "respect" for the parent's values in the decision making. While Dr Hawk has objected to my description that respect meant acceptance and not simply "allowing" the decision, nonetheless, I have a different perspective of what respecting the parent's decision means in this situation. It was an argument over semantics. But there was still an overlying philosophical difference in our professions that likely impacts, in some unknown variable degree, our positions.

While there are a multitude of possible reasons for Dr H's and my different perspectives. I still contend both nursing and medicine approach problems differently. That approach is a layer on top of how individuals practice their respective professions. The individuals themselves are the same. Maybe there are some differences which lead people to each profession, certainly the admission requirements differ. But there are all ranges of values, competence, and mixing of nursing and medicine within each field.

Take the nursing role of patient advocacy, for example. Nursing Spectrum (http://community.nursingspectrum.com/MagazineArticles/article.cfm?AID=22001) is not the most sophisticated publication, but this interview describes the role well.

This is another example. You make a point of saying that your position and HawkeyeMD's position are different (and I don't really see much of a difference), and that one of the reasons may be differences between the nursing and medical professions. Then you make a statement about one characteristic of the nursing profession, without any reference to the medical profession, which implies (regardless of whether you meant it) that it is not a characteristic of physicians. But it would not occur to me to consider the absence of that characteristic as anything but bad. So what did you intend to convey? Please keep in mind that I am not trying to say that medicine and nursing are not different.

Linda

Ivor the Engineer

7th July 2007, 05:58 AM

Ivor, you continue to think we should all share your view. But the fact is we don't. It isn't a matter of honesty, bias or irrational thinking.

Actually, I think you share my view for some situations and not for others. My problem (or as I see it, your problem;)) is when two particular situations are fundamentally the same and you consider one right and the other wrong, or one worth doing and the other not. As I said before, subjectivity is ok, so long as you're consistent in your subjective opinion.

I doubt anyone (even me:D) could achieve perfect consistency in their actions, but when sitting down and thinking about why you do what you do in one situation and in another, I see no reason to attempt to defend my own or anyone else's inconsistent behaviour or ethics.

ETA: The example you brought up about parents whose first boy was uncircumcised and had a UTI from which he died having more of a reason to circumcise their second boy is irrational, assuming the UTI and the resulting death was just bad luck. I.e. UTI’s in different children are independent events, barring genetic or environmental factors to link them. Or do you think using irrational thought is (sometimes) valid in the decision to treat a person?

Loss Leader

7th July 2007, 06:57 AM

"Jewish children are circumsized."

Since you're talking about a primitive superstition, I will also assume that no evidence WHATSOEVER could trump your religious belief.

That is an unwarranted assumption. It is not what I said, it is not what I believe and I don't appreciate being stuffed with straw so you can "win" an argument against a position I never took.

What I said was that no evidence that has been produced has changed my mind. Here is my original quote:

No rational argument that has been produced can trump in my mind the fact that Jewish children are circumcised.

You can assume whatever you like. It does not make it true.

You should not have the right to impose your barbaric notions on your defenseless children.

I am doing no such thing. I am exercising my child's will for him because he is unable to do so.

Parents have exercised their children's desire to refuse all medical treatment even at the cost of death. There is nothing unusual about it.

Where I think your argument falls down is that unless it is expected that the patient will never be able to decide for himself and the procedure can be performed later in life, then a non-essential physical alteration should not be carried out.

All you have effectively done is used a period in the life of the individual when he was unable to choose to inflict your will on them.

No, I have not. I have exercised my child's will because he was unable to.

Can you conceive of a man not wanting to be circumcised?

Sure.

What is your opinion of uncircumcised men?

They're probably not Jewish.

If you believe the ~1% absolute risk reduction of UTI is significant, will you be taking action to reduce similar risks by a similar amount?

I did not circumcise my son for any such reason. Thus, your argument is a non-sequitor.

Once you have answered these questions honestly I think it should be obvious if you are able to make an unbiased, rational choice for your child.

There is value in being physically identified with the religion that has seen your ancestors through thousands of years of tumultuous history. My relatives who dies in the Holocaust were circumcised. My relatives who were murdered during the black plague were circumcised. My relatives who were slaves in Egypt were circumcised. And my relatives who live and fight so that the Jewish people can have a homeland in Israel are circumcised.

And when the next wave of antisemitism hits - and it will - I want my sons to be inarguably and proudly identified as Jewish men.

fls

7th July 2007, 07:52 AM

Skeptigirl,

I thought it might help if I provided an example of how I compare and contrast physicians and nurses using your example:

Q: Give a clinical example of how an oncology nurse can speak up courageously for a vulnerable patient.

Individual patient advocacy occurs on a daily basis in a multitude of settings. In one instance, I consulted about a patient with metastatic cancer who had been admitted with a bowel obstruction and a tremendous pain burden. The obstruction was attended to, but there was an order for “no narcotics,” since the obstruction had been secondary to the use of oral opioids without a concurrent bowel regimen.

Patient-centered advocacy requires the safe and effective management of pain. After consulting with the physician, who was extremely reluctant to order opioids, I was able to initiate intravenous opioids and a concurrent aggressive bowel regimen. I personally administered the first opioid dosage and watched the patient break into tears when his pain was relieved for the first time in several weeks.

In this situation, both the physician and the nurse seemed to be practicing patient-centered advocacy. However, the physician more heavily weighted death and less heavily weighted discomfort as an outcome, whereas the nurse weighted death less heavily and discomfort more heavily (relative to the physician, not necessarily to each other). And it's possible that the difference is at least partly a result of the different background (medicine vs. nursing) that the physician and nurse have. Although, I have seen the identical discussion between two physicians.

[Nurses may perceive these kinds of actions differently than the physician. After this thread discussion, I think upon reassessment, this may not be much different from two physicians advocating for different medical interventions.]

I think this comment applies to just about everything you've presented, so far, including the stuff you bolded from the interview.

Linda

Loss Leader

7th July 2007, 08:31 AM

However, the physician more heavily weighted death and less heavily weighted discomfort as an outcome, whereas the nurse weighted death less heavily and discomfort more heavily (relative to the physician, not necessarily to each other). And it's possible that the difference is at least partly a result of the different background (medicine vs. nursing) that the physician and nurse have.

As a person who has had multiple heart surgeries from infancy all the way through my life to date, I can anecdotally confirm that doctors are generally far less concerned with patient comfort than averting death. In fact, I have never had the experience even once of a doctor even asking me if I was comfortable or if I was in pain. It has always been the nurses who have advocated for me to get pain medication or to get me on an unrestricted diet (because the stuff they serve the cardiac patients is [rule8]ing nasty), etc.

I've generally held that the way you know for certain that you're dying is when the doctor asks if there's anything that can be done to make you more comfortable.

fls

7th July 2007, 08:54 AM

I've generally held that the way you know for certain that you're dying is when the doctor asks if there's anything that can be done to make you more comfortable.

That explains the suspicious looks I get when I bring up certain topics. :)

Linda

Blue Bubble

7th July 2007, 09:44 AM

I am doing no such thing. I am exercising my child's will for him because he is unable to do so.

How do you know this is the child's will ?

Parents have exercised their children's desire to refuse all medical treatment even at the cost of death. There is nothing unusual about it.

Evidence ? I pesonally would find this extremely unusual, if such cases do exist. I'd find it bizarre.

There is value in being physically identified with the religion that has seen your ancestors through thousands of years of tumultuous history. My relatives who dies in the Holocaust were circumcised. My relatives who were murdered during the black plague were circumcised. My relatives who were slaves in Egypt were circumcised. And my relatives who live and fight so that the Jewish people can have a homeland in Israel are circumcised.

And when the next wave of antisemitism hits - and it will - I want my sons to be inarguably and proudly identified as Jewish men.

Isn't circumcision also common among Muslims ? Just asking ... I was in my early 20s before I even heard of circumcision, never mind seeing the results.

So absent the existence of some other (physical) identification, how is circumcision going to "inarguably and proudly identify" someone as Jewish ?

Ivor the Engineer

7th July 2007, 10:14 AM

No, I have not. I have exercised my child's will because he was unable to.

Wow! You’ve either got an ability that will win you $1million or you’re fooling yourself. No, the reality is you just picked a time when your son could not choose so you could inflict your will on him. Why not wait until he’s 21? I mean, you’ll have had all that extra time to brainwash him.

Sure.

So you acknowledge a man might not want to be circumcised, but at the same time you’re certain it won’t be the man you’re son will become. You are clearly delusional.

They're probably not Jewish.

That’s an inference, not an opinion. I’ll ask again: What’s your opinion of circumcised men? (I'm getting the idea from your tone in this post you consider Jewish people superior somehow.)

I did not circumcise my son for any such reason. Thus, your argument is a non-sequitor.

No, you did it for the really dumb reason of “it’s always been done this way.”

There is value in being physically identified with the religion that has seen your ancestors through thousands of years of tumultuous history.

What value? Would you love your son less if he had a foreskin? Would you only consider him an unclean heathen if he remained intact?

BTW, everybody’s ancestors have been through thousands of years of tumultuous history. Did I tell you about the time my ancestor was being chased by Genghis Karn? Boy, was he upset. Then there was this bloke in 1066…

My relatives who dies in the Holocaust were circumcised. My relatives who were murdered during the black plague were circumcised. My relatives who were slaves in Egypt were circumcised. And my relatives who live and fight so that the Jewish people can have a homeland in Israel are circumcised.

Incorrect. The Jewish women who died were not circumcised. That begs the question: How do Jewish women manage to ‘feel’ Jewish? I think I’m correct in thinking that your religion doesn’t insist you chop any bits off them.

And when the next wave of antisemitism hits - and it will - I want my sons to be inarguably and proudly identified as Jewish men.

The problem is that anything anyone else does that affects Jewish people usually has a few of them complaining it’s anti-Semitic.

Ivor the Engineer

7th July 2007, 10:17 AM

That explains the suspicious looks I get when I bring up certain topics. :)

Linda

Actually, I'd say you know it's really bad news when they make an unannounced house call just to give you the results of a brain scan.

Loss Leader

7th July 2007, 11:53 AM

How do you know this is the child's will ?

Because, by definition, what I want for my minor child is what he wants. You can find that to be injust if you like. It doesn't change the fact that the law says that it is true.

Evidence ? I pesonally would find this extremely unusual, if such cases do exist. I'd find it bizarre.

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo), here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Cruzan), and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Ann_Quinlan).

Isn't circumcision also common among Muslims ?

I have no idea.

So absent the existence of some other (physical) identification, how is circumcision going to "inarguably and proudly identify" someone as Jewish ?

Why do you assume that there will be an absense of the existence of some other identification or that physical identification is somehow more important than any other? It is one mark of a Jewish man - necessary, in my view, but certainly not sufficient.

Loss Leader

7th July 2007, 12:04 PM

Wow! You’ve either got an ability that will win you $1million or you’re fooling yourself. No, the reality is you just picked a time when your son could not choose so you could inflict your will on him.

No, the reality under law is that my decision as to what is best for my son is his decision. I win this argument by definition. You don't have to like it, but it's the law.

Why not wait until he’s 21?

And what if the Nazis come for us when he's fifteen? Or nine? Or six months old?

So you acknowledge a man might not want to be circumcised, but at the same time you’re certain it won’t be the man you’re son will become.

I am certain of nothing of the sort. I am certain that my newborn son will want to be circumcised on the date of his circumcision. I am certain of this because my judgment as to what is best for him legally substitutes for his own.

You are clearly delusional.

No, I'm a lawyer.

That’s an inference, not an opinion. I’ll ask again: What’s your opinion of circumcised men?

In that case, I have no opinion. I'm not sure who is in that group, why they are in there, how they feel about anything, whether they pay their taxes on time or anything else. I have no opinion about them.

(I'm getting the idea from your tone in this post you consider Jewish people superior somehow.)

You are projecting that entirely from within yourself. I have not said males should be circumcised. I have not said people should be Jewish. I have not said that Jews have any special claim to any unique truth. All I have said is that, in my tradition, Jewish males are circumcised.

No, you did it for the really dumb reason of “it’s always been done this way.”

Not every consistency is a foolish consistency. I see a value in keeping a connection with one's past. If you find that stupid, that's your own business. I don't appreciate the implied insult, though.

What value?

I've explained this already. Just because you don't like my explanation doesn't mean I didn't answer you.

Would you love your son less if he had a foreskin? Would you only consider him an unclean heathen if he remained intact?

No and no.

BTW, everybody’s ancestors have been through thousands of years of tumultuous history. Did I tell you about the time my ancestor was being chased by Genghis Karn? Boy, was he upset. Then there was this bloke in 1066…

That must have been tough for them.

Incorrect. The Jewish women who died were not circumcised. That begs the question: How do Jewish women manage to ‘feel’ Jewish?

I don't have daughters.

I think I’m correct in thinking that your religion doesn’t insist you chop any bits off them.

I'm told Jewish mothers have a procedure by which they attempt to circumcise their daughters' self-esteem.

The problem is that anything anyone else does that affects Jewish people usually has a few of them complaining it’s anti-Semitic.

I have made no such complaint and I reject, once again, this straw man attack.

HawkeyeMD

7th July 2007, 03:28 PM

Well I'll be.. this was your second mention of accepting the validity of a parent valuing UTI prevention.

Yes, congratulations! You can read! And in the very two posts following your request for clarification on that exact point. In fact, I have to say, I'm honored that you clearly think so much of my opinion that you felt the need to so carefully go through them all...over and over...even the ones that have nothing to do with any conversation with you...just to pick out all the plums. And look at that! Look at all those references to 'medical necessity' and 'medical benefit' and such. You must really understand my position now.

:rolleyes:

Ye gads, skeptigirl. Do you really have that much time on your hands?

If you want me to learn something from you--and as I also said before, I think you have a great deal of knowledge, and whether you believe it or not, my attitude really is that anyone with more experience than me is someone I should be able learn from--then please listen to what fls is trying to explain to you. Your reading of my statements has been skewed. When I've tried to explain my real viewpoint to you, you keep responding with generalizations about doctors and nurses that, as fls has explained several times, are hard to see any anything but denigrations of doctors.

Then when you're called on it, you say "That's absurd! I never meant that!"

But you're fine with characterizing my position as "Dr H instead made the non-evidence based declaration, "there is no medical indication for a circumcision in a healthy infant" so if the parents want one, they are wrong, but I won't interfere."

You might try applying some of that carefully-trained respect to your future colleagues.

Ivor the Engineer

7th July 2007, 05:17 PM

No, the reality under law is that my decision as to what is best for my son is his decision. I win this argument by definition. You don't have to like it, but it's the law.

That’s bollocks and you know it. Other people have had their children removed to protect them from their decisions.

And what if the Nazis come for us when he's fifteen? Or nine? Or six months old?

Well if they get to you when he’s still young there may be a chance for him if his physical characteristics are up to scratch. Don’t think you’ll make it though.

I am certain of nothing of the sort. I am certain that my newborn son will want to be circumcised on the date of his circumcision. I am certain of this because my judgment as to what is best for him legally substitutes for his own.

A parent’s judgement only extends so far with respect to the child. You are correct that US law currently allows you to mutilate his genitals because of your deluded religious beliefs. You are almost certainly incorrect about what your son wants. Unfortunately for you, that’s a fact that the law cannot change.

No, I'm a lawyer.

What makes you think a lawyer is immune from being deluded?

In that case, I have no opinion. I'm not sure who is in that group, why they are in there, how they feel about anything, whether they pay their taxes on time or anything else. I have no opinion about them.

Good.

You are projecting that entirely from within yourself. I have not said males should be circumcised. I have not said people should be Jewish. I have not said that Jews have any special claim to any unique truth. All I have said is that, in my tradition, Jewish males are circumcised.

Maybe I was. It was just the little speech about the (intangible) “value” of members of the Jewish faith continuing to mutilate their male children’s genitals because their ancestors did it sounded very much like pride to me.

Having a Heinz 57 ethnic background myself (including a Jewish Great-Grandmother) I don’t have any particular pride in my genetic history.

Not every consistency is a foolish consistency. I see a value in keeping a connection with one's past. If you find that stupid, that's your own business. I don't appreciate the implied insult, though.

Consistency is foolish when performing the act does not affect the result. E.g., many parents manage to brainwash their kids with their religious delusions without removing any body parts. Is Judaism really that ineffective at penetrating a male child’s psyche without physically altering his genitals? Has anyone ever tried?

I've explained this already. Just because you don't like my explanation doesn't mean I didn't answer you.

No and no.

I was trying to understand if this “value” was tangible. But since removing the foreskin would not alter the love you feel for your son or make him an outcast from the Jewish faith, this “value” appears to be totally intangible.

That must have been tough for them.

It’s estimated half the people who have ever lived have died of malaria. Now that’s tough.

I don't have daughters.

I'm told Jewish mothers have a procedure by which they attempt to circumcise their daughters' self-esteem.

What has that to do with the question I asked? I’ll try again: How do Jewish women manage to feel Jewish? Do they forget sometimes because their genitals have not been mutilated like their male counterparts?

I have made no such complaint and I reject, once again, this straw man attack.

Oh, it just sounded like you were expecting another wave of anti-Semitism to hit soon.

If the law was changed and routine infant male circumcision became illegal, would you be claiming it was anti-Semitic?

Loss Leader

7th July 2007, 05:38 PM

That’s bollocks and you know it. Other people have had their children removed to protect them from their decisions.

Oh, there's a limit to which parents can substitute their judgment for their children, but circumcision is nowhere near that limit. So, it is not "bollocks" and, in fact, I know that it is not. I know it the same way an engineer knows if a bridge is safe or a doctor knows if a medication is warranted - I know it because I have been professionally trained to know it.

Well if they get to you when he’s still young there may be a chance for him if his physical characteristics are up to scratch. Don’t think you’ll make it though.

I don't know what you mean by that. If you mean that Nazis might spare my son because he is uncircumcised, I assure you I would rather see my son die as a Jew than live in denial of the same.

A parent’s judgement only extends so far with respect to the child. You are correct that US law currently allows you to mutilate his genitals because of your deluded religious beliefs.

I am not deluded. They actually are my religious beliefs.

You are almost certainly incorrect about what your son wants.

It is, by definition, impossible for me to be wrong about what my son wants. My desires are his desires. The two things cannot be separated. I'm getting a little tired of repeating that, especially since you already conceded that this is the state of the law.

Unfortunately for you, that’s a fact that the law cannot change.

Actually, that would be fortunate for me.

What makes you think a lawyer is immune from being deluded?

Don't generalize. I said that *I* am not deluded and used, as evidence that I am not, the fact that my behavior comports with the law. Lawyers can be deluded. On this issue, however, I am not.

Good.

I don't know what we were talking about but I'm glad to see you with such a positive attitude.

Maybe I was. It was just the little speech about the (intangible) “value” of members of the Jewish faith continuing to mutilate their male children’s genitals because their ancestors did it sounded very much like pride to me.

There is a massive difference between *pride* and "consider[ing] Jewish people superior somehow." I have pride in my heritage; I do not consider my religion superior.

Is Judaism really that ineffective at penetrating a male child’s psyche without physically altering his genitals? Has anyone ever tried?

Don't know, don't care.

I was trying to understand if this “value” was tangible. But since removing the foreskin would not alter the love you feel for your son or make him an outcast from the Jewish faith, this “value” appears to be totally intangible.

Um, okay.

It’s estimated half the people who have ever lived have died of malaria. Now that’s tough.

Yeesh! Is there a fund I can donate to?

How do Jewish women manage to feel Jewish? Do they forget sometimes because their genitals have not been mutilated like their male counterparts?

I don't know. I am not a Jewish woman and I don't have daughters.

Oh, it just sounded like you were expecting another wave of anti-Semitism to hit soon.

I'm always expecting it. However, I have not complained that the arguments against circumcision in this thread are antisemitic.

If the law was changed and routine infant male circumcision became illegal, would you be claiming it was anti-Semitic?

Yes.

JJM 777

7th July 2007, 11:46 PM

I am exercising my child's will for him because he is unable to do so.
(...)
My desires are his desires. The two things cannot be separated.
(...)
Parents have exercised their children's desire to refuse all medical treatment even at the cost of death. There is nothing unusual about it.
Nothing unusual, it's a wild world out there. But at JREF forum this would be termed "woo". You might want to learn the meaning of that word.

I have exercised my child's will because he was unable to.
You are exercizing your own will, and you are seizing the practical opportunity in control of a helpless person. Happily enough, this will probably not have a great negative impact on his life, since the issue is relatively trivial.

I want my sons to be inarguably and proudly identified as Jewish men.
Finally you are speaking in the correct modus: "I want". What your sons will want when they grow up, remains to be seen.

There is value in being physically identified with the religion that has seen your ancestors through thousands of years of tumultuous history.
You can always have the kippah and long hair on temples. These would conveniently identify your kid as a Jew, for any Nazi roaming the streets of your hometown. Being circumcized would not help at all in America or in Muslim countries, where more than half of population are circumcized without having anything to do with Judaism.

No, the reality under law is that my decision as to what is best for my son is his decision. I win this argument by definition. You don't have to like it, but it's the law.
Why do I have the feeling that you are not referring to the law of the state now? If you are referring to the Law of Moses, please give the readers a better hint. Otherwise they will be wondering where such laws are in effect.

And what if the Nazis come for us when he's fifteen? Or nine? Or six months old?
By the way, the fact that any Jews remain at all is thanks to them trying to hide, many of them escaping death by hiding their true identity.

The fact that you were ever born and are now writing to this forum might be thanks to "policies" that you are now opposing in your texts.

Not to mention the Purim story about Haman and Queen Esther. (I personally find it a work of fiction though. I generally expect that nearly all Biblical stories have a historical background, even if some details may be a bit hazy. But the Book of Esther is fiction from the beginning to the end, in my estimation.)

osmosis

8th July 2007, 01:00 AM

That is an unwarranted assumption. It is not what I said, it is not what I believe and I don't appreciate being stuffed with straw so you can "win" an argument against a position I never took.

What I said was that no evidence that has been produced has changed my mind.

What's evidence got to do with it? You freely admitted that you favor circumcision for "jewish" boys, for, well, no good reason. Because that's how you think jewish boys ought to be.

Where does evidence come into this?

I am doing no such thing. I am exercising my child's will for him because he is unable to do so.

Oh? And just how do you know what your child's will is? Did you ask him? What was his response?

You are not exercising your child's will, you are exercising your own. It may make you feel better to imagine it's what your child really wants, but it makes you no less of a monster.

Parents have exercised their children's desire to refuse all medical treatment even at the cost of death. There is nothing unusual about it.

So when a Jehovah's Witness refuses a blood transfusion for his infant child, he's exercising his child's will? Do you mean to say that every JW child that died because their parents refused them treatment wanted it that way? I hope not, because that would just be patently insane.

uhh.. oh, man.. you know what, I'm just going to drop it. It's obvious to me you're just too far gone to be reached.

osmosis

8th July 2007, 01:19 AM

I am not deluded. They actually are my religious beliefs.

Translation: I am not deluded. They actually are my delusions.

It is, by definition, impossible for me to be wrong about what my son wants. My desires are his desires. The two things cannot be separated. I'm getting a little tired of repeating that, especially since you already conceded that this is the state of the law.

Oh I see what's going on here, you think the world is a court of law, and that what's legal is what's right. That's not an uncommon fallacy.

Sorry Loss Leader, I was thinking about the real world, not the fantasy world you live in where what's "legal" is what's "right".

My guess is you prefer the legal definition of yourself, which is law-abiding citizen, to the "real world" definition of yourself, which is inhumane, atavistic, ignorant, barabaric monster.

You seem to be missing an important point here, and that is that nothing about Nazism was illegal. Hitler's rise to power and subsequent oppression and murder of the Jews was perfectly legal in the Nazi state. According to your logic, there was nothing wrong with it, because it it was in accordance with the law.

Care to rethink your assumption that legal = right?

Skeptic Ginger

8th July 2007, 01:27 AM

So, doctors, are you all saying anything nurses do, you can all do just as well. Nurses have no special patient care skills unique to their education and experience that physicians don't also have? Physicians learn everything nurses do in addition to physicians' medical education and experience. But of course, nurses can not do everything physicians can.

Does it make any sense that I might be trying to describe two sets of skills, two aspects of medical care, and that by doing so I am not saying the medical portion of the care is not as important?

Should I be offended if you say to me, as an NP, I have some medical education but in no way is it the equivalent of med school? That is a factual statement. Should I view it as insulting?

Because I don't. Yet if I try to describe one thing I think distinguishes physicians and nurses, You've all expressed being insulted by that.

Skeptic Ginger

8th July 2007, 02:22 AM

Skeptigirl,

I thought it might help if I provided an example of how I compare and contrast physicians and nurses using your example:

In this situation, both the physician and the nurse seemed to be practicing patient-centered advocacy. However, the physician more heavily weighted death and less heavily weighted discomfort as an outcome, whereas the nurse weighted death less heavily and discomfort more heavily (relative to the physician, not necessarily to each other). And it's possible that the difference is at least partly a result of the different background (medicine vs. nursing) that the physician and nurse have. Although, I have seen the identical discussion between two physicians.

I think this comment applies to just about everything you've presented, so far, including the stuff you bolded from the interview.

LindaLinda, I can also give you a number of examples where the nurses were very wrong and the physicians were not. In one case, for example, we had one patient with advanced terminal lung cancer. She came in for drainage of pleural fluid and during the procedure suffered a pneumothorax. The physician put her on a vent. She begged us constantly to be taken off the vent and allowed to die. I was convinced. We nurses grumbled that the physician wasn't doing the right thing.

But in 3 days she was fine. She left the hospital in good spirits, and I'm sure she had many months or maybe even years to live before the disease took her life. I excuse myself as having been right out of nursing school. But it was one of many experiences I've had that have given me the skills I have today.

Perhaps I have expressed an inoffensive thought in an offensive way. On a forum, that is very easy to do. You don't have a number of communication cues one has in person. But it is also possible that you might be missing the observation that nursing has a significant body of knowledge which contributes to patient care. And that body of knowledge is not simply compassion, or empathy, or respect for patient autonomy.

