Circumcision: can any rational thinker defend it ? [Archive] - Page 5

SYLVESTER1592

14th July 2007, 10:26 PM

I stayed out of this discussion for a while, thinking someone would most definitely bring this up:

References from Pediatrics

1) http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/117/5/1695

“Although the infants with bacteruria were evenly split along gender lines, from the data available, uncircumcised males had a 22.5 times greater risk compared with circumcised males. Unfortunately, circumcision status was unrecorded in 39 infants; however, even in the unlikely event that all of them were uncircumcised (none of whom had bacteruria), the observed rate of bacteruria in uncircumcised males is still _13-fold higher. Previously published reports have found uncircumcised males at greater risk for urinary tract infections;some investigators advocate circumcision for repeated urinary tract infections.”

2) http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/116/3/644

If we forget the religious reasons for a while and the lack of benefits in later life. There may be a benefit in early life between 2 and 6 months. When you consider the high mortality risk in the first year and a higher risk for UTI for boys in the first year, it may have made sense 1000 years ago...

These days things are different, although for some conditions circumcision is still one of the recommended treatments (phimosis, paraphimosis). For the infection part: in young boys (age 2-6 months) with vesico-ureteral reflux and persistently recurrent urinary tract infections it can be defended to perform a circumcision to minimise infection risk if further testing does not reveal uretheral valves or another urethral outlet obstruction. (just an example)

I don't think the circumcision of (almost) every male (as is done in the US) is a good idea and the circumcision for religious reasons is beyond me, but I wouldn't say it is a completely useless surgical procedure in specific cases.

I just thought I put that out there :wackywink:

SYL :)

osmosis

14th July 2007, 11:39 PM

I'm going to attempt an argument here that I've seen touched upon only lightly, too lightly in my opinion.

I believe, as an intact male, that I have am able to experience a deeper and more satisfying sexual bond with women.

The crux of my argument is this: as my glans is still an internal organ and therefore more sensitive, and as I have several square inches of a special kind of skin (not just more, but more sensitive also) there is an extra dimension to the sexual act that I am able to perceive.

Because of the physical proportions of my intact body, and because of my heightened awareness, it is that much more pleasurable for the female also. It not only "feels better" but the sexual act itself is more intense and erotic; The emotional bond is stronger, the shared experience more vivid.

In a sense, I actually feel sad for the majority of men who have been robbed of this, although I don't think they have any clue what they're missing. If only they knew what I know..

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

robinson

15th July 2007, 12:04 AM

There is no doubt circumcision changes the sensitivity and development of the penis. Something you can't know, is how over sensitive a circumcised penis is, until the skin on the glans is hardened, at which point it is far less sensitive than a normal penis.

SYLVESTER1592

15th July 2007, 12:24 AM

Well, foreskin helps masturbation. Probably the reason why all the puritans love the idea of circumcision. ;)

I'm always "amazed" that so many women are such great advocates of circumcision...

Skeptic Ginger

15th July 2007, 12:38 AM

Well, I was gone from Monday until yesterday. Don't know if I can catch up on this fast paced repeating argument thread but I'll at least address a couple posts.

You say, Ivor, you can't see how you mis-stated my position. You are really too emotional in this discussion to remain objective. The following quotes from the post I was replying to are false: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.No I do not. An injection is hardly the equivalent of a circumcision. The risks and benefits of vaccinations are not equivocal as you noted. Apples and oranges.

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.What do you mean, "even so"? It's equivocal!

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.While not referring to me, this is BS.

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.This is false and a set up to your strawman argument below. The infant's consent has nothing to do with the rationale that FGM, regardless of arguments of preserving traditional cultures, serves to oppress women, and serves no medical purpose.

Neither Skeptigirl or the physicians appear to comprehend that the ethics of one are identical to the other, or they do and are hypocrites.Comprehension has nothing to do with it. You applied the "non-consenting" rationale to why FGM is supposedly the same, and now argue this strawman.

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)?I'm not bickering, I am discussing. Not everyone is happy with the discussion.

If I were to paraphrase your position on circumcision I'd say you are more emotion and less than objective. You projected that your belief in the 'consent' issue should be universally valued. While a child's consent certainly matters in situations such as sexual abuse, it is not up to the child to consent to medical interventions the parents choose for the child, whether that be an immunization or an elective surgery that reduces risk of infection. Those are parental decisions since the care and safety of that child is their responsibility.

Hopefully that clarifies things for you.

kellyb

15th July 2007, 12:59 AM

SYLVESTER1592

15th July 2007, 01:18 AM

While a child's consent certainly matters in situations such as sexual abuse, it is not up to the child to consent to medical interventions the parents choose for the child, whether that be an immunization or an elective surgery that reduces risk of infection. Those are parental decisions since the care and safety of that child is their responsibility.

:D

I'll play advocate for the devil and state that this is a nice avoiding argument.
The physician has a responsibility too...
The parents don't choose a procedure, they have the right to agree with it or reject it. The physician chooses the procedure... Both for male and female circumcision.

A child consent does not matter in sexual abuse. It is statutory rape, no matter what the child "chooses"...
If you mean consent to investigation, again not really the choice of the child.

The problem is quite clearly that physicians are deprived of their judgement and are instructed to comply with the demands of parents. This goes far beyond circumcision...

I have not even discussed women who decide to have genital plastic surgery for aesthetic reasons at an age at which they can decide for themselves, which far outnumbers the female circumcisions, but which comes very close to the same thing.

Feminists have made female circumcision their new flagship, but remain advocates for male circumcision while claiming the right to alter their body as they see fit including the same genital mutilation they abhore, but ofcourse by a plastic surgeon for aesthetic reasons...

My point is: this is not really about medicine in most cases. It is about lobbies, puritan ideas from the 1900's in the US, hundreds of years of religious ideas, Yes, some medical benefits for specific groups in specific circumstances exist, but only few for a specific group of men. If there is a medical indication, I see no problem, but in most cases there isn't a medical reason.

Let's imagine:
suppose that parents would decide to give their child a tattoo instead of a circumcision. It is done to a child at a young age. Reason: the parents want it. Is a doctor obliged to comply?

SYL :)

Skeptic Ginger

15th July 2007, 01:19 AM

This is the last time I am going to address your lack of objectivity, Ivor. The reason being is it's a waste of time. You have shown you are not taking in what people are saying, but instead, you are repeating your same straw arguments again and again. (Unless that is, if you have changed your view in the last 4 pages I have yet to read.)Skeptigirl, I’ve just read what you’ve written below and can’t see how I misrepresented your position at all:confused:Answered above.

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.According to who? You, but not everyone reaches the same conclusion. You just ignore that fact and repeat your personal conclusions as if everyone should simply see it your way. Everyone does not accept your statements of fact!!!

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?Your example is not valid, that's an emotional appeal. Your ethical argument isn't the issue, it is your failure to see other facts involved in the decision. You simply ignore many facts such as you have in your conclusion above that preventing UTIs is a minor thing.

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.Emotional straw.

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.This is not absolutely certain, in fact it is absurd. Suppose you had to decide to have a surgeon amputate a loved one's limb or risk their life trying to save it?

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."The only effects" :rolleyes: So according to Ivor, his opinion that preventing a potentially life threatening infection is a minor thing. Ivor is the medical expert having read a few abstracts. The medical opinion of the policy committees of the AAFP and the AAP are inferior to Ivor's medical opinion. And we should all simply agree that Ivor's minimizing of the medical benefits is an accurate portrayal of those benefits. That is not an accurate portrayal.

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.Another false assumption about why the medical benefits of FGM have not been examined, if it is even true that they haven't been. Certainly the consequences have been researched to some extent. Benefits might have shown up if they were there. But tell me, did you draw this conclusion out of your hat about why potential benefits of FGM may not have researched? Could it possibly be instead there is no hint of a benefit and therefore no hypothesis there is a benefit and therefore no study to examine that hypothesis? The reduction of UTIs in circumcised infants was noticed first before it was studied. No one decided to test whether removing foreskin had some benefit simply out of the blue.

Neither did anyone decide to look at HIV rates out of the blue. The incidence of HIV in circumcised men was observed to be lower than in uncircumcised men long before anyone hypothesized a relationship. That is how research is done. You need a reason to form an hypothesis. Random out of the blue trial and error is not very productive.

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.And again, no one is arguing this is a reason to circumcise males in low risk populations. To once again argue this straw man is getting tiring. If you want to discuss this particular rationale for circumcision, you need to be arguing it in the context of countries with large segments of the population infected with HIV.

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 does this have to do with anything I have been saying? Or were you addressing this to someone else?

What do you think FGM would have evolved into if we in the West had liked the idea?Considering women's liberation in this country compared to the rest of the world, I'd say we'd have dispensed with it 100 years ago. But you are not interested in that. You only want to build more straw men to tear down. Male circumcision to prevent infection risk has nothing at all to do with FGM, the reasons for or against FGM or any other gender rights issues.

Skeptic Ginger

15th July 2007, 01:33 AM

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.

Risk/cost vs benefit/risk of not doing

That is how you weigh risk benefit.

In your appendectomy example you left out the risk/cost of taking the appendix out.

Skeptic Ginger

15th July 2007, 01:48 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.Except the Earth isn't flat, and Darwin was right. So your argument is relative and shifts with the time.

Skeptic Ginger

15th July 2007, 01:51 AM

...

"Link doesn't work."
Ditto...Works, it's a pdf file. Opens with Adobe reader.

robinson

15th July 2007, 01:52 AM

Except the Earth isn't flat, and Darwin was right. So your argument is relative and shifts with the time.

Oh! Just you wait till God hears what you said.

SYLVESTER1592

15th July 2007, 02:09 AM

<snip>

Your example is not valid, that's an emotional appeal. Your ethical argument isn't the issue, it is your failure to see other facts involved in the decision. You simply ignore many facts such as you have in your conclusion above that preventing UTIs is a minor thing.

<snip>

"The only effects" :rolleyes: So according to Ivor, his opinion that preventing a potentially life threatening infection is a minor thing. Ivor is the medical expert having read a few abstracts. The medical opinion of the policy committees of the AAFP and the AAP are inferior to Ivor's medical opinion. And we should all simply agree that Ivor's minimizing of the medical benefits is an accurate portrayal of those benefits. That is not an accurate portrayal.

Another false assumption about why the medical benefits of FGM have not been examined, if it is even true that they haven't been. Certainly the consequences have been researched to some extent. Benefits might have shown up if they were there. But tell me, did you draw this conclusion out of your hat about why potential benefits of FGM may not have researched? Could it possibly be instead there is no hint of a benefit and therefore no hypothesis there is a benefit and therefore no study to examine that hypothesis? The reduction of UTIs in circumcised infants was noticed first before it was studied. No one decided to test whether removing foreskin had some benefit simply out of the blue.

<snip>

And again, no one is arguing this is a reason to circumcise males in low risk populations. To once again argue this straw man is getting tiring. If you want to discuss this particular rationale for circumcision, you need to be arguing it in the context of countries with large segments of the population infected with HIV.

<snip>

Considering women's liberation in this country compared to the rest of the world, I'd say we'd have dispensed with it 100 years ago. But you are not interested in that. You only want to build more straw men to tear down. Male circumcision to prevent infection risk has nothing at all to do with FGM, the reasons for or against FGM or any other gender rights issues.

I would say this is far more an emotional argumentation then the rest of the comments, and I presume it is not even about you... weird
I have some comments to this rant:
1) preventing UTI is only effective for age 2 months to 6 months after that females catch up with males (uncircumcised) and after the 4th year have far more infections than males. So the infection argument is only valid if there if an infection problem in the first year of life and only if it's recurrent and not easily treated by antibiotics.
Females have a larger number of UTI's (far exceeding men for various reasons: toilet training, hygiene, short urethra....etc)
2) the potentially life threatening infection is very rarely caused by a cystitis. A nephritis which is less frequent and even rare in men even at a young age, often occurs in conjunction with other abnormalities (vesico-ureteral reflux= VUR). This may require surgery, but not always a circumcision and even circumcision in conjunction with VUR treatment may not lead to significant results. To prevent renal scaring it is hypothesized that there may be an effect but it has not been proven yet as far as I know. The medical committees of the AAP leave room for the treatment but do not endorse it. Compared to the European population you would expect a huge reduction in child mortality if circumcision was that effective and if your estimation of it's effects were true. It's not there... I don't think that American children are healthier then European ones. (I think it's rather the opposite, for different reasons)
3) The medical effects were not noticed out of the blue and then researched, the urological and pediatric tradition in North America is to perform this procedure and that leads to a follow-up of possible benefits. Research is often led by funding and the fund for the research exist in North America. The European studies are less positive and remain very skeptical.
4) the same reasons apply against circumcision in men as in women. The difference is your cultural viewpoint. So if we are going to put our emotions aside and look critically, let's do that and try to separate what you know from what you are taught.

SYL :)

Skeptic Ginger

15th July 2007, 02:35 AM

I stayed out of this discussion for a while, thinking someone would most definitely bring this up:

References from Pediatrics

If we forget the religious reasons for a while and the lack of benefits in later life. There may be a benefit in early life between 2 and 6 months. When you consider the high mortality risk in the first year and a higher risk for UTI for boys in the first year, it may have made sense 1000 years ago...

These days things are different, although for some conditions circumcision is still one of the recommended treatments (phimosis, paraphimosis). For the infection part: in young boys (age 2-6 months) with vesico-ureteral reflux and persistently recurrent urinary tract infections it can be defended to perform a circumcision to minimise infection risk if further testing does not reveal uretheral valves or another urethral outlet obstruction. (just an example)

I don't think the circumcision of (almost) every male (as is done in the US) is a good idea and the circumcision for religious reasons is beyond me, but I wouldn't say it is a completely useless surgical procedure in specific cases.