I was trying to say nursing, by it's nature gives one a different perspective than medicine gives. You're hearing that as doctors are missing something. That's not what I am saying. Our professions overlap, but they are still very different. Nurses are not in a position to 'fire' patients. Physicians need to make medical decisions. Those are differences in our jobs. It doesn't mean nurses don't make decisions. There are very important decisions nurses make all the time. It isn't that physicians cannot be patient advocates or compassionate. That is absurd. But physicians and nurses are not in the same roles. To say they are is just as absurd.

Dr Hawk stated she had no strong feelings opposing circumcision. Yet she said more than 12 times something to the effect if it wasn't "medically" indicated, then another provider was going to have to do it. She was willing to consider the UTI evidence (which I missed on July 1st and argued about for a few more days). You still have a physician who sees her practice as all her decisions. If the family has a religious belief, find another doctor. If the family wants baby to look like Dad, find another doctor. If the family feels more kids in the jr high locker room will be circumcised and they prefer to spare little johnny the teasing (apparently this could go either way), find another doctor. All because Dr Hawk is in control and has decided what she choses to do in her practice.

That position makes perfect sense for the majority of medical decisions. It would be less than ethical to do what some docs do like prescribe anabolic steroids or oxycontin for a price. It's not ethical, in my opinion, to prescribe unnecessary antibiotics to an insistent patient.

But here we have something Dr Hawk feels is an unnecessary procedure, yet she doesn't have overwhelming objections. She is willing to perform the procedure on a healthy infant if the parents use the right words in their request. But if those parents want that procedure Dr Hawk is willing to provide for another family for a reason not meeting Dr Hawk's approval, then Dr Hawk is going to make the decision for them, at least as far as Dr Hawk's practice goes.

As a nurse that just boggles my mind.

Maybe it has nothing to do with our respective professions. I happen to think our respective professions do have an influence here on our different perceptions. Obviously it could be any number of other things or combination of factors.

Skeptic Ginger

8th July 2007, 02:58 AM

...

Ye gads, skeptigirl. Do you really have that much time on your hands? I'm fast using the control F function.

...... When I've tried to explain my real viewpoint to you, you keep responding with generalizations about doctors and nurses that, as fls has explained several times, are hard to see any anything but denigrations of doctors.

Then when you're called on it, you say "That's absurd! I never meant that!"

But you're fine with characterizing my position as "Dr H instead made the non-evidence based declaration, "there is no medical indication for a circumcision in a healthy infant" so if the parents want one, they are wrong, but I won't interfere."

You might try applying some of that carefully-trained respect to your future colleagues.Posts in a forum sometimes require time before what is being communicated is sorted out. One who falsely assumes another is being disingenuous, doesn't allow for that sorting out to occur. One who is offended by another person simply because they hold a different view, or because they won't come around to a viewpoint being expressed, will find a lot of things to be offended about on a forum.

I find if I take offense to other people's positions, then discussions become total wastes of time. And if I worry about pleasing everyone, such as we do in face to face interactions, I'd be much more limited in what I felt I could say.

I know I had no offensive feelings in what I was saying. I'm willing to continue a discourse to clarify any mistaken offense. Beyond that, some people on forums are going to be offended no matter it is a misunderstanding. While that's regretful, it isn't something I often get very bothered about.

As far as my mis-characterizing your position, are you not aware you mis-characterized mine repeatedly? It happens. Forum discussions lend themselves to mis-characterizations. You want to know something interesting I have observed about that? So do in person interactions leave people with completely different messages than those conveyed.

One of the differences on forums is people are posting replies over a number of days sometimes. With in person interactions, discussions are often much shorter. The person who misunderstands what you say goes off believing you said something you didn't. And you may never know that. I never ceased to be amazed at what people believe I said in my infectious disease classes when I ask them later what they remember. It's the nature of human communication.

Ivor the Engineer

8th July 2007, 05:14 AM

Loss Leader

8th July 2007, 07:21 AM

Nothing unusual, it's a wild world out there. But at JREF forum this would be termed "woo". You might want to learn the meaning of that word.

Bahahhahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!cough.hahahahahaha ha!!!!!!!!!

You are exercizing your own will, and you are seizing the practical opportunity in control of a helpless person.

Incorrect.

What your sons will want when they grow up, remains to be seen.

It certainly does. However, what my sons want right now is known to me with perfect clarity because it is identical to what I want for them. The two things are the same.

You can always have the kippah and long hair on temples. These would conveniently identify your kid as a Jew, for any Nazi roaming the streets of your hometown. Being circumcized would not help at all in America or in Muslim countries, where more than half of population are circumcized without having anything to do with Judaism.

I agree that being circumcised is necessary but not sufficient.

Why do I have the feeling that you are not referring to the law of the state now?

Because I am.

By the way, the fact that any Jews remain at all is thanks to them trying to hide, many of them escaping death by hiding their true identity.

Don't speak about things which you do not know. How many Jews have escaped death by hiding their identity? What percentage of all Jews was it? What percentage of living Jews was it? How many Jews escaped death by emmigrating out of Europe without hiding their identities? How do you tie your shoes in the morning? Does your nurse help you or are they those velcro things?

I've really been very polite in the face of some harsh criticism in this thread, but I won't be polite in the face of stupidity.

The fact that you were ever born and are now writing to this forum might be thanks to "policies" that you are now opposing in your texts.

Wrong. At least as far back to the 1800s.

Book of Esther is fiction from the beginning to the end, in my estimation.)

So you are citing fiction to support your point?

Loss Leader

8th July 2007, 07:23 AM

Edit: double post

Loss Leader

8th July 2007, 07:31 AM

What's evidence got to do with it? You freely admitted that you favor circumcision for "jewish" boys, for, well, no good reason. Because that's how you think jewish boys ought to be.

Where does evidence come into this?

Go stuff your strawmen somewhere else.

Does circumcision lead to a greater incidence of cancer? Is there a non-negligible chance my son's penis might fall off?

"I have seen no evidence" does not translate to "No evidence could convince me." Your beliefs about my beliefs are wrong, are not appreciated and paint you as an immovable fundamentalist far more than me.

Oh? And just how do you know what your child's will is? Did you ask him? What was his response?

My child's will is whatever I decide it is. I substitute my judgment for him because he is incapable of making a judgment. I know my child's will with exactly the same certainty as I know my own. The two things are the same.

You are not exercising your child's will, you are exercising your own. It may make you feel better to imagine it's what your child really wants, but it makes you no less of a monster.

Well, at least I'm a monster in good company.

So when a Jehovah's Witness refuses a blood transfusion for his infant child, he's exercising his child's will? Do you mean to say that every JW child that died because their parents refused them treatment wanted it that way? I hope not, because that would just be patently insane.

Yes and yes. Your statement that this is "insane" is only true if we accept as objectively true your subjective beliefs. If we accept the JW's beliefs as objectively true, it is you who become "insane." You, after all, would lock your child out of heaven for eternity in order to secure a few more years on earth.

uhh.. oh, man.. you know what, I'm just going to drop it. It's obvious to me you're just too far gone to be reached.

The feeling is mutual.

Loss Leader

8th July 2007, 07:48 AM

Translation: I am not deluded. They actually are my delusions.

Don't put words in my mouth. I share religious beliefs with millions of people all over the world. This exempts me from the definition of delusion. Spitzer, M. (1990) On defining delusions. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 31 (5), 377-97

Oh I see what's going on here, you think the world is a court of law, and that what's legal is what's right. That's not an uncommon fallacy.

Sorry Loss Leader, I was thinking about the real world, not the fantasy world you live in where what's "legal" is what's "right".

My guess is you prefer the legal definition of yourself, which is law-abiding citizen, to the "real world" definition of yourself, which is inhumane, atavistic, ignorant, barabaric monster.

You seem to be missing an important point here, and that is that nothing about Nazism was illegal. Hitler's rise to power and subsequent oppression and murder of the Jews was perfectly legal in the Nazi state. According to your logic, there was nothing wrong with it, because it it was in accordance with the law.

Care to rethink your assumption that legal = right?

My word, you know absolutely nothing about law.

I'll do this for the lurkers because it's obvious that you are just too far over into your issue to care:

Does legal equal right? Well, we know from Osmosis' example that it can't always. After all, the Nazi's weren't right. So, when are we justified in believing that legal and right are at least vaguely in the same area as each other?

The answer is to look at how the thing became legal. In a society where laws are made by a dictator, the chance that the laws are just is pretty small. The laws will probably just help the dictator stay in power. The same is true of an oligarchy. Even where laws are made by majority will, there is a chance the majority will use the occassion to crush the minority.

Laws should be arived at democratically, judiciously and with reference to agreed upon definitions of human rights.

Now, the law that allows me to substitute my judgment for my incompetent son - is that a just law? It is certainly the law of a democratic land (my country, the USA). And it didn't come about yesterday: the concept of substituted judgment has evolved through the common law for as long as there has been common law. And it allows minorities to practice their beliefs even when the majority might not make the same decision. It also allows for a husband and wife to control their own home and raise their own children in a manner they believe is appropriate.

Why allow people to hold different beliefs? The simple answer is because your beliefs, no matter how sincerely you hold them, may be wrong. Very rarely can we know any objective truth when it comes to interpersonal relationships. Allowing a plurality of practices to co-exist broadens our chance of stumbling on the right one and lessens our chance of accidentally supressing the right one.

As the rules regarding substituted judgment are not just legal but are legal within a political framework that is just, we are correct in equating legal with right in this instance.

Seriously, Osmosis, read a book.

Ivor the Engineer

8th July 2007, 08:22 AM

...As the rules regarding substituted judgment are not just legal but are legal within a political framework that is just, we are correct in equating legal with right in this instance...

LOL!:D

So the laws in the US are right because the political framework is just. Explain these (http://www.dumblaws.com/) then.

Loss Leader

8th July 2007, 09:34 AM

LOL!:D

So the laws in the US are right because the political framework is just. Explain these (http://www.dumblaws.com/) then.

Just exactly how much straw do you have over there?

I never said or implied that all laws in the US are right because the political framework is always just. You, however, have read my statement exactly that way.

Here's what I did say just one post ago:

Now, the law that allows me to substitute my judgment for my incompetent son - is that a just law? It is certainly the law of a democratic land (my country, the USA). And it didn't come about yesterday: the concept of substituted judgment has evolved through the common law for as long as there has been common law. And it allows minorities to practice their beliefs even when the majority might not make the same decision. It also allows for a husband and wife to control their own home and raise their own children in a manner they believe is appropriate.

As the rules regarding substituted judgment are not just legal but are legal within a political framework that is just, we are correct in equating legal with right in this instance.

I bolded the part where what I said and what you claim I said most differ. The laws about substituted judgment are just, that's the absolute sum total of what I said.

Why are they just?

1. They are the laws of a democratic nation.

2. They were developed over a long time.

3. They have respect for the rights of minorities.

4. They have respect for the rights of families.

Obviously, there have been many laws in the US that were not just. Obviously, not all laws in the US are just.

But in this instance, they happen to be.

In the future, read for comprehension. Don't just assume that every single thing a person says is wrong just because you happen to disagree with him on one point.

osmosis

8th July 2007, 09:51 AM

Don't put words in my mouth. I share religious beliefs with millions of people all over the world. This exempts me from the definition of delusion. Spitzer, M. (1990) On defining delusions. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 31 (5), 377-97

It may exempt you from the definition of delusion, but certainly does not exempt you from the reality of delusion.

The only thing that keeps your beliefs out of the definition of delusion is the fact that a lot of people believe the same, and that seems to me to be a very shallow distinction. Personally, I'm inclined to think a delusion is a delusion regardless of how many people share it.

My word, you know absolutely nothing about law.

Perhaps, but I would never resort to such a relativistic concept to defend my position anyway. And which law, exactly?

Is gay marriage "wrong" in some states and not "wrong" in others? Does one's ethical integrity depend on which side of a particular political boundary one happens to be standing on? I don't think so, I think those lines are imaginary.

Admittedly, it is very convenient to be able to hide behind law as a way to avoid having to deal with questions of ethics.

Now, the law that allows me to substitute my judgment for my incompetent son - is that a just law?

That depends on what substitutions are allowed. That you can consent by proxy to necessary medical treatments is a good thing. That you can consent by proxy to unnecessary ritual genital mutilation for the worst reasons is a very bad thing.

Why allow people to hold different beliefs? The simple answer is because your beliefs, no matter how sincerely you hold them, may be wrong.

This isn't about what you believe, it's about what you do. Incidentally, you just made an anti-circ argument. Why shouldn't you permanently mutilate your children for your beliefs? Because your beliefs could be (and probably are) wrong.

Very rarely can we know any objective truth when it comes to interpersonal relationships. Allowing a plurality of practices to co-exist broadens our chance of stumbling on the right one and lessens our chance of accidentally supressing the right one.

Another appeal to relativism. The problem I have with this is the part where you make the leap to "therefore it's fine for me to mutilate my children for no good medical reason." I just can't come up with any ethical defense of that position, your legalistic defense notwithstanding.

Seriously, Osmosis, read a book.

I have read many books, is there one in particular you recommend?

I have just one question at this point: can you, without making reference to legal definitions, justify your assertion that your child's will and your own are one and the same?

kellyb

8th July 2007, 10:02 AM

Loss...
You can explain why you agree with the law, and maybe even have a case. But you've repeatedly implied that your desires are your child's desires, as though it's some kind of objective "truth" when it is not.
Explaining what the law is, and why you agree with it, does not actually superimpose your desires into your child in objective reality. It's simply a societal function and nothing more.

You can legally do all kinds of weird things to your kid, and claim "Legally, my will is theirs!"...and it doesn't make it literally true.

osmosis

8th July 2007, 10:07 AM

Why are they just?

1. They are the laws of a democratic nation.

2. They were developed over a long time.

3. They have respect for the rights of minorities.

4. They have respect for the rights of families.

Obviously, there have been many laws in the US that were not just. Obviously, not all laws in the US are just.

But in this instance, they happen to be.

I see a problem here, and that is that you are trying to use the definition of "just" (as it happens to be defined in books on American law) to defend a practice that is patently unjust.

Your legalistic mental gymnastics just can't rescue you from this ethical issue. Law is supposed to be based on ethics, not the other way around.

ETA: what kellyb said

kellyb

8th July 2007, 10:15 AM

Law is supposed to be based on ethics, not the other way around.

Unless you're living under a theocracy, or believe that laws are divinely inspired. The belief that the law comes right from the mouth of god will, of course, create a mentality that is reversed.

Loss Leader

8th July 2007, 10:18 AM

It may exempt you from the definition of delusion, but certainly does not exempt you from the reality of delusion.

In that case, I feel perfectly justified saying that you, Osmosis, are a giant, steaming archipelago. I realize that you do not fit the definition of "archipelago" as a body of water studded with islands, or the islands collectively themselves. However, you fit the imaginary definition I just made up in my head of "archipelago."

Incidentally, you just made an anti-circ argument. Why shouldn't you permanently mutilate your children for your beliefs? Because your beliefs could be (and probably are) wrong.

You have misunderstood me, then. What I said was that society allowing a plurality of practices among its members increases the chance that one of them is actually right. I did not say that I can act however I want because there's some chance I may accidentally be right. My *not* circumcising my son would only contribute to the plurality in America if someone else then *did* circumcise his son. The best way to ensure a plurality is for people to follow their own beliefs. So, I'll follow my own beliefs and let others follow theirs.

I just can't come up with any ethical defense of that position, your legalistic defense notwithstanding.

Of course you can't. You see no value in continuing long-standing religious traditions that do not impact the overall health of anybody. Once you assign that a value of zero, there is no reason to circumcise a child. But if there is value in it, you are wrong. Since we cannot *know* whether you are right or wrong and since no one is coming to much in the way of harm, it is better to allow a plurality of practices.

I have read many books, is there one in particular you recommend?

Start with this one (http://www.amazon.com/Hop-Pop-Beginner-Books-R/dp/039480029X) and work your way up.

I have just one question at this point: can you, without making reference to legal definitions, justify your assertion that your child's will and your own are one and the same?

Your question has no meaning. The "legal definitions" have evolved over centuries, coalescing the moral, ethical and practical concerns societies have had about incompetent individuals. These arguments are the same as the "legal definitions." They cannot be separated. It would be like me asking you to define ice cream without reference to freezing, sugar, eggs or milk.

Loss Leader

8th July 2007, 10:26 AM

It's simply a societal function and nothing more.

I don't understand your statement. There is nothing more than a societal function. The legal definition is all there is.

Of course, my thoughts are not physically my child's thoughts. Of course the firing of neurons in my brain is not physically identical to the firing of neurons in his brain.

But in this instance we are dealing with nothing other than interpersonal relationships. Physics has nothing to do with it. It is only a question of law. When the issue is how two or more people relate to each other, the legal definition and the "societal function" is all the reality that there can be.

Loss Leader

8th July 2007, 10:40 AM

I see a problem here, and that is that you are trying to use the definition of "just" (as it happens to be defined in books on American law) to defend a practice that is patently unjust.

The problem, actually, isn't that the practice is "patently unjust." The problem is that you believe the practice is "patently unjust."

But simply claiming that something is injust does not win the day. This is a social and political issue. You are required to actually convince people that it is injust.

Can you?

I'll tell you why I think you can't. The concept that a parent can substitute his will for his child is really, really old. It is entombed in cases from the earliest days of this country, from the days of the Norman conquest, back from the days of Roman law, back as far as western law has roots. It is really stuck in there very firmly. Actually, the very concept that a parent can ever be *stopped* from imposing his will on his child is maybe only a hundred and fifty years old. Before that, suggesting such a thing would have been seen as utterly insane.

Then you have the concept of religious freedom. Now that's a lot newer but it has taken a firm hold of the American psyche. Remember that plurality of opinions stuff? It's all true. In the absense of objective truth, one person's subjective beliefs are going to have to be pretty compelling to impose them on an entire nation.

You, of course, have the state's interest in the welfare of children but you've still got quite a mountain to climb. The state's interest has to be so compelling that it outweighs the considerations on my side of the equation. Remember, children have been allowed to *die* because the parents had a greater interest in the question than the state. Does circumcision which causes no lasting medical harm to a child lose because it causes no lasting medical benefit? I doubt it.

So file suit against a hospital that performs circumcisions. Call your local Congressperson. Get a ballot initiative together. If the practice is "patently unjust," you should have no problem.

I, however, would bet on you to lose.

If the people of the US, their government and their courts all think that justice is served by allowing Jews to circumcise their children, exactly where does the "patently unjust" aspect reside?

The answer is that it resides only in your head.

kellyb

8th July 2007, 10:44 AM

I don't understand your statement. There is nothing more than a societal function. The legal definition is all there is.

No, there's objective reality. When you hear your baby screaming while being circumcised, clinging to legal definitions will have no power to change the objective reality you'll be faced with, that the last thing your baby wants is to have parts of his penis cut off. Your legal authority to impose your will upon your child has no bearing on "truth" or "actuality" regarding the desires of your child.

The reality of the situation is that babies rather dislike having their foreskins removed, to put it very mildly. (I'm fighting the urge to use 'emotive language' that would be entirely more accurate).

But in this instance we are dealing with nothing other than interpersonal relationships.
Human rights and bodily integrity is a lot more than an interpersonal relationship. Ignoring those issues doesn't make them go away.

Physics has nothing to do with it. It is only a question of law. When the issue is how two or more people relate to each other, the legal definition and the "societal function" is all the reality that there can be.

In all reality, you could have compassion for your baby. You could choose to care about his actual will, his feeling, and his personal rights.
You could choose to abandon an archaic ritual.
In reality, it is his body, not yours.

Loss Leader

8th July 2007, 10:58 AM

No, there's objective reality. When you hear your baby screaming while being circumcised, clinging to legal definitions will have no power to change the objective reality you'll be faced with, that the last thing your baby wants is to have parts of his penis cut off.

Actually, I found my first son screamed like a banshee just at being held down. His cries didn't intensify at the moment the Mohel made the cut.

As to what my eight day-old son wanted. He didn't "want" anything. He knew comfort and discomfort and nothing else. I have had occassion to make him remarkably uncomfortable for his own good since then. You should have heard him wail when they had to put in an IV.

But that discomfort was for his own good. And, whether you choose to believe it or not, his circumcision was for his own good. Just because you put zero value on maintaining an ancient tradition linking my son to his past does not mean that the objective value is zero. It only means you don't agree.

Your legal authority to impose your will upon your child has no bearing on "truth" or "actuality" regarding the desires of your child.

He had no desires. He was eight days old.

The reality of the situation is that babies rather dislike having their foreskins removed, to put it very mildly. (I'm fighting the urge to use 'emotive language' that would be entirely more accurate).

He also screamed the first time we gave him a bath. As people have lived fine lives without bathing, should I have respected his bodily integrity then, too?

In all reality, you could have compassion for your baby. You could choose to care about his actual will, his feeling, and his personal rights.
You could choose to abandon an archaic ritual.

You insult me, Kelly. You insult me more deeply than I have ever been on this message board. Let me make this perfectly clear: The well-being of my children is my only concern. I mean that it is the only concern I have in my life. I care about nothing else and I devote myself night and day to ensuring that they have the absolute best lives possible. When my son feels pain, I feel pain. When he suffers a setback, I die inside. My boy had three brain surgeries in ten day. So, watch your language when you describe wh I do and do not care about.

I had my son circumcised (and will have my newborn son circumcised) because I believe it is in their best interests to be permanently connected to their history.

In reality, it is his body, not yours.

In every way that counts, you are wrong.

osmosis

8th July 2007, 11:12 AM

In that case, I feel perfectly justified saying that you, Osmosis, are a giant, steaming archipelago. I realize that you do not fit the definition of "archipelago" as a body of water studded with islands, or the islands collectively themselves. However, you fit the imaginary definition I just made up in my head of "archipelago."

rofl! that's actually very funny, and would be totally appropriate except for one little thing: common usage. Common usage of the word "delusion" tends to omit the part that excludes shared/cultural delusions. Under common usage, a delusion is a delusion regardless of how many people share those delusions.

The best way to ensure a plurality is for people to follow their own beliefs. So, I'll follow my own beliefs and let others follow theirs.

By all means, follow your own beliefs, except where those beliefs have permanent consequenses for someone else, especially someone who can't possibly understand those beliefs or even speak a word of protest as you slice off parts of their genitals.

How is it pluralistic to make such decisions for your child? If you're allowed your own beliefs, why isn't he? All you're doing is superimposing your own will upon his. Nothing pluralistic about that.

You see no value in continuing long-standing religious traditions that do not impact the overall health of anybody.

Correct, I see no value in any traditions in and of themselves. Some traditions may have value, but that must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Nothing has any value simply because it is traditional.

Once you assign that a value of zero, there is no reason to circumcise a child. But if there is value in it, you are wrong. Since we cannot *know* whether you are right or wrong and since no one is coming to much in the way of harm, it is better to allow a plurality of practices.

I disagree. Since we cannot *know* whether I am right or wrong, it is best NOT to permanently alter another human being.

The plurality argument allows you to do whatever you believe only insofar as you're not imposing those beliefs on others.

Start with this one (http://www.amazon.com/Hop-Pop-Beginner-Books-R/dp/039480029X) and work your way up.

That was a cheap shot.. oh well, I still laughed. I wonder, does condescension make you feel superior?

Your question has no meaning. The "legal definitions" have evolved over centuries, coalescing the moral, ethical and practical concerns societies have had about incompetent individuals. These arguments are the same as the "legal definitions." They cannot be separated. It would be like me asking you to define ice cream without reference to freezing, sugar, eggs or milk.

Actually, my question does have meaning, just not a meaning I would expect you to embrace, because once the question is correctly answered, the central fallacy of your position soon becomes evident.

That fallacy is that something doesn't exist except as defined in a book of (American) law. If that were true, then you would indeed be correct in your assertion that your will IS your son's will.

Unfortunately for your position, however, it isn't true. Your will is not your son's will, despite what your textbook says.

Ivor the Engineer

8th July 2007, 11:15 AM

Obviously, there have been many laws in the US that were not just. Obviously, not all laws in the US are just.

But in this instance, they happen to be.

Now I understand. It is the almighty Loss Leader that has decided for all of us that because a particular law currently allows followers of a religion he subscribes to to mutilate their male children's genitals, it is just.

It used to be legal in the UK (until quite recently) to beat children. This had been going on a very long time. The UK has been a democracy for a long time too. Therefore by your reasoning, we should allow parents to beat their children if they want to, since we can never know if their ideas on suitable punishments might be right.

But those upstart politicians thought they knew better than The Word Of God (TWOG) and eventually banned it. I suppose you believe they'll be going to hell for defying TWOG?

BTW, If you read the link I added to an earlier post, you'll notice it was some Christians who recently wanted the ban repealed, so they could follow TWOG with respect to punishing their children. I mean, who are we humans to say beating children is wrong if your God said it's the right thing to do?

Do you believe in 'An eye for an eye' too?

JJM 777

8th July 2007, 01:01 PM

Sorry guys, this discussion is too fast and too weird for me nowadays.

Thank you for sharing your opinions, everyone.

During this discussion I became an anti-circumcisionist.

osmosis

8th July 2007, 01:15 PM

Now I understand. It is the almighty Loss Leader that has decided for all of us that because a particular law currently allows followers of a religion he subscribes to to mutilate their male children's genitals, it is just.

I took it to mean something along the lines of, if enough people believe it is just, then it is just.

He seems to be denying the possibility that there is any objective standard to which anyone can be held accountable. There's no right or wrong, only belief. We can talk all day and all night about ethics and rights, he can simply refuse to acknowledge that any such things actually exist!

It used to be legal in the UK (until quite recently) to beat children. This had been going on a very long time. The UK has been a democracy for a long time too. Therefore by your reasoning, we should allow parents to beat their children if they want to, since we can never know if their ideas on suitable punishments might be right.

Exactly, but why stop there? Essentially his line of reasoning allows a parent to do ANYTHING to their child. ANYTHING. The parent doesn't even have to actually believe it's in their child's best interests, only to claim to do so. After all, who can say what someone does or doesn't believe..