I just thought I put that out there :wackywink:

SYL :)I put a lot of this out there. The majority of those arguing against circumcision do not perceive the risks from UTI, sepsis, subsequent kidney disease, medical mistakes, iatrogenic disease especially considering all first UTIs in a child under age 2 necessitate a radiologic or other invasive work up, risk of additional nosocoimal infection from the treatment and/or hospitalization, and/or the growing risk of antibiotic resistant bacteria.

Risk perception is the key factor here in my opinion. The public is not aware of the risk which infection and hospitalization alone carry. We live in a society where parents perceive vaccines to be riskier than the diseases the vaccines prevent because they have never seen a child die of measles or diphtheria.

And in this case, many (most?) of those posting in this thread have simply concluded that a UTI in a male infant is a minor event. I assume the thread members have had personal lives free from knowing children who have died from infection. Granted some in the thread have made some effort to judge that risk by reviewing the medical literature, still, I doubt any of the non-medical posters have seen a parent hold a dead infant. I've sadly seen more than one.

It's not that I am trying to portray this as the other side of the emotional coin. We all take risks every day. We make decisions for our kids (those of us who have them) everyday. You don't necessarily say to your child he/she can't go on the boating trip or that your 16 year old cannot get in a car with a friend driving. Risk perception influences those decisions but one cannot achieve a risk free life or protect your children from all risks. That's why I maintain this decision is up to the parents and how they perceive the risks and benefits, on what they value. I am pointing out the medical benefits because they are being overlooked or minimized. They are not minimal to everyone.

What concerns me about those here who are so quick to say they see no reason for circumcision, is that I wonder how they would see that same conclusion if they had the experience of seeing children die from infection. I wonder if they could so easily discount that risk if they didn't live the insular lives we live today. Work in a pediatric hospital for a year and you will not have the same view of minor childhood infections and antibiotics that can treat anything. It's easy if you have not had that experience to think only chronically ill children die of infection. But if you have had that experience you know a different world.

I can understand those saying for their child, their values, their decision. What I don't think is right are those who cannot recognize that for some people the right decision is to reduce the risk of infection. We make decisions about what level and kinds of risks we want our children to have all through their young lives. I am comfortable telling parents I expect them to put that child in a proper vehicle restraint and they need a smoke alarm and a fire escape. I am not comfortable telling them they shouldn't value the benefit of circumcising their child because I have personal emotional feelings about the matter.

Skeptic Ginger

15th July 2007, 03:01 AM

:D

I'll play advocate for the devil and state that this is a nice avoiding argument.
The physician has a responsibility too...
The parents don't choose a procedure, they have the right to agree with it or reject it. The physician chooses the procedure... Both for male and female circumcision. I refer you to all my past posts. :D

You just proved my point about the medical and the nursing models of patient care. ;)

Now I'll wait for the other two MDs and the 4th yr medical student to gripe at me again for my previous comments on this matter before going back over some of those issues.

A child consent does not matter in sexual abuse. It is statutory rape, no matter what the child "chooses"... I knew that was going to muck up my example as soon as I used it. Accept the flaw in my analogy, I was well aware of it.

The problem is quite clearly that physicians are deprived of their judgement and are instructed to comply with the demands of parents. This goes far beyond circumcision... More evidence of the different patient provider philosophy I have from you. I was admonished this was more individual than professional so I'll remind the other providers here I did acquiesce to that position with the caveat I still think the educational and professional experiences have a significant influence on one's philosophy.

And now you're going to have to find my past posts to know what the heck I am talking about. ;)

I have not even discussed women who decide to have genital plastic surgery for aesthetic reasons at an age at which they can decide for themselves, which far outnumbers the female circumcisions, but which comes very close to the same thing.

Feminists have made female circumcision their new flagship, but remain advocates for male circumcision while claiming the right to alter their body as they see fit including the same genital mutilation they abhore, but ofcourse by a plastic surgeon for aesthetic reasons...This is silly. Where is your evidence any of these are universal positions? And are you looking at different motivations women have in seeking plastic surgery from disguising aging which I believe is not unique to the female gender and those women who want what they perceive as more attractive features? Is weight reduction surgery the same as breast enlargement surgery? And how many women ever concern themselves with FGM? Some women I know probably haven't even heard of it.

So your combination of beliefs is overgeneralized to say the least.

My point is: this is not really about medicine in most cases. It is about lobbies, puritan ideas from the 1900's in the US, hundreds of years of religious ideas, Yes, some medical benefits for specific groups in specific circumstances exist, but only few for a specific group of men. If there is a medical indication, I see no problem, but in most cases there isn't a medical reason.So you don't buy the medical lit you posted about reducing UTIs? I guess I'd better go read the links. Perhaps they don't say what I assumed from the titles.

Let's imagine:
suppose that parents would decide to give their child a tattoo instead of a circumcision. It is done to a child at a young age. Reason: the parents want it. Is a doctor obliged to comply?

SYL :)Actually, doctors don't do tattoos to my knowledge. :D But you are back to apples and oranges. My example was the parents who had lost a previous child to infection. If they valued the reduction of risk of UTI in their healthy newborn, would you tell them your values (in this case*) superceded theirs?

(*Given that the medical evidence supports the UTI risk reduction and that any other situation where there was no evidence of medical benefit would allow a different decision on your part.)

Skeptic Ginger

15th July 2007, 03:22 AM

Reviewing your citations, RESULTS. Serious bacterial illness (SBI) was diagnosed in 44 (10.3%) of 429 infants:
41 with bacteruria and 4 with bacteremia (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/117/5/1695)

Although the infants with bacteruria were evenly split along gender lines, from the data available, uncircumcised males had a 22.5 times greater risk compared with circumcised males. Unfortunately, circumcision status was unrecorded in 39 infants; however, even in the unlikely event that all of them were uncircumcised (none of whom had bacteruria), the observed rate of bacteruria in uncircumcised males is still 13-fold higher. Previously published reports have found uncircumcised males at greater risk for urinary tract infections; some investigators advocate circumcision for repeated urinary tract infections.17,18 Our data corroborate previously noted association of race with incidence of bacteruria.19–22 Lower incidence of vesicoureteral reflux in blacks compared with other racial groups might partially account for the lower incidence of bacteruria.19,23

Clinical and Demographic Factors Associated With Urinary Tract Infection in Young Febrile Infants (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/116/3/644)
Results. A total of 1025 (67%) of 1513 eligible patients were enrolled; 9.0% of enrolled infants received a diagnosis of UTI. Uncircumcised male infants had a higher rate of UTI (21.3%) compared with female (5.0%) and circumcised male (2.3%) infants. Infants with maximum recorded temperature of ≥39°C had a higher rate of UTI (16.3%) than other infants (7.2%). After multivariable adjustment, UTI was associated with being uncircumcised (odds ratio: 10.4; bias-corrected 95% confidence interval: 4.7–31.4) and maximum temperature (odds ratio: 2.4 per °C; 95% confidence interval: 1.5–3.6). Factors that were reported previously to be associated with risk for UTI in infants and toddlers, such as white race and ill appearance, were not significantly associated with risk for UTI in this cohort of young infants.

Conclusions. Being uncircumcised and height of fever were associated with UTI in febrile infants who were ≤60 days of age. Uncircumcised male infants were at particularly high risk and may warrant a different approach to screening and management.

The question is whether the risk reduction is worth the cost: loss of sensation/or other sexual benefits & inability to directly consent. Re the former, while there are plenty of emotional pleas and anecdotes from individuals, the literature is mixed.

I supported a couple other considerations such as any UTI in a child under age two necessitated antibiotic maintenance until a full GU exam was completed including either a nuclear medicine study or an IVP. In addition, UTIs in infants often required IV antibiotics and hospitalization, both of which carry additional risks in themselves. I think such risks are often left out of risk benefit analyses.

Skeptic Ginger

15th July 2007, 03:27 AM

....

If we forget the religious reasons for a while and the lack of benefits in later life. There may be a benefit in early life between 2 and 6 months. When you consider the high mortality risk in the first year and a higher risk for UTI for boys in the first year, it may have made sense 1000 years ago......

SYL :)Looking again at this post, I think you could drop a 0 off that 1,000. I remind you that antibiotics were a 20th century discovery. And in less than a century we are facing more than a few multi-drug resistant strains of common bacterial pathogens. New antibiotics are so far not looking so side effect free, and to say they are a tad expensive is an understatement.

Skeptic Ginger

15th July 2007, 03:45 AM

I would say this is far more an emotional argumentation then the rest of the comments, and I presume it is not even about you... weird
I have some comments to this rant:
1) preventing UTI is only effective for age 2 months to 6 months after that females catch up with males (uncircumcised) and after the 4th year have far more infections than males. So the infection argument is only valid if there if an infection problem in the first year of life and only if it's recurrent and not easily treated by antibiotics.
Females have a larger number of UTI's (far exceeding men for various reasons: toilet training, hygiene, short urethra....etc)The rate of UTIs in any group other than the one in question is irrelevant. Are you mixing arguments here, because I don't get your point. If there were some procedure in girls which reduced UTIs and one was arguing for male circs but not the equivalent female procedure then your argument would make sense. Otherwise, what relevance is this?

2) the potentially life threatening infection is very rarely caused by a cystitis. A nephritis which is less frequent and even rare in men even at a young age, often occurs in conjunction with other abnormalities (vesico-ureteral reflux= VUR). This may require surgery, but not always a circumcision and even circumcision in conjunction with VUR treatment may not lead to significant results. To prevent renal scaring it is hypothesized that there may be an effect but it has not been proven yet as far as I know. The medical committees of the AAP leave room for the treatment but do not endorse it. Compared to the European population you would expect a huge reduction in child mortality if circumcision was that effective and if your estimation of it's effects were true. It's not there... I don't think that American children are healthier then European ones. (I think it's rather the opposite, for different reasons)The AAP and the AAFP find the evidence equivocal. I have never stated otherwise. My position is since the evidence suggests some risk reduction and there is not strong evidence of harm, it is the parents' values that should influence the decision, not mine.

3) The medical effects were not noticed out of the blue and then researched, the urological and pediatric tradition in North America is to perform this procedure and that leads to a follow-up of possible benefits. Research is often led by funding and the fund for the research exist in North America. The European studies are less positive and remain very skeptical.I think you misunderstood my post. Ivor was claiming someone should study FGM to see if there were any medical benefits. I said show me some evidence and suggest an hypothesis. What was it he was proposing anyone look for? I said one doesn't just start studying things at random. There was evidence of lower UTI and HIV rates first, then the hypotheses, then the research.

4) the same reasons apply against circumcision in men as in women. The difference is your cultural viewpoint. So if we are going to put our emotions aside and look critically, let's do that and try to separate what you know from what you are taught.

SYL :)That would be true if there were no UTI risk reduction. You can say in your opinion, the risk reduction doesn't warrant the procedure. I would say the medical evidence of risk reduction is clear. The question is one of how much one values the benefit of lowered risk of UTI. My example of the parents who had lost a previous child to infection was to illustrate a case where one might very legitimately have developed different values on which they were basing this decision.

SYLVESTER1592

15th July 2007, 03:56 AM

Risk perception is the key factor here in my opinion. The public is not aware of the risk which infection and hospitalization alone carry. We live in a society where parents perceive vaccines to be riskier than the diseases the vaccines prevent because they have never seen a child die of measles or diphtheria.

<snip>

Risk perception influences those decisions but one cannot achieve a risk free life or protect your children from all risks. That's why I maintain this decision is up to the parents and how they perceive the risks and benefits, on what they value.

<snip>

What I don't think is right are those who cannot recognize that for some people the right decision is to reduce the risk of infection. We make decisions about what level and kinds of risks we want our children to have all through their young lives. I am comfortable telling parents I expect them to put that child in a proper vehicle restraint and they need a smoke alarm and a fire escape. I am not comfortable telling them they shouldn't value the benefit of circumcising their child because I have personal emotional feelings about the matter.

OK, I understand better than you might think, but while trying not to be insensitive.

A few things:

1) the work up for boys is because there is a high chance that there is a anatomical or functional problem when they start getting UTI's.

2) The risk perception is rather out of wack, the children dying due to a complicated UTI is very low in previously healthy children without antomical defects, so is the antibiotic resistance in bacteria that cause UTI (urea is a rather hostile substance to bacteria when they can't produce urease, this means the selection is less based on the antibiotic treatment, most uropathogens are not multiresistent, patients with a permanent cathether is a different story)

3) The hospital admission by itself is a risk factor and I don't want to seem insensitive, but to prevent one infection (ever), you need to circumcise more then a hundred men. Most of the infections are benign, you don't even know they had one.

4) When it comes down to the really ill children, with serious recurrent infections and no good way to stop it, I truly understand that pediatricians and pediatric urologists choose circumcision as a last resort that may have an additional positive effect. As a doctor a large part of the job is to support your patient and in pediatrics the parents both emotionally and with good advice. When it comes to advice, reason is a better advisor then emotions (it may be hard to do, but is necessary)

5) The problem in this thread is not circumcision for a medical indication, but as an infectious disease prevention of dubious effect, performed on the general population before they can consent to it. Parents choose and are often led by their physician. The physician gives them the advice... either to go on with it or not to do it. As a prevention strategy it is pointless and still a surgical procedure, with risks.
Most often these are not as gruesome as some people think, but definitely problematic in later life: circumcision too short with pain, too long with irritation, not wel alligned...
Ofcourse there are also the normal postoperative problems: pain, infection, bleeding,...

So in conclusion: I'm sorry if this sounds very insensitive, but as a prevention strategy, I would reject it. As a medical treatment, I would consider it. As an "aesthetic preference", I think it's just wrong in so many ways... I wouldn't know where to start. For religious reasons, you need someone else then a doctor, I don't think I could fully understand that in the way that would be required.