BlackKat

8th July 2007, 01:19 PM

...
It used to be legal in the UK (until quite recently) to beat children. This had been going on a very long time. The UK has been a democracy for a long time too. Therefore by your reasoning, we should allow parents to beat their children if they want to, since we can never know if their ideas on suitable punishments might be right.

...

...Exactly, but why stop there? Essentially his line of reasoning allows a parent to do ANYTHING to their child. ANYTHING. The parent doesn't even have to actually believe it's in their child's best interests, only to claim to do so. After all, who can say what someone does or doesn't believe..

You know that the reason beating children is not allowed is because it is considered harmful to the child with no benefit to the child.

You know that spanking children is allowed (despite it being merely a milder form of beating) because it is not considered so harmful to the child that it outweighs any benefit to the child.

You know that circumcision has not been shown to be considered harmful to the child with potentially a variety of benefits to the child (small medical benefits, large societal benefits).

Nobody has been able make such a proof in the 3000+ years that circumcisions have been performed.

A parent is allowed to make a whole variety of decisions for children with the child themselves having little to no say. Where the legal system gets involved in contradicting the parent is only where the law sees a particular decision as being more harmful than good for the well being of the child. Since circumcision is not seen by the law as being more harmful than good, then it is not against the law.

HawkeyeMD

8th July 2007, 01:47 PM

I'm fast using the control F function.

Heh. Quick-Draw Skeptigirl. ;-)

Posts in a forum sometimes require time before what is being communicated is sorted out. One who falsely assumes another is being disingenuous, doesn't allow for that sorting out to occur. One who is offended by another person simply because they hold a different view, or because they won't come around to a viewpoint being expressed, will find a lot of things to be offended about on a forum.

Really? Which one am I? :confused:

I don't think you're disingenuous. I think, firstly, as Linda has pointed out, that you are posting things without seeing how they read to everyone else, or at least to many of us. It isn't just me.

I also think that I don't care a bit that you have a different point of view. Linda has a different point of view than me too. So have many others. I haven't had this problem with anyone else.

What I disliked, and as I said before, the lecturing style undoubtedly had an effect on that (point taken, not your intent, I get it), was the continual attempts on your part to define my viewpoint within your particular worldview of "what doctors and nurses are like". And it was frustrating. Because every time I say "No, I would never do that. Yes, we are trained to do that", all I would get back would be another generalization.

What am I supposed to say to that? It's like the old argument in "Persuasion" about marriage. "You will think differently when you are married!" "No I won't!" And they say, "Yes, you will,", and there's an end on't.

You're an NP. I'm a medical student. We have different experiences and different opinions. Those are givens. But if you are stating that we are reading things into your words that you don't mean, then I think I am justified in pointing out when you are doing the same--and you're missing what I am saying, as you just pointed out. Your greater experience does not negate that.

I find if I take offense to other people's positions, then discussions become total wastes of time. And if I worry about pleasing everyone, such as we do in face to face interactions, I'd be much more limited in what I felt I could say.

Where are you suddenly going with this?

I was offended because you appeared to me to be making extremely unjustified insinuations about medical training and doctors. Linda has tried, and has done far better than I would have, to point out why that is. And you haven't answered her questions. You just keep giving further anecdotal evidence. I appreciate that you're agreeing with her, but then you keep going back to the "differences of training" or "differences of philosophy" things. I agree with Linda there as well--I don't think that's helpful.

This suddenly conciliatory position is a little startling to me. Look, I'm not trying to gain some huge victory, I'm not trying to prove some point about what a smart medical student I am, and I, particularly now that the conversation seems to have turned in a nasty direction regarding religious beliefs, am not thinking this thread is going anywhere constructive any more. So forget all that, all right?

"Worrying about pleasing everyone" is not something I do either. You certainly don't have to "please" me. But if you want to have a civil dialogue with me, you do need to understand that what you are saying is apparently not communicating the message you had in mind, and can be taken as offensive.

I know I had no offensive feelings in what I was saying. I'm willing to continue a discourse to clarify any mistaken offense. Beyond that, some people on forums are going to be offended no matter it is a misunderstanding. While that's regretful, it isn't something I often get very bothered about.

I am not terribly easily offended. Since you have been through so many of my posts lately ;) , perhaps you will note that I didn't really get annoyed until your post where you talked about doctors making decisions and giving orders and nurses advocating and helping, etc.

Do you see what Linda was trying to show you? Do you see how that could be taken as meaning "and doctors don't have these qualities"? Can you go so far as to admit we may not be completely 'round the bend for not being able to read your mind and suss your deeper philosophy, based on the words that were actually there? :cool:

As far as my mis-characterizing your position, are you not aware you mis-characterized mine repeatedly?

Yeah, the one about "you think circumcision is a good thing" was undisguised hyperbole.

One of the differences on forums is people are posting replies over a number of days sometimes. With in person interactions, discussions are often much shorter. The person who misunderstands what you say goes off believing you said something you didn't. And you may never know that. I never ceased to be amazed at what people believe I said in my infectious disease classes when I ask them later what they remember. It's the nature of human communication.

No, you can't really use that in this situation. I mean, you're right, of course, memory is a very fallible thing. But you have the words to look back on here.

Look, if this is about the whole apology thing, forget it. I don't expect it. Forget the circ thing. Would you please just try and understand the point that this is not about a single misunderstanding or a semantic argument? You have softened your response considerably towards me in both this response to me and the one to Linda, and please believe me, I appreciate it.

You still have a physician who sees her practice as all her decisions. If the family has a religious belief, find another doctor. If the family wants baby to look like Dad, find another doctor. If the family feels more kids in the jr high locker room will be circumcised and they prefer to spare little johnny the teasing (apparently this could go either way), find another doctor. All because Dr Hawk is in control and has decided what she choses to do in her practice.

But this is still infuriating. This is glib and condescending. And this is a really serious oversimplification of my position. You're right--I don't think a doctor should have anything to do with religious decisions. I'm not a rabbi. I don't think it's my business or any kind of good medical practice to make the baby look like dad. I'm not a plastic surgeon. And if the current trends continue, as you point out, which kid might be teased is pretty up in the air. (All kids get teased anyway, about something.)

None of which is because "I am in control." It is because these are not medical decisions at all, let alone mine to make, and because absent a strong medical reason to undertake the procedure, my belief is that a permanent alteration of someone's anatomy should not be made at a time that the person can't contribute to the decision. You seem to define your role as an advocate as toward the parents. I see it as being both to the parents and to the infant. The evidence specifically on UTI appears to have convinced you. It's certainly a consideration. I'm not sure about it. So yes, if a parent's main concern is UTI, maybe that's something to consider. But I can't promise that the child will be protected from sepsis--you know that. That is why I find the question more difficult than, say, vaccination.

I do think--and some of the adult males on this forum feel far more strongly than I do about this, obviously, and in both directions!--that the procedure itself is not particularly harmful. But what I also think, and this I do feel strongly about, is that the decisional process is ethically problematic because in newborn circumcision, the infant does not have a say in the process. And when there is no medical justification, and from all I know the medical justification is at best equivocal, I do think the infant's eventual right to choose is important. I also think that this viewpoint is becoming more common, but that's just my personal experience. I don't think I have any business performing something that the parents see, for example, as a religious procedure. If you call that a difference in semantics, okay. But it's there that you get into all the fooferaw about comparisons to other religious rituals (that shall remain nameless) that we (collectively) *don't* do. Why don't we do them?

Because we don't believe they're medically indicated.

Does that help you see where I'm going with this? I have no interest in fighting with you or getting all huffy or anything of the sort. But when you say I'm misinterpreting you, and then turn around and write something like that, it really is hard not to take it personally.

Sheesh, I'm a medical student. I'm never in control. :boggled:

osmosis

8th July 2007, 01:51 PM

The problem, actually, isn't that the practice is "patently unjust." The problem is that you believe the practice is "patently unjust."

But simply claiming that something is injust does not win the day. This is a social and political issue. You are required to actually convince people that it is injust.

Can you?

I'd rather be right than "win the day". My power of pursuasion is separate and distinct from my ability to reason. Whether or not I am right has nothing to do with whether I can convince you I am. Reality is not determined by belief.

Actually, the very concept that a parent can ever be *stopped* from imposing his will on his child is maybe only a hundred and fifty years old. Before that, suggesting such a thing would have been seen as utterly insane.

At least we're heading in the right direction. Yes, this concept that a baby has inalienable rights that even their parents cannot breach is a fairly new one. But it's out there, and as we become more advanced as a society, I believe we will continue in this direction until there comes a day when the law does reflect the fact that a baby is not an object to be owned, but a human being. When that day comes, you will be regarded as a criminal.

So file suit against a hospital that performs circumcisions. Call your local Congressperson. Get a ballot initiative together. If the practice is "patently unjust," you should have no problem.

I disagree. It seems to me that I could be 100% correct and still not convince a single religious person that there are ethical issues that can transcend their superstitions. If I press the matter, they can always resort to relativism, as you have.

If the people of the US, their government and their courts all think that justice is served by allowing Jews to circumcise their children, exactly where does the "patently unjust" aspect reside?

In another country, perhaps?

osmosis

8th July 2007, 02:21 PM

Yes and yes.

Actually, no and no, at least not in my country.

You see, there's this country called Canada, and we have a similar legal system to the American one, and it's every bit as legitimate. We are a democracy and have built our legal system on the same principles you Americans have. The "justice" we serve in Canada is every bit as good and properly derived as the "justice" you serve in America.

The thing is, we DON'T allow people to refuse necessary medical treatment for their children. The state WILL take custody of those children, for their own protection from their parents. And rightly so.

How does this fit into your tighly-woven belief system about your will being your child's will? Or is America the only country that matters..

Your statement that this is "insane" is only true if we accept as objectively true your subjective beliefs.

No, it's true for anyone who doesn't have that particular superstition clouding their judgement.

If we accept the JW's beliefs as objectively true, it is you who become "insane."

Sanity is not democratic. My level of sanity does not change in response to what other people think or believe. (Or are you still trying to hide behind American legal terminology?)

You, after all, would lock your child out of heaven for eternity in order to secure a few more years on earth.

The evidence for the existence of my child would be undeniable, and the evidence for the existence of heaven is.. well.. I don't have any, do you?

HawkeyeMD

8th July 2007, 02:29 PM

To me, it seems sort of similar to this (though admittedly not nearly as extreme):

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/325/7367/771

[I]A deaf lesbian couple in the United States have deliberately created a deaf child. Sharon Duchesneau and Candy McCullough used their own sperm donor, a deaf friend with five generations of deafness in his family. Like others in the deaf community, Duchesneau and McCullough don't see deafness as a disability. They see being deaf as defining their cultural identity and see signing as a sophisticated, unique form of communication.

<snip>

I don't know how I missed this the first time around, but it actually is more similar than not.

Kellyb, I used to study sign--I wanted to be an interpreter. The situation in the Deaf community is extremely complex on the issue of cochlear implants. There has probably already been a thread on this subject somewhere, but I can tell you right now that it's a contentious issue.

Ivor the Engineer

8th July 2007, 02:43 PM

You know that the reason beating children is not allowed is because it is considered harmful to the child with no benefit to the child.

You know that spanking children is allowed (despite it being merely a milder form of beating) because it is not considered so harmful to the child that it outweighs any benefit to the child.

You know that circumcision has not been shown to be considered harmful to the child with potentially a variety of benefits to the child (small medical benefits, large societal benefits).

Nobody has been able make such a proof in the 3000+ years that circumcisions have been performed.

A parent is allowed to make a whole variety of decisions for children with the child themselves having little to no say. Where the legal system gets involved in contradicting the parent is only where the law sees a particular decision as being more harmful than good for the well being of the child. Since circumcision is not seen by the law as being more harmful than good, then it is not against the law.

An individuals body is their property. Do you agree? In the case of adults it is only when they are considered incapable of deciding for themselves, in a time period the treatment options are viable and/or significant, that doctors ask a relative for consent.

What medical treatments would you want your relatives to be able to consent to on your behalf if you were in a coma that you were expected to wake from?

I see an infant in the same way. They are an individual who is temporarily unable to make decisions, so the parents should only be making a decision on treatments that are only possible and/or reasonably significant in the time period the child is unable to have an input to that decision.

My only exception to this is circumcision for HIV risk reduction in the developing world.

I don't consider a ~1% absolute risk reduction of a rare (~1.1% of uncircumcised boys, 0.13% of circumcised boys), highly treatable illness (UTI) to be worth the possible complications (estimated anywhere from 0.2% to 4% for circumcision, typically 2%). I don't believe many other people do either.

E.g.

2 groups of 1000 boys each, one group circumcised, the other left intact.

In the uncircumcised group 10 boys get a UTI.
In the circumcised group 1 boy gets a UTI.

In the uncircumcised group there are 0 complications from circumcision.
In the circumcised group there are anywhere from 2 to 40 (typically 20) complications of varying severity (including an extremely rare possibility of death) which require further treatment (or a little coffin).

Ivor the Engineer

8th July 2007, 03:00 PM

I don't know how I missed this the first time around, but it actually is more similar than not.

Kellyb, I used to study sign--I wanted to be an interpreter. The situation in the Deaf community is extremely complex on the issue of cochlear implants. There has probably already been a thread on this subject somewhere, but I can tell you right now that it's a contentious issue.

Strange how some people see themselves defined by their particular disability.

I don't think I'd refuse treatment if there was something effective and safe for stuttering.

HawkeyeMD

8th July 2007, 04:17 PM

They don't see it as a disability. ;)

The question is beyond the scope of this thread, but trust me, there are a lot of considerations involved beyond just the "hearing" or "not hearing" part of it.

Loss Leader

8th July 2007, 04:56 PM

Now I understand. It is the almighty Loss Leader that has decided for all of us that because a particular law currently allows followers of a religion he subscribes to to mutilate their male children's genitals, it is just.

<sigh> I have done nothing of the sort.

I haven't decreed that the law is just. I have informed you that the vast working of our judicial and legal system have ground for some thousand years or more to a point where it is currently considered by the law to be just.

If you want to try to change that, be my guest. I think you'll fail but I'm sure there are a whole lot of legal reforms that no one ever thought would come about.

Schneibster

8th July 2007, 04:59 PM

Strange how some people see themselves defined by their particular disability.

I don't think I'd refuse treatment if there was something effective and safe for stuttering.Don't let me get up your nose about this- it's just something I've heard, and you might have heard it, too. Try singing. It's supposed to help. IANAD, YMMV.

Blue Mountain

8th July 2007, 05:47 PM

Wow, this thread has really wandered into some interesting territory! Here's my two cents.

For starters, my non-religious parents (from a Christian background) either requested or allowed me to be circumsized when I was a baby, as was done with my other brothers. One of those brothers now has two boys of his own, and they're uncircumsized.

Personally I'm quite neutral about it. I don't miss my foreskin and I have no idea if sex would be better with it. But I don't consider myself to have been mutilated, as Ivor and Osmosis have characterised it; my penis is functioning quite normally.

But I agree with the premise of the OP: routine circumcision is indefensible by skeptics, with the possible exception of sub-Saharan Africa until the AIDS epidemic comes under control. Even that's a dubious call, though, because we don't yet know why the HIV infection rate is lower among circumsized males. It could be that circumcision is a correlation and not a cause.

I'd like to address some things Loss Leader has said, specifically:
1) His will is his baby's will
2) He will circumcize his boys due to his religious or cultural beliefs
3) Those beliefs have a strong traditional backing

First, as Osmosis has pointed out, our law is starting to recognize that infants, even unborn ones, have human rights. There have been cases where a person who kills a pregnant woman has actually been charged with two counts of murder. (I don't know if the second count--for the fetus--has ever been upheld.) The notion that a parent has the right to make potentially harmful decisions for his/her child seems to losing its tenure.

I don't know if these newly described infant rights apply to protecting him a relatively harmless procedure such as circumcision. However, it does produce a permanent change in the infant's body for equivocal results, hence it is something that does concern the man he will become.

(An aside: I agree with the idea of a parent making a decision for vaccination on the child's behalf. The benefits to both the child and society are well documented.)

Now to the Loss Leader's second point: circumcision for religious and cultural reasons. Like Osmosis, I'm Canadian. I'm very happy about that, and proud of the liberal society Canada has been building. But should I have a Maple Leaf tattooed on my (hypothetical) children's butts? Loss Leader would agree that I have the right to do so. But is it a good idea for the child?

I'll extend the metaphor further: what if I was a staunch Pastafarian? Should I extend my religious beliefs to my children by tattooing the FSM on my kids' rear ends? What if they grow up and decide to embrace the IPU instead of the FSM? Or they become skeptics or Buddhists? Or decide to join a more mainline religion such as Christianity or even Judaism? Would they want to have evidence of their parents' unusual beliefs indelibly marked on their bodies?

As to the third point (strong traditional background), that to me is simply the old logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

Loss Leader

8th July 2007, 05:49 PM

By all means, follow your own beliefs, except where those beliefs have permanent consequenses for someone else, especially someone who can't possibly understand those beliefs or even speak a word of protest as you slice off parts of their genitals.

Oh, my older son did and my new son will protest quite vehemently. I will ignore those protests, however. And I will do so proudly and happily. I'll even video tape it.

How is it pluralistic to make such decisions for your child? If you're allowed your own beliefs, why isn't he? All you're doing is superimposing your own will upon his. Nothing pluralistic about that.

Um ... the pluralism comes when Jews are allowed to follow their own beliefs, Christians theirs, Muslims theirs and whomever else their own. The pluralism is between demographic groups, not individuals.

I disagree. Since we cannot *know* whether I am right or wrong, it is best NOT to permanently alter another human being.

If you block Jews from circumcising their children, you remove one building block in the ediface that is a religion as old as recorded history. Will my religion crumble as a result? I don;t know. But I don't want to find out. If you're wrong, you strike a blow against Judaism itself. If I'm wrong, I ... cause temporary pain to an infant with almost no medical consequences. I would prefer to keep my religion intact.

That was a cheap shot.. oh well, I still laughed. I wonder, does condescension make you feel superior?

I've rethought my answer. I recommend The Long Goodbye: The Deaths of Nancy Cruzan (http://www.amazon.com/Long-Goodbye-Deaths-Nancy-Cruzan/dp/1401900119) by William Colby. Read this very short book as an introduction to what substituted decision-making means and the importance of family making decisions for an incompetent person rather than government officials and judges who are complete strangers.

Unfortunately for your position, however, it isn't true. Your will is not your son's will, despite what your textbook says.

Actually, that's fortunate for me because what the textbook says is, in this case, the only thing that matters.

He seems to be denying the possibility that there is any objective standard to which anyone can be held accountable. There's no right or wrong, only belief. We can talk all day and all night about ethics and rights, he can simply refuse to acknowledge that any such things actually exist!

Once again, I outlined that the law of substituted judgement is just in my opinion because (in part) it respects religious and family rights. I also acknowledged that the state does have an interest in the welfare of children. So there are three objective moral positions around which the law of substituted judgment has formed. Lots and lots of Germans believed in the Neuremburg laws; but they were injust because they did not respect the rights of the minority. There is objectivity.

Exactly, but why stop there? Essentially his line of reasoning allows a parent to do ANYTHING to their child. ANYTHING. The parent doesn't even have to actually believe it's in their child's best interests, only to claim to do so. After all, who can say what someone does or doesn't believe..

I have already acknowledged that this is not the case.

I'd rather be right than "win the day".

Good. Then we both get what we want: you believe whatever the heck you want to and I get to circumcise my son.

At least we're heading in the right direction. Yes, this concept that a baby has inalienable rights that even their parents cannot breach is a fairly new one. But it's out there, and as we become more advanced as a society, I believe we will continue in this direction until there comes a day when the law does reflect the fact that a baby is not an object to be owned, but a human being.

I agree that the law is constantly evolving. I agree that it may evolve in the direction you predict. It won't. But I agree it might.

When that day comes, you will be regarded as a criminal.

Watch the hyperbole. The day my religious practices are deemed criminal is the day I join the revolution.

It seems to me that I could be 100% correct and still not convince a single religious person that there are ethical issues that can transcend their superstitions.

That's why I don't think the law is going to evolve in the direction you predict. Which is good because I don't really want to join the revolution. First of all, I'd have nothing to wear.

The thing is, we DON'T allow people to refuse necessary medical treatment for their children. The state WILL take custody of those children, for their own protection from their parents. And rightly so.

How does this fit into your tighly-woven belief system about your will being your child's will?

It fits in as follows: I don't believe you've accurately described the state of law in Canada. I will certainly be glad to check into it.

Or is America the only country that matters..

It is to me.

The evidence for the existence of my child would be undeniable, and the evidence for the existence of heaven is.. well.. I don't have any, do you?

Nope. I don't need any, either. You would be asking the justice system to assign to the JW's beliefs a value of zero. Now, the nice thing about their beliefs are that they are unfalsifiable. That means that their truth value cannot ever be determined. This gives them the upper hand, here. They may be right. And it is through that sliver of unfalsifiable possibility that all of their beliefs come rushing through to slam headlong into the state's interests.

The only other possibility is that you tell the JWs that their most deeply held religious beliefs have a truth value of absolutely zero.

I, in fact, believe that their beliefs are nonsense and so do you. But our beliefs about their beliefs don't matter one darn bit. All that matters is that we can't prove them wrong.

And, getting back to circumcision, you can't prove my beliefs wrong, either. That's why I will win in any court in the US and why you will lose. And, really, that's all I care about.

kellyb

8th July 2007, 05:59 PM

Loss, do you support the right of these women to practice their religious beliefs with regard to their daughters?

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:UBCu9mjhQ4EJ:www.themuslimwoman.com/hygiene/femalecircumcision.htm+benefits+of+female+circumci sion&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

ETA:

Or these guys?
http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ln=eng&QR=45528

HawkeyeMD

8th July 2007, 06:08 PM

Wow, this thread has really wandered into some interesting territory! Here's my two cents.

Welcome to the thread!

I'll extend the metaphor further: what if I was a staunch Pastafarian? Should I extend my religious beliefs to my children by tattooing the FSM on my kids' rear ends? What if they grow up and decide to embrace the IPU instead of the FSM?

I'm not getting in the middle of this one, but...I know who the FSM is. What's the IPU? :D

Loss Leader

8th July 2007, 07:13 PM

kellyb

8th July 2007, 07:20 PM

Don't know, don't care, didn't even click the links.

Interesting.

:cool:

NewtonTrino

8th July 2007, 07:46 PM

Didn't even click on the links? Well I did and I was utterly sickened. This whole this is about perverse sexual control and it's time it stopped. I'm feeling depressed now, I was just reading some 80-year old works of Bertrand Russell and things haven't got much better in the last 80 years. By better I mean getting rid of sick traditions (religious and non-religious) like circumcision.

BTW this whole HIV circumcision thing is retarded. One study? Male/Female HIV transmission is easily stopped by using condoms. Washing yourself immediately afterwards when you have sex with a stranger is probably a good idea as well (maybe even use some soap).

Loss Leader

8th July 2007, 07:50 PM

Interesting.

What I find interesting is that after you insult me (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2750391#post2750391) and after I tell you that you've insulted me (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2750410#post2750410), you do nothing to address it.

What possible reason could I have to converse with an individual who has treated me with such disrespect?

kellyb

8th July 2007, 08:04 PM

What I find interesting is that after you insult me (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2750391#post2750391) and after I tell you that you've insulted me (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2750410#post2750410), you do nothing to address it.

What possible reason could I have to converse with an individual who has treated me with such disrespect?

Well, I'm not in the habit of offering weak, disingenuous apologies. I am sorry that you felt insulted, but what I said was correct.

HawkeyeMD

8th July 2007, 08:17 PM

but...I know who the FSM is. What's the IPU? :D

Never mind. I found it. :cool:

Blue Mountain

8th July 2007, 09:53 PM

Never mind. I found it. :cool:
You're welcome. You've learned at least one thing from this thread. ;)

Skeptic Ginger

8th July 2007, 09:56 PM

Skeptigirl, let me see if I understand your position on routine infant circumcision correctly:

You think it’s similar to parents choosing to vaccinate their child. However, unlike standard vaccinations which have clear benefits and extremely low risks, the evidence for circumcision is equivocal. Even so, you think parents should be allowed to use their judgement after being provided with the evidence. You do not see any significant ethical problems with this approach.

And from what I can gather, the physicians who have contributed so far point of view on this can be summarised by:

You think routine infant circumcision is ethically dubious, but aren’t prepared to stand up for what you believe, or accept some non-medical reasons but not others given by parents for the circumcision of their child. Even if you disagree with the decision to circumcise a child and will not perform it yourself, you will tell the parents of the child where they can get it performed, because you believe that parents will turn their backs on all of 21st century medicine if they can’t get their kid cut.

Both the physicians and Skeptigirl think ALL forms of FGM are wrong, even if they are carried out in 21st century hi-tech hospitals, if performed on non-consenting (infant) girls.

Neither Skeptigirl or the physicians appear to comprehend that the ethics of one are identical to the other, or they do and are hypocrites.

Now would any of you like to summarise what you think my position is (obviously when you’ve stopped bickering about what nurses do that doctors don’t and vice-versa)?

ETA: This (http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,586971,00.html) makes interesting reading.This is either your wishful thinking or just your brain's way of making sense of the world. I can repeat my position. But I ask you to take it as is and not try to make it fit your beliefs. Because I do not see the world the way you see it, nor is your summary of my beliefs the least bit accurate.

I see no reason in the medical literature (the evidence) to recommend to any parent that they do or do not circumcise their child. That is where a provider should be, in my opinion, when the evidence is equivocal.

There is not sufficient evidence to show real harm from circumcisions despite the emotionally charged beliefs coming from a minority of men. While there are a few men who feel strongly opposed to circumcision and seem to think they have lost (or others will lose) significant amount of sexual pleasure. At the same time, there are at least a few men who have had circumcisions as adults to enhance their sexual pleasure (see citations I already posted). It would seem for the vast majority of men who have had a circumcision, they rarely think twice about it.