P.S.
Read the literature carefully. It is written with purpose, every word is weighed and should be read as such. I showed the oldest most strongly supporting evidence and foundation of the perceived benefit of this procedure in modern medicine. It was showed purposely, because it shows why there may be a benefit and that it entails a very limited group for a very limited time (this is the 2months- 6months group, after that there is no point, you start a prevention measure that is aimed at the lowest risk group, after the maximal effect has passed with all the risks of the treatment: compare with giving a cocktail flu shot after you had the flu). In later studies, the limitations were confirmed and the effects were questioned more and more. However, in severely ill patients it may be the basis on which a doctor can choose to try this as a last resort. When the risks are higher in a population, prevention becomes more effective...

For the plastic surgery part: it's similar because the operation, does essentially the same, just a lot neater with less damage
The mental picture of the tattoo is used for the same reason as the plastic surgery (actually some plastic surgeons do place tattoos, more specifically the skin of burn victims), to change your perspective and make you think in a less emotionally involved way, to clarify the essence of what you are looking at and why you make the decisions that you make.

I'm sure this will render a point by point discussion why you are right and I am wrong,... But the simple fact that children in Europa are not worse of, should illustrate the relatively small part (if any) that circumcision plays in the health care of children.

SYL :)

E.J.Armstrong

15th July 2007, 04:30 AM

Risk/cost vs benefit/risk of not doing

That is how you weigh risk benefit.

In your appendectomy example you left out the risk/cost of taking the appendix out.

That presumes that it is any different from cutting bits of the genitals of defenceless infants, which you have not demonstrated. Unfortunately simply asserting your conclusion does not make it correct.

You appear not to understand that anyone could use exactly the same argument to you, as, without any valid justification, you have apparently defined yourself as the appropriate arbiter of the meaning of risk and reward and therefore that other viewpoints are by definition wrong, as you suggest in your post.

Unfortunately this is another demonstration of resorting to euphemism as a method of avoiding the reality of what you are advocating, which is the genital mutilation of defenceless children.

Please let us know if you would let anyone chop a bit off your genital organs without your permission because they had satisfied themselves there was a positive risk/reward outcome?

Skeptic Ginger

15th July 2007, 04:42 AM

OK, I understand better than you might think, but while trying not to be insensitive.It wasn't insensitivity. I had a previous discussion that my position was influenced by my background as a patient advocate. The 2 MDs and med student interpreted that to mean I felt they weren't. But what I was trying to say was the medical model was more paternalistic, physicians tell patients what they need. Again, I am merely speaking of the medical model and the educational and professional influence, not that all providers were one way or the other.

As a nurse practitioner, I had a nursing education first, and my medical education was completely different from what one gets in med school. I've been trying to verbalize the difference but haven't been too successful so far. The whole focus of nursing is directed toward giving control back to the patient. So regardless of individual providers, our professions grew from different philosophies.

I don't think you are being insensitive. I think you are working in the medical model and I am working in the nursing model. We are seeing the problem differently. However, I think in this case, I am looking at a side of this that other people seem to not see. And it is my nursing expertise that gives me my perspective.

A few things:

1) the work up for boys is because there is a high chance that there is a anatomical or functional problem when they start getting UTI's.That reinforces my point. If the UTI is simply because the infant isn't circumcised, then being uncircumcised leads to unnecessary invasive medical procedures.

2) The risk perception is rather out of wack, the children dying due to a complicated UTI is very low in previously healthy children without antomical defects, so is the antibiotic resistance in bacteria that cause UTI (urea is a rather hostile substance to bacteria when they can't produce urease)The medical literature does not put the risk of UTI at zero. Again, I'm not arguing the risk suggests circumcision should be recommended. I am arguing it is the parent's values that matter here, not whether you or I think the risk is minimal. You (if I may be so bold) are in the medical mode thinking it is up to you to decide what is the acceptable risk for this child. There is not a question of some risk reduction, there is some. There also isn't a compelling argument that circumcised men are protesting in droves. The evidence is mixed and while a few people have strong feelings in the matter, the actual research doesn't support that those feelings are terribly widespread.

In nursing mode, I find the parents' values judging the value of risk reduction are what matters in this case. Who am I to tell them what to value? Yes, when the evidence is not so equivocal, then I have the expertise to tell them and I certainly spend a lot of time educating patients about risk. But in this case, one has to be darn careful that you are talking actual risk with those parents. Are you so sure that what you are calling "insensitive" to the parents might not really be insensitivity to the risk?

3) The hospital admission by itself is a risk factor and I don't want to seem insensitive, but to prevent one infection (ever), you need to circumcise more then a hundred men. Most of the infections are benign, you don't even know they had one.So?

My point is, you tell the parent what the actual risk is, the best you can. Then their values determine how they perceive that risk. Your job is to accurately describe the risk. Why do you see it as your job to also tell them how to value that risk. If they had a child who died, (again I'm just trying to illustrate we don't all get our values out of the same box), then do you think they are supposed to care that it takes a couple hundred circs to prevent one UTI and a couple thousand to prevent one hospitalization?

4) ... When it comes to advice, reason is a better advisor then emotions (it may be hard to do, but is necessary)And one must separate emotions from values. In addition, one must be at least aware that values and our own emotions are coloring our interpretation of the evidence as well.

5) The problem in this thread is not circumcision for a medical indication, but as an infectious disease prevention of dubious effect, performed on the general population before they can consent to it. Parents choose and are often led by their physician. The physician gives them the advice... either to go on with it or not to do it.I find some patients want my advice. But others are more satisfied when I give them information and they make decisions.

As a prevention strategy it is pointless and still a surgical procedure, with risks.
Most often these are not as gruesome as some people think, but definitely problematic in later life: circumcision too short with pain, too long with irritation, not wel alligned...
Ofcourse there are also the normal postoperative problems: pain, infection, bleeding,...I don't think the medical evidence supports this conclusion.

So in conclusion: I'm sorry if this sounds very insensitive, but as a prevention strategy, I would reject it....

....

I'm sure this will render a point by point discussion why you are right and I am wrong,... But the simple fact that children in Europa are not worse of, should illustrate the relatively small part (if any) that circumcision plays in the health care of children.

SYL :)Back this up with some evidence and I'll always consider it. I pride myself on professional growth that comes with an insatiable appetite for more reading. But just on your 'gut' feeling, I am not convinced.

Nine% of those serious bacterial infections in those febrile kids in one of your citations had bacturia. That's a lot of UTIs that circumcisions could potentially prevent. That's a lot of hospitalizations that could be prevented. And that's a lot of invasive procedures that could be prevented.

Skeptic Ginger

15th July 2007, 04:50 AM

That presumes that it is any different from cutting bits of the genitals of defenceless infants, which you have not demonstrated. Unfortunately simply asserting your conclusion does not make it correct.

You appear not to understand that anyone could use exactly the same argument to you, as, without any valid justification, you have apparently defined yourself as the appropriate arbiter of the meaning of risk and reward and therefore that other viewpoints are by definition wrong, as you suggest in your post.

Unfortunately this is another demonstration of resorting to euphemism as a method of avoiding the reality of what you are advocating, which is the genital mutilation of defenceless children.

Please let us know if you would let anyone chop a bit off your genital organs without your permission because they had satisfied themselves there was a positive risk/reward outcome?I am not much affected by this absurd portrayal of a circumcision. I'll stick with the medical research, thank you.

E.J.Armstrong

15th July 2007, 05:05 AM

... I am not comfortable telling them they shouldn't value the benefit of circumcising their child because I have personal emotional feelings about the matter.

It seems that much of your argument boils down to 'I choose to define those who disagree with me as emotional.'

I'd rather not visit a health worker who did that.

ClintonHammond

15th July 2007, 05:07 AM

" I'd rather not visit a health worker who did that."
+1

1030 posts and the answer is still the same....

E.J.Armstrong

15th July 2007, 05:29 AM

I am not much affected by this absurd portrayal of a circumcision. I'll stick with the medical research, thank you.
Let us take you thorugh it one more time then.

'Circumcision is genital mutilation of a defenceless child.'
Instead of merely asserting that your argument is correct in a very emotional manner would you be so kind as to tell me specifically which one (or more) of those words is absurd?

You claim that you will stick to the medical research. Perhaps you have not heard that 'In the UK, routine circumcision isn't thought to be medically necessary. This is because the risks associated with having a surgical procedure that involves a general anaesthetic and the possible postoperative complications outweigh any possible medical benefits.' from http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/conditions/circumcision1.shtml
The American Academy of Pediatrics does not recommend routine circumcision.

The American Medical Association states that decreases in urinary-tract infections among infants and penile cancer among adults are not significant enough to warrant the procedure.

The Australian Association of Pediatric Surgeons says that "We do not support the removal of a normal part of the body, unless there are definite indications to justify the complications and risks which may arise."

It seems you aren't sticking with the medical research and as your emotional response clarifies simply want to inflict genital mutilation on defenceless children for your own cosmetic reasons.

fls

15th July 2007, 05:41 AM

It wasn't insensitivity. I had a previous discussion that my position was influenced by my background as a patient advocate. The 2 MDs and med student interpreted that to mean I felt they weren't.

That's kinda the opposite of what happened. What you did was say something that explicitly implied that physicians weren't patient advocates (as well as several other things). I pointed out (as did HawkeyeMD) that I didn't think that was what you were trying to say. I dropped the discussion as an exercise in futility, and I don't really see that anything has changed, so maybe you could leave me (maybe the others as well, but I don't speak for them) out of this?

Linda

fls

15th July 2007, 06:22 AM

Parents choose and are often led by their physician. The physician gives them the advice... either to go on with it or not to do it.

I'm trying to remember....are you a physician in the US?

Do you have an impression as to how much of this is physician led? I looked at some survey information which found that most parents had made the decision for or against circumcision before talking to the physician. And that very few changed their mind based on what the physician said. I said earlier that I thought measures directed at changing parents' attitudes and behaviours would probably be more effective than changing physicians' behaviour. But I haven't dismissed consideration of the physician's part (while trying not to stray into paternalism :)).

So in conclusion: I'm sorry if this sounds very insensitive, but as a prevention strategy, I would reject it. As a medical treatment, I would consider it. As an "aesthetic preference", I think it's just wrong in so many ways... I wouldn't know where to start. For religious reasons, you need someone else then a doctor, I don't think I could fully understand that in the way that would be required.

I touched on this idea earlier. I think that rejection of the procedure for religious reasons would have to come from the AAP or AMA, rather than individual practitioners.* Do you think that could happen in the current political climate in the US? I don't have a feel for how lightly secular organizations have to tread when it comes to the impact on religious choices.

Linda

*I'm willing to discuss this further if it doesn't make sense.

Darat

15th July 2007, 06:42 AM

I am not much affected by this absurd portrayal of a circumcision. I'll stick with the medical research, thank you.

But that would mean that you also disagree with the label of "female genital mutilation" for most of the female circumcisions that are carried out in the world (i.e. about 80-85% are Type 1 as defined by the WHO ETA - correction it is 85% for Type I & II combined can't find a figure for just Type 1) - which I have to say I don't think you do.

Why the apparent discrepancy in viewing comparable forms of "genital tissue removal" (to try and avoid any accusations of using "emotive language") based on the sex of the patient?

fls

15th July 2007, 08:23 AM

But that would mean that you also disagree with the label of "female genital mutilation" for most of the female circumcisions that are carried out in the world (i.e. about 80-85% are Type 1 as defined by the WHO ETA - correction it is 85% for Type I & II combined can't find a figure for just Type 1) - which I have to say I don't think you do.

Why the apparent discrepancy in viewing comparable forms of "genital tissue removal" (to try and avoid any accusations of using "emotive language") based on the sex of the patient?

Most cases of FGC (female genital cutting - less emotive?) do not remove tissue that is analogous to that removed in the male circumcision. Type 1 is with or without partial or complete excision of the clitoris. According to this report (http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/FGM-C_final_10_October.pdf) from 2005 (previously supplied by KellyB), removal of all or part of the clitoris is included in the majority of the procedures in many countries where it is practised (table on page 40).

The second component is the degree of control available to women within the culture where FGC is practiced, and the consequences of not having the procedure. This profound difference also makes the two incomparable when it comes to issues of choice.

Linda

HawkeyeMD

15th July 2007, 08:56 AM

It wasn't insensitivity. I had a previous discussion that my position was influenced by my background as a patient advocate. The 2 MDs and med student interpreted that to mean I felt they weren't. But what I was trying to say was the medical model was more paternalistic, physicians tell patients what they need. Again, I am merely speaking of the medical model and the educational and professional influence, not that all providers were one way or the other.

Same old song, eh?

Linda (fls) has my authority to speak for me on this subject. Since the actual discussion was several pages before Sylvester joined in (S., I would be the medical student), and since he probably has better things to do than to exhaustively read what Linda correctly describes as an exercise in futility, perhaps you would be so kind as to do as she asks and leave us out of it, particularly since you stopped responding to us as soon as it was made clear that you a) weren't actually reading what we were saying and b) were unable to justify your conclusions.

The 'medical model' does not advocate paternalism. Since you are unwilling to release your inherent bias on this subject, it would be better for all concerned if you would, as I previously suggested, stop bringing it up as a justification.

As a nurse practitioner, I had a nursing education first, and my medical education was completely different from what one gets in med school.

Right, so you went to med school...where?

Which gives you an in-depth knowledge on what is taught there...how?

That reinforces my point. If the UTI is simply because the infant isn't circumcised, then being uncircumcised leads to unnecessary invasive medical procedures.

There is no possible way to definitively state 'the UTI is simply because the infant isn't circumcised.' Circumcised infants also get UTIs.

It has been pointed out to you again and again, both by me and by Linda, that the evidence also does not support the theory that most parents are interested in circumcision because of risk reduction at all. As I believe Linda stated in a previous post, the most common reasons are things like tradition, religion and because the father is circumcised.

My point has been that I do not think that these are sufficient medical reasons to perform a procedure that permanently alters the body. As I have also said, and this is the third time, it might indeed be something to consider in a child with recurrent UTI, or for parents who are primarily concerned with UTI--although as a patient advocate, I would certainly have to point out that the medical evidence is equivocal on this point--as you have agreed.