On the other side, there is some medical evidence circumcising infants prevents UTIs. The incidence of UTI in male infants was somewhere between 1-5% give or take from what I gathered from the research. Of those, especially in infants under age 2, a UTI can be a serious infection commonly including bacteria spreading to the bloodstream. In addition, having a single UTI necessitates invasive procedures and several weeks at least of antibiotics.

Neither the emotional appeals by a minority of men which lacks empirical evidence, nor the medical benefits of UTI risk reduction are very strong indicators for or against circumcision. In addition, people hold many different personal beliefs for and against circumcision.

In this case, I have no reason to be for or against any parent's decision to circumcise or not circumcise their child. I have no ethical concerns about their decision. As far as FGM goes, circumcision isn't a gender rights issue. Tit for tat is an absurd argument to make in any medical decision. Each would be completely dependent on the evidence.

There is no evidence FGM serves any purpose other than to further archaic sexual restrictions on women and girls. Our society has found it acceptable to pursue change of sexual and other forms of discrimination regardless of preserving or respecting cultural values. There is no evidence FGM prevents disease. There is evidence, especially in its most severe forms, that FGM does significant harm.

There is no comparison either morally or ethically of the two procedures.

Skeptic Ginger

8th July 2007, 10:06 PM

...

BTW this whole HIV circumcision thing is retarded. One study? Male/Female HIV transmission is easily stopped by using condoms. Washing yourself immediately afterwards when you have sex with a stranger is probably a good idea as well (maybe even use some soap).No Newton, not one study. Over 2 decades and many studies. And in many countries condoms are still not enough.

Morrigan

8th July 2007, 10:26 PM

There is value in being physically identified with the religion that has seen your ancestors through thousands of years of tumultuous history. My relatives who dies in the Holocaust were circumcised. My relatives who were murdered during the black plague were circumcised.

Appeal to emotion noted.

My relatives who were slaves in Egypt

Evidence?

And when the next wave of antisemitism hits - and it will - I want my sons to be inarguably and proudly identified as Jewish men.
And they can't do that unless their genitals are mutilated, because...? Is Judaism such a pitiful and pathetic religion/culture? :newlol
And now antisemitism has been brought up and the implications are already flying. Thread Godwinned in 3... 2...

And what if the Nazis come for us when he's fifteen? Or nine? Or six months old?

1! Ding ding, here we go.

No, I'm a lawyer.

:newlol

I don't know what you mean by that. If you mean that Nazis might spare my son because he is uncircumcised, I assure you I would rather see my son die as a Jew than live in denial of the same.

Really? You'd not only rather die than temporarily pretending to not be a Jew, but would also make sure your son did the same? Because we all know that dying a martyr is so much more constructive and productive and keep on living, where one might actually eventually elude the enemy and then vanquish him. :rolleyes:

There is a massive difference between *pride* and "consider[ing] Jewish people superior somehow." I have pride in my heritage; I do not consider my religion superior.

I assume then that you are okay with the following statement: "I have pride in my Germanic, Nordic, White heritage."

If you block Jews from circumcising their children, you remove one building block in the ediface that is a religion as old as recorded history. Will my religion crumble as a result? I don;t know. But I don't want to find out. If you're wrong, you strike a blow against Judaism itself. If I'm wrong, I ... cause temporary pain to an infant with almost no medical consequences. I would prefer to keep my religion intact.

Again. What kind of pathetic, wretched religion is actually hurt by the loss of an outdated, irrational, useless procedure? Considering the very same arguments you made could be made, hell, have been made, by the proponents of female circumcision, that's quite telling, anyway. Reminds me also of the Biblical support for slavery.

A rational person with a healthy look on life would use his or her critical thinking to discriminate between traditions that have merit and are worth valueing, cherishing and preserving, and what is obsolete, stupid and/or unethical and to be discarded. Only a blind fanatic or a brainwashed woo would continue a tradition for the sake of tradition.
Thankfully, the "tradition" of slavery has been abolished.

Watch the hyperbole. The day my religious practices are deemed criminal is the day I join the revolution.
I'm tempted to make a sarcastic comment about how scary a Jewish revolution would be, but... I probably should not. Still, :newlol

Don't know, don't care, didn't even click the links.
Ah, intellectual dishonesty at its finest. "*blocks ears* Lalala I can't hear you!"

autumn1971

8th July 2007, 11:47 PM

Really. Just...really. Circumcision is a minor cosmetic procedure often done to infants for a variety of reasons and non-reasons. Yes, the baby often cries. The baby cries during birth, should I have shoved mine back into my wife because breathing was traumatic for him?
What happened the first time any of you trimmed your child's nails?
I can say with great confidence that your child was tormented by the fires of hell during the procedure. But our trimmed nail fetish has no medical indications.
I have no foreskin. Am I missing out on some hypothetical sensations? Perhaps. But I probably discovered my little mushroom before my uncircumsised friends, and got a year of two of extra happy time that might make up for a tiny loss in feeling over the rest of my life.

Oh, by the way, in America most females are a bit put out by the "whole" package, so my son may have gained a slight advantage in getting laid. And I can definitely say that that alone justifies the (irrelevant and not worth arguing about) procedure.

autumn1971

8th July 2007, 11:49 PM

Morrigan,
About a Jewish revoloution, ever hear the little one about Christianity?

It sure as hell scared me.

Ivor the Engineer

9th July 2007, 01:56 AM

No Newton, not one study. Over 2 decades and many studies. And in many countries condoms are still not enough.

I think in the case of Africa it would be more accurate to say there are still not enough condoms;)

Skeptic Ginger

9th July 2007, 02:19 AM

Skeptic Ginger

9th July 2007, 02:21 AM

I think in the case of Africa it would be more accurate to say there are still not enough condoms;)Now there is a whole different topic I imagine we have a lot of agreement on.

Ivor the Engineer

9th July 2007, 02:56 AM

This is either your wishful thinking or just your brain's way of making sense of the world. I can repeat my position. But I ask you to take it as is and not try to make it fit your beliefs. Because I do not see the world the way you see it, nor is your summary of my beliefs the least bit accurate.

Skeptigirl, I’ve just read what you’ve written below and can’t see how I misrepresented your position at all:confused:

I see no reason in the medical literature (the evidence) to recommend to any parent that they do or do not circumcise their child. That is where a provider should be, in my opinion, when the evidence is equivocal.

I stated that you found the evidence for circumcision equivocal. This is what you have said (again).

There is not sufficient evidence to show real harm from circumcisions despite the emotionally charged beliefs coming from a minority of men. While there are a few men who feel strongly opposed to circumcision and seem to think they have lost (or others will lose) significant amount of sexual pleasure. At the same time, there are at least a few men who have had circumcisions as adults to enhance their sexual pleasure (see citations I already posted). It would seem for the vast majority of men who have had a circumcision, they rarely think twice about it.

Others may have made the sexual function argument. I certainly have not. All we can say for certain is that it changes the sensation a man feels.

On the other side, there is some medical evidence circumcising infants prevents UTIs. The incidence of UTI in male infants was somewhere between 1-5% give or take from what I gathered from the research. Of those, especially in infants under age 2, a UTI can be a serious infection commonly including bacteria spreading to the bloodstream. In addition, having a single UTI necessitates invasive procedures and several weeks at least of antibiotics.

The largest study I found was a Cohort study of over 400000 boys, which indicated that the incidence of UTI in uncircumcised boys was just over 1.1% and in circumcised boys it was 0.13%. So it appears circumcision gives a 10-fold reduction in UTI’s. Other research has estimated that ~7.5% of infants who get a UTI have renal scaring.

The complication rates for circumcision are not well researched, but have been estimated at about 2%.

So ignoring the magnitude of the complications (which can be just as serious as renal scaring), for a group of healthy boys circumcision will cause more problems than it prevents.

Neither the emotional appeals by a minority of men which lacks empirical evidence, nor the medical benefits of UTI risk reduction are very strong indicators for or against circumcision. In addition, people hold many different personal beliefs for and against circumcision.

Why do you consider my (and others) ethical argument an emotional appeal? If I were arguing that we should not fondle a women’s breasts (unless she wants them to be fondled;)), would that be an appeal to emotion?

Hopefully you would reply that there is a large amount of empirical evidence that women do not want their breasts fondled unless they request it. I’ll say now there’s just as much evidence that a man does not want his penis altered without his informed consent being asked for first.

Two things are absolutely certain: No mentally healthy person chooses to have their body altered without a great deal of thought. No person wants a part of their body to be altered at the decision of someone else when they are incapacitated.

In this case, I have no reason to be for or against any parent's decision to circumcise or not circumcise their child. I have no ethical concerns about their decision. As far as FGM goes, circumcision isn't a gender rights issue. Tit for tat is an absurd argument to make in any medical decision. Each would be completely dependent on the evidence.

I agree with you 100% that tit-for-tat should be avoided. If the evidence points clearly in one direction then a rational person should be swayed by it. However, after researching male circumcision for over 100 years in the West, the only effects it seems to have clearly demonstrated are a reduction in UTI’s and some increased resistance to HIV infection and some other STD’s.

Not much research has been done into FGM because it has not been widely practiced in the West. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It is therefore hypocritical to play the ethics card to object to FGM, especially since in the regions of the world it is practiced, male circumcision can be pretty brutal too.

If we were living at a time or in a place where condoms were in short supply or men generally did not want to use them, then infant circumcision starts to look like a better option. But we don’t. We live in the richest, most oversupplied part of the world. I can buy a condom 24-7 and I’m pretty sure you can too. We educate our children about the risks of unsafe sex. If the worst happens and they do contract HIV, they stand a good chance of living for decades.

There is no evidence FGM serves any purpose other than to further archaic sexual restrictions on women and girls. Our society has found it acceptable to pursue change of sexual and other forms of discrimination regardless of preserving or respecting cultural values. There is no evidence FGM prevents disease. There is evidence, especially in its most severe forms, that FGM does significant harm.

There is no comparison either morally or ethically of the two procedures.

Are you really trying to argue that male circumcision is used for the same reasons (i.e. your reasons) all over the world? I think if you look into it a bit more closely you’ll find what we would consider ethically dubious (or flat-out wrong) uses of male circumcision.

What do you think FGM would have evolved into if we in the West had liked the idea?

Abooga

9th July 2007, 09:42 AM

Is it different if a delusion is shared but many or just by a few? Or just one person?

Imagine some father has a dream and he believes sometime in the future his kid will be grabbed by the earlobes and abducted by Evil Flying Tin Ravioli Monsters or whatever, and decides to cut his kid´s earlobes off at birth.

Would he have the right to do that? According to Loss Leader he would, wouldn´t he?

How is this different from circumcision for religious reasons? Just because the jewish religious delusion is shared by a lot of people makes it right? How can secular laws discriminate between that and the crazy father who cuts his kid´s ears?

NewtonTrino

9th July 2007, 10:07 AM

I would like to hear Loss Leader condemn FGM.

I still think the HIV transmission thing is a total strawman argument. If there are multiple studies does anyone have some good references? I will read them.

BTW If you cut the whole thing off your HIV risk goes way way down, where do you draw the line? For me it's easy, you draw at the point people try and cut parts off of you!!!

The masaii have an interesting circumcision ritual btw, the kids do it when they are about 15 as a rite of passage. And yes I have been to masaii villages and discussed this with them.

Loss Leader

9th July 2007, 10:10 AM

Is it different if a delusion is shared but many or just by a few? Or just one person?

I don't know what delusion you think I'm operating under. "I am circumcising my sons because I am Jewish and it is the Jewish practice to circumcise our sons."

So, I'm not deluded about the fact that I have sons (or one and two-thirds sons in any case). I've seen the pictures.

I'm not deluded about the fact that I already have circumcised one and will be circumcising the other.

I'm not deluded about the fact that I'm Jewish. Once again, I have pictures from by Bar Mitvah.

And I'm not deluded about the fact that it is the Jewih practice to circumcise our sons. I have consulted my trusted religious advisors and been instructed as much.

I make no claim as to whether circumcision is a good or bad idea, whether the Jewish religion could survive without it, whether there is any health benefit to it or anything else. Now, I happen to personally believe that there is a sufficient reason for Jews to continue the practice of circumcision but that is not why I am doing it. I am only doing it because it is the Jewish practice to do so.

My only claim is that it is the Jewish practice to circumcise our boys, it's legal, it carries no significant medical risks and you can't stop me.

There is no delusion.

Loss Leader

9th July 2007, 10:20 AM

I would like to hear Loss Leader condemn FGM.

I'd like to hear the Beatles reunite at Shea Stadium. It isn't going to happen, though.

My interest in this topic extends exactly as far as circumcising my boys. The fact that you want to discuss something else is not my problem.

Ivor the Engineer

9th July 2007, 02:52 PM

Really. Just...really. Circumcision is a minor cosmetic procedure often done to infants for a variety of reasons and non-reasons.

So what other cosmetic surgery should parents be able to choose for their child? Shaping of the labia? Obviously we wouldn't insist the child be given effective pain relief because we know they won't remember* it when they grow up. So the child's pain isn't that important.

Yes, the baby often cries. The baby cries during birth, should I have shoved mine back into my wife because breathing was traumatic for him?

No. I don't think you and your wife had much choice as to the amount of pain your child was going to experience during birth. Also, as your wife's body was necessarily involved in the process, she had the final say in what happens. When your baby was removed from wife's body it became an individual.

What happened the first time any of you trimmed your child's nails?
I can say with great confidence that your child was tormented by the fires of hell during the procedure. But our trimmed nail fetish has no medical indications.

Ah yes, vets do it to animals just to make them look nice. Also, are you really trying to equate the pain of genitals being cut and torn apart to the sensation of nails being trimmed?

I have no foreskin. Am I missing out on some hypothetical sensations? Perhaps.

One thing is for sure: the sensations are real. You are missing out on them.

But I probably discovered my little mushroom before my uncircumsised friends, and got a year of two of extra happy time that might make up for a tiny loss in feeling over the rest of my life.

My family still haven't realized why I used to lay on my front and rustle around when I was a baby until I, um, went to sleep:D

Oh, by the way, in America most females are a bit put out by the "whole" package, so my son may have gained a slight advantage in getting laid. And I can definitely say that that alone justifies the (irrelevant and not worth arguing about) procedure.

I'm going to visit America soon. Is the etiquette to discuss the state of each others' genitalia on the first or second date?

If I sneakily pull my foreskin back while she isn't watching, will she know the difference?

(*) I burnt my hand when I was 3 on an electric bar fire. It was quite a serious burn (it took the nail off on one finger). I'm 100% confident it hurt. A lot. I now don't remember the pain.

Skepticybe

9th July 2007, 04:54 PM

The whole discussion about whether the alleged benefits justify routine circumcision is really irrelevant to the issue of whether forced circumcision is (or should be) acceptable, unless you accept that children are the property of their parents.

In reality, it is his body, not yours.
In every way that counts, you are wrong.
Whenever we are forcibly taking away an individual's most fundamental right to their own body, the test shouldn't be whether it is medically beneficial, but whether it is medically required. For example, UTIs aren't even eligible for consideration because they are easily treated.

Medically, amputation is and should always be a last resort, only performed when other treatments can't be used. Circumcision is the amputation of a sensory organ, with the guaranteed side effect of damage to another sensory organ (the glans). Whether you like calling it amputation or not, that's what it is, and should be treated as such by the medical community and the law.

I realize that much of the reason for overlooking the ethical question of cosmetic amputation is because so many think that the foreskin is a useless flap of skin. Since circumcision used to be the norm and most adult American men are cut, their egos often require this belief as a self-defense mechanism. Understandable, but mistaken.

I've read through every post in this gigantic thread, and one thing that has been missing is the "too much information" explanation of the intact male. So here it is.

As a boy growing up, I was embarrassed at public locker rooms, toilets, etc. where other boys would see that I was not circumcized. I was almost always the only one of my peers who was intact. I very much wanted to get circumcized, but my parents wouldn't let me have it done until I was old enough to responsibly make that choice for myself.

So I would often pull the skin back myself, so that I could pretend to be circ'd (looks pretty much the same), but I could never leave it that way for long. You see, the glans of an intact penis is so sensitive that just the contact with underwear would become quite painful. For those of you who are cut, you probably don't realize the enormous amount of desensitization that is required just to carry out your daily activities.

As puberty hit, I started to realize the incredible sensitivity in the foreskin, and finally appreciated that my parents had left me intact (my dad was never given the choice, but was thoughtful enough to give it to me). This whole debate about whether "anything is lost" is just ridiculous; my foreskin is a functioning sex organ with tremendous sensitivity and function. Touching the foreskin gives a sensation unlike any other -- a sensation that would not be possible without the foreskin. When aroused, the sensations in the foreskin are even more pleasurable, and the thousands of nerve endings allow me to feel what's going on inside my wife. The gliding action is wonderful for both me and my wife, and we usually arrange things to maximize this gliding action.

While I can't directly compare to being cut, I do have a good idea of how much desensitization would be necessary to just endure my glans being in constant contact with my clothing. And losing that much sensitivity would definitely reduce the pleasure from foreplay and intercourse.

Some have mentioned fellatio. Well, the cut guys are really missing out here too. The foreskin adds tremendous sensation and pleasure, and the extra sensitivity of the glans is also a huge bonus.

My foreskin is also a very important part of my ability to bring my wife to orgasm. With my foreskin -- and to a lesser degree my fully sensitized glans -- I'm able to feel how she's reacting internally, which allows me to give her more pleasure.

Mr Kellog and the others weren't that unreasonable in thinking that circumcision for males and burning the clit with carbolic acid would reduce masturbation; there is a significant reduction in pleasure and sensitivity that results from those procedures. Where they went wrong is that it does nothing to reduce the male's desire/need for sex, and that it was unethical to advocate genital mutilation for the purpose of trying to stop others from masturbating.

If I somehow developed a condition that required circumcision, I have no doubt that it would have no effect on my sex drive. I would still enjoy sex and would still achieve orgasm, and would still love the orgasm. But it would have a definite negative impact on the quality of sex for both me and my wife nonetheless.

One comment on circumcizing for HIV prevention: I find it hard to believe that circumcision could provide any meaningful and lasting benefit here. The studies done thus far have followed the subjects for a relatively short time frame. As time goes on and the number of exposures for each individual increases, I would expect to see the infection rate between the cut and uncut group converge, eventually settling on infection rates that reflect the individual's lifestyle. I think that time will show circumcision to provide only a delay in HIV infection for those engaged in risky behavior. In other words it would only provide meaningful protection in the portion of the population that engages in non-repeated risky behavior.

The answer to the original question of this thread, as demonstrated by loss leader, is: Yes, but only by sidestepping the ethical issue of forcibly damaging the genitals of another human being and/or claiming that the foreskin has little or no use.

NewtonTrino

9th July 2007, 05:33 PM

I'd like to hear the Beatles reunite at Shea Stadium. It isn't going to happen, though.

My interest in this topic extends exactly as far as circumcising my boys. The fact that you want to discuss something else is not my problem.

You are just as bad as the rest of the "mainstream" relgious nuts that give the fundamentalists their power.

Part of the reason you want to stick your head in the sand is that you know that there isn't any difference between circumcision and FGM and if you opposed one you would have to oppose the other.

I also think that you are perfectly happy to give the parents of these girls the power to mutilate them because it protects your own power to mutilate.

Anyone that doesn't unequivocally condemn FGM is an unethical person in my opinion and I have yet to hear anyone other than nutjob fundamentalists defend the practice. Circumcision falls into the same camp, but it's objectively not as bad as most forms of FGM as it doesn't damage the hardware as much.

I know, I know, you don't care what other people do to the point where you don't even have an opinion. And hey, if it's legal then it's ok too.

Loss Leader

9th July 2007, 06:21 PM

Part of the reason you want to stick your head in the sand is that you know that there isn't any difference between circumcision and FGM and if you opposed one you would have to oppose the other.

I also think that you are perfectly happy to give the parents of these girls the power to mutilate them because it protects your own power to mutilate.

You can invent any words you want to stick in my mouth, but I haven't said them and there is no reason to conclude that I believe them. Make up arguments for me and then tell me how wrong I am if you absolutely have to. But I am not made of straw, I do not endorse a single word you've decided I believe and I make no comment whatsoever on the issue.

Anyone that doesn't unequivocally condemn FGM is an unethical person in my opinion

Other things I haven't unequivocally condemned in this thread:

- Trans fats
- The cancellation of "Standoff." It was a good show
- The Armenian Genocide by the Turks
- People who don't know the difference between "no comment" and actually approving of something.
- The Irish
- The 9/11 Trooth Movement and their stupid, stupid homemade documentaries
- The lack of nudity on broadcast TV
- The 1/5 liter bottle of soda for the same price as the 2 liter like nobody would notice
and, finally,
- Hootie but NOT the Blowfish

Failure to condemn something on command is not the same as approving of it. I have made no statement about it. I have no comment about it. And it is dishonest of you to pretend that I hold an opinion I have not expressed.

osmosis

9th July 2007, 06:40 PM

My only claim is that it is the Jewish practice to circumcise our boys, it's legal, it carries no significant medical risks and you can't stop me.

Well, to be precise, that's your only claim that hasn't been torn apart and thrown to the dogs.

But at least you've dropped your pretenses of having any sort of rational or ethical leg to stand on. Finally we see the real Loss Leader for who (and what) he is.

There is no delusion.

Unless you believe you're more advanced than your very distant ancestors, who thought the world was flat, thought the sun revolved around it, and decided that ritual genital mutilation is part of what it means to be Jewish.

Loss Leader

9th July 2007, 07:21 PM

My only claim is that it is the Jewish practice to circumcise our boys, it's legal, it carries no significant medical risks and you can't stop me.

Well, to be precise, that's your only claim that hasn't been torn apart and thrown to the dogs.

Well, yes, I guess you'd be right if it wasn't exactly the same as the first post I made when I entered this thread. Here, let me remind you:

As a Jew, I had my first son circumcised and will have my next one circumcised as well. No rational argument that has been produced can trump in my mind the fact that Jewish children are circumcised.

So, um, if you want to declare yourself the winner, go ahead. You're not but I understand how it might make you feel better.

gethane

9th July 2007, 07:44 PM

excellent post Skepticybe. As a woman, I've enjoyed both kinds and orgasm is much easier during sex with intact penises. Sadly, i went along with the pack 16 years ago at the birth of my first son. I did not compound the error, however, at the birth of my 2nd. And its a LOT easier to take care of an intact (and nonretractible) penis than it was to deal with adhesions and poop mess under the glans ridge of my first son.

NewtonTrino

9th July 2007, 08:09 PM

What the heck happened to Skepticybe's EXCELLENT post? Seriously?

autumn1971

9th July 2007, 11:49 PM

osmosis

9th July 2007, 11:53 PM

Well, yes, I guess you'd be right if it wasn't exactly the same as the first post I made when I entered this thread. Here, let me remind you:

I wasn't talking about the first post, I was talking about the ones in between.

So, um, if you want to declare yourself the winner, go ahead. You're not but I understand how it might make you feel better.

I have not declared myself the winner, I have declared you the loser. When I (and others) challenged your position, you attempted to defend yourself with a bunch of BS about how your will is your child's will, etc. Then when each of your arguments were countered, instead of actually conceding any of the relavant points, you said, basically, you just don't care!

You just don't care if your ethics are sound. You just don't care if you're committing a fundamental abuse of human rights and causing pointless pain and suffering. You just don't care!

You get to circumcise, we can't stop you, and to you that's all that matters.

And that makes you the big loser.

autumn1971

10th July 2007, 12:33 AM

Abooga

10th July 2007, 01:40 AM

I apologize if I seemed flippant. I certainly meant no disrespect to the ideas of others.
As a circumcised male in a largely circumsised society (USA), I can't help but see my state as the "normal" state. Since I have no objective evidence (unlike victims of female genital mutilation) that my state is significantly different than the "other" state (the plural of anecdote is not data), I see the difference as inconsequential.
I actually thought of the earlobe-clipping argument myself, but in the opposite way. I could argue that the earlobe-clipping was transitorially painful, but important to the child's parents. The child would not notice the clipping at all, except by the counter-example of non-clipped peers, and the chances that the clipping would alter the child's normal development would be close to nil.
I do agree that earlobe-nibbling can be unbelievably erotic and stimulating, but at the same time, I would not logically accept that earlobe-clipping impairs the (hypothetical)child in any way.

But the issue is:

Can the parents decide by themselves to chop off bits of their kids?

I can´t believe it but your answer seems to be "yes"!

I could argue that the earlobe-clipping was transitorially painful, but important to the child's parents.

So what? They still shouldn´t be allowed to perform any irreversible mutilations on unconsenting kids! Are we going nuts? And the fact that it´s a "minor" procedure is a purely SUBJECTIVE valoration. The objective reality is that we´re talking about an irreversible amputation. You guys are in denial... Why is it so hard to admit that?

Ivor the Engineer

10th July 2007, 01:55 AM

Again, circumcision is much more like a parental induced haircut than to the butchery you seem to think it is. It is a minor, cosmetic, out-patient procedure (in fact, it is so simple that it has been done for thousands of years without impacting communities) which is, yes, painful to the infant (although no existing research shows it is more traumatic than being hungry for a couple of minutes, which results in the same "pain" cries), but is also harmless, and physiologically irrelevant.
The fact that Loss Leader framed his responses in legal language is also irrelevant to the discussion. How is circumcision in male infants in the developed world at all comparable to female circumcision (misnamed as the adjunct to the male foreskin is not the object of female circumcision) ?

Hair does not have ANY nerve endings in it.

It is fascinating the way you constantly try to dismiss the pain an infant must feel having one of the most sensitive organs on its body cut away at.

I suggest you go sterilize a pin and push it into the end of your penis. Keep doing this for 1-2 minutes. See if it is about the same level of discomfort as a hair cut or being hungry for a couple of minutes or having your nails clipped:rolleyes:

But as others have said, that is not the real point. The point, which parents who choose circumcision just don't get (or want to get), is that it is not their choice to make in the first place! Only if the procedure is indicated (very rare in newborns), should parents even be asked to consent by physicians.

It's called patient autonomy, something that medical professionals are supposed to promote and usually do.

Loss Leader

10th July 2007, 06:29 AM

When I (and others) challenged your position, you attempted to defend yourself with a bunch of BS about how your will is your child's will, etc.

Once again, I suppose you would be right if my argument that my will substitutes for my newborn were BS. Instead, it is an exact description of the laws of substituted judgment: laws that have developed over hundreds if not thousands of years, are deeply rooted in the western notions of justice, are affirmed and reaffirmed in courts and legislatures throughout at least my nation, and are broadly applicable and adaptable to unending variations in circumstance.

So, yeah, if all that is BS then you're right.

The simple fact is that you believe circumcision to be such a major invasion of the body that parents should not have the right to substitute their judgment for their children. Okay, I understand that's what you believe. But since the vast majority of my nation's courts, legislatures and citizens don't agree with you, your beliefs are insignificant.

And that's not BS, either.

Abooga

10th July 2007, 07:10 AM

Once again, I suppose you would be right if my argument that my will substitutes for my newborn were BS. Instead, it is an exact description of the laws of substituted judgment: laws that have developed over hundreds if not thousands of years, are deeply rooted in the western notions of justice, are affirmed and reaffirmed in courts and legislatures throughout at least my nation, and are broadly applicable and adaptable to unending variations in circumstance.

So, yeah, if all that is BS then you're right.
.

Strawman! Not arguing about those laws in general, but about particular laws, which can always be improved (without demeriting their grandiose origins)

The simple fact is that you believe circumcision to be such a major invasion of the body that parents should not have the right to substitute their judgment for their children.
.

More exactly: For any medically unnecessary and irreversible body modification or amputation, parents should be legally forced to wait until the kid reaches maturity. Major or not major is subjective, and irrelevant.

Okay, I understand that's what you believe. But since the vast majority of my nation's courts, legislatures and citizens don't agree with you, your beliefs are insignificant.

And that's not BS, either.

It is. Things might change some day. That´s what we´re arguing about here, wether there SHOULD be laws against this (relatively mild) form of child abuse. And that´s not irrelevant.

With your kind of reasoning you´d make a good totalitarian, you could defend any other position that courts, legislatures and citizens at some point have agreed upon... slavery, capital punishment for apostasy or whatever.

Loss Leader

10th July 2007, 07:34 AM

With your kind of reasoning you´d make a good totalitarian, you could defend any other position that courts, legislatures and citizens at some point have agreed upon... slavery, capital punishment for apostasy or whatever.

I suppose you would be right if my argument were that whatever courts, legislatures and the citizenry agrees on is just. Unfortunately for your reading skills, that's not what I said in my last post and not what I've said repeatedly in this thread. What I said was:

Instead, it is an exact description of the laws of substituted judgment: laws that have developed over hundreds if not thousands of years, are deeply rooted in the western notions of justice, are affirmed and reaffirmed in courts and legislatures throughout at least my nation ...

I also said this:

Once again, I outlined that the law of substituted judgement is just in my opinion because (in part) it respects religious and family rights. I also acknowledged that the state does have an interest in the welfare of children. So there are three objective moral positions around which the law of substituted judgment has formed. Lots and lots of Germans believed in the Neuremburg laws; but they were injust because they did not respect the rights of the minority. There is objectivity.

And this:

The laws about substituted judgment are just, that's the absolute sum total of what I said.

Why are they just?

1. They are the laws of a democratic nation.

2. They were developed over a long time.

3. They have respect for the rights of minorities.

4. They have respect for the rights of families.

And this:

So, when are we justified in believing that legal and right are at least vaguely in the same area as each other?

The answer is to look at how the thing became legal. In a society where laws are made by a dictator, the chance that the laws are just is pretty small. The laws will probably just help the dictator stay in power. The same is true of an oligarchy. Even where laws are made by majority will, there is a chance the majority will use the occassion to crush the minority.

Laws should be arived at democratically, judiciously and with reference to agreed upon definitions of human rights.

Now, the law that allows me to substitute my judgment for my incompetent son - is that a just law? It is certainly the law of a democratic land (my country, the USA). And it didn't come about yesterday: the concept of substituted judgment has evolved through the common law for as long as there has been common law. And it allows minorities to practice their beliefs even when the majority might not make the same decision. It also allows for a husband and wife to control their own home and raise their own children in a manner they believe is appropriate.
...
As the rules regarding substituted judgment are not just legal but are legal within a political framework that is just, we are correct in equating legal with right in this instance.

So, I have repeatedly drawn the distinction between the laws of substituted judgment and "any other position that courts, legislatures and citizens at some point have agreed upon... slavery, capital punishment for apostasy or whatever." The two things are not identical and I have never claimed they were. Thus, I think I'd make a rather poor totalitarian. You, on the other hand, might do absolutely wonderfully in that position seeing as you have apparently zero tolerance for a person whose beliefs differ from your own.

ClintonHammond

10th July 2007, 07:40 AM

" Circumcision: can any rational thinker defend it ?"
888 posts, and still the answer is "NO"

Loss Leader

10th July 2007, 08:07 AM

" Circumcision: can any rational thinker defend it ?"
888 posts, and still the answer is "NO"

Yes, if you keep redefining the word "rational" to exclude any defense of circumcision, I guess you'd be right. You wouldn't be honest or logical, but you'd be right.

Abooga

10th July 2007, 08:14 AM

I suppose you would be right if my argument were that whatever courts, legislatures and the citizenry agrees on is just. Unfortunately for your reading skills, that's not what I said in my last post and not what I've said repeatedly in this thread. What I said was:

I also said this:

And this:

And this:

So, I have repeatedly drawn the distinction between the laws of substituted judgment and "any other position that courts, legislatures and citizens at some point have agreed upon... slavery, capital punishment for apostasy or whatever." The two things are not identical and I have never claimed they were. Thus, I think I'd make a rather poor totalitarian. You, on the other hand, might do absolutely wonderfully in that position seeing as you have apparently zero tolerance for a person whose beliefs differ from your own.

Ok, so i didn´t read all your comments, and was answering your last post and what it looked like you were saying. Nevermind. Quite possibly you´re right on that particular issue.

BUT the main issue of this thread is:

For medically unnecessary and irreversible body modifications or amputations, should parents be legally forced to wait until the kid reaches maturity or not.

Didn´t you say parents can do ANYTING to their kids? I consider that idea so abhorrent and monstruous that, perhaps that´s why I expected more f*cked up totalitarian B.S: in your post. If you´re a lovely geezer in all other respects, good for you!

Abooga

10th July 2007, 08:18 AM

You, on the other hand, might do absolutely wonderfully in that position seeing as you have apparently zero tolerance for a person whose beliefs differ from your own.

Why do you say that? I´m only arguing that RIC is against human rights. Zero tolerance would just follow logically from this.

ClintonHammond

10th July 2007, 08:21 AM

kellyb

10th July 2007, 08:31 AM

I don't know what delusion you think I'm operating under. "I am circumcising my sons because I am Jewish and it is the Jewish practice to circumcise our sons."

A tad circular, no?

Just so you know, some Jews are choosing to break out of the cycle.

http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/

ClintonHammond

10th July 2007, 08:41 AM

" We are a group of educated and enlightened Jews who realize that the barbaric, primitive, torturous, and mutilating practice of circumcision has no place in modern Judaism."

Thank FK!

fls

10th July 2007, 08:42 AM

"if you keep redefining the word "rational" to exclude any defense of circumcision"
I've redefined nothing... I have yet to see a single rational defence of any 'routine' mutilation.

892 posts, and still the answer is "no"

What do you all think should be done when you hate someone else's ideas - specific to circumcision and in general?

Linda

Abooga

10th July 2007, 08:49 AM

Convince them otherwise?

ClintonHammond

10th July 2007, 08:57 AM

Circumcision, if I ran the world, would be child abuse, plain and simple (Exception, the very few cases where it's a necessary medical procedure)

The rest of your question, I'm not going to be baited into dignifying with any response.

Ivor the Engineer

10th July 2007, 09:34 AM

What do you all think should be done when you hate someone else's ideas - specific to circumcision and in general?

Linda

I don't particularly hate the idea of circumcision. All surgery is brutal. I hate the hypocritical behaviour and thought processes behind routine infant circumcision. I really hate the dismissal of another person's suffering just because they can't remember it.

What should be done with respect to routine circumcision of infants:

Physicians should not be offering it as a service. Unless there is clear indication it is required, or is likely to offer the child a clinically significant advantage, circumcision should not be performed by medical professionals.

The obvious argument to this approach is some determined parents will go to "back-street" circumciser's who will not be able to deal with complications arising from the procedure. However, my guess is that if the service was not offered to parents the vast majority would not force the issue, or seek the procedure elsewhere.

In general, the best solution to bad ideas is to come up with better ones, rather than excuses and exceptions to dodge the issue.

Loss Leader

10th July 2007, 09:43 AM

I've redefined nothing... I have yet to see a single rational defence of any 'routine' mutilation.

Well, let me try to lay it out for you. Again.

Accept as true the following single premise: The continued existence of Jews on this planet is a good thing.

I don't know why you wouldn't accept that as true but let me just remind you that the Jewish people have woven a continuous thread throughout human history. We have, during the dark ages, helped to keep science and mathematics alive in the western world. We carried the burden of banking at a time when the western world looked down on it and those practices (of lending out the money others deposit, etc.) helped add capital to the west. The disproportionate number of Jews in medicine and law continues to this day. And, in countries that would otherwise have almost no diversity, we serve as a reminder that there are other ways to live, other ways to think and other choices to make than the ones approved by the majority. In social situations, diversity of opinion leads to increased creativity and activity.

Lots of very influential historical figures were Jews including Jerry Seinfeld, Krusty the Clown and everybody's favorite example for everything (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein).

You may say that there should be no religion whatsoever in the world and perhaps you're right. When everyone else disbands their religions, Jews might be right in joining them. However, so long as there are other religions, Jews serve an important role in the plurality that makes our civilization so robust.

In any case, I've asked you to just accept as true that having Jews is a good thing.

Now, Jews circumcise their sons. They do. It's as ancient a part of the Jewish tradition as anything - dating back to Abraham living in Ur, one of the first cities in all of human history. I am circumcised, my father was circumcised, his father was circumcised and I could create a macro for "and his father was circumcised" and hit it something like two hundred times (or however many, it's a lot).

That's it. That's my whole argument.

Now, you can argue that Jews might be able to get by just fine without circumcision. After all, we have the Pidyon Ha'ben (http://www.aish.com/literacy/lifecycle/Pidyon_Haben.asp) and baby namings and all sorts of other good life cycle rites that we could fall back on. But you don't know that. You think it, you suspect it, but you don't know it. Outlawing circumcision could be devastating to Judaism. We know for a fact that Jews do OK wih circumcision but we have no data and no way to gather data on what would happen if you demanded Jews stop the practice.

You may argue that the Jewish practice of circumcision is unreasonable but note that you are now arguing within the religion. You are (I suspect) not Jewish, you are (probably) not a Rabbi, you are (likely) not a scholor of Judaism. So you would be telling people how to practice their religion without fully understanding their religion. If religious practices have zero value and if there should be no religion, perhaps you'd be right. But so long as there are religions, an outsider cannot really judge which religious practice has value and which doesn't.

You have one last refuge. Perhaps circumcision is so harmful to a child that no one should be allowed to do it. After all, some religions have practices which society finds so abhorant that they are just disallowed for reasons of public safety. Zoarastrians traditionally threw their dead in a sand pit to be eaten by vultures. This is illegal in the US. Even a Muslim woman wearing a veil in her driver's license picture has been deemed illegal because the public's need to identify the woman was found to be greater than her need to practice her religion.

Is circumcision so harmful to the public's interests that it should be forbidden as a religious practice? The answer is that I don't know. Maybe. There are reasons to think it is - it's permanent, it hurts, it may impair sexual pleasure. But there are reasons to think it isn't - the pain is transitory, it may not impair sexual pleasure, it might have some small medical benefit, lots of circumcised people have led wonderful, fulfilling lives, etc.

In any case, the debate over circumcision's degree of harm is just that: a debate. Remember, the harm to the child has to outweigh all of the harm that would be done to Judaism, whatever that may be. I have no doubt that you in your mind have the ability to assign these things weights and to make a determination. However, you should have no doubt that rational minds may assign them different weights. The pain to the infant might be a 7 to you while to me it's a 3. The possibility of damaging Judaism might be a 2 to you while to me it's a 27. There is nothing objectively measurable about these criteria. Rational minds may differ.

Circumcision for religious reasons is rational so long as: 1) you place any value on maintaining a religious tradition; and 2) you place less value on the state's interest in protecting children from whatever may be the harms of circumcision.

And that's a rational defense. You may not agree with it, but it's rational.

Ivor the Engineer

10th July 2007, 10:45 AM

Well, let me try to lay it out for you. Again.

Accept as true the following single premise: The continued existence of Jews on this planet is a good thing.

I don't know why you wouldn't accept that as true but let me just remind you that the Jewish people have woven a continuous thread throughout human history. We have, during the dark ages, helped to keep science and mathematics alive in the western world. We carried the burden of banking at a time when the western world looked down on it and those practices (of lending out the money others deposit, etc.) helped add capital to the west. The disproportionate number of Jews in medicine and law continues to this day. And, in countries that would otherwise have almost no diversity, we serve as a reminder that there are other ways to live, other ways to think and other choices to make than the ones approved by the majority. In social situations, diversity of opinion leads to increased creativity and activity.

Lots of very influential historical figures were Jews including Jerry Seinfeld, Krusty the Clown and everybody's favorite example for everything (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein).

You may say that there should be no religion whatsoever in the world and perhaps you're right. When everyone else disbands their religions, Jews might be right in joining them. However, so long as there are other religions, Jews serve an important role in the plurality that makes our civilization so robust.

In any case, I've asked you to just accept as true that having Jews is a good thing.

Now, Jews circumcise their sons. They do. It's as ancient a part of the Jewish tradition as anything - dating back to Abraham living in Ur, one of the first cities in all of human history. I am circumcised, my father was circumcised, his father was circumcised and I could create a macro for "and his father was circumcised" and hit it something like two hundred times (or however many, it's a lot).

That's it. That's my whole argument.

Now, you can argue that Jews might be able to get by just fine without circumcision. After all, we have the Pidyon Ha'ben (http://www.aish.com/literacy/lifecycle/Pidyon_Haben.asp) and baby namings and all sorts of other good life cycle rites that we could fall back on. But you don't know that. You think it, you suspect it, but you don't know it. Outlawing circumcision could be devastating to Judaism. We know for a fact that Jews do OK wih circumcision but we have no data and no way to gather data on what would happen if you demanded Jews stop the practice.

You may argue that the Jewish practice of circumcision is unreasonable but note that you are now arguing within the religion. You are (I suspect) not Jewish, you are (probably) not a Rabbi, you are (likely) not a scholor of Judaism. So you would be telling people how to practice their religion without fully understanding their religion. If religious practices have zero value and if there should be no religion, perhaps you'd be right. But so long as there are religions, an outsider cannot really judge which religious practice has value and which doesn't.

You have one last refuge. Perhaps circumcision is so harmful to a child that no one should be allowed to do it. After all, some religions have practices which society finds so abhorant that they are just disallowed for reasons of public safety. Zoarastrians traditionally threw their dead in a sand pit to be eaten by vultures. This is illegal in the US. Even a Muslim woman wearing a veil in her driver's license picture has been deemed illegal because the public's need to identify the woman was found to be greater than her need to practice her religion.

Is circumcision so harmful to the public's interests that it should be forbidden as a religious practice? The answer is that I don't know. Maybe. There are reasons to think it is - it's permanent, it hurts, it may impair sexual pleasure. But there are reasons to think it isn't - the pain is transitory, it may not impair sexual pleasure, it might have some small medical benefit, lots of circumcised people have led wonderful, fulfilling lives, etc.

In any case, the debate over circumcision's degree of harm is just that: a debate. Remember, the harm to the child has to outweigh all of the harm that would be done to Judaism, whatever that may be. I have no doubt that you in your mind have the ability to assign these things weights and to make a determination. However, you should have no doubt that rational minds may assign them different weights. The pain to the infant might be a 7 to you while to me it's a 3. The possibility of damaging Judaism might be a 2 to you while to me it's a 27. There is nothing objectively measurable about these criteria. Rational minds may differ.

Circumcision for religious reasons is rational so long as: 1) you place any value on maintaining a religious tradition; and 2) you place less value on the state's interest in protecting children from whatever may be the harms of circumcision.

And that's a rational defense. You may not agree with it, but it's rational.

You are trying to equate something with no objective value, with something that is observed every year in the US. That is not rational.

The possibility of damaging Judaism is intangible. Religion has no objective value.

The possibility of your son being damaged by circumcision is an objective reality. Every year about 2% of circumcisions go wrong, in some way or another.

kellyb

10th July 2007, 12:05 PM

Now, you can argue that Jews might be able to get by just fine without circumcision. After all, we have the Pidyon Ha'ben and baby namings and all sorts of other good life cycle rites that we could fall back on. But you don't know that. You think it, you suspect it, but you don't know it. Outlawing circumcision could be devastating to Judaism. We know for a fact that Jews do OK wih circumcision but we have no data and no way to gather data on what would happen if you demanded Jews stop the practice.

And you have no evidence that if Jews were to decide to quit circumcising their kids, Judaism would fall apart.
If sexually mutilating your kids is the glue that holds your culture together, you're probably not going to make it anyway.
Fortunately, there's no reason to believe this is the case. Mormons dropped polygamy and they're still going strong. In fact, it appears that Jews used to do lots of weird stuff thousands of years ago (as did all humans back then, so don't think I'm throwing stones) that got dropped somewhere along the way, and yet, Judaism survives.
In fact, it has progressed. Change can be either bad or good. Do you have any evidence at all that abandoning circumcision, one parent and child at a time, would be anything beside beneficial?
Can you even identify the mechanism by which abandoning circumcision might destroy your people?
How it could bring about an end to Judaism?

ClintonHammond

10th July 2007, 12:13 PM

"That is not rational."
+1

902 posts and the "NO" answer is still the best answer to the OP

Loss Leader

10th July 2007, 12:32 PM

"That is not rational."
+1

902 posts and the "NO" answer is still the best answer to the OP

Yes, well as I said you can just define "rational" to exclude my explanation. It doesn't make you right. So what part of my defense is irrational, in your opinion?

Ivor the Engineer

10th July 2007, 12:50 PM

And you have no evidence that if Jews were to decide to quit circumcising their kids, Judaism would fall apart.
If sexually mutilating your kids is the glue that holds your culture together, you're probably not going to make it anyway.
Fortunately, there's no reason to believe this is the case. Mormons dropped polygamy and they're still going strong. In fact, it appears that Jews used to do lots of weird stuff thousands of years ago (as did all humans back then, so don't think I'm throwing stones) that got dropped somewhere along the way, and yet, Judaism survives.
In fact, it has progressed. Change can be either bad or good. Do you have any evidence at all that abandoning circumcision, one parent and child at a time, would be anything beside beneficial?
Can you even identify the mechanism by which abandoning circumcision might destroy your people?
How it could bring about an end to Judaism?

You mean like Jews (and probably many other cultures) used to do to disobedient children?

kellyb

10th July 2007, 01:33 PM

You mean like Jews (and probably many other cultures) used to do to disobedient children?

That's exactly what I was thinking of. :D

osmosis

10th July 2007, 02:03 PM

Yes, well as I said you can just define "rational" to exclude my explanation. It doesn't make you right. So what part of my defense is irrational, in your opinion?

I'll tell you what's irrational about it. It's based entirely on argumentum ad antiquitatem. If I may be so bold, you need to move beyond "is" into the territory of "should".

We have not defined rational to exclude your explanation. Logic has! You can claim all you want that we're moving the goalposts to keep you from scoring, the fact is the goalposts haven't moved, it's merely your crippled leg that keeps you from making any points.

Ivor the Engineer

10th July 2007, 02:17 PM

That's exactly what I was thinking of. :D

While I was checking up on this I found that it is not just a few small Islamic communities were it is still legal to practice this form of execution, but many of the countries in the middle east, including (from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning)):

Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, Pakistan,
and the United Arab Emirates.

It is also practiced commonly in Iraqi Kurdistan.

Seems some traditions really do die hard...:eek:

(Every time I think of someone being stoned I can't help but think of The Life of Brian)

ClintonHammond

10th July 2007, 02:20 PM

"what part of my defense is irrational"
Asked and answered

Osmosis makes good points too....

Loss Leader

10th July 2007, 02:21 PM

I'll tell you what's irrational about it. It's based entirely on argumentum ad antiquitatem. If I may be so bold, you need to move beyond "is" into the territory of "should".

I'm sorry; if you were right, I'd agree with you.

I am NOT arguing that circumcision is right because it is a long-standing tradition.

I am arguing that Jews circumcise their children and that preservation of the Jewish faith is a good thing .

Now, if you claim that there is no reason why Jews should want to circumcise their children and I responded "But we've always done it that way," I would be making an argument from antiquity.

Instead, you claim that there is no reason why Jews should want to circumcise their children and I respond thusly: You are not a Jew or a scholar of Jewish law, you do not know what effect prohibiting circumcision would have, you do not know what effect removing an element of diversity from our pluralistic society might have, your personal beliefs about circumcision should not be enforced at the expense of our religion.

I'm not saying WHY Jews circumcise their children. I'm saying that the fact that they do is an aspect of Judaism. Changing it changes an aspect of Judaism. And having an outsider come and dictate a change to an aspect of Judaism may destroy it.

If you place a value of zero on the Jewish faith, you might subjectively believe my argument is irrational. I must warn you, however, that some who have in the past placed a value of zero on the Jewish faith have not faired well.

Ivor the Engineer

10th July 2007, 02:39 PM

I'm sorry; if you were right, I'd agree with you.

I am NOT arguing that circumcision is right because it is a long-standing tradition.

I am arguing that Jews circumcise their children and that preservation of the Jewish faith is a good thing .

It is neither good nor bad. The Jewish faith will almost certainly disappear (or change beyond recognition) given enough time.

Now, if you claim that there is no reason why Jews should want to circumcise their children and I responded "But we've always done it that way," I would be making an argument from antiquity.

Instead, you claim that there is no reason why Jews should want to circumcise their children and I respond thusly: You are not a Jew or a scholar of Jewish law, you do not know what effect prohibiting circumcision would have, you do not know what effect removing an element of diversity from our pluralistic society might have, your personal beliefs about circumcision should not be enforced at the expense of our religion.

They are not personal beliefs. They are objective facts.

About 2% of circumcisions go wrong.
Cutting off flesh hurts during and after the operation.
Generally, humans do not enjoy pain. If it is prolonged it triggers a physiological stress response.

Which one of these is a "personal belief"?

I'm not saying WHY Jews circumcise their children. I'm saying that the fact that they do is an aspect of Judaism. Changing it changes an aspect of Judaism. And having an outsider come and dictate a change to an aspect of Judaism may destroy it.

That's why Jews should get their house in order themselves, so the law does not have to be changed to force them to. It appears some already are.

If you place a value of zero on the Jewish faith, you might subjectively believe my argument is irrational. I must warn you, however, that some who have in the past placed a value of zero on the Jewish faith have not faired well.

LOL!:D

I place a value of zero on ALL faiths, not just yours. However, I acknowledge it's your right to believe whatever you want.

kellyb

10th July 2007, 02:39 PM

I'm not saying WHY Jews circumcise their children. I'm saying that the fact that they do is an aspect of Judaism. Changing it changes an aspect of Judaism.
Yeah...it would change it for the better.

And having an outsider come and dictate a change to an aspect of Judaism may destroy it.
#1- Provide evidence to support that claim
#2- The change your culture from within, if you really think that's the case

I must warn you, however, that some who have in the past placed a value of zero on the Jewish faith have not faired well.
Oh, blablabla....

Are you going to have your deity send a bear to eat us all or something?

Skepticybe

10th July 2007, 04:33 PM

I have to say, I never would have expected circumcision to be defended on the basis that ending the practice may destroy Judaism. If Judaism will fall without ritual genital mutilation, we're better off without it.

The world has far too many who use their religious beliefs to justify the harm they inflict on others. Of all people, Jews should recognize this.

Also, your posts carry an implied accusation that anyone who opposes you circumcising your boys is an anti-semite. That is poisoning the well, and IMO should be resented by everyone here.

Morrigan

10th July 2007, 05:13 PM

Yes, well as I said you can just define "rational" to exclude my explanation. It doesn't make you right. So what part of my defense is irrational, in your opinion?

Uh, there is nothing whatsoever that is rational about your "argument". All you say is that preserving circumcision is primordial to preserving Judaism (without evidence, mind you), and that somehow should convince us. :newlol

I have to say, I never would have expected circumcision to be defended on the basis that ending the practice may destroy Judaism. If Judaism will fall without ritual genital mutilation, we're better off without it.

The world has far too many who use their religious beliefs to justify the harm they inflict on others. Of all people, Jews should recognize this.

Also, your posts carry an implied accusation that anyone who opposes you circumcising your boys is an anti-semite. That is poisoning the well, and IMO should be resented by everyone here.
Seconded, on every account.

Loss Leader

10th July 2007, 05:36 PM

They are not personal beliefs. They are objective facts.

About 2% of circumcisions go wrong.
Cutting off flesh hurts during and after the operation.
Generally, humans do not enjoy pain. If it is prolonged it triggers a physiological stress response.

Which one of these is a "personal belief"?

Yes, well, as I have already said:

In any case, the debate over circumcision's degree of harm is just that: a debate. Remember, the harm to the child has to outweigh all of the harm that would be done to Judaism, whatever that may be. I have no doubt that you in your mind have the ability to assign these things weights and to make a determination. However, you should have no doubt that rational minds may assign them different weights. The pain to the infant might be a 7 to you while to me it's a 3. The possibility of damaging Judaism might be a 2 to you while to me it's a 27. There is nothing objectively measurable about these criteria. Rational minds may differ.