So in conclusion: I'm sorry if this sounds very insensitive, but as a prevention strategy, I would reject it. As a medical treatment, I would consider it. As an "aesthetic preference", I think it's just wrong in so many ways... I wouldn't know where to start. For religious reasons, you need someone else then a doctor, I don't think I could fully understand that in the way that would be required.

Sylvester has summed up the medical evidence that was discussed in the first 25 pages of this thread admirably. This is essentially my position in a nutshell.

The problem is that you keep trying to make this about "not respecting the parent's decision", ignoring the fact that the decision is generally not made on the basis of risk reduction, and then bolstering your argument by statistics on infection. Then, when it is pointed out yet again that the medical evidence is equivocal on whether the procedure has value as a preventive measure, you accuse the doctor of insensitivity or paternalism. It is arguing in a circle.

But that would mean that you also disagree with the label of "female genital mutilation" for most of the female circumcisions that are carried out in the world (i.e. about 80-85% are Type 1 as defined by the WHO ETA - correction it is 85% for Type I & II combined can't find a figure for just Type 1) - which I have to say I don't think you do.

Why the apparent discrepancy in viewing comparable forms of "genital tissue removal" (to try and avoid any accusations of using "emotive language") based on the sex of the patient?

Darat, good luck with that one. :cool:

Ivor the Engineer

15th July 2007, 09:43 AM

Skeptigirl,

Any advantages of FGM have not been discovered because the procedure has not been adopted by the medical community and what is actually removed is highly variable compared to male circumcision.

You may not want to accept my statement:

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.

but that is what the best available evidence indicates. You keep on finding small studies compared to the cohort of 400000 boys, which showed just over a 1% absolute risk reduction for UTI, giving a NNT of ~100. The complication rate is estimated to be from 2-10%. Even taking the lower figure, more complications arise in circumcised boys because of circumcision than UTI's in uncircumcised boys.

So, tell me why the studies you quote are more likely to be true than a cohort study with over 400000 boys. Tell me why the estimate of a 2% complication rate is too high.

Then there is the pain and distress that the infant experiences, both during and after the procedure. EMLA is not totally effective at reducing the pain during the procedure (and is not always (often) used:eye-poppi). Either way, there is going to be several days of discomfort after the procedure, from both mild infection and the exposed sensitive glans being irritated by clothing (or a nappy in the case of infants). Being strapped down to a table by the wrists and ankles is obviously distressing for many infants.

Are these facts provided to parents by physicians? I doubt it. Just the 2% complications for 1% benefit should be enough to dissuade parents without a hefty bias toward circumcision from electing to have the procedure performed.

Please stop using the fact than most circumcised men are not protesting. They have never known any different. Or those men who needed to be circumcised for medical reasons are "satisfied" with the results. Satisfaction is relative. I'm satisfied with my appendix unless it gets infected. If it does I'll be satisfied with a scar on my body and with it removed.

And finally, as Sylvester1592 has already pointed out, if circumcision was providing a worth-while benefit to American boys it would show up in morbidity and mortality rates between similar cultures that do and do not circumcise their infants.

It's probably going to be the insurance companies who stop it in America, by refusing to pay a few hundred dollars for a non-essential procedure and one that is often largely done for cosmetic reasons to be performed on millions of infants.

Maybe because you only see "persuasion" as "total agreement with and expression of equal outrage with Ivor"?

Just a thought, y'know.

No, it was actually because I was expecting intelligent people to see the logic of my arguments, rather than come up with excuses and exceptions as to why this particular form of mutilation is acceptable for members of their profession to practice on mass.

BTW, I only find the idea of circumcisions performed without effective pain relief outrageous.

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.

True, but physicians do tend to sell themselves on the idea that they know better than the patient what is medically required for their condition;) Though Google and Pubmed run a pretty close second:D

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.

It has been my experience in the UK that medical professionals rarely convey an accurate idea of the level of pain or discomfort a procedure is going to cause. I’ll add that I often think it is a good thing. I don’t think a physician or nurse saying to a patient “Now Mr. Jones, this is really going to hurt during/after.” would be in the best interests of the patient in many cases.

Perhaps you thought I was implying physicians and nurses do not empathise with the patient?

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?

I understand what you’re saying but think you misunderstood what I meant by ‘direct answer’. All questions have a direct answer, even if it is “I don’t know”. For some reason that answer is not seen as professional by many physicians, along with the statement “I was wrong”.

HawkeyeMD

15th July 2007, 10:39 AM

No, it was actually because I was expecting intelligent people to see the logic of my arguments, rather than come up with excuses and exceptions as to why this particular form of mutilation is acceptable for members of their profession to practice on mass.

BTW, I only find the idea of circumcisions performed without effective pain relief outrageous.

Then, once again, may I point out that your comparisons of the procedure to rape and child abuse and so forth are specious and inflammatory.

I keep pointing out that essentially, I agree with your position, but the reason I said what I did above is because that just because I agree with what you are saying about circumcision does not mean that I agree with all of your arguments.

If you truly think that circumcision is analogous to the acts you instanced, then you should not find only unaenesthetized circumcision to be outrageous. Even if you were only using them to illustrate an underlying philosophical principle. I just find that inconsistent.

True, but physicians do tend to sell themselves on the idea that they know better than the patient what is medically required for their condition;) Though Google and Pubmed run a pretty close second:D

If they don't, then the patient should probably get another doctor. That's just silly, Ivor. It isn't some kind of medical holier-than-thou attitude that makes medical professionals think they know more about the subject than most patients. Years of training and experience does have something to do with it.

I know you meant this jokingly, but come on. Google and Pubmed are not good sources of medical knowledge unless you have the ability to read what you find on them critically. That presupposes a certain amount of knowledge. Using Google and Pubmed uncritically is how you wind up with all those websites against vaccination. This is not to say that laymen are incapable of using these sources critically--you seem to be a perfect example of one who is--but it is not a given.

You are confusing 'best interests' with 'medical advice'. They are two separate things. Which is what skeptigirl seems to think I don't understand, but I digress.

It has been my experience in the UK that medical professionals rarely convey an accurate idea of the level of pain or discomfort a procedure is going to cause. I’ll add that I often think it is a good thing. I don’t think a physician or nurse saying to a patient “Now Mr. Jones, this is really going to hurt during/after.” would be in the best interests of the patient in many cases.

Perhaps you thought I was implying physicians and nurses do not empathise with the patient?

Nope, I thought you were generalizing from personal or anecdotal evidence. :cool: Which, apparently, you were. :D

I understand what you’re saying but think you misunderstood what I meant by ‘direct answer’. All questions have a direct answer, even if it is “I don’t know”. For some reason that answer is not seen as professional by many physicians, along with the statement “I was wrong”.

Perhaps I did. It is not, in fact, my experience that "I don't know" is usually considered by a patient to be a direct answer. :rolleyes:

Mr. Randi's oft-quoted quip aside, again, I think you are over-generalizing. Since I have occasionally been accused of defensiveness ;) , I will just say that it does get tiresome to hear these same old stereotypes of doctors trotted out over and over again as implication that 'this is how doctors behave' or 'this is all doctors' attitude.'

Right here on this forum, you have at least three MDs (if I am understanding correctly that Sylvester is also an MD) who I think have all been discussing both sides of this issue with a fair amount of knowledge and bringing up some very interesting points (at least, IMHO). I don't think any of them have implied that they have the Ultimate Answer to LTUAE. I keep reading your responses and it seems like nothing but complete agreement with your every point will do, Ivor. If you're going to discuss the medical evidence, fine. If you're going to discuss the ethical implications, fine. But I don't have to agree with everything you say about both, and it just seems to me that you're keeping arguments going instead of having real discussions because you will accept nothing less.

Darat

15th July 2007, 10:42 AM

Most cases of FGC (female genital cutting - less emotive?) do not remove tissue that is analogous to that removed in the male circumcision. Type 1 is with or without partial or complete excision of the clitoris. According to this report (http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/FGM-C_final_10_October.pdf) from 2005 (previously supplied by KellyB), removal of all or part of the clitoris is included in the majority of the procedures in many countries where it is practised (table on page 40).

Which makes it very comparable since male genital cutting removes tissue very rich in nerves and significantly reduces the overall sensitivity of the male genitals - as does some Type I female genital cutting.

The second component is the degree of control available to women within the culture where FGC is practiced,and the consequences of not having the procedure. This profound difference also makes the two incomparable when it comes to issues of choice.

Linda

You've asserted this before however you have not so far as I am aware substantiated your claim that this makes genital cutting acceptable in males but not in female. (Indeed societies and cultures that routinely practice genital cutting use the same arguments and social and cultural pressures regardless of which sex they favour cutting.)

fls

15th July 2007, 11:56 AM

Which makes it very comparable since male genital cutting removes tissue very rich in nerves and significantly reduces the overall sensitivity of the male genitals - as does some Type I female genital cutting.

You asked how a distinction could be made. Other than some superficial similarities, the tissues are anatomically, physiologically and embryologically different, which allows one to make a distinction on that basis.

You've asserted this before however you have not so far as I am aware substantiated your claim that this makes genital cutting acceptable in males but not in female. (Indeed societies and cultures that routinely practice genital cutting use the same arguments and social and cultural pressures regardless of which sex they favour cutting.)

I have not made the claim that genital cutting is acceptable in males (I have stated that I am not in favour of genital cutting). I am attempting to figure out when someone else's ideas cross the line - when my concerns should be allowed to supersede someone else's. When grown men consent to circumcision for their son, they are essentially consenting to their own circumcision. If I am confident that they are making the choice freely, without coercion, I can't really justify intervening just because I consider the practice questionable. However, I have no confidence that females are freely consenting to FGC considering that they may not have the power to withhold their consent, and that the situation is strongly coercive when refusal leads to a life of abuse and ostracization.

I'm not trying to persuade (you seem to already feel strongly about this issue), but rather explain.

Linda

SYLVESTER1592

15th July 2007, 12:05 PM

I'm trying to remember....are you a physician in the US?

Do you have an impression as to how much of this is physician led? I looked at some survey information which found that most parents had made the decision for or against circumcision before talking to the physician. And that very few changed their mind based on what the physician said. I said earlier that I thought measures directed at changing parents' attitudes and behaviours would probably be more effective than changing physicians' behaviour. But I haven't dismissed consideration of the physician's part (while trying not to stray into paternalism :)).

I touched on this idea earlier. I think that rejection of the procedure for religious reasons would have to come from the AAP or AMA, rather than individual practitioners.* Do you think that could happen in the current political climate in the US? I don't have a feel for how lightly secular organizations have to tread when it comes to the impact on religious choices.

Linda

*I'm willing to discuss this further if it doesn't make sense.

Nope not in the US, but in The Netherlands. We can refuse under the WGBO ( a law that handles the treatment agreement between physicians and patients in the Netherlands). I agree that in most cases patients have made their decision already, but physicians deal with medical reasons for a procedure not individual preference. Although I agree that we sometimes try to give the patients what they want, that does not necessarily make it a medical indication. We don't do circumcision for religious reasons, it can be done in a hospital, but we normally don't do that... (I reckon that must be a suprise :D )
The decision becomes a non-medical issue in the Netherlands. Actually, having a circumcision is not the norm in Europe. Religious reasons for a circumcision do occur here, but are often not part of hospital policy. Most patients know better then to ask the doctor for it over here, but we do see the complications. Some doctors do provide this service of circumcision, but it's not offered as standard medical treatment. If you ask for it it can be done, but does not get the label "religious" on it.

SYL :)

fls

15th July 2007, 12:32 PM

Nope not in the US, but in The Netherlands. We can refuse under the WGBO ( a law that handles the treatment agreement between physicians and patients in the Netherlands). I agree that in most cases patients have made their decision already, but physicians deal with medical reasons for a procedure not individual preference. Although I agree that we sometimes try to give the patients what they want, that does not necessarily make it a medical indication. We don't do circumcision for religious reasons, it can be done in a hospital, but we normally don't do that... (I reckon that must be a suprise :D )

I'm Canadian and it's not really a surprise. I was looking for some insight into US practices, but I see I'm closer to the action than you. :)

Linda

osmosis

15th July 2007, 01:29 PM

It seems you aren't sticking with the medical research and as your emotional response clarifies simply want to inflict genital mutilation on defenceless children for your own cosmetic reasons.

nonono.. admittedly, I've skipped a few of SG's posts, but I haven't seen ANY indication that she takes the position she takes for "her own cosmetic reasons." The medical argument is the only ethical defense of RIC, and to her credit, she's "sticking" to that "issue". (pun intended. sorry.)

So let's get it over with, shall we? It seems to me we could simply stack some numbers side-by-side and see how they compare. We've got at least one developed nation where RIC is common, and at least one where it is not. I don't have the numbers, but can we agree that those numbers would go a long way towards settling this?

osmosis

15th July 2007, 01:46 PM

So far I'm just as anti-circ as I was at the start of the thread, but I consider myself a highly rational and reasonable person and my mind can still be changed. Here's my tally of the debate:

cosmetic argument: invalid
cultural/Jew argument: invalid
ethical argument: negative (don't cut!)
sexual argument: negative (don't cut!)
medical argument: pending

Darat

15th July 2007, 02:17 PM

You asked how a distinction could be made. Other than some superficial similarities, the tissues are anatomically, physiologically and embryologically different, which allows one to make a distinction on that basis.

No I didn't.

However even your point is quite easily countered - they end up serving a similar function e.g. sexual pleasure and sexual stimulation therefore functionally they are comparative across the sexes.

I have not made the claim that genital cutting is acceptable in males (I have stated that I am not in favour of genital cutting).

Yet that is part of the argument you made to try and explain why the comparison between some male and some female genital cutting are not appropriate.

...snip...

When grown men consent to circumcision for their son, they are essentially consenting to their own circumcision.

No they are not.

...snip...

If I am confident that they are making the choice freely, without coercion, I can't really justify intervening just because I consider the practice questionable.

...snip...

Since your starting premise is wrong this conclusion that is based on that is not necessarily correct.

...snip...

However, I have no confidence that females are freely consenting to FGC considering that they may not have the power to withhold their consent, and that the situation is strongly coercive when refusal leads to a life of abuse and ostracization.

I'm not trying to persuade (you seem to already feel strongly about this issue), but rather explain.

Linda

Yet you are not doing so you are merely repeating your assertions.

Ivor the Engineer

15th July 2007, 02:55 PM

Then, once again, may I point out that your comparisons of the procedure to rape and child abuse and so forth are specious and inflammatory.

You may. I think the reason you think these acts are particularly different to circumcision is because you imagine they always involved an aggressive motive. E.g., no one who loved their child could let them be beaten with a cane, could they? No one who loved their wife could force themself on her, could they?

In the case of caning children, people really did think they were helping the child "learn" right from wrong.

I keep pointing out that essentially, I agree with your position, but the reason I said what I did above is because that just because I agree with what you are saying about circumcision does not mean that I agree with all of your arguments.

Tell me where you think my arguments are flawed and I'll either accept your criticism or try to explain what I think you have missed in them.

If you truly think that circumcision is analogous to the acts you instanced, then you should not find only unaenesthetized circumcision to be outrageous. Even if you were only using them to illustrate an underlying philosophical principle. I just find that inconsistent.

I find unaenesthetized circumcision to be outrageous. I find infant circumcision when not medically indicated (i.e. unlikely to have any medical benefit) wrong.

I find a child being burnt with a cigarette (for any reason) outrageous. I find a child being caned for fighting in school wrong.

I find a woman being raped by her husband outrageous. I find a woman who believes she cannot say 'no' to sex because it's her husbands right to demand it when he wants, wrong.

I'll admit the boundary between what I find wrong and what I find outrageous is purely personal. However, I think my reasoning is consistent.

If they don't, then the patient should probably get another doctor. That's just silly, Ivor. It isn't some kind of medical holier-than-thou attitude that makes medical professionals think they know more about the subject than most patients. Years of training and experience does have something to do with it.

It has been my experience that many professionals think (or behave as if) they know more than they actually do. I don't believe medical professionals are any different. My experiences to date with them have not made me change my mind.

It's actually quite refreshing to find a professional <insert profession here> who isn't afraid to admit they don't know something from their own field of expertise.

I know you meant this jokingly, but come on. Google and Pubmed are not good sources of medical knowledge unless you have the ability to read what you find on them critically. That presupposes a certain amount of knowledge. Using Google and Pubmed uncritically is how you wind up with all those websites against vaccination. This is not to say that laymen are incapable of using these sources critically--you seem to be a perfect example of one who is--but it is not a given.

I think the actual figures were Google and PubMed were correct 58% and 88% of the time, respectively. But I completely agree with you that where a physician's skill and training come in is being able to interpret symptoms and other information to figure out what's likely to be wrong with their patient.

You are confusing 'best interests' with 'medical advice'. They are two separate things. Which is what skeptigirl seems to think I don't understand, but I digress.

I can see how this may be the case for healthy and terminally ill people, but how could correct medical advice be different to serving the best interests of the patient if they are treatable?

Nope, I thought you were generalizing from personal or anecdotal evidence. :cool: Which, apparently, you were. :D

All I can say is the people I know must be really unlucky.

Perhaps I did. It is not, in fact, my experience that "I don't know" is usually considered by a patient to be a direct answer. :rolleyes:

Well if all you say is "I don't know" and that's it then yes, it's pretty useless as an answer, other than to inform the patient that you can not be of assistance to them. However, "I don't know, but I know where/what I can try to find out" is both direct and useful.

Mr. Randi's oft-quoted quip aside, again, I think you are over-generalizing. Since I have occasionally been accused of defensiveness ;) , I will just say that it does get tiresome to hear these same old stereotypes of doctors trotted out over and over again as implication that 'this is how doctors behave' or 'this is all doctors' attitude.'

If it makes you feel better I think all professionals who deal with non-professionals behave in the same way. I'm not picking on doctors in particular.

Right here on this forum, you have at least three MDs (if I am understanding correctly that Sylvester is also an MD) who I think have all been discussing both sides of this issue with a fair amount of knowledge and bringing up some very interesting points (at least, IMHO). I don't think any of them have implied that they have the Ultimate Answer to LTUAE. I keep reading your responses and it seems like nothing but complete agreement with your every point will do, Ivor. If you're going to discuss the medical evidence, fine. If you're going to discuss the ethical implications, fine. But I don't have to agree with everything you say about both, and it just seems to me that you're keeping arguments going instead of having real discussions because you will accept nothing less.

I don't mind people disagreeing with me so long as they know they are wrong and do what I want them to do:D

You don't have to agree with anything I say. But it would be nice when you don't if you could say why you don't. Then maybe we could both learn something.

Or should I just post abstracts from PubMed and say "Hmmmm. This looks interesting. Discuss."?

Ivor the Engineer

15th July 2007, 03:16 PM

That was a pretty safe bet. After all, how often does anyone change their mind on a strongly held opinion.

Linda

I find the frequency of mind changing is inversely proportional to a persons' age, level of education and number of children:D

Ivor the Engineer

15th July 2007, 04:21 PM

...When grown men consent to circumcision for their son, they are essentially consenting to their own circumcision. If I am confident that they are making the choice freely, without coercion, I can't really justify intervening just because I consider the practice questionable...

Linda

A legal definition does not equal right or (in this case) physically possible.

And who's saying intervene? Just say there is no medical reason to have the child circumcised (already done, I believe), it will hurt a lot during the procedure and for several days after and the foreskin is a functional body part.

HawkeyeMD

15th July 2007, 06:23 PM

Tell me where you think my arguments are flawed and I'll either accept your criticism or try to explain what I think you have missed in them.

I think your arguments were flawed because you did not, at least initially, make any such differentiation. I also, to repeat, think that they are flawed because ultimately, you are comparing apples and oranges. Comparing beating a child or raping a woman, neither of which has any possible medical application, to a procedure that may in some cases be medically indicated, is an analogy that breaks down too soon to be useful. When you are trying to make the distinction between something that you find "wrong" and something that you find "outrageous", which I would take to mean that you find it unacceptable under any circumstances whatsoever, and you use examples like that, my response is that I find all of the situations that you outline to be outrageous. I would never agree that any of them are acceptable.

The idea that mores change and ethics are fluid over time is undeniable. I just question the utility of those examples in support of your thesis (i.e., that circumcision is not medically warranted in most cases).

I think the actual figures were Google and PubMed were correct 58% and 88% of the time, respectively. But I completely agree with you that where a physician's skill and training come in is being able to interpret symptoms and other information to figure out what's likely to be wrong with their patient.

That's completely meaningless to me. What's 'correct'? Especially when you are considering a question where evidence has to be evaluated and weighed, I have no idea how anyone would arrive at a number like that. Correct on what question? What year Columbus took sail from Spain? Most sites probably get that right. It means nothing in terms of medical evidence.

I can see how this may be the case for healthy and terminally ill people, but how could correct medical advice be different to serving the best interests of the patient if they are treatable?

'Treatable' is not the same thing as 'curable'. Most medical issues are not curable unless they involve infection (and not always then) or surgery (not always then either).

'Correct' medical advice is another fairly meaningless term. All physicians do not advise the same treatment given the same patient. Also, there's a medical truism that goes "the best treatment is the one the patient can tolerate'. If one medication is the 'best' for treating a particular condition, for example, but the patient doesn't like the side effects, they won't take it.

For that reason, among others, the best interests of the patient is something that can only be determined in conjunction with the patient, or his or her surrogate in cases where the patient is unable or unwilling to participate in his/her own medical decisions.

What I'm trying to get across to you is that medicine is usually more complicated that you seem to be making it out to be.

All I can say is the people I know must be really unlucky.

Shame. You going to change all that? :cool:

Well if all you say is "I don't know" and that's it then yes, it's pretty useless as an answer, other than to inform the patient that you can not be of assistance to them. However, "I don't know, but I know where/what I can try to find out" is both direct and useful.

What about the cases where the honest answer is "I don't know", full stop? Because nobody knows?

People do want answers, Ivor, especially when they or someone they love is sick or hurt. And many times we simply don't have an answer for them. My last week on peds we had a two-year-old who came in for what we thought was a preseptal cellulitis (a bacterial inflammation of the area around the eye) and who turned out to have a neuroblastoma. And there's no reason why. He just did. I can't find out why on Pubmed. Though I can look up incidences and outcomes and hope that they're 88% correct, whatever that means. :boggled:

If it makes you feel better I think all professionals who deal with non-professionals behave in the same way. I'm not picking on doctors in particular.

I think that's a strangely glib attitude towards higher education, frankly. It also seems like you don't want me to say "I don't know" but you don't want me to pretend I know everything.

Kinda feel like I can't win in this scenario. You want to give just a little tiny bit of credit to those of us who really are, pinky finger to heaven, trying to do the best we can?

I don't mind people disagreeing with me so long as they know they are wrong and do what I want them to do:D

Oh, well then that's fine. Why didn't you say so in the first place? :rolleyes:

The point is that I agree with a lot of what you say, I just don't understand why you seem to need to take any disagreement with your arguments as being evidence of some moral failing on our (collective) part.

fls

15th July 2007, 07:10 PM

No I didn't.

You asked, "why the apparent discrepancy in viewing comparable forms of "genital tissue removal" (to try and avoid any accusations of using "emotive language") based on the sex of the patient?"

I was elaborating on why you saw a discrepancy in comparable forms, while others do not.

However even your point is quite easily countered - they end up serving a similar function e.g. sexual pleasure and sexual stimulation therefore functionally they are comparative across the sexes.

The contribution to that function is very different in amount and kind, though. Would it really be surprising to you to discover that men who were comfortable consenting to a circumcision on behalf of their son would balk at consenting to cutting off the penis altogether?

Yet that is part of the argument you made to try and explain why the comparison between some male and some female genital cutting are not appropriate.

My argument is that the degree of inappropriateness is related to the details of the relative procedures. It is not that the same procedure is mildly inappropriate in a man, but grossly inappropriate in a woman. It is that one procedure is mildly inappropriate and one is grossly inappropriate. It just so happens that the grossly inappropriate one is performed on women. It would also be grossly inappropriate if performed on men.

No they are not.

I can elaborate a bit. As I've mentioned before, the parent has to act as a surrogate decision maker for the child. They provide the answer to the question, "what would my child choose if they were fully capable of making this decision?" It is as though the future adult male were being asked what he would choose to have done to his infant self. When that circumcised infant grows up and becomes that future adult male, and it's time for him to make that decision for his own son, his consent at that time says that, if asked and capable, he would have consented to his own circumcision.

Since your starting premise is wrong this conclusion that is based on that is not necessarily correct.

Yet you are not doing so you are merely repeating your assertions.

It requires at least a little willingness on your part. I thought I'd give it a go.

Linda

Skeptic Ginger

15th July 2007, 09:17 PM

It seems that much of your argument boils down to 'I choose to define those who disagree with me as emotional.'

I'd rather not visit a health worker who did that.There are plenty of emotional posts here and at the same time, not everyone on either side of the discussion has posted emotional arguments.

However, your dismissal of everything I posted about the UTIs and about different people having different values by this attempt to attack the messenger isn't likely to lead to a productive discussion.

Try this key word:

equivocal (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/equivocal)1 a : subject to two or more interpretations... b : uncertain as an indication or sign <equivocal evidence>
2 a : of uncertain nature or classification <equivocal shapes> b : of uncertain disposition toward a person or thing : UNDECIDED

Skeptic Ginger

15th July 2007, 09:54 PM

That's kinda the opposite of what happened. What you did was say something that explicitly implied that physicians weren't patient advocates (as well as several other things). I pointed out (as did HawkeyeMD) that I didn't think that was what you were trying to say. I dropped the discussion as an exercise in futility, and I don't really see that anything has changed, so maybe you could leave me (maybe the others as well, but I don't speak for them) out of this?

LindaThis is rather an unfair conclusion. I tried to say something which was not taken as intended. It was a difficult concept to communicate. When my attempt to communicate the concept failed, I tried to clarify it. And now that I have restated it as I was originally attempting to, you choose to take your misunderstanding of what I said instead of the repeated clarifications of what I had tried to say.

Clearly I failed to communicate. That doesn't mean what you wrongly concluded I had said was factual. It means I failed to communicate. You were offended. I get it. But you were offended because you didn't understand what I was saying, because as you have now pointed out once again, it came across as my saying doctors were not patient advocates. Yet I never said that, you claim I implied it. Don't you think after all this time you've been reading my posts that if I believed nurses were good, doctors were bad or whatever it is you think I was saying, you wouldn't have read that sentiment in at least some of my previous posts by now?

I again tried to clarify what I had said in this post which was never responded to: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 [of the] thing[s] I think distinguishes physicians and nurses, You've all expressed being insulted by that.And then along comes Dr Sylvester bemoaning the fact he cannot always dictate to the patients what they should do, "The problem is quite clearly that physicians are deprived of their judgement and are instructed to comply with the demands of parents. This goes far beyond circumcision..."

I repeat, the nursing model differs from the medical model of care. I practice in both fields. I have observed the difference. It does not mean any individual nurse or doctor is restricted to these models. In fact, both professions have considerable overlap. We went through this already. But it seems you aren't willing to entertain the idea the original issue was simply failed communication. Instead you remain convinced after all this time that I have some belief/attitude never revealed until this thread that doctors are not patient advocates.

From my viewpoint, in this case, the idea nurses do not have any unique professional contribution to patient care is what seems to be the implication. Any attempt by me to discuss that unique professional perspective has been taken as insulting.

Skeptic Ginger

15th July 2007, 10:03 PM

But that would mean that you also disagree with the label of "female genital mutilation" for most of the female circumcisions that are carried out in the world (i.e. about 80-85% are Type 1 as defined by the WHO ETA - correction it is 85% for Type I & II combined can't find a figure for just Type 1) - which I have to say I don't think you do.

Why the apparent discrepancy in viewing comparable forms of "genital tissue removal" (to try and avoid any accusations of using "emotive language") based on the sex of the patient?I don't favor the term, "mutilation", for all classes of this ritual scarring. However, in many cases, it is a very mutilating procedure with removal the clitoris and sewing the opening to the vagina all done with the implicit intent of preventing sexual intercourse until marriage. And such a marriage is often one dictated by the parents. It has many parallels to slavery.

I have respect for other cultural traditions. But I have thought this one through and knowing the benefits in my own culture when women were given equal rights (almost, a little more work to do) I have come to the decision to oppose certain cultural traditions which only serve to oppress women.

So, do you think circumcision has the goal of oppressing men?

Skeptic Ginger

15th July 2007, 11:15 PM

Same old song, eh?

Linda (fls) has my authority to speak for me on this subject. Since the actual discussion was several pages before Sylvester joined in (S., I would be the medical student), and since he probably has better things to do than to exhaustively read what Linda correctly describes as an exercise in futility, perhaps you would be so kind as to do as she asks and leave us out of it, particularly since you stopped responding to us as soon as it was made clear that you a) weren't actually reading what we were saying and b) were unable to justify your conclusions.

The 'medical model' does not advocate paternalism. Since you are unwilling to release your inherent bias on this subject, it would be better for all concerned if you would, as I previously suggested, stop bringing it up as a justification.Care to describe your description of the medical model and enlighten us?

Right, so you went to med school...where?

Which gives you an in-depth knowledge on what is taught there...how?University of WA Family Nurse Practitioner program, MSN in 1985. And that in-depth knowledge comes from 31 years of practice, 4 states, a number of practice settings, a wide variety of positions in both inpatient and outpatient settings.

Are you claiming only med school provides any worthwhile education? I couldn't possibly know anything about the medical model of patient care or subtle difference between nursing and physician philosophies from 30 years of working with physicians, 20 of which were in the role of family nurse practitioner, 17 of which have been in a very successful private solo practice? Listen to your snobbery.

There is no possible way to definitively state 'the UTI is simply because the infant isn't circumcised.' Circumcised infants also get UTIs.It is a simple calculation. There are more UTIs in uncircumcised infants with no GU dysfunction than in circumcised infants with no GU dysfunction. Therefore you can expect at least some uncircumcised infants will have a UTI that necessitates an invasive work up which will be negative and which had they been circumcised would not have occurred. You don't need to prove which ones.

It has been pointed out to you again and again, both by me and by Linda, that the evidence also does not support the theory that most parents are interested in circumcision because of risk reduction at all. As I believe Linda stated in a previous post, the most common reasons are things like tradition, religion and because the father is circumcised.Find a post where I claimed otherwise.

My point has been that I do not think that these are sufficient medical reasons to perform a procedure that permanently alters the body. As I have also said, and this is the third time, it might indeed be something to consider in a child with recurrent UTI, or for parents who are primarily concerned with UTI--although as a patient advocate, I would certainly have to point out that the medical evidence is equivocal on this point--as you have agreed.And I have said many more than 3 times, I am not advocating routine circumcision. What I am saying never quite gets to the top of the top of the discussion pile. It's instead assumed repeatedly I am arguing for the medical benefit.

So let me once again re-direct this discussion to the actual issue. Whose decision is it? Is the evidence against circumcision so strong that the physician is justified in promoting the physician's decision?

My philosophy is to give the information, give the facts, but because there is no clear evidence tipping the balance here, the decision belongs to the parents. There is a lot of personal opinion tipping the balance here. There is not a lot of empirical evidence tipping the balance.

I can understand being the infant's advocate. Except for a simple matter, where is the empirical evidence which the physician is deciding for the infant? As the infant's advocate, where does the evidence end, and the personal values begin?

Sylvester has summed up the medical evidence that was discussed in the first 25 pages of this thread admirably. This is essentially my position in a nutshell.

The problem is that you keep trying to make this about "not respecting the parent's decision", ignoring the fact that the decision is generally not made on the basis of risk reduction, and then bolstering your argument by statistics on infection. Then, when it is pointed out yet again that the medical evidence is equivocal on whether the procedure has value as a preventive measure, you accuse the doctor of insensitivity or paternalism. It is arguing in a circle.I accused no one of insensitivity. You need to re-read what I said because it was the opposite. And I quoted what was a paternalistic statement. How about addressing the statement he made explaining why it wasn't paternalistic.

Tell me why if the evidence is equivocal, you should impose your values on someone else's child? You claim to not be paternalistic. No medical model, that is supposedly my false assertion. If there was evidence of harm, you could argue you were the infant's advocate. I couldn't find any empirical evidence of harm sufficient to say that it was greater than the empirical evidence of benefit. Both are small. But at the same time, there are scenarios where one person might value harm over potential benefit and in other scenarios, benefit over potential harm.

Yet without empirical evidence to sway that decision, your position here is you will determine if you will perform the circumcision based on your value of the parents' motives. If they are motivated to prevent UTIs, you might 'approve' of their decision. If you disapprove of the parents' motive, you will 'allow' the decision but not approve.

I would approve of whatever decision the parents made, it is their child, their right, their values, not mine. I cannot say there is medical evidence allowing me to claim my medical expertise should supercede their values.

Skeptic Ginger

16th July 2007, 12:19 AM

Since we are at post 1055 and since the issue of practice philosophy has a bearing on at least my part of this discussion, I think the little side discussion here is worth at least one more go. Frankly I'm disappointed my bringing up this particular issue has resulted in annoying some of those in the medical profession in this thread. Instead of a discussion on this room elephant, I have been accused of offending. Well, that's one of my weaker skills, always being tactful. Since I'm being demonized over this, I'm going to forgo further attempts at tactfulness and stick up for myself. The following come from the top of the lists on a Google search of "medical model paternalism" and "nursing model paternalism".

Poverty and Paternalism, A Psychiatric Viewpoint. (http://brookings.nap.edu/books/081575650X/html/279.html)...The first is to underscore that my conception of paternalism comes from the medical model. ....

Medical Paternalism; Allen Buchanan; Philosophy and Public Affairs, (1978) (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0048-3915(197822)7:4%3C370:MP%3E2.0.CO;2-6) (I note this is dated, but I'm not so sure the concept has changed as much as Linda believes.)There is evidence to show that among physicians in this country the medical paternalist model is a dominant way of conceiving the physician-patient relationship...

Medical paternalism and the fetus (http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/27/suppl_2/ii15?ck=nck)Abstract

A number of developments in the medical field have changed the debate about the ethics of abortion. These developments include: advances in fetal physiology, the increase in neonatal intensive care and the survival rates of premature infants. This paper discusses the idea of selective termination and the effects that these decisions have on disabled people of today. It presents a critique of the counselling services that are provided for the parents of a disabled fetus and discusses how this is viewed from a social perspective. The article ends with an argument that the mother deserves to be autonomous in the decision of abortion. The easiest and most fair way to develop her autonomy is to consider the relationship between a professional and a mother as an expert–expert relationship. Here both parties are considered experts in diagnostic information, treatment options, possibilities, and their history, family roots, philosophy and way of life, respectively

The Second Fifty Years: Promoting Health and Preventing Disability (1992); Institute of Medicine (http://www.nap.edu/books/0309046815/html/303.html)The medical model is usually defined in sociological terms. In fact, the classic analysis of Talcott Parsons30 provides the identifying criteria of the medical model: exculpation from responsibility, eligibility for benefits, assumption of the "sick role," and yielding of decision-making authority to medical professionals.

Nonnormativism is a key, albeit neglected, element of the medical model. The assumption of decision-making authority by medical professionals is directly linked to the presumption that doctors can objectively assess dysfunction and disorder and then act to restore proper functioning, whether it be mental or physical. Although critics of the medical model sometimes chafe at the paternalism that is an omnipresent aspect of institutionally based health care, they fail to see that paternalism is a direct result of the presumption of nonnormativism. If doctors do not need to make value judgements in diagnosing and treating illness and disease, and if they are able to detect facts about disease or impairment that are not and cannot be known to those who seek their care, then there is little to fear on the part of patients who cede authority to professionals as part of taking on the "sick role." The medical model is social, but it is also epistemological, and in large measure the social acceptance of the medical model rests on the acceptance of the value-neutrality inherent in the epistemology of nonnormativism, which dominates medicine.

Paternalism in Nursing and Healthcare: Central Issues and their Relation to Theory (http://nsq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/16/4/288)William K. Cody, RN; PhD; Professor and Chair, Family and Community Nursing, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, wkcody@email.uncc.edu

Paternalistic practices, wherein providers confer a treatment or service upon a person or persons without their consent, ostensibly by reason of their limited autonomy or diminished capacity, are widespread in healthcare and in societies around the world. In the United States, paternalism in health and human services is widespread and probably increasing with newly emergent forms. Numerous issues surround paternalistic practices. In this column, the author examines these issues in relation to theory development in healthcare and nursing as well as theory as a guide to practice. It is suggested that scientific and ethical knowing are not separate but must be united in theoretical structures that include both in unity, along with an appreciation of the infinite complexity of life as it is humanly lived. It is also suggested that nursing's unique theory base of frameworks that honor human dignity and focus on human experience offers an opportunity for leadership in further developing theoretical frameworks that transcend paternalistic practices.

Key Words: autonomy • beneficence • human dignity • nursing theory • paternalism • universalism

Restraints: a current perspective - management of nursing home patients - Nursing Care (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3830/is_n2_v42/ai_13887134)Actions done in the patient's own best interest but that override the patient's autonomous choice can be defined as paternalism. Neither beneficence nor paternalism is all good or all bad. What the health care provider needs to realize is that, even with the best of intentions, they may find no satisfactory solution to a problem they face. Moreover, risks are inherent in any choice or approach taken. No matter how beneficent are one's motives, the outcomes may still be poor.

Beneficence is certainly not limited to the nursing profession. Concern for the patient's best interest motivates all of medical care. In the medical model, action is usually taken quickly to minimize the possibility of any further harm.

The civil liberty model is another model that is used to weigh the rights of the individual against the need to provide protective services when the individual is unable to care for himself or herself. Unlike the medical model, however, there are a variety of procedural safeguards built into the civil liberty model to protect the person's freedom. The proof rests upon those who would restrict that freedom.(4)

Let's go back to the major dilemma. How do we balance our value system of beneficence with the patient's value system of independence and his or her right to choose a course of action?

Six Guidelines

There are no easy answers. There are guidelines, however, from the civil liberty model to evaluate the patient's right for autonomy in the light of our concerns for patient safety.....

The critical point here is I am not claiming good and evil. The best health care comes from a balance of nursing and medical care, regardless of provider or combinations of providers. There is no denying the underlying differences in the nursing and medical models of patient care. But we both practice some of each. In this particular discussion, I believe it is the parents' choice and if the providers are going to find that unacceptable, there ought to be sufficient medical evidence that no one need be debating whether personal values are obscuring objectivity. The evidence of harm and evidence of medical benefit are equivocal. Individuals here have strikingly different measures of the value attached to the harm and the benefit, but where is the empirical medical evidence which supports the provider's decision? And if there isn't such empirical medical evidence, then why do the parents not have the legitimate position of decision makers?

Ivor the Engineer

16th July 2007, 03:30 AM

I think your arguments were flawed because you did not, at least initially, make any such differentiation. I also, to repeat, think that they are flawed because ultimately, you are comparing apples and oranges. Comparing beating a child or raping a woman, neither of which has any possible medical application, to a procedure that may in some cases be medically indicated, is an analogy that breaks down too soon to be useful. When you are trying to make the distinction between something that you find "wrong" and something that you find "outrageous", which I would take to mean that you find it unacceptable under any circumstances whatsoever, and you use examples like that, my response is that I find all of the situations that you outline to be outrageous. I would never agree that any of them are acceptable.

Something I find outrageous I would try to stop there and then. Something I find wrong I would try to change over a longer timescale.

The idea that mores change and ethics are fluid over time is undeniable. I just question the utility of those examples in support of your thesis (i.e., that circumcision is not medically warranted in most cases).

There are two parts to my argument, one which you agree with and one you don’t. The first is that the medical evidence does not support infant circumcision in the vast majority of cases.

The second is the ethics of operating on a non-consenting (using the common-sense definition of consent) individual, causing them to suffer for an unlikely benefit and potentially doing them short and/or long-term harm.

That's completely meaningless to me. What's 'correct'? Especially when you are considering a question where evidence has to be evaluated and weighed, I have no idea how anyone would arrive at a number like that. Correct on what question? What year Columbus took sail from Spain? Most sites probably get that right. It means nothing in terms of medical evidence.

From wiki on differential diagnosis:

A recent study by Tang and Ng (BMJ 2006;333:1143-5) examined the effectiveness of Google searches in diagnosing extremely hard and/or unusual cases that are featured in the New England Journal of Medicine's case reports. These are cases that are challenging enough to merit publication in this leading journal. A quick search on 3 to 5 main words or phrases regarding the case found a correct diagnosis 58 % of the time. One responder (Wentz) replicated the study using the PUBMED database, and found the correct diagnosis to these challengingly difficult cases 88% of the time. (Groves T. 2007. "Can Google help you to diagnose patients' problems" sBMJ. Jan. Vol 15. p. 20-21.)

Use of rapid database searches as a tool to aid in differential diagnosis is still in its early stages of development and adoption. It will most likely meet with considerable resistance from some experts, and be the subject of valuable ongoing study and debate.

'Treatable' is not the same thing as 'curable'. Most medical issues are not curable unless they involve infection (and not always then) or surgery (not always then either).

'Correct' medical advice is another fairly meaningless term. All physicians do not advise the same treatment given the same patient. Also, there's a medical truism that goes "the best treatment is the one the patient can tolerate'. If one medication is the 'best' for treating a particular condition, for example, but the patient doesn't like the side effects, they won't take it.
For that reason, among others, the best interests of the patient is something that can only be determined in conjunction with the patient, or his or her surrogate in cases where the patient is unable or unwilling to participate in his/her own medical decisions.