So all of the things you say may be true. Heck, just to be sociable I will agree that they are all true. But they are only one side of the equation. They are the harm caused by circumcision. We still must balance that with the harm caused by prohibiting Jews from practicing their religion. That harm is difficult to calculate but that doesn't make it zero. As I have said over and over, anything that reduces the plurality of practices in this country reduces overall energy and creativity in our culture. Add in the great psychological torment you will cause observant Jews by your decree. Add in the unknown effect on the religion as a whole. Add it the horrifying precedent you set of limiting the religious practices of others because they ... have no effect on your personal life whatsoever but yet you find them distasteful. Just as you cannot measure the physical pain felt by another person (let alone a newborn), you cannot measure the emotional torment caused to an adult when you limit the ability to freely practice one's religion.

Now, you have said that you place a value of zero on all religions and I think that's ... odd ... but I'm going to go with you on it. I'm going to agree with you that the continued practice of any religion is worthless.

Why proscribe a Jewish practice without limiting the practice of other religions? Why take away circumcisions without taking away Christmas trees (which even many Christians agree are just stupid)? If all religions are worthless and you stop Jews from practicing Judaism but don't keep others from their practices, you have treated Judaism differently. You're not treating all religion the same. Everything has a value of zero but Judaism, which you've taken something away from, has a negative value.

As I have already said. When everyone in America agrees to give up religion completely, I will give up Judaism and circumcisions along with it. Otherwise, whether you value religion or not, you have to treat them all the same.

Now, you may again fall back to your refuge that circumcision is a painful amputation and all painful amputations should be cleansed from all society regardless of religion. But when you do that, you make a value judgment about the harm caused by circumcision. And that value exists nowhere but in your head. It hurts ... or does it? Do we know what an eight day-old feels as pain? It reduces sexual pleasure ... or does it? Do we have any way to compare what pleasure a man would have felt with or without? These are all value judgments.

And they all are still only one side of the equation. And they all may not add up to enough to tip the scales. In fact, we know that so far they have not tipped the scales in any jurist or legislature's mind.

Rational minds may differ.

ClintonHammond

10th July 2007, 08:43 PM

"preservation of the Jewish faith is a good thing"
Not if it leads to mutilating children it isn't....

"without taking away Christmas trees"
Christmas trees don't mutilate children.

Loss Leader

10th July 2007, 09:35 PM

Christmas trees don't mutilate children.

Between 2000 and 2004 there were an average of 300 home fires yearly that started with Christmas trees which caused a yearly average of 14 deaths and 21 injuries. One out of every twenty-two Christmas tree fires results in death. An average of 5,800 injuries per year were reported in US emergency rooms due to Christmas decorating accidents. (source ( http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/Christmastrees_Sum.pdf)).

Please, won't somebody think of the children!

Abooga

11th July 2007, 02:20 AM

Between 2000 and 2004 there were an average of 300 home fires yearly that started with Christmas trees which caused a yearly average of 14 deaths and 21 injuries. One out of every twenty-two Christmas tree fires results in death. An average of 5,800 injuries per year were reported in US emergency rooms due to Christmas decorating accidents. (source ( http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/Christmastrees_Sum.pdf)).

Please, won't somebody think of the children!

How stupid is this discussion becoming...

There are laws, safety restrictions that apply to christmas tree lights. Ever heard anyone complaining about them, feeling persecuted by them? Come on...

If cristians (or pagans, more appropriately) required the presence of unsafe christmas lights in every home, do you think we wouldn´t complain about that the same way we complain about jews requiring circumcisions for the integrity of their faith? It would be a similar kind of B.S.

Abooga

11th July 2007, 02:39 AM

"you cannot measure the emotional torment caused to an adult when you limit the ability to freely practice one's religion."

You´re starting to sound a bit taliban-ish again.

As I have already said. When everyone in America agrees to give up religion completely, I will give up Judaism and circumcisions along with it. Otherwise, whether you value religion or not, you have to treat them all the same.

Yes, we should require exactly the same from all religions, to comply with secular laws and not to disregard human rights. The problem is that some religions have to change more than others. Many muslims would probably ask to allow for sharia laws to be applied in their communities living in Western societies. Would you deny their right to assasinate apostates? What about the emotional torment caused if you limit their ability to freely practice their religion? See the slippery slope?

fls

11th July 2007, 04:17 AM

Darat

11th July 2007, 04:24 AM

I am seriously interested in how you perceive the duty of others to consider your ideas.

Linda

It's probably just me Linda but could you re-word that? I just can't understand it.

fls

11th July 2007, 04:31 AM

Convince them otherwise?

By insulting them and failing to seriously consider what they have to say? Does that work?

Linda

Abooga

11th July 2007, 04:57 AM

By insulting them and failing to seriously consider what they have to say? Does that work?

Linda

Be specific please. Who have I unsulted?

If you mean calling woo beliefs woo beliefs... yes, some idiots find that offensive... ! I don´t care. :p

... or calling that obviously silly comment about christmas trees "stupid", yes, perhaps I was a bit harsh, but I could think of no other more appropriate word to describe it...

I apologise, Opinionated Jerk! Your comment was just silly, not stupid. Silly is not a real insult is it?

...

Anyone can choose to feel insulted by someone´s comments. (remember the Muhammed cartoon controversy...) I might find Loss Leader´s jewish nationalism (or whatever that is) insulting too. But that serves nothing. What we have to do is provide real arguments, not emotional appeals to sidetrack the discussion.

...

Still no properly rational defense of RIC. IMO. If anyone thinks it has been provided could they please summarise it briefly?

fls

11th July 2007, 05:30 AM

I am seriously interested in how you perceive the duty of others to consider your ideas.

Linda

An attempt at clarification....

How do you perceive the issues of rights and duties?

Do other people have a duty to consider your ideas? What is the practical application of this duty? What are your duties in this exchange? How do you lose the right to be considered? Etc?

Linda

Emperor

11th July 2007, 06:22 AM

So far, my restoration is proceeding nicely! If all goes well, within a few months I will begin to notice and enjoy the benefits of that which was unjustly taken from me at birth. I am so very happy that I can undo what was done to me. This device works pretty well!

Just thought I'd throw that in here, seeing that this thread has become a war zone of sorts... *blushes* =)

By the way, Loss Leader, seeing your position on the issue has brought up a question in my mind...

If an adult male was intact, and decided to become Jewish, would he be required to get circ'd?

Just curious.

fls

11th July 2007, 06:33 AM

Be specific please. Who have I unsulted?

If you mean calling woo beliefs woo beliefs... yes, some idiots find that offensive... ! I don´t care. :p

The idea that humans have thrived because they naturally form groups, and that rituals can strengthen group ties, is well-established and hardly what falls under the category of "woo".

... or calling that obviously silly comment about christmas trees "stupid", yes, perhaps I was a bit harsh, but I could think of no other more appropriate word to describe it...

I apologise, Opinionated Jerk! Your comment was just silly, not stupid. Silly is not a real insult is it?

...

Anyone can choose to feel insulted by someone´s comments. (remember the Muhammed cartoon controversy...) I might find Loss Leader´s jewish nationalism (or whatever that is) insulting too. But that serves nothing.

You didn't answer my question. Of course anyone can choose whether or not they feel insulted. However, it is reasonable to expect that someone may feel insulted when you purposely say something insulting to them. And that would probably be the main (only?) reason for saying something insulting - the hope that your words would invoke an emotional response.

Do you think this is more effective than other means of persuasion? (This is a serious question - not at all rhetorical.)

What we have to do is provide real arguments, not emotional appeals to sidetrack the discussion.

Your actions give lie to these words. It seems to me that rational arguments are considered ineffective on this issue. In order to affect real change, it is necessary to stir up a passionate response.

Still no properly rational defense of RIC. IMO. If anyone thinks it has been provided could they please summarise it briefly?

I don't think you mean routine infant circumcision, because no one here has defended the idea of routine infant circumcision. No one is saying that all male infants should be circumcised, but rather that it's a private, family decision. I think you mean infant circumcision for reasons other than strictly physical (or medical depending upon how you define it), right?

The rational defense for infant circumcision comes from the WHO definition of health:

"health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity".

It is reasonable to take mental and social well-being into consideration when weighing benefit and harm. The weighing of those considerations is an individual, private matter. It is a public matter to uphold basic human rights. Circumcision has not met the standard of what a reasonable person would consider a violation of basic human rights. We know this because it is not a criminal offense to circumcise an infant. I am fully aware that this process is fluid and progressive.

Linda

Loss Leader

11th July 2007, 07:08 AM

By the way, Loss Leader, seeing your position on the issue has brought up a question in my mind...

If an adult male was intact, and decided to become Jewish, would he be required to get circ'd?

Just curious.

I don't know. I'm sure the information is available on the web somewhere.

This site (http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/minis/mini/judaismmini/judaismmini1.html) says converts to the orthodox or conservative way of thinking must be circumcised but reform converts may not be required to. I have no idea if this is good information or not.

Abooga

11th July 2007, 07:15 AM

The idea that humans have thrived because they naturally form groups, and that rituals can strengthen group ties, is well-established and hardly what falls under the category of "woo".

I didn´t mean that. That´s not woo, it´s just a crap attempt at justifying circumcision but not woo.

You didn't answer my question. Of course anyone can choose whether or not they feel insulted. However, it is reasonable to expect that someone may feel insulted when you purposely say something insulting to them. And that would probably be the main (only?) reason for saying something insulting - the hope that your words would invoke an emotional response.

Do you think this is more effective than other means of persuasion? (This is a serious question - not at all rhetorical.)

I don´t really care about that right now. I just want to talk about how RIC is immoral, which happens to be what this thread is about.

Your actions give lie to these words. It seems to me that rational arguments are considered ineffective on this issue. In order to affect real change, it is necessary to stir up a passionate response.

I find it really difficult to understand you, most of the times. You mean I´m trying to "affect real change stirring up a passionate response"? I don´t know, I´m just debating an issue... and trying to stick to it...

I don't think you mean routine infant circumcision, because no one here has defended the idea of routine infant circumcision.

I´d call what Loss Leader defends RIC.

No one is saying that all male infants should be circumcised, but rather that it's a private, family decision. I think you mean infant circumcision for reasons other than strictly physical (or medical depending upon how you define it), right?

Yes, that´s what I´d say RIC is. Since it´s routine for some collectives it could be called RIC, but yes, "Medically unnecessary circumcision for underaged persons" would be more accurate. Or even more "Medically unnecessary and irreversible physical alterations for underaged homo sapiens"...

The rational defense for infant circumcision comes from the WHO definition of health:

"health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity".

It is reasonable to take mental and social well-being into consideration when weighing benefit and harm. The weighing of those considerations is an individual, private matter. It is a public matter to uphold basic human rights. Circumcision has not met the standard of what a reasonable person would consider a violation of basic human rights. We know this because it is not a criminal offense to circumcise an infant. I am fully aware that this process is fluid and progressive.

The fact that at present it is not a criminal offense to circumcise an infant is not a valid argument, for reasons already provided. (Is that what you mean with "I am fully aware that this process is fluid and progressive."?)

"The weighing of those considerations is an individual, private matter"

Exactly. Do you consider a newborn AND his parents to be "an individual"? That´s the problem, see? basic human rights are for people, for individuals, not for cultures, nations, "parents+infant units", religions or anything. Individuals. Since a newborn IS (as far as I know) an individual and WILL have the right to choose, parents shouldn´t have the right to do anything to him that he cannot undo in the future. They´d be taking away his right to choose freely what to do with his own body.

See Emperor´s example.

Abooga

11th July 2007, 08:16 AM

It is reasonable to take mental and social well-being into consideration when weighing benefit and harm. The weighing of those considerations is an individual, private matter.

Exactly. Do you consider a newborn AND his parents to be "an individual"? That´s the problem, see? basic human rights are for people, for individuals, not for cultures, nations, "parents+infant units", religions or anything. Individuals. Since a newborn IS (as far as I know) an individual and WILL have the right to choose, parents shouldn´t have the right to do anything to him that he cannot undo in the future. They´d be taking away his right to choose freely what to do with his own body.

Oops! I think I misunderstood what you said. But you know what I mean, right? I´m still making a point. But I´ll quit for now, shouldn´t be doing this in a hurry.

Ivor the Engineer

11th July 2007, 08:43 AM

So all of the things you say may be true. Heck, just to be sociable I will agree that they are all true. But they are only one side of the equation. They are the harm caused by circumcision. We still must balance that with the harm caused by prohibiting Jews from practicing their religion. That harm is difficult to calculate but that doesn't make it zero.

The only aspect of Jewish religion I wish to curtail is that which physically alters other people. That is my only interest in limiting your freedom.

As I have said over and over, anything that reduces the plurality of practices in this country reduces overall energy and creativity in our culture.

So why did you become a lawyer? It is one of the occupations that actively limit “plurality of practices”, the other being politician.

Add in the great psychological torment you will cause observant Jews by your decree. Add in the unknown effect on the religion as a whole. Add it the horrifying precedent you set of limiting the religious practices of others because they ... have no effect on your personal life whatsoever but yet you find them distasteful.

I know; I’m a heartless anti-Semite. I care more about the mutilation of children that what will happen to your faith if routine infant circumcision is stopped.

Just as you cannot measure the physical pain felt by another person (let alone a newborn), you cannot measure the emotional torment caused to an adult when you limit the ability to freely practice one's religion.

I’ll agree that you cannot ask an infant “does this hurt?” just after you start cutting away at it’s genitalia, but there are other measurements that can be taken, such as stress hormones and fMRI brain scans. However, very few medical professionals and parents appear to want to know about what distress the child may be suffering at their hands.

Would you object to better pain relief being insisted upon for all circumcisions? Some Jews in Canada did.

Now, you have said that you place a value of zero on all religions and I think that's ... odd ... but I'm going to go with you on it. I'm going to agree with you that the continued practice of any religion is worthless.

Why proscribe a Jewish practice without limiting the practice of other religions? Why take away circumcisions without taking away Christmas trees (which even many Christians agree are just stupid)?

I have no interest in stopping Jewish people stomping on wine glasses or Christians putting up Christmas trees, or Greeks smashing plates because these acts do not physically affect other people.

I have an interest in stopping Muslims, Jewish, Christians, Atheists and any other people mutilating their children for non medical reasons.

If all religions are worthless and you stop Jews from practicing Judaism but don't keep others from their practices, you have treated Judaism differently. You're not treating all religion the same. Everything has a value of zero but Judaism, which you've taken something away from, has a negative value.

Do you think I’m singling out Judaism in particular? I’m not. I want all unnecessary circumcisions to stop, be they for religious (Jewish and Muslim faiths) or fashion (most of the American public) reasons.

As I have already said. When everyone in America agrees to give up religion completely, I will give up Judaism and circumcisions along with it. Otherwise, whether you value religion or not, you have to treat them all the same.

I am treating them all the same with respect to circumcision.

Now, you may again fall back to your refuge that circumcision is a painful amputation and all painful amputations should be cleansed from all society regardless of religion. But when you do that, you make a value judgment about the harm caused by circumcision. And that value exists nowhere but in your head. It hurts ... or does it? Do we know what an eight day-old feels as pain? It reduces sexual pleasure ... or does it? Do we have any way to compare what pleasure a man would have felt with or without? These are all value judgments.

How about the radical idea that we let the individual choose for themselves? I’ll even let you have 18 (or 21 – you’re the lawyer;)) years to convince your son it’s the right thing to do.

And they all are still only one side of the equation. And they all may not add up to enough to tip the scales. In fact, we know that so far they have not tipped the scales in any jurist or legislature's mind.

Rational minds may differ.

I wonder if it’s for similar reasons that keep public ownership of hand-guns legal in the US?

ClintonHammond

11th July 2007, 09:29 AM

Ivor the Engineer

11th July 2007, 09:59 AM

I don't think you mean routine infant circumcision, because no one here has defended the idea of routine infant circumcision. No one is saying that all male infants should be circumcised, but rather that it's a private, family decision. I think you mean infant circumcision for reasons other than strictly physical (or medical depending upon how you define it), right?

Not quite. I don't think anyone would care if a mentally healthy person decided to be circumcised when they were old enough to make that decision. What age that is may be open to debate.

The rational defense for infant circumcision comes from the WHO definition of health:

"health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity".

Oh pleeeze. A persons social well-being should not be affected one bit by being circumcised or not. For you to argue this is to argue for discrimination based on physical and mental attributes. Something that is illegal.

Or are you saying we should tolerate discrimination against people with certain physical or mental characteristics so long as they can be changed?

It is reasonable to take mental and social well-being into consideration when weighing benefit and harm. The weighing of those considerations is an individual, private matter.

Some of the most reasonable people who have ever lived have committed the greatest atrocities against humanity. Using reason is not enough. That little part of your brain that stops you from smothering a crying baby you're hiding with from the enemy has to be used as well.

It is a public matter to uphold basic human rights.

Finally, some sense. Why aren't you doing it?

Circumcision has not met the standard of what a reasonable person would consider a violation of basic human rights. We know this because it is not a criminal offense to circumcise an infant. I am fully aware that this process is fluid and progressive.

Linda

Lots of acts didn't meet the standard of what a "reasonable" person would consider a violation of basic human rights for an embarrassingly long time. A couple of examples:

A man being allowed to rape his wife. It was a valid defense against a rape charge for a very long time.

A parent or teacher beating a child. (I'm referring to the use of objects such as belts, rulers and canes). It's amazing how many people grow up and say of this type of abuse that they deserved it.

Circumcision of a non-consenting individual is exactly the same, ethically, as these acts. If you consider these to be wrong then, if you are consistent, you must consider the mutilation of a child's genitals (male or female) for no clear medical benefit to be wrong as well.

ETA: You can be sure that there were plenty of people like you Linda, arguing that the current state of affairs was reasonable because it was legal and should not be changed.

Abooga

11th July 2007, 10:13 AM

Loss Leader, are you ignoring me because of my "insults"? It´s just the way I express myself. Please look at what I say rather than the way I say it.

Let me ask you:

Would you consider giving Rushdie to the Iranians?
Would you take into account the emotional torment caused by limiting their ability to freely practice their religion (by murdering him)?
I mean, if I understood correctly your position, you´d have to weigh this emotional torment against the value of Rushdie´s life.
Perhaps one life is not too much comparing it to the millions of emotionally tormented muslims?

Loss Leader

11th July 2007, 10:42 AM

How stupid is this discussion becoming...

There are laws, safety restrictions that apply to christmas tree lights. Ever heard anyone complaining about them, feeling persecuted by them? Come on...

So what? You and/or others on this thread have argued that religion has NO value or that it only has a SUBJECTIVE value. Fourteen Americans die every year because of Christmas tree fires, some of them children too young to consent to having a Christmas tree. 5,800 people are injured so badly they need hospitalization every year in America from Christmas decorating, some of them children forced by their parents to help decorate when they are too young to consent for themselves.

These are injuries and deaths that could be completely and permanently prevented by outlawing Christmas decorations. The value of celebrating Christmas is zero but there is a value to the lives and healths of the children killed and mutilated every year because of Christmas.

So, why allow Chirstmas decorations?

After all, Christians survived for hundreds of years without making a big deal about Christmas. People from 1899 would hardly recognize the holiday if transported to 1999. If the belief in Jesus as one's personal savior requires that one also drag a flamable tree into one's house, it's not much of a religion. You cannot honestly argue that Christianity or American society would fall apart if we banned Christmas decorations. If you say such a thing, you are saying it Without Evidence.

Now you think that my example about Christmas is just plain silly. You think that there is no comparison between the deaths caused by Christmas decorations and the harm of circumcision.

Here's what I believe:

I believe the reason that you are willing to tolerate the dead and maimed children each Christmas is because Christmas is familiar to you. Oh, you may not believe in Jesus anymore but you were raised celebrating Christmas, your family celebrates Christmas, your friends celebrate Christmas and perhaps you still do. It is part of your culture and part of what defines you and your society.

I believe that you don't see a similarity between Christmas and religious circumcision because Christmas is familiar and religious circumcision is not. It's not part of your world. Your family and friends don't circumcise their sons for religious reasons.

Now try to believe this:

Circumcision is part of the Jewish culture. It is familiar to us. We have fond memories of attending the circumcisions of our family and friends' children. We are immensely proud when our own children are circumcised. We see nothing unusual or untoward about it.

I find Christmas unbearable. You find Christmas normal and natural.

You find circumcision unbearable. I find circumcision normal and natural.

Why is there so much difficulty understanding that?

Ivor the Engineer

11th July 2007, 10:49 AM

"How stupid is this discussion becoming..."
Only from a couple of perspectives....

I'm still very surprised the hoops that self-described Intelligent People will jump through trying to justify bobbing their male childrens genitals as if they were a dog.... If YOU want to be circumcised, go right ahead.... if you want to INFLICT it on anyone else, I'm here to label you cruel. If you want to circumcise people because some invisible man in the sky told you to, you need treatment.

Darkness and ignorance...

Loss Leader I can at least understand. It's Linda and the other medical professionals are the ones that worry me. I'm hoping she is arguing as an intellectual exercise only. Though I may be deluded;)

Loss Leader

11th July 2007, 10:50 AM

Loss Leader, are you ignoring me because of my "insults"?

No, I'm ignoring kellyb because of her insults. In fact, in all my time on this board, she is the only person I have ever put on Ignore. She implied that I do not have compassion for my children. One can say almost anything they want about me but insulting my parenting is something else altogether.

It´s just the way I express myself.

That is neither an excuse nor an explanation. I would counsel you not to say anything in cyberspace that you wouldn't say to a person's face. Or, at least, that you wouldn't say if you wanted reasoned debate to continue.

Please look at what I say rather than the way I say it.

Generally, I do. However, some might not. Manners exist for a reason.

ClintonHammond

11th July 2007, 10:51 AM

"why allow Chirstmas decorations?"
Asked and answered.... again....

"Circumcision is part of the Jewish culture."
That doesn't make it right...

"We are immensely proud when our own children are circumcised."
That's disgusting and barbaric....

"We see nothing unusual or untoward about it."
Then so are you.

"I find circumcision normal and natural."
You're wrong. Full stop.
Why is there so much difficulty understanding that????

John Wayne Gacy didn't think he was doing anything wrong either... Nor do the so-called "faiths" that brutally mutilate their daughters genitals....

"Loss Leader I can at least understand."
I understand that lots of people do lots of stupid things in the name of Ghawd, or tradition.... That they struggle to cling to those stupid things just makes me shake my head and pity them.

Loss Leader

11th July 2007, 10:56 AM

So why did you become a lawyer? It is one of the occupations that actively limit “plurality of practices”

As a courtesy to you, I will chalk this statement up to the prejudice and generally poor lay understanding of what lawyers do that pervades our culture.

Otherwise, I would be constrained to point out how very rude it is to insult a man's chosen vocation without evidence.

ClintonHammond

11th July 2007, 10:59 AM

"She implied that I do not have compassion for my children"
Your actions say it louder than she ever could.

Ivor the Engineer

11th July 2007, 11:14 AM

These are injuries and deaths that could be completely and permanently prevented by outlawing Christmas decorations. The value of celebrating Christmas is zero but there is a value to the lives and healths of the children killed and mutilated every year because of Christmas.

So, why allow Chirstmas decorations?

Because it is not the intent of the parents to alter their child's body or kill them because of an accident involving christmas decorations.

Here's what I believe:

I believe the reason that you are willing to tolerate the dead and maimed children each Christmas is because Christmas is familiar to you. Oh, you may not believe in Jesus anymore but you were raised celebrating Christmas, your family celebrates Christmas, your friends celebrate Christmas and perhaps you still do. It is part of your culture and part of what defines you and your society.

They are not tolerated. Attempts are made to try and correct it and make it safer. If someone is found to be at fault they are prosecuted.

I believe that you don't see a similarity between Christmas and religious circumcision because Christmas is familiar and religious circumcision is not. It's not part of your world. Your family and friends don't circumcise their sons for religious reasons.

Totally incorrect. I see no similarity because there is none. The intent is totally different. Children get hurt at christmas because of accidents. Children get mutilated at circumcisions because their parents want them mutilated.

I'm all for discussing analogies, but please try to find one that is remotely similar to what you are comparing it to.

Now try to believe this:

Circumcision is part of the Jewish culture. It is familiar to us. We have fond memories of attending the circumcisions of our family and friends' children. We are immensely proud when our own children are circumcised. We see nothing unusual or untoward about it.

I find Christmas unbearable. You find Christmas normal and natural.

You find circumcision unbearable. I find circumcision normal and natural.

Why is there so much difficulty understanding that?

Hey, I find Christmas unbearable too;) I find circumcision unbearable only when it is performed on a non-consenting individual for non-medical reasons. Otherwise I'm fine with it.

Why can't you change just a little bit and wait until the boy is older, say 16?

E.J.Armstrong

11th July 2007, 11:19 AM

This isn't a rational way to weigh risk and benefit. Some poor little kids have lost their lives from kidney failure and sepsis too. That risk is greater if you are not circumcised.
The risk of having appendicitis is greater if you don't remove the appendix. Some poor little kids have died of appendicitis.

Those who have a need to genitally mutilate defenceless children really can't use your point as a valid argument.

E.J.Armstrong

11th July 2007, 11:29 AM

"How stupid is this discussion becoming..."
Only from a couple of perspectives....

I'm still very surprised the hoops that self-described Intelligent People will jump through trying to justify bobbing their male childrens genitals as if they were a dog.... If YOU want to be circumcised, go right ahead.... if you want to INFLICT it on anyone else, I'm here to label you cruel. If you want to circumcise people because some invisible man in the sky told you to, you need treatment.

Darkness and ignorance...
Hear hear. Well said.

It is amazing to me that any justification for a cruel and unusual practice is 'my ancestors did it.'
On that basis, keeping slaves would still be OK.
Keeping slaves and genitally mutilating defenceless children are both wrong - full stop.

Abooga

11th July 2007, 11:34 AM

Fourteen Americans die every year because of Christmas tree fires,

... blah blah blah

These are injuries and deaths that could be completely and permanently prevented by outlawing Christmas decorations.

Didn´t you read what I wrote? Christmas decorations are a nuisance, I know, but no religious group is demanding them to be installed in anyone´s home, is it?

Now you think that my example about Christmas is just plain silly. You think that there is no comparison between the deaths caused by Christmas decorations and the harm of circumcision.