What I'm trying to get across to you is that medicine is usually more complicated that you seem to be making it out to be.

Thank you for your explanation. Sorry that I gave you the impression I did not appreciate the complexities of choosing suitable medical treatments.

Shame. You going to change all that? :cool:

Some people I know tried and the only nurse prepared to testify about the negligent mistakes she witnessed suddenly changed her mind. It’s now the doctors’ word against theirs. Doesn’t sound like a particularly fruitful exercise.

What about the cases where the honest answer is "I don't know", full stop? Because nobody knows?

That’s fine by me. I don’t expect anyone to know everything or everything to be known.

People do want answers, Ivor, especially when they or someone they love is sick or hurt. And many times we simply don't have an answer for them. My last week on peds we had a two-year-old who came in for what we thought was a preseptal cellulitis (a bacterial inflammation of the area around the eye) and who turned out to have a neuroblastoma. And there's no reason why. He just did. I can't find out why on Pubmed. Though I can look up incidences and outcomes and hope that they're 88% correct, whatever that means. :boggled:

My father died of a glioblastoma last year. I don’t remember spending long on the question of why he developed it. My first thought was ‘he’s f*****d’, quickly followed ‘how long has he got?’ by followed by ‘what treatments are available?’ and finally ‘am I likely to get it?’. The last three Google and PubMed were quite useful in finding the ‘correct’ answers.

I think that's a strangely glib attitude towards higher education, frankly. It also seems like you don't want me to say "I don't know" but you don't want me to pretend I know everything.

What I’ve learned from my own higher education is that I can only ever expect to know a tiny amount of what is already known in my current expertise. My body of knowledge is quite tall but pretty narrow.

Kinda feel like I can't win in this scenario. You want to give just a little tiny bit of credit to those of us who really are, pinky finger to heaven, trying to do the best we can?

I give people who work with the general public and help others a lot of respect and credit.

The point is that I agree with a lot of what you say, I just don't understand why you seem to need to take any disagreement with your arguments as being evidence of some moral failing on our (collective) part.

I have failed to convince you (or any other medical professional here) that there is an ethical double-standard in the medical profession with respect to performing an infant male circumcision for unlikely benefit. I’ve currently run out of ideas of what I can say to get you or others to understand why I see it as a double-standard. Would you (or others) like to try to convince me why it is not?

Ivor the Engineer

16th July 2007, 03:42 AM

I can elaborate a bit. As I've mentioned before, the parent has to act as a surrogate decision maker for the child. They provide the answer to the question, "what would my child choose if they were fully capable of making this decision?" It is as though the future adult male were being asked what he would choose to have done to his infant self. When that circumcised infant grows up and becomes that future adult male, and it's time for him to make that decision for his own son, his consent at that time says that, if asked and capable, he would have consented to his own circumcision.

Linda

Based on the number of men who decide to change their circumcision status when capable, American parents suck at this intellectual exercise.

Perhaps they should be asked why they think their boy in particular is going to change his mind later in life if he's left intact, given that 80% of the men in the world aren't circumcised and the vast majority of them (including American men) do not change their minds?

The statistics don't support the decision to circumcise based on the likely wishes of the infant when he is older.

Ivor the Engineer

16th July 2007, 03:51 AM

I don't favor the term, "mutilation", for all classes of this ritual scarring. However, in many cases, it is a very mutilating procedure with removal the clitoris and sewing the opening to the vagina all done with the implicit intent of preventing sexual intercourse until marriage. And such a marriage is often one dictated by the parents. It has many parallels to slavery.

I have respect for other cultural traditions. But I have thought this one through and knowing the benefits in my own culture when women were given equal rights (almost, a little more work to do) I have come to the decision to oppose certain cultural traditions which only serve to oppress women.

So, do you think circumcision has the goal of oppressing men?

In the past that was one of its uses. To humiliate.

What a mass of contradictions you are, skeptigirl; you support the empowerment of women and at the same time, parents to make choices for their boy that he would probably (based on evidence) not make for himself as an adult.

HawkeyeMD

16th July 2007, 05:43 AM

There are two parts to my argument, one which you agree with and one you don’t. The first is that the medical evidence does not support infant circumcision in the vast majority of cases.

The second is the ethics of operating on a non-consenting (using the common-sense definition of consent) individual, causing them to suffer for an unlikely benefit and potentially doing them short and/or long-term harm.

You haven't been reading anything I've written if you don't think I agree with you on both of these points. I must have said it twenty times. I don't agree with routine circumcision for non-medical reasons. I even said I don't intend to perform routine circumcision for non-medical reasons. I also said I wouldn't do anything to try and stop a parent who wanted it done for other reasons from having it done elsewhere. That could mean a colleague who feels differently, a mohel, whatever. I've explained that in a procedure with equivocal medical benefits, the eventual right of a child to choose for himself has for me at least an equal weight with the parents' wishes.

This seems entirely consistent with both of your points. What I haven't understood is why you then keep trying to get me to agree with further ethical comparisons that I *don't* agree with. The only possible point on which I don't seem to agree with you is on the idea that this is directly analogous to child abuse. Your statement that you would try and change something you thought was only 'wrong' and not 'outrageous' over a larger period of time is also consistent with what I'm saying. The reason I'm not agreeing with your examples is that rape and child abuse are things which I would actively try to prevent.

My father died of a glioblastoma last year. I don’t remember spending long on the question of why he developed it. My first thought was ‘he’s f*****d’, quickly followed ‘how long has he got?’ by followed by ‘what treatments are available?’ and finally ‘am I likely to get it?’. The last three Google and PubMed were quite useful in finding the ‘correct’ answers.

I'm sorry to hear it. Mine died in 2005, during my first year of med school, of a sudden heart attack. It's very difficult.

I have failed to convince you (or any other medical professional here) that there is an ethical double-standard in the medical profession with respect to performing an infant male circumcision for unlikely benefit. I’ve currently run out of ideas of what I can say to get you or others to understand why I see it as a double-standard. Would you (or others) like to try to convince me why it is not?

No, because I basically *agree* with you--and you didn't even have to convince me, I felt that way before the conversation started. What I keep telling you is that your posts give the impression that unless I agree with every nuance of your argument, I am still somehow disagreeing with you. That's why I keep saying it feels like you're battering at me.

Ivor the Engineer

16th July 2007, 05:50 AM

You haven't been reading anything I've written if you don't think I agree with you on both of these points. I must have said it twenty times. I don't agree with routine circumcision for non-medical reasons. I even said I don't intend to perform routine circumcision for non-medical reasons. I also said I wouldn't do anything to try and stop a parent who wanted it done for other reasons from having it done elsewhere. That could mean a colleague who feels differently, a mohel, whatever. I've explained that in a procedure with equivocal medical benefits, the eventual right of a child to choose for himself has for me at least an equal weight with the parents' wishes.

This seems entirely consistent with both of your points. What I haven't understood is why you then keep trying to get me to agree with further ethical comparisons that I *don't* agree with. The only possible point on which I don't seem to agree with you is on the idea that this is directly analogous to child abuse. Your statement that you would try and change something you thought was only 'wrong' and not 'outrageous' over a larger period of time is also consistent with what I'm saying. The reason I'm not agreeing with your examples is that rape and child abuse are things which I would actively try to prevent.

I'm sorry to hear it. Mine died in 2005, during my first year of med school, of a sudden heart attack. It's very difficult.

No, because I basically *agree* with you--and you didn't even have to convince me, I felt that way before the conversation started. What I keep telling you is that your posts give the impression that unless I agree with every nuance of your argument, I am still somehow disagreeing with you. That's why I keep saying it feels like you're battering at me.

Sorry.:o

fls

16th July 2007, 06:00 AM

This is rather an unfair conclusion. I tried to say something which was not taken as intended. It was a difficult concept to communicate. When my attempt to communicate the concept failed, I tried to clarify it. And now that I have restated it as I was originally attempting to, you choose to take your misunderstanding of what I said instead of the repeated clarifications of what I had tried to say.

Clearly I failed to communicate. That doesn't mean what you wrongly concluded I had said was factual. It means I failed to communicate. You were offended. I get it. But you were offended because you didn't understand what I was saying, because as you have now pointed out once again, it came across as my saying doctors were not patient advocates. Yet I never said that, you claim I implied it. Don't you think after all this time you've been reading my posts that if I believed nurses were good, doctors were bad or whatever it is you think I was saying, you wouldn't have read that sentiment in at least some of my previous posts by now?

This is why I consider this an exercise in futility. I have never said that I was offended and explicitly stated otherwise, yet you continue to centre your argument around the idea that I was offended.

I again tried to clarify what I had said in this post which was never responded to:

Because the post was a strawman from beginning to end, and attempts to explain why had already been demonstrated to be futile.

And then along comes Dr Sylvester bemoaning the fact he cannot always dictate to the patients what they should do, "The problem is quite clearly that physicians are deprived of their judgement and are instructed to comply with the demands of parents. This goes far beyond circumcision..."

The statement that you quoted does not reflect dictating to patients what they should do. You simply chose to interpret it differently from its intent in order to support that particular agenda.

I repeat, the nursing model differs from the medical model of care. I practice in both fields. I have observed the difference. It does not mean any individual nurse or doctor is restricted to these models. In fact, both professions have considerable overlap. We went through this already. But it seems you aren't willing to entertain the idea the original issue was simply failed communication. Instead you remain convinced after all this time that I have some belief/attitude never revealed until this thread that doctors are not patient advocates.

From my viewpoint, in this case, the idea nurses do not have any unique professional contribution to patient care is what seems to be the implication. Any attempt by me to discuss that unique professional perspective has been taken as insulting.

Again, you have misrepresented what has been said to you. I don't think this is purposeful, but I do think that you are so focussed on making sure that you are understood, that you haven't paid attention to making sure you understand others. Until that barrier has been breached, I don't see how further explanations on my part can make any difference.

Linda

HawkeyeMD

16th July 2007, 06:11 AM

Care to describe your description of the medical model and enlighten us?

Not really. Since it's already been made clear that you're not reading what I've written anyway.

University of WA Family Nurse Practitioner program, MSN in 1985. And that in-depth knowledge comes from 31 years of practice, 4 states, a number of practice settings, a wide variety of positions in both inpatient and outpatient settings.

So again I ask, this gives you insight into what is taught in medical school in 2007...how?

Are you claiming only med school provides any worthwhile education? I couldn't possibly know anything about the medical model of patient care or subtle difference between nursing and physician philosophies from 30 years of working with physicians, 20 of which were in the role of family nurse practitioner, 17 of which have been in a very successful private solo practice? Listen to your snobbery.

Ye gads, who's defensive now?

Heck no, I'm claiming no such thing. I'm just claiming that perhaps I do know what is[/is] being taught in medical school. Mine, anyway. You seem to be assuming a lot about the curriculum.

It is a simple calculation. There are more UTIs in uncircumcised infants with no GU dysfunction than in circumcised infants with no GU dysfunction. Therefore you can expect at least some uncircumcised infants will have a UTI that necessitates an invasive work up which will be negative and which had they been circumcised would not have occurred. You don't need to prove which ones.

That works for the aggregate. For individual parents, not so much. And what's the difference? Apparently you agree with us that most parents do not want the procedure for preventive measure anyway--so why would this even be an issue?

And I have said many more than 3 times, I am not advocating routine circumcision. What I am saying never quite gets to the top of the top of the discussion pile. It's instead assumed repeatedly I am arguing for the medical benefit.

That would be because you keep quoting medical articles on UTI in support of your thesis.

I can understand being the infant's advocate. Except for a simple matter, where is the empirical evidence which the physician is deciding for the infant? As the infant's advocate, where does the evidence end, and the personal values begin?

For me, around the time when it comes to a permanent alteration of the body for non-medical reasons. I don't need empirical evidence arguing against [i]not intervening--I need to support my position if I do intervene, or if I don't intervene and I should have taken some action.

I accused no one of insensitivity. You need to re-read what I said because it was the opposite.

You accused me of potentially telling the parents of a child who died of septicemia that their concerns were no big deal. That seems to me to be the very definition of insensitivity.

Retraction, please.

Tell me why if the evidence is equivocal, you should impose your values on someone else's child? You claim to not be paternalistic.

Once again--here you go again talking about risk and benefit, and then wondering why we think you're all talking about infection. I'm imposing nothing on the child. That's the point. Not taking the decision about whether to remove the foreskin out of the power of the individual to make is not 'imposing'.

Since I assume 'he' is Sylvester, here is yet another case where you are impliciting assuming the parents' chief concern is risk reduction:

3) The hospital admission by itself is a risk factor and I don't want to seem insensitive, but to prevent one infection (ever), you need to circumcise more then a hundred men. Most of the infections are benign, you don't even know they had one.
So?

My point is, you tell the parent what the actual risk is, the best you can. Then their values determine how they perceive that risk. Your job is to accurately describe the risk. Why do you see it as your job to also tell them how to value that risk. If they had a child who died, (again I'm just trying to illustrate we don't all get our values out of the same box), then do you think they are supposed to care that it takes a couple hundred circs to prevent one UTI and a couple thousand to prevent one hospitalization?

Again with the 'child who died'. Yes, you are giving the impression that you're talking about risks. Not values.

Originally Posted by SYLVESTER1592
3) The hospital admission by itself is a risk factor and I don't want to seem insensitive, but to prevent one infection (ever), you need to circumcise more then a hundred men. Most of the infections are benign, you don't even know they had one.
So?

If there was evidence of harm, you could argue you were the infant's advocate.

The harm is in having an unnecessary permanent alteration to the body in the absence of medical benefit.

Yet without empirical evidence to sway that decision, your position here is you will determine if you will perform the circumcision based on your value of the parents' motives. If they are motivated to prevent UTIs, you might 'approve' of their decision. If you disapprove of the parents' motive, you will 'allow' the decision but not approve.