Yup. Quite silly.

Here's what I believe:

I believe the reason that you are willing to tolerate the dead and maimed children each Christmas is because Christmas is familiar to you. Oh, you may not believe in Jesus anymore but you were raised celebrating Christmas, your family celebrates Christmas, your friends celebrate Christmas and perhaps you still do. It is part of your culture and part of what defines you and your society.

Who said I´m willing to tolerate anything? If christmas lights are really that dangerous I´d be well in favour of having stronger safety restrictions decreed. But banning christmas just because of that seeems a bit excessive to me...

Now try to believe this:

Circumcision is part of the Jewish culture. It is familiar to us. We have fond memories of attending the circumcisions of our family and friends' children. We are immensely proud when our own children are circumcised. We see nothing unusual or untoward about it.

Complete and utterly irrelevant. Arguments from "tradition" are invalid. Again.

And check the sharia/Rushdie example. See how Human Rights MUST BE always above group-specific practices/rituals to avoid a lot of bad things hapening? Humans have rights, collectives NOT. The right of "jews" to do their rituals cannot compete with the right of an individual human being to his body integrity. The individual has rights, jews, as a collective, don´t. The collective acquires its rights just as a sum of the rights of the individuals. Since, in this case, jews´ right to do their ritual is in conflict with the more fundamental right of the individual to his bodily integrity, the more fundamental right WINS.

You´re the lawyer. What do you think about this?

I find Christmas unbearable. You find Christmas normal and natural.

How do you know? I´m not particularly fond of christmas, which is not a christian celebration anyway (or it wasn´t until they hijacked it)

And it is irrelevant anyway. Stick to the point, please.

You find circumcision unbearable. I find circumcision normal and natural.

Why is there so much difficulty understanding that?

I don´t find it unbearable. Just unethical. I live in Spain and almost nobody here is circd., I don´t feel threatened, angry or anything. I´m just curious about the debate for "intellectual reasons" only. If you give a good pro-circ. argument I´m willing to change my opinion.

Oh, and please answer the question about Rushdie!

Loss Leader

11th July 2007, 11:38 AM

"She implied that I do not have compassion for my children"
Your actions say it louder than she ever could.

And you become the second person I've ever put on ignore.

I'm not sorry to see you go, though. In every post of yours I've read, you've been kind of a jerk.

Don't bother replying. I won't be able to see it.

ClintonHammond

11th July 2007, 11:42 AM

So once again, Loss Leader jams his fingers into his ears, slams his eyes shut and shouts LALALALALALALALA!

But we're supposed to respect his opinion? Given that he ignores everything that challenges him, I take being on his ignore list as a compliment of the highest order

"Been kind of a jerk"
Coming from someone who revels in mutilating children for no good reason, -I'm- the jerk?!?!?! Ya.. o.k.... no... really.....

"Stick to the point please"
He can't... he's already groundless there and he knows it.

Abooga

11th July 2007, 11:54 AM

That is neither an excuse nor an explanation. I would counsel you not to say anything in cyberspace that you wouldn't say to a person's face. Or, at least, that you wouldn't say if you wanted reasoned debate to continue.

I´m a lot harsher in person, usually. I was almost trying to be nice. But I have acquired a habit of being very blunt, because of the people I usually spend my time with (from whom I learned my english). It gets me in trouble sometimes. I apologise abjectly. Maybe not abjectly. But if it makes you happy... then yes.:D

But we´re having a rational discussion, let´s concentrte on WHAT is being said rather than HOW.

kellyb

11th July 2007, 11:55 AM

I don't think I've ever been put on ignore before.
And my great sin was saying this? :confused:

Me: In all reality, you could have compassion for your baby. You could choose to care about his actual will, his feeling, and his personal rights.
You could choose to abandon an archaic ritual.
In reality, it is his body, not yours.

Some of Loss's responses?

Loss: Oh, my older son did and my new son will protest quite vehemently. I will ignore those protests, however. And I will do so proudly and happily. I'll even video tape it.

Loss: When my son feels pain, I feel pain.

Loss: And that value exists nowhere but in your head. It hurts ... or does it? Do we know what an eight day-old feels as pain?

Interesting logic evasion, there, dude.
Whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess.

ClintonHammond

11th July 2007, 11:57 AM

"we´re having a rational discussion"
No... you are... LL isn't in the least.

"Interesting logic evasion"
That's about all LL has....

Loss Leader

11th July 2007, 12:02 PM

And check the sharia/Rushdie example. See how Human Rights MUST BE always above group-specific practices/rituals to avoid a lot of bad things hapening? Humans have rights, collectives NOT. The right of "jews" to do their rituals cannot compete with the right of an individual human being to his body integrity. The individual has rights, jews, as a collective, don´t. The collective acquires its rights just as a sum of the rights of the individuals. Since, in this case, jews´ right to do their ritual is in conflict with the more fundamental right of the individual to his bodily integrity, the more fundamental right WINS.

You´re the lawyer. What do you think about this?

I think it is nonsense and misunderstands key concepts. You have written that the individual newborn child has the right to bodily integrity and that whatever rights Jews as a collective may have, they don't trump the individual's rights.

This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of every concept at work.

You are correct that the individual newborn infant has a right to bodily integrity. However, he is incompetent to exercise that right. He cannot make an informed decision; he can't even make a decision. In that case, his parents exercise his rights for him. His parents substitute their judgment for him. His parents choose for him to have a circumcision exactly as if he were an 18 year-old of sound mind making the decision for himself.

"Jews" don't act on an "individual"; the individual acts upon himself.

Now, the state does have an interest in making sure an incapacitated person's best interests are met but that "best interests" test takes into account a lot of things that you and others in this thread deem unimportant - cultural traditions, family cohesion, etc. Why are the parents choosing for the child to be circumcised? The religious reasons, which I understand are not compelling to you, are compelling to our courts and lawmakers. And the physical harm, which I understand is compelling to you, is not compelling to our courts or lawmakers. So, the parents decide for the child and, in this case, our society agrees that the parents are acting in the child's best interests (or, at least, are not so far from the child's interests as to require intervention).

That's the state of the law today. I agree with it for the reasons of cultural identity that I have so eloquently stated in previous posts.

Oh, and please answer the question about Rushdie!

You got it.

Would you consider giving Rushdie to the Iranians?

Of course not. In the circumcision example, parents are substituting their judgment for their incompetent child. The child's right to bodily integrity is preserved. In your example, Rushdie is not incompetent. He can choose for himself what he wants to do with his body. He can grow that rather natty looking ghotee and get divorced for a fourth time.

The rights of the Iranians, if they have any, cannot overcome the fact that he is competent to make his own decisions about whether or not he is murdered.

I mean, if I understood correctly your position, you´d have to weigh this emotional torment against the value of Rushdie´s life.

You have not understood my position correctly. Salman Rushdie is not incompetent and is able to exercise on his own his right to bodily integrity.

Even if he were incompetent - in a coma or something - there is little doubt in my mind that any jurist would consider his murder by Iranians not to be in his best interests.

ClintonHammond

11th July 2007, 12:07 PM

"I have so eloquently stated in previous posts."
A-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Ivor the Engineer

11th July 2007, 12:08 PM

kellyb

11th July 2007, 12:24 PM

At least you have an explanation for being ignored. I have no clue as to why Linda refuses to debate me:confused:

Is she scared?:D

Does she consider me an ignorant moron?

I just don't know...

It's ok. She does it to me, too, sometimes. I just assume there's a maximum of 4 posts I'll get out of her before the cryptic message appears, shutting the dialogue down.
It's not so frustrating when you know it's coming.

:duck:

Abooga

11th July 2007, 12:31 PM

I think it is complete and utter nonsense. You have written that the individual newborn child has the right to bodily integrity and that whatever rights Jews as a collective may have, they don't trump the individual's rights.

This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of every concept at work.

You are correct that the individual newborn infant has a right to bodily integrity. However, he is incompetent to exercise that right. He cannot make an informed decision; he can't even make a decision. In that case, his parents exercise his rights for him. His parents substitute their judgment for him. His parents choose for him to have a circumcision exactly as if he were an 18 year-old of sound mind making the decision for himself.

So then, parents can do absolutely anything (anything they´d be allowed to do to themselves) to their kid? I don´t like the implications of this way of understanding rights of individuals... Parents could, if they wanted, go without food for as long as they wanted (excepting suicide, against the law, generally) while that would be neglect if they did it to their kid... I can´t think of a better example but you get the gist...

"Jews" don't act on an "individual"; the individual acts upon himself.

So the parents and the kid form legally a "unit", but does that make them "an individual"? Not so sure of that... What if one actually ends up hating his parents and going away... When does the unit break? Weird territory...

Now, the state does have an interest in making sure an incapacitated person's best interests are met but that "best interests" test takes into account a lot of things that you and others in this thread deem unimportant - cultural traditions, family cohesion, etc. Why are the parents choosing for the child to be circumcised? The religious reasons, which I understand are not compelling to you, are compelling to our courts and lawmakers. And the physical harm, which I understand is compelling to you, is not compelling to our courts or lawmakers.

Right. That´s what wherewe don´t agree. A secular state should protect its citizen´s bodies from any religious consideration.
...
that´s it for now. Dinner time over here.

Ivor the Engineer

11th July 2007, 12:46 PM

It's ok. She does it to me, too, sometimes. I just assume there's a maximum of 4 posts I'll get out of her before the cryptic message appears, shutting the dialogue down.
It's not so frustrating when you know it's coming.

:duck:

It's certainly an interesting tactic. Strange how she'll spend weeks debating Rodney though.

So, what's your view on infant circumcision? Never? Only when it's medically indicated?

I presume that you don't buy Skeptigirl's argument that the 1% absolute risk reduction in UTI is worth the 2% complication rate and ethical problems raised by performing it.

What about in Africa? I was persuaded that, on balance, it was worth it there. At least until there are better alternatives available.

kellyb

11th July 2007, 01:18 PM

It's certainly an interesting tactic. Strange how she'll spend weeks debating Rodney though.

So, what's your view on infant circumcision? Never? Only when it's medically indicated?

I presume that you don't buy Skeptigirl's argument that the 1% absolute risk reduction in UTI is worth the 2% complication rate and ethical problems raised by performing it.

What about in Africa? I was persuaded that, on balance, it was worth it there. At least until there are better alternatives available.

Most of my objection comes from the fact that appropriate pain relief isn't usually used with babies. THAT should be banned. No question in my mind.

From there, I think an ethical standard should be set up between males and females. When the genital modification is comparable, the law and medical ethics should treat them as equals. I think, if most people were forced to give the question serious thought, it would end up being a tiny minority of people who would end up wanting it. I think making it a big PITA to have your kid operated on would leave room for personal "parental rights" and mostly fix the problem.

Regarding the UTI thing, I'm still not convinced it's an accurate figure. Most of these studies came from the US in the 1970's. I also think the circumcision complications that present in toddlerhood aren't being correctly accounted for, further skewing the numbers.
And even if the figures are accurate, it still doesn't justify it in my mind, since surely there's some surgery that could be performed on infant girls that would reduce their rate of UTI's. But again, I'm for leaving open a window for parental rights, for those inclined to be motivated by obscure notions of risk.

With Africa...I'm not seeing anyone talking about appropriate pain relief for the infants, and I'm dumbfounded by the idea of using mass circumcision where only one out of 5 people have access to condoms. It just seems bizarre that the resources will be available for a "circumcision rollout" when the resources obviously aren't there to provide people with condoms and education. It's not that I'm particularly opposed to using circumcision to battle AIDS...but the situation is just...weird. I don't get it. Mass sexual mutilation of infants to curb an epidemic seems like it should be a last resort, not the one idea all resources are channeled into as soon as an effect is discovered.

osmosis

11th July 2007, 01:47 PM

These are injuries and deaths that could be completely and permanently prevented by outlawing Christmas decorations. The value of celebrating Christmas is zero but there is a value to the lives and healths of the children killed and mutilated every year because of Christmas.

Well, I'm convinced! Let's all rally together and try to put a stop to fires caused by dangerous christmas tree decorations. Let's pass laws regarding fire hazards and safety in general..

Oh, wait, that's already happening..

If the belief in Jesus as one's personal savior requires that one also drag a flamable tree into one's house, it's not much of a religion.

I agree, but then, I already agree that it's not much of a religion. Same as yours, same as everybody else's.

Now you think that my example about Christmas is just plain silly. You think that there is no comparison between the deaths caused by Christmas decorations and the harm of circumcision.

No, that's a somewhat valid comparison. Although the numbers you cited earlier left out the fact that those deaths and disfigurements resulted from probably greater than 100 million christmas trees. Let's do some quick math here: (warning: I pulled the 100 million number out of my bum.)

Chance of your tree catching fire: 0.000003
Chance of dying by fire: 0.00000014
Chance of injury by fire: 0.00000021
Chance of being injured while decorating tree: 0.000058

Chance of being permanently injured by circumcision: 1.0

If anyone has any real data on the number of christmas trees used every year, please correct me.

Here's what I believe:

meh.. not interested in beliefs.

Circumcision is part of the Jewish culture.

If that's true, then Jews who choose not to circumcise (and they DO exist) are not really Jews. While I myself have no problem accepting the idea that I'm not a real Jew, I suspect they wouldn't be so forgiving.

We have fond memories of attending the circumcisions of our family and friends' children. We are immensely proud when our own children are circumcised. We see nothing unusual or untoward about it.

That's just sick.

I find Christmas unbearable.

Yeah, me too. All that traffic, the crowding in the malls, the commercial nature of it..

I find circumcision normal and natural.

Normal I could let slide, but natural? For what definition of "natural" does this alteration of nature qualify?

Why is there so much difficulty understanding that?

I myself have no difficulty understanding what you're saying. The difficulty I have is respecting your right to practice whatyou believe on unconsenting human beings. (Unconsenting in the reality sense, not the legal sense I suspect you're going to attempt to shift the discussion to.)

Here's the problem I see with your comparison between circumcision and christmas trees. With christmas trees, the deaths and injuries are accidental side effects of the desired outcome. With circumcision, the injury itself is the desired effect. Heck, you even feel good about it.

Ivor the Engineer

11th July 2007, 01:48 PM

Most of my objection comes from the fact that appropriate pain relief isn't usually used with babies. THAT should be banned. No question in my mind.

I totally agree. There is no excuse.

From there, I think an ethical standard should be set up between males and females. When the genital modification is comparable, the law and medical ethics should treat them as equals. I think, if most people were forced to give the question serious thought, it would end up being a tiny minority of people who would end up wanting it. I think making it a big PITA to have your kid operated on would leave room for personal "parental rights" and mostly fix the problem.

I almost agree. Just that I don't think the parents have any right to have the procedure performed on their child. But I think your approach would probably be more effective.

Regarding the UTI thing, I'm still not convinced it's an accurate figure. Most of these studies came from the US in the 1970's. I also think the circumcision complications that present in toddlerhood aren't being correctly accounted for, further skewing the numbers.
And even if the figures are accurate, it still doesn't justify it in my mind, since surely there's some surgery that could be performed on infant girls that would reduce their rate of UTI's. But again, I'm for leaving open a window for parental rights, for those inclined to be motivated by obscure notions of risk.

Again, I almost agree. I'd make it compulsory for equivalent risks to be pointed out to the parents, so that they could see how odd the choice to circumcise really is.

As for the figures, I have a similar feeling. I find it hard to believe over 1% of boys have a UTI. I admit that this is just a hunch though. The reported complication rates vary enormously, ranging from 0.06% to 55%. The best-guess estimate is 2-10%. That just doesn't seem sensible. Why aren't the complication rates known much more accurately after such a long period of time and so many infants circumcised?

With Africa...I'm not seeing anyone talking about appropriate pain relief for the infants, and I'm dumbfounded by the idea of using mass circumcision where only one out of 5 people have access to condoms. It just seems bizarre that the resources will be available for a "circumcision rollout" when the resources obviously aren't there to provide people with condoms and education. It's not that I'm particularly opposed to using circumcision to battle AIDS...but the situation is just...weird. I don't get it. Mass sexual mutilation of infants to curb an epidemic seems like it should be a last resort, not the one idea all resources are channeled into as soon as an effect is discovered.

I too would only support it if effective pain relief was going to be used. My worry is that if they can't afford condoms how are they going to afford effective pain relief?

The other thought I've had is circumcising an infant in Africa today is not going to help him for 12-15 years. How far off is a HIV vaccine? Will there be many more condoms in Africa after that period of time? If not, why not?

Also, like you say, circumcision should not drain resources from the other methods being used to tackle HIV in Africa. I don't think it will though.

kellyb

11th July 2007, 02:17 PM

I almost agree. Just that I don't think the parents have any right to have the procedure performed on their child. But I think your approach would probably be more effective.
You know, some days I agree with your point of view, too. I'm a bit wishy-washy there. I'm hesitant because I'm aware of how easy it is to slip into "illogical fanaticism".
I find lip plates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lip_plate) sort of strange, but I'm not going to advocate going in and getting those cultures to cease the practice when it comes to their children.
So I guess I'm kind of inconsistent there. But...lips are different from sex organs. I find operating on and removing the sex organs of children and babies uniquely horrifying. It just seems deeply, deeply sick that people want to do that. Ick.

The other thought I've had is circumcising an infant in Africa today is not going to help him for 12-15 years. How far off is a HIV vaccine?
Unfortunately, I think it's a long, long, long way off. At this point, no one's even close to a really effective one. There's one in phase III right now, but they're thinking it'll top out at maybe reducing the HIV viral load. And even if tomorrow someone were to figure out how to make a really good vaccine, it would be at least 10-20 years before people would start getting it.
But...there is a pretty effective herpes vaccine that's about to become available before too long, and I think that will have an effect on HIV.

Also, like you say, circumcision should not drain resources from the other methods being used to tackle HIV in Africa. I don't think it will though.
How can it not?
Like DeeTee mentioned in the last thread, it looks like the very best use of resources would be treating the sex workers. Even in the recent HIV/circumcision RCTs you can "see" that it's the sex workers who are the main sources of transmission. Most of the seropositive guys were coming in for other STD's, and turning up positive for HIV at the visit. They're not catching the virus from their girlfriends. They're catching it from prostitutes.
Every dime spent on circumcising a baby is a dime that could go to keeping the viral loads in the sex workers down, and the other co-morbid infections under control.

ClintonHammond

11th July 2007, 02:37 PM

958, and the answer is still NO

Ivor the Engineer

11th July 2007, 03:42 PM

You know, some days I agree with your point of view, too. I'm a bit wishy-washy there. I'm hesitant because I'm aware of how easy it is to slip into "illogical fanaticism".
I find lip plates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lip_plate) sort of strange, but I'm not going to advocate going in and getting those cultures to cease the practice when it comes to their children.
So I guess I'm kind of inconsistent there. But...lips are different from sex organs. I find operating on and removing the sex organs of children and babies uniquely horrifying. It just seems deeply, deeply sick that people want to do that. Ick.

I've given this a lot of thought, along the lines of 'am I being fanatical?' I don't think I am because I don't object to circumcision. I don't even object to infant circumcision. I only object circumcision of infants based on the current (equivocal) evidence of benefit, or if it is done without effective pain relief.

If someone, somewhere could demonstrate that it reduced a serious health risk a child was probably going to face before an age when it could choose for itself, I'd start to consider it. But it comes nowhere near this, except for HIV in Africa. Even here the benefit is 12-15 years in the future.

Unfortunately, I think it's a long, long, long way off. At this point, no one's even close to a really effective one. There's one in phase III right now, but they're thinking it'll top out at maybe reducing the HIV viral load. And even if tomorrow someone were to figure out how to make a really good vaccine, it would be at least 10-20 years before people would start getting it.
But...there is a pretty effective herpes vaccine that's about to become available before too long, and I think that will have an effect on HIV.

Yes, herpes sores appear to be an excellent way to transfer the virus.

How can it not?

Hopefully more money will be put in to offer circumcision, rather than it being diverted from what is already being funded.

Like DeeTee mentioned in the last thread, it looks like the very best use of resources would be treating the sex workers. Even in the recent HIV/circumcision RCTs you can "see" that it's the sex workers who are the main sources of transmission. Most of the seropositive guys were coming in for other STD's, and turning up positive for HIV at the visit. They're not catching the virus from their girlfriends. They're catching it from prostitutes.
Every dime spent on circumcising a baby is a dime that could go to keeping the viral loads in the sex workers down, and the other co-morbid infections under control.

I agree that sex workers appear to be a major cause for the spread of HIV and solutions that reduce the chances of men catching an STD from them should be part of the approach. But in some areas 1 in 3 people are infected. Focusing on the sex workers will not control the spread with that many people exposed to the virus.

The evidence from the trials showed circumcision provides a significant risk reduction, is a relatively safe procedure* and can be implemented at little cost.

*The the RCT's used men, not infants, the procedure was carried out by an experienced doctor and the facilities available on a wider scale may not be as hygienic as was used in the trials. These are all factors that could drastically affect the outcome of any role-out.

Gurdur

11th July 2007, 03:56 PM

"I have so eloquently stated in previous posts."
A-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Fascinating thread. All posts deeply informative and well-reasoned; fls and skeptigirl of course quoting the latest in the medical ethics papers, and making sure to tie it into a well-learnt basis in philosophy; a lack of emotion overall, and of course a disinterested, thoughtful reply from Clinton that covers all bases, everyone knowing of course that it is only genuine, well-thought debate and not emotive, polemical screaming that will serve the cause of genuine skepticism.

Carry On, oh please do Carry On. * No bris without a hiss.

________

* Brit reference, for those whose knowledge of the rest of the world is on a par with their knowledge of ethics and logic.

Skepticybe

11th July 2007, 05:04 PM

In early mormonism, it was taught that the ancient practice of polygamy was a commandment, and that its practice was mandatory in order to get into heaven. This was a fundamental doctrine of the religion. To obey this commandment, mormon girls were often married away in their early teens. Only rarely was this done against their will. These marriages were celebrated by friends and family, who saw nothing terribly wrong with a 45 yr old man taking a 13 yr old wife. Sound familiar?

Just because a practice is required by a religion, or because the minor's parent(s) approve, or even if the minor consents, does not make a practice acceptable.

The same arguments to defend jewish circumcision can be used practically word-for-word to defend the early mormon practice of predatory polygamy.

Unfortunately this world is full of parents who consent or participate in all kinds of horrible abuse of their children. There is a long list of other examples of unacceptable things parents might force upon their minor children, or allow their minor children to do, but I think those examples would be unnecessary. The bottom line is that parental consent or directive does nothing to establish that something is either ethical or acceptable.

kellyb

11th July 2007, 05:16 PM

I agree that sex workers appear to be a major cause for the spread of HIV and solutions that reduce the chances of men catching an STD from them should be part of the approach. But in some areas 1 in 3 people are infected. Focusing on the sex workers will not control the spread with that many people exposed to the virus.

Well, neither will circumcision. But the question is, what would be a better use of resources?

The incidence isn't that high (one in three) in most areas, anyway.

http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/vol15no1/aidsmap.htm

And treating sex workers should be as effective as, if not significantly more effective than circumcision.

http://www.aidsonline.com/pt/re/aids/abstract.00002030-200107270-00012.htm;jsessionid=GVXZ77HVlZ1bT3Vj50wKShvh7G8GT 8hTXnQJLW19SSz5f86tH1z9!675572714!181195628!8091!-1

Objective: To compare the seroincidence of HIV infection among female sex workers in Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire before and during an intervention study to control sexually transmitted diseases (STD) and to study the effect of two STD diagnosis and treatment strategies on the prevalence of STD and on the seroincidence of HIV infection.

Results: Of 542 women enrolled in the study, 225 (42%) had at least one outcome assessment. The HIV-1 seroincidence rate during the intervention study was significantly lower than before the study (6.5 versus 16.3 per 100 person-years;P = 0.02). During the study, the HIV-1 seroincidence rate was slightly lower in the intensive than in the basic strategy (5.3 versus 7.6 per 100 person-years;P = 0.5).

And....

http://www.jaids.com/pt/re/jaids/abstract.00126334-200404150-00001.htm;jsessionid=GVVJnySJyhfRq6QQGlMvL8Hnrccz0 Q20YTPqkmT4TQlLSx21hkMn!675572714!181195628!8091!-1

Increasing evidence demonstrates a substantial link between the epidemics of sexually transmitted HIV-1 and herpes simplex virus (HSV)-2 infection. More than 30 epidemiologic studies have demonstrated that prevalent HSV-2 is associated with a 2- to 4-fold increased risk of HIV-1 acquisition. Per-sexual contact transmission rates among couples from Rakai, Uganda indicate that at all levels of plasma HIV-1 RNA in the source partner, HSV-2-seropositive HIV-1-susceptible persons have a 5-fold greater risk of acquiring HIV-1 compared with HSV-2-negative persons.

So vaccinating all girls for herpes in high risk areas should be very effective. More effective than circumcising all the baby boys. If circumcision literally worked "like a vaccine" then circumcision would be a better game plan, maybe. With a vaccine, the more you're exposed (as a general rule) the better the vaccine works. Every exposure boosts immunity.
With circumcision, it's an entirely different thing going on. All it does is buy some time. Which I guess would be better than nothing if it were the only option, but it's not.

robinson

11th July 2007, 10:30 PM

Abooga

12th July 2007, 02:00 AM

Fascinating thread. All posts deeply informative and well-reasoned; fls and skeptigirl of course quoting the latest in the medical ethics papers, and making sure to tie it into a well-learnt basis in philosophy; a lack of emotion overall, and of course a disinterested, thoughtful reply from Clinton that covers all bases, everyone knowing of course that it is only genuine, well-thought debate and not emotive, polemical screaming that will serve the cause of genuine skepticism.

Carry On, oh please do Carry On. * No bris without a hiss.

________

* Brit reference, for those whose knowledge of the rest of the world is on a par with their knowledge of ethics and logic.

If you think you can do it better, show us how it´s done.

Ivor the Engineer

12th July 2007, 02:44 AM

Well, neither will circumcision. But the question is, what would be a better use of resources?