*yawn* Again and again and again with the UTI. And the next time you post you'll just say again "I know most parents do it for other reasons! Show me where I said otherwise!"

Cripes.

I would approve of whatever decision the parents made, it is their child, their right, their values, not mine. I cannot say there is medical evidence allowing me to claim my medical expertise should supercede their values.

Really? Any decision? Any at all?

fls

16th July 2007, 09:26 AM

Skepticybe

16th July 2007, 11:46 AM

Risk perception is the key factor here in my opinion. The public is not aware of the risk which infection and hospitalization alone carry. We live in a society where parents perceive vaccines to be riskier than the diseases the vaccines prevent because they have never seen a child die of measles or diphtheria.

And in this case, many (most?) of those posting in this thread have simply concluded that a UTI in a male infant is a minor event. I assume the thread members have had personal lives free from knowing children who have died from infection.
It isn't about whether UTI is minor event, or how often it occurs.

We all place a value/weight on factors as we consider them, and it seems that you have placed a big zero next to "body integrity", "loss of a sensory organ" and "risk of complications". I personally know the parents of two children who experienced rather serious complications from circumcision, requiring numerous reconstructive surgeries as the boys got older.

I don't give the risk factors you and others have mentioned a zero, but they don't get very high because circumcision isn't required to deal with those risk factors. To illustrate, if circumcision prevented measles just as effectively as the vaccine, it would not be a persuasive argument in favor of circumcision, because the risk for measles is easily addressed without the loss of a sensory organ.

Circumcision is done for religious, cultural, cosmetic, and superstitious reasons. I place a big fat zero next to all of these factors, and IMO objective medical professionals should as well, since we are talking about the permanent non-consentual removal of a sensory organ. Circumcision is almost never done for the medical "benefits" that have been heralded here.

Whenever we are talking about non-consentual removal of a healthy, functioning body part, it isn't enough to prove there is some slight overall medical advantage. The standard must be whether the procedure is medically necessary.

And this isn't just the removal of a body part, it is the removal of a sensory organ. And not just a sensory organ, a sexual sensory organ. Given the importance of human sexuality in the overall human experience, the question of whether to circumcise should be considered more carefully than (for example) a decision to amputate a functional but misformed digit for cosmetic purposes.

To go back to the point of circumcision and UTIs, in order for this to be a valid argument in favor of circumcision, the consequences of UTI would need to be severe, and circumcision would need to be the least destructive means available to deal with the risk. If, for example, you had data that showed that showed a significant risk of death or disability resulting from a UTI, and that circumcision was the only means available to effectively deal with that risk, I would find that persuasive.

I find it profoundly unpersuasive to say that circumcision is A-OK because it reduces the chance of UTIs, when UTIs are rare and easily treated without permanent body modification.

Circumcision is not a no-loss procedure -- ignoring complications, damage to an unconsenting individual's sexual organ is guaranteed! It seems that you are ignoring the damage done by the procedure in order to try to find some medical justification.

So let me once again re-direct this discussion to the actual issue. Whose decision is it? Is the evidence against circumcision so strong that the physician is justified in promoting the physician's decision?Legally, today it is the decision of the parents. That doesn't make it right, it just means unnecessary circumcision is one in a long list of injustices that are still allowed by the law. And parents who circumcise almost always are uneducated on the topic, completely unaware of any risks or benefits other than "old wives tales" (easier to clean, etc.).

If I take my child in to the doctor and demand some treatment that wouldn't be in my child's best interest, at the very least I would hope the doctor would educate me on the topic and try to dissuade me. If the procedure was unnecessary and could (or would) cause irreversible harm, I would expect the doctor to try to set me straight and ultimately refuse to perform the procedure. Something about "do no harm..." comes to mind.

I would approve of whatever decision the parents made, it is their child, their right, their values, not mine. I cannot say there is medical evidence allowing me to claim my medical expertise should supercede their values.
As a society, we (wisely) allow parents to make decisions for their children only within certain bounds. IMO, a nurse or doctor's concern and loyalty should lie with the patient, and when the parents' desires and the patient's best interests are at odds, the medical professional should always choose the side of the patient.

Skeptic Ginger

16th July 2007, 01:30 PM

In the past that was one of its uses. To humiliate.

What a mass of contradictions you are, skeptigirl; you support the empowerment of women and at the same time, parents to make choices for their boy that he would probably (based on evidence) not make for himself as an adult.Ivor, you make this statement of fact and in the post above say[quyote]Based on the number of men who decide to change their circumcision status when capable, American parents suck at this intellectual exercise.

Perhaps they should be asked why they think their boy in particular is going to change his mind later in life if he's left intact, given that 80% of the men in the world aren't circumcised and the vast majority of them (including American men) do not change their minds?

The statistics don't support the decision to circumcise based on the likely wishes of the infant when he is older.[/quote]The risk of UTI is only in the young child in this case. So your adult analogy doesn't apply. In addition, you are hypothesizing uncircumcised men don't often desire circumcision, therefore men prefer to be uncircumcised. But neither do circumcised men often complain they preferred not to be circumcised. A more appropriate hypothesis is men prefer not to change.

Skeptic Ginger

16th July 2007, 01:37 PM

It isn't about whether UTI is minor event, or how often it occurs.

We all place a value/weight on factors as we consider them, and it seems that you have placed a big zero next to "body integrity", "loss of a sensory organ" and "risk of complications". I personally know the parents of two children who experienced rather serious complications from circumcision, requiring numerous reconstructive surgeries as the boys got older.
Again I am misquoted. It's getting a bit ridiculous people here cannot read!

I am not for or against circumcision. I am for the parents' right to be the ones who decide. I have no reason to tell a parent whose values differ from yours, that they should adopt your values.

kellyb

16th July 2007, 01:48 PM

.But neither do circumcised men often complain they preferred not to be circumcised. A more appropriate hypothesis is men prefer not to change.

Well, most circumcised men are either:
1) of a religion that 'requires' it
2) American, and were raised with the idea that it 'has to be done'.

Men who understand that it's not really necessary are more inclined to feel kind of ripped off. That's my anecdotal experience, at least, although being anecdotal and all, it could be wrong.

Ivor the Engineer

16th July 2007, 01:56 PM

.

Well, most circumcised men are either:
1) of a religion that 'requires' it
2) American, and were raised with the idea that it 'has to be done'.

Men who understand that it's not really necessary are more inclined to feel kind of ripped off. That's my anecdotal experience, at least, although being anecdotal and all, it could be wrong.

Ouch!

:D

Skeptic Ginger

16th July 2007, 02:05 PM

This is why I consider this an exercise in futility. I have never said that I was offended and explicitly stated otherwise, yet you continue to centre your argument around the idea that I was offended.You saidpost 690

Your contention that you provide education while physicians provide opinion in comparable situations may look different to a neutral third-party.

Post 745

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.Both of those statements say my discussion of the nursing and medical models was or could have been taken as offensive toward the medical profession. Yet it was never stated with the intent of claiming either nursing or medicine was the superior way to interact with patients. Both models have their place and sometimes one is better than the other. I brought it up because I believe it does apply, it does affect our relative positions here.

Post after post I support why I think the parents should control this decision and post after post I am described as supporting circumcision based on the medical evidence. Post after post I discuss why values of the providers are trumping the empirical medical evidence here. And post after post that issue is glossed over.

And what is one of the differences in our backgrounds that affects my view of the parent's rights here? It is the difference in the medical and nursing emphasis in patient care.

I gave examples from my experiences, you discredited those as examples not sufficing to illustrate the differences in nursing and medicine. So I went to the literature and it overflows with examples. If you are not offended then why are you refusing to consider it may indeed be one reason affecting the professional positions in this discussion?

Because the post was a strawman from beginning to end, and attempts to explain why had already been demonstrated to be futile.This has nothing to do with the circumcision decision if that is the strawman you are referring to. But it does have to do with the negative reaction I have gotten in this thread for bringing up the issue of paternalism in medicine. If there is a situation where the medical model is better suited, physicians are well suited. But when the nursing model is better suited to some patient provider interactions, then there are many physicians who don't do as well as an experienced nurse. You seem to be saying nursing expertise is no more than common sense. Talk about offending a profession.

I'll have to finish later, I have an appointment right now.

tabitha

16th July 2007, 02:14 PM

Skeptigirl, near the start of this thread you made these statements:And a number of we females prefer a circumcised penis. I have no excuses, citations or explanations, I like them bald. Wrinkly skins are just not attractive. It's purely aesthetic, and not the least bit scientific.
<snip>

And my son was circumcised because I thought it was better according to the medical evidence, and I've not met a circumcised man that wasn't sexually satisfied and I have no moral qualms whatsoever about my decision. As it turns out, I had not heard of this controversy before I made that decision. However, after an extremely thorough review of the medical literature, I have no regrets about my decision.

Reading that, it seems you are for circumcision?

Again I am misquoted. It's getting a bit ridiculous people here cannot read!

I am not for or against circumcision. I am for the parents' right to be the ones who decide. I have no reason to tell a parent whose values differ from yours, that they should adopt your values.

Really? If you had to make the decision again, would you circumcise another son?

Ivor the Engineer

16th July 2007, 02:57 PM

Ivor, you make this statement of fact and in the post above sayBased on the number of men who decide to change their circumcision status when capable, American parents suck at this intellectual exercise.

Perhaps they should be asked why they think their boy in particular is going to change his mind later in life if he's left intact, given that 80% of the men in the world aren't circumcised and the vast majority of them (including American men) do not change their minds?

The statistics don't support the decision to circumcise based on the likely wishes of the infant when he is older.The risk of UTI is only in the young child in this case. So your adult analogy doesn't apply. In addition, you are hypothesizing uncircumcised men don't often desire circumcision, therefore men prefer to be uncircumcised. But neither do circumcised men often complain they preferred not to be circumcised. A more appropriate hypothesis is men prefer not to change.

Yes, it's called self-concept. Mentally healthy people generally like who they are, whatever their state is.

Let's do Linda's idea of adult Ivor considering being circumcised as an infant:

Ivor imagines standing over his infant self, 29 years ago, bald but with a full set of teeth, (nickname: Kojak) contemplating having painful plastic surgery on his penis.

He's informed this will reduce the risk of contracting a disease he would stand a 98.7% chance of never having in the first place and would stand an excellent chance of being treated with antibiotics if he did contract it, though in about 7.5% of cases it could cause the serious complication of renal scaring.

Adult Ivor also then thinks of all the fun times he and his foreskin have had in the last 30 years and proclaims:

Are you F**KING NUTS! Get that scalpel away from my cock!

NewtonTrino

16th July 2007, 03:16 PM

Ivor, Agreed. I would literally defend myself with lethal force if someone tried to circumsize me as an adult.

The entire practice is utterly disgusting and I seriously cannot understand how people are defending it. Must be some sort of brainwashing because I really don't get it.

HawkeyeMD

16th July 2007, 03:25 PM

Sorry.:o

:puckerup:

Skepticybe

16th July 2007, 03:49 PM

Again I am misquoted. It's getting a bit ridiculous people here cannot read!

I am not for or against circumcision. I am for the parents' right to be the ones who decide. I have no reason to tell a parent whose values differ from yours, that they should adopt your values.
Misquoted? I quoted you directly.

It's beyond a question of "parental values" because it is the removal and/or impairment of a sensory organ without the informed consent of the patient. Such a decision is far too important to be left to the superstitions of the parents. We're not even talking about informed parental decisions here -- the decision to circumcise is usually made without consideration of the harm being done.

Trying again:
Risk/cost vs benefit/risk of not doing

That is how you weigh risk benefit.
I've read every single post you've made in this thread, and I can't recall you ever giving any weight to the patient's rights or whether the patient would choose circumcision when they were capable of doing so. The consistent theme (which I admit you've backed up with references) in your posts has been to evaluate whether there was a demonstrable/statistical medical benefit to the procedure.

On the other hand, I suppose the only way we can have a discussion on this topic is to set aside the patient's rights and interests, and consider circumcision in the same light we would consider the disposition of any other property. Once the patient's rights and interests are considered, they far outweigh a statistical improvement in treatable rare condition (UTI).

Deaf parents who consider their deafness a blessing can't choose to deafen their child. Parents who desperately wanted a girl but gave birth to a boy, can't choose sexual reassignment surgery to get the girl they always wanted. Yes these are far-out examples, but they illustrate that parents' wishes aren't the ultimate consideration when considering permanent body alteration, especially one that results in the loss or impairment of a sensory organ.

It is not for the parents to decide whether a sensory organ should be removed or impaired, unless it is medically necessary. I'd like to see you specifically address the question of why you think parents should be allowed to decide to have their child's sensory organs removed and/or impaired without first establish that the procedure is medically necessary.

Quoting again for emphasis:
I am for the parents' right to be the ones who decide. I have no reason to tell a parent whose values differ from yours, that they should adopt your values.
You've repeatedly dodged the question of FGM, but FGM applies equally to the above attitude you've expressed. The only difference is that you probably recognize the harm of FGM, but you ignore the harm of male circumcision.

Post after post I support why I think the parents should control this decision and post after post I am described as supporting circumcision based on the medical evidence. Post after post I discuss why values of the providers are trumping the empirical medical evidence here. And post after post that issue is glossed over.
By saying that it is perfectly acceptable for parents, for whatever whimsical reason, to choose circumcision, you are supporting circumcision. You may not be advocating it, but you are certainly supporting it. And your posts leave me with the impression that you are opposed to doctors trying to dissuade parents from circumcising their children, as that is imposing the doctors values onto the parents. IMO that crosses over into advocacy in favor of circumcision, as it prevents the parents' choice from being educated.

nw843x

17th July 2007, 01:59 PM

http://www.infocirc.org/facts.htm (http://www.infocirc.org/facts.htm)
Quoted :
Urinary tract infection (UTI)

Worldwide, infant