This is where I think politics come into it. The question is: What would be a better use of the available resources? How much does circumcision cost? How much will a herpes vaccine cost?

The incidence isn't that high (one in three) in most areas, anyway.

Yes, there is quite a wide range of incidence from country to country in Africa. Circumcision may be particularly useful in areas of high incidence over an extended period of time.

For example, using 0.1% chance of infection per sexual encounter, 50 sexual encounters a year and a 50% protective effect of circumcision:

1 year:

(no circ.) 0.9990^50 = 0.951
(circ.) 0.9995^50 = 0.975
Difference = 2.4%

10 years:

(no circ.) 0.9990^500 = 0.606
(circ.) 0.9995^500 = 0.779
Difference = 17%

That's a lot of people not infected who otherwise would have been.

And treating sex workers should be as effective as, if not significantly more effective than circumcision.

Has there been a study showing this effect for the general population, rather than just the sex workers? Also, the western definition of 'sex worker' could cover a huge range of sexual relationships in Africa. You may end up treating a lot of women!

So vaccinating all girls for herpes in high risk areas should be very effective. More effective than circumcising all the baby boys. If circumcision literally worked "like a vaccine" then circumcision would be a better game plan, maybe. With a vaccine, the more you're exposed (as a general rule) the better the vaccine works. Every exposure boosts immunity.
With circumcision, it's an entirely different thing going on. All it does is buy some time. Which I guess would be better than nothing if it were the only option, but it's not.

It slows the spread and its effects are cumulative. If this were being hailed as the solution for HIV in Africa then I'd agree with you. It is clearly only a useful additional measure.

I haven't heard anyone arguing that what is being done now should be cut-back to offer circumcision. Different people will argue that the (extra ?) money spent on offering circumcision could be better spent on herpes vaccinations or condoms or treatment of malaria or every other problem that fuels the spread of HIV in Africa. If circumcision is offered and performed in an ethical way I have no problems with money being spent offering it to people.

fls

12th July 2007, 06:20 AM

I didn´t mean that. That´s not woo, it´s just a crap attempt at justifying circumcision but not woo.

I don´t really care about that right now. I just want to talk about how RIC is immoral, which happens to be what this thread is about.

I find it really difficult to understand you, most of the times. You mean I´m trying to "affect real change stirring up a passionate response"? I don´t know, I´m just debating an issue... and trying to stick to it...

Using words like "crap" and "immoral" seems designed to generate an emotional response. Especially since the use of these terms as appropriate has not been demonstrated through the use of logical progression.

If you don't understand me (I realize this happens), let me know what it is that you don't find clear and I will attempt to clarify it.

I´d call what Loss Leader defends RIC.

Yes, that´s what I´d say RIC is. Since it´s routine for some collectives it could be called RIC, but yes, "Medically unnecessary circumcision for underaged persons" would be more accurate. Or even more "Medically unnecessary and irreversible physical alterations for underaged homo sapiens"...

Okay, that helps make it more specific. So are you saying that you don't consider mental and social well-being worth consideration?

The fact that at present it is not a criminal offense to circumcise an infant is not a valid argument, for reasons already provided. (Is that what you mean with "I am fully aware that this process is fluid and progressive."?)

That is not correct. The reasons already provided have only recognized that the process is fluid and progressive. And I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise. That is what I hoped to curtail with my disclaimer - the continued insistence by you and others that I recognize that morality is relative, as though I (and others) wasn't already taking it into consideration. My attempts to move the conversation beyond that point have so far been in vain, but that is nothing new.

Exactly. Do you consider a newborn AND his parents to be "an individual"? That´s the problem, see? basic human rights are for people, for individuals, not for cultures, nations, "parents+infant units", religions or anything. Individuals. Since a newborn IS (as far as I know) an individual and WILL have the right to choose, parents shouldn´t have the right to do anything to him that he cannot undo in the future. They´d be taking away his right to choose freely what to do with his own body.

See Emperor´s example.

I see the newborn as the individual under consideration, since the decision is being made on their behalf. I think I see the family as having greater interest in the infant than you do (also relative to the state). I think the parents are in a far better position to understand the wishes of their child than you (as in the collective you) are.

Linda

fls

12th July 2007, 06:31 AM

It's ok. She does it to me, too, sometimes. I just assume there's a maximum of 4 posts I'll get out of her before the cryptic message appears, shutting the dialogue down.
It's not so frustrating when you know it's coming.

:duck:

There are many conversations I don't take part in. It doesn't mean anything in particular - it may be that I just don't see how my contribution could be useful (not that that always stops me :)).

Linda

Ivor the Engineer

12th July 2007, 07:06 AM

There are many conversations I don't take part in. It doesn't mean anything in particular - it may be that I just don't see how my contribution could be useful (not that that always stops me :)).

Linda

Touché:D

Ok, if you really want to move the conversation on, let's talk about persuasion techniques. Interested?

ETA: Look like the answer's "no."

Can't let this go, though:

I see the newborn as the individual under consideration, since the decision is being made on their behalf. I think I see the family as having greater interest in the infant than you do (also relative to the state). I think the parents are in a far better position to understand the wishes of their child than you (as in the collective you) are.

The only way a parent could know such a thing is if they are planning to inflict their view of a (more) perfect body on their child. That is unless you have knowledge of a $1million winning technique we should know about?

Not too long ago it was thought a man was better placed than his wife to know if she wanted to have sex.

Lots of kids who've been beaten with objects think they deserved it.

Find me a physically and mentally healthy person who wants to amputate or alter part of their body without giving it a lot of thought first.

fls

12th July 2007, 08:03 AM

Ok, if you really want to move the conversation on, let's talk about persuasion techniques. Interested?

That requires a new thread.

Linda

Ivor the Engineer

12th July 2007, 08:13 AM

That requires a new thread.

Linda

So what were you planning to move the conversation onto then?

fls

12th July 2007, 08:37 AM

So what were you planning to move the conversation onto then?

Maybe I misunderstood. Did you mean persuasion techniques specific to changing circumcision practices?

Linda

Ivor the Engineer

12th July 2007, 09:07 AM

Maybe I misunderstood. Did you mean persuasion techniques specific to changing circumcision practices?

Linda

That's what I thought you were getting at with your replies to Abooga et al.

I've read about persuasion techniques in general.

I've actually been trying them out in this thread. Not having much success though - tough audience:D

ETA: Both ways - getting African parents and men to consider circumcision more and American parents to consider it less.

Ivor the Engineer

12th July 2007, 11:29 AM

This (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1001.x?cookieSet=1) is an interesting read on the history of circumcision.

osmosis

12th July 2007, 12:37 PM

Has it ended up Jews versus the rational world yet? I've never read an discussion of circumcision that didn't end up that way.

Wow, Robinson, you may just have qualified for the $1M prize! How could you possibly have known in advance that a Jew would come along and play the "faith" card? I'm astounded!

Did you also know that said Jew was eager to take offense at the comments of others, and would try to shift the discussion to wherever was most self-serving (or, "Jew-serving"), and when all else failed would simply jam his fingers into his ears and say "I can't hear you!"

Amazing!

Seriously though, I'm always a bit disappointed when someone so thoroughly lives up to a negative stereotype. I guess I'm too generous.

ClintonHammond

12th July 2007, 12:43 PM

"I'm always a bit disappointed when someone so thoroughly lives up to a negative stereotype."
+1!

Darat

12th July 2007, 12:50 PM

Stop with the personal comments.

kellyb

12th July 2007, 01:25 PM

This is where I think politics come into it. The question is: What would be a better use of the available resources? How much does circumcision cost? How much will a herpes vaccine cost?
How much the Herpes vaccine will end up costing will very much depend on politics. If the uptake is high in the developed world, production costs will quickly go down, and it'll become pretty cheap for Africa pretty quickly. But if there's a lot of opposition in the developed world and no one wants it, it'll be really expensive. What'll happen with all that won't be known till whatever happens happens.

For example, using 0.1% chance of infection per sexual encounter, 50 sexual encounters a year and a 50% protective effect of circumcision:

1 year:

(no circ.) 0.9990^50 = 0.951
(circ.) 0.9995^50 = 0.975
Difference = 2.4%

10 years:

(no circ.) 0.9990^500 = 0.606
(circ.) 0.9995^500 = 0.779
Difference = 17%

That's a lot of people not infected who otherwise would have been.

Right...that's the way it'll work for people who engage in high-risk behaviors. But for people on the other end of the spectrum, the lifetime risk reduction will be much smaller, which will water the effect down.
But either way...yeah...it could end up being a "lot" of people. But circumcising ALL the male babies is a pretty massive investment, too. Especially when you add in potential infection rates in areas without running water, disposable diapers, etc. So far, I haven't seen any of the "cost/benefit" models accounting for those kinds of factors.

Has there been a study showing this effect for the general population, rather than just the sex workers?
Weirdly, no. Not that I've been able to find, at least. But logically, it would have to work. There's no way it wouldn't, is there?

Also, the western definition of 'sex worker' could cover a huge range of sexual relationships in Africa. You may end up treating a lot of women!

Well, it wouldn't be as many women needing treatment to get an effect from that as men/babies getting circumcised to get an effect from circumcision. Antivirals are pretty expensive, though, so that would balance things out a bit, at the least.

If circumcision is offered and performed in an ethical way I have no problems with money being spent offering it to people.

Well, me neither. It's the definition of "ethical" that's tricky. "Ethics" and "circumcision" don't tend to mesh real well, historically, from my point of view.

Ivor the Engineer

12th July 2007, 02:03 PM

How much the Herpes vaccine will end up costing will very much depend on politics. If the uptake is high in the developed world, production costs will quickly go down, and it'll become pretty cheap for Africa pretty quickly. But if there's a lot of opposition in the developed world and no one wants it, it'll be really expensive. What'll happen with all that won't be known till whatever happens happens.

Well that depends on whether it's an election year:)

Right...that's the way it'll work for people who engage in high-risk behaviors. But for people on the other end of the spectrum, the lifetime risk reduction will be much smaller, which will water the effect down.
But either way...yeah...it could end up being a "lot" of people. But circumcising ALL the male babies is a pretty massive investment, too. Especially when you add in potential infection rates in areas without running water, disposable diapers, etc. So far, I haven't seen any of the "cost/benefit" models accounting for those kinds of factors.

That's the big question: all the studies to date have been on men, not infants, who had access to much better health care than could be provided if circumcision was implemented on a large scale. It could end up being another Nestle Baby Milk cock-up (pardon the pun).

With regards to the cost/benefit models, I'm amazed insurance companies in the US pay for parents to have their child circumcised.

Weirdly, no. Not that I've been able to find, at least. But logically, it would have to work. There's no way it wouldn't, is there?

I agree, it sounds logical enough. I had a look for some models that could explain the spread of HIV in Africa. It appears that this is still an active area of research, indicating that the factors that lead to one area being overwhelmed and another close by relatively mildly affected are not fully understood.

It sounds like a good enough reason to conduct a larger trial.

Well, it wouldn't be as many women needing treatment to get an effect from that as men/babies getting circumcised to get an effect from circumcision. Antivirals are pretty expensive, though, so that would balance things out a bit, at the least.

Yes, I'd imagine the number of women needed to treat would be smaller.

Well, me neither. It's the definition of "ethical" that's tricky. "Ethics" and "circumcision" don't tend to mesh real well, historically, from my point of view.

I'm currently looking at methods of persuasion for circumcising/not circumcising.

I read one paper that indicated that the most sensitive factor to whether or not a reasonable parent chooses to circumcise their child is pain. Those parents that give their child's pain a small weight think circumcision is worth performing. Those who give pain a higher weight tend to think it is not.

So it would seem messages about the pain of circumcision could be the most effective in swaying parents either way.

kellyb

12th July 2007, 02:22 PM

I'm currently looking at methods of persuasion for circumcising/not circumcising.

I read one paper that indicated that the most sensitive factor to whether or not a reasonable parent chooses to circumcise their child is pain. Those parents that give their child's pain a small weight think circumcision is worth performing. Those who give pain a higher weight tend to think it is not.

So it would seem messages about the pain of circumcision could be the most effective in swaying parents either way.

Are you wondering about persuasion in areas with a lot of HIV, or areas without much HIV?
The "rules" for what would be effective would be different in different areas.

Also, knowing people on a friendly basis will be different from a medical study.

With regards to the cost/benefit models, I'm amazed insurance companies in the US pay for parents to have their child circumcised.
That's actually in the process of changing. I wouldn't be surprised if in 10 years it wasn't covered by any insurance companies.

Ivor the Engineer

12th July 2007, 03:22 PM

Are you wondering about persuasion in areas with a lot of HIV, or areas without much HIV?

Both.

In Africa explain how the pain resulting from the procedure can be treated.

In the US explain how the treatment for the pain is not totally effective.

Same message, just presented from different angles to affect the desired response from the recipient.

The "rules" for what would be effective would be different in different areas.

Almost certainly, but there are general guidelines. A message has to be simple and consistently presented. Sometimes it helps to be seen as being flexible, or compromising on your extreme position.

Also, knowing people on a friendly basis will be different from a medical study.

Yes. If you make friends with someone you can usually persuade them much more easily. Though the risk is they can more easily persuade you:) Once we like someone, we want to agree with them.

That's actually in the process of changing. I wouldn't be surprised if in 10 years it wasn't covered by any insurance companies.

That might kill it off in the US faster than anything else, given the amount physicians charge. I mean, they're just overpaid body engineers really...:D

kellyb

12th July 2007, 04:35 PM

Both.

In Africa explain how the pain resulting from the procedure can be treated.

In the US explain how the treatment for the pain is not totally effective.

Same message, just presented from different angles to affect the desired response from the recipient.

That's really creepy, man. :D

Almost certainly, but there are general guidelines. A message has to be simple and consistently presented. Sometimes it helps to be seen as being flexible, or compromising on your extreme position.

Bah Humbug!

I bet "good cop/bad cop" would work better. Or plain ol' 'emotive language'. (there's a reason why the term "FGM" was popularized, you know? It's effective.)

Yes. If you make friends with someone you can usually persuade them much more easily. Though the risk is they can more easily persuade you Once we like someone, we want to agree with them.

In the US, most people haven't ever thought about it. Sort of like how Christianity is the default belief system over here...you can find lots of people who convert to christianity from "don't-care/never thought-about religionianity", and lots who convert from Christianity to atheism/agnosticism...but they never, ever end up converting back into Christianity. People basically never convert from skepticism into 'wooism' either, come to think about it, although many convert from wooism into skepticism. For whatever reason, the "conversions" with some things only work one way.

Skepticybe

12th July 2007, 05:15 PM

I'm also amazed that insurance companies and HMOs, who sometimes balk at paying for legitimately necessary treatment, never complain about paying $400 a pop for cosmetic baby cuttings.

Going out on a limb, I think that very few American parents would circumcise their boys if they had to fork over the $400 themselves. This is where the "intactivists" should focus their efforts.

The other thing that I think we'll start seeing is more of the victims of circumcision suing the doctors and hospitals who performed it. Just a few of these (ambulance chasers, where are you?) and insurers will stop covering cosmetic circumcision and doctors won't perform it unless it's medically necessary. I think this outcome is a virtual certainty.

kellyb

12th July 2007, 05:18 PM

This is where the "intactivists" should focus their efforts.
They are.

:cool:

robinson

12th July 2007, 10:25 PM

Wow, Robinson, you may just have qualified for the $1M prize! How could you possibly have known in advance that a Jew would come along and play the "faith" card? I'm astounded!

Heh. I've been on the Internets for a loooong time. There isn't any other way for this conversation to end up. Because circumcision is THE basic requirement for being Jewish, and being Jewish mean you are different from everybody else, that you are special. Sure, the Christians tried to take over this deal, but you can still be a Christian and not be cut.

Jews do not have that option. It says so, right in the book man. Do NOT mess with cutting off kids penis skin. God said to do it.

And you can't argue with God.

Ivor the Engineer

13th July 2007, 01:59 AM

Heh. I've been on the Internets for a loooong time. There isn't any other way for this conversation to end up. Because circumcision is THE basic requirement for being Jewish, and being Jewish mean you are different from everybody else, that you are special. Sure, the Christians tried to take over this deal, but you can still be a Christian and not be cut.

Jews do not have that option. It says so, right in the book man. Do NOT mess with cutting off kids penis skin. God said to do it.

And you can't argue with God.

That's not strictly true - if 2 (or 3 - can't remember) of your sons die because they were circumcised then God doesn't mind if you don't have the third (forth) one cut. I bet there aren't many Jewish hemophiliacs.

Ivor the Engineer

13th July 2007, 04:45 AM

That's really creepy, man. :D

Do you think so? How many physicians and nurses offer up to a patient how much something they’re about to do to them is likely to hurt? Euphemism, distraction or no communication at all is the order of the day as far as the pain of an ‘uncomfortable’ procedure goes.

I think it’s only creepy if it’s being done for reasons that you do not believe are in the best interests of the recipient. Intent is important.

If a direct question is asked, then a direct answer should be provided.

Bah Humbug!

I bet "good cop/bad cop" would work better. Or plain ol' 'emotive language'. (there's a reason why the term "FGM" was popularized, you know? It's effective.)

According to interrogators, good cop/bad cop works quite well for extracting information from captured combatants. I’m not sure how it could be effectively utilized on people who can walk away from you though!

I think you have to be careful with emotive language. If you attempt to change someone’s behaviour by using a message that makes them sound like a monster, they’ll probably just ignore you and class you as an extremist, especially if they believe your view is only held by a minority.

I think FGM has been used as a slogan to get publicity and make the minority who practice it to comply with majority opinion. I’m not sure it changes the attitudes held about female genitalia by those that practice FGM though.

In the US, most people haven't ever thought about it. Sort of like how Christianity is the default belief system over here...you can find lots of people who convert to christianity from "don't-care/never thought-about religionianity", and lots who convert from Christianity to atheism/agnosticism...but they never, ever end up converting back into Christianity. People basically never convert from skepticism into 'wooism' either, come to think about it, although many convert from wooism into skepticism. For whatever reason, the "conversions" with some things only work one way.

There’s a theory that states people are cognitive misers. Basically they only put the minimum amount of thought into something that is required. When they are forced to think about something in depth they form stronger attitudes that are more resistant to change. I think this explains quite well the one-way nature of people’s attitudes with regards to faith to atheist/deist, or woo to skeptic.

Another related explanation I’ve thought of is that trying to keep conflicting ideas in one brain requires significant effort to come up with exceptions and excuses. The minimum energy states appear to be no-thought, narrow thought or consistent thought.

Morrigan

13th July 2007, 07:05 AM

I stopped reading this thread about 100 post ago. Has it ended up Jews versus the rational world yet? I've never read an discussion of circumcision that didn't end up that way.

Oh, and has anybody mentioned that circumcision was started by the Egyptians? To mark slaves as property? That always helps the discussion.

;)
Really? I had no idea. Do you have a source for that? I'd be interested in reading it.

This (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1001.x?cookieSet=1) is an interesting read on the history of circumcision.

Link doesn't work. :( All I get is a page that says "An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie" and with detailed explanations about what cookies are
and how to enable them... even though I already accept cookies, and I have tried to open the link in three different browsers.
It seems I have to be logged in to be able to see it.

ClintonHammond

13th July 2007, 07:29 AM

"I bet there aren't many Jewish hemophiliacs."
Well, not for long....

"Link doesn't work."
Ditto...

Ivor the Engineer

13th July 2007, 07:43 AM

For all those that can't get access to the link, here's the same BJU document on a different page.

http://www.cirp.org/library/history/dunsmuir1/

(don't worry about the cirp.org site - the article is not biased)

kellyb

13th July 2007, 08:12 AM

I think it’s only creepy if it’s being done for reasons that you do not believe are in the best interests of the recipient. Intent is important.

If a direct question is asked, then a direct answer should be provided.

I guess I see your point, and really, everyone is always walking around trying to use their own various methods of persuasion on other people for all kinds of things. It's usually not conscious, but still...

I don't know why I find 'persuasion science' creepy. I just do. It just gives me the heebie jeebies....seems slimy and underhanded. It seems deceitful in a way, but passes under the ethics radar by virtue of it's method of stringing true statements together in a way that gives a false impression but staying factually correct at the same time. I've seen papers where it was described as "the objective is to inspire feeling of fear and dread, leaving a memorable impression...nonessential concepts can then be deleted". And there are mathematical formulas on how to frighten people and inspire outrage in just the right ratios to influence behavior. And it's considered ethically sound based on some other person's idea of "correct perception", which is terribly arrogant, in my opinion. It's also "important" to be "consistent"...which means phrasing everything in a way that directs one's attention towards one side of 'risk/fear', minimizing the other. For example, if I wanted to write a "persuasive communication piece" discouraging circumcision...I'd need to say "For many infants, circumcision results in complications, some very serious, including death"...and never say something like "Most infants don't die from being circumcised." The first statement is technically true, but kind of deceptive. BUT...if you were to scrounge international numbers up and include "possible and probable" circumcision complication figures, you could easily make it look like circumcision was horribly dangerous. And if you wanted to be really sneaky, you could phrase it like "Since 1991, worldwide there have been an estimated 94,000 circumcision complications, some serious, including death". Deceptive, yet true. (not literally true, by the way...I made those numbers up...but it wouldn't be too hard to put a figure like that together.)

I think you have to be careful with emotive language. If you attempt to change someone’s behaviour by using a message that makes them sound like a monster, they’ll probably just ignore you and class you as an extremist, especially if they believe your view is only held by a minority.

I guess it depends on the starting point of the other person. Circumcision in the context of human rights is only offensive to people who are either circumcised themselves, or have circumcised a child already.

I think FGM has been used as a slogan to get publicity and make the minority who practice it to comply with majority opinion. I’m not sure it changes the attitudes held about female genitalia by those that practice FGM though.

There's a lot of debate, and it's a fine line. It's had mixed results, I think.

There’s a theory that states people are cognitive misers. Basically they only put the minimum amount of thought into something that is required. When they are forced to think about something in depth they form stronger attitudes that are more resistant to change. I think this explains quite well the one-way nature of people’s attitudes with regards to faith to atheist/deist, or woo to skeptic.

I dunno. A lot of woos and theists devote a LOT of thought to their woo and religion of choice.

Another related explanation I’ve thought of is that trying to keep conflicting ideas in one brain requires significant effort to come up with exceptions and excuses. The minimum energy states appear to be no-thought, narrow thought or consistent thought.

I think that's closer to what's going on. It's a psychological relief to escape cognitive dissonance.

robinson

13th July 2007, 08:23 AM

Really? I had no idea. Do you have a source for that? I'd be interested in reading it.

Gollaher, David L. (February 2000). Circumcision: a history of the world’s most controversial surgery. New York, NY: Basic Books, 53–72. ISBN 978-0-465-04397-2 LCCN 99-40015.

Jorghnassen

13th July 2007, 11:49 AM

This thread will soon reach 1000 posts. And just to lighten this up, a quote from Arrested Development:

Lindsay: We just had an amazing fundraiser for HOOP.
Michael: HOOP?
Lindsay: My anti-circumcision movement.

Lindsay’s house, where she is hosting a fund-raiser for “H.O.O.P. Hands Off Our Penises.”

Lindsay: (to a guest) I think it looks frightening when it’s cut off. It’s a Doberman. Let it have its ears.

Back to the present

Lindsay: Believe it or not, we brought in over $40,000
Michael: Unbelievable. Sounds like you saved enough skin to make 10 new boys.

Ivor the Engineer

13th July 2007, 03:42 PM

I don't know why I find 'persuasion science' creepy. I just do. It just gives me the heebie jeebies....seems slimy and underhanded. It seems deceitful in a way, but passes under the ethics radar by virtue of it's method of stringing true statements together in a way that gives a false impression but staying factually correct at the same time.

Perhaps it makes people feel uncomfortable because it impacts on beliefs they hold about free will?

I agree that it can be used for very dubious purposes and if the 'facts' are selectively presented the communicator is lying by omission.

I think there is a middle ground, where all the relevant information can be presented, but that which supports the desired behaviour can be used to explain why doing it is a good idea.

I guess it depends on the starting point of the other person. Circumcision in the context of human rights is only offensive to people who are either circumcised themselves, or have circumcised a child already.

From this thread it certainly appears to be the case. I thought it might persuade the physicians here, but clearly I was mistaken. Maybe it's because performing circumcision is seen as an in-group behaviour?

HawkeyeMD

13th July 2007, 05:51 PM

From this thread it certainly appears to be the case. I thought it might persuade the physicians here, but clearly I was mistaken. Maybe it's because performing circumcision is seen as an in-group behaviour?

Maybe because you only see "persuasion" as "total agreement with and expression of equal outrage with Ivor"? :cool:

Just a thought, y'know.

And not to be tetchy on behalf of my collective colleagues, but I really can't let this one go unchallenged:

Do you think so? How many physicians and nurses offer up to a patient how much something they’re about to do to them is likely to hurt? Euphemism, distraction or no communication at all is the order of the day as far as the pain of an ‘uncomfortable’ procedure goes.

I think it’s only creepy if it’s being done for reasons that you do not believe are in the best interests of the recipient. Intent is important.

If a direct question is asked, then a direct answer should be provided.

Disclaimer: none of the following is intended to address the question of circumcision directly.

Point one: what you believe is in the best interests of the patient is not, by a strict definition, what the best interests of the patient necessarily is.

Point two: where are you getting this "order of the day" stuff? If you do decide to go into this profession, Ivor, you will find that schools spend a great deal of time going over the concepts of explaining risks and benefits, patient autonomy, and informed consent. The idea that "no communication at all" is a norm of medicine or nursing is not only a complete straw man, but appears to me to reveal a very deep bias on your part.

Point three: You greatly underestimate the complexity of the practice of medicine if you think that most questions are as simple as "a direct question deserves a direct answer". I would like to point out that this forum deals with a large number of people who profess certainty on difficult questions, people who have definite answers and who have no problem explaining this certainty to their patients at great length, and to describe what they do as 'safe', 'natural', 'painless', 'noninvasive' and 'nontoxic', among many other reassuring terms.

Do I need to go on, or do you see where I'm going with this? ;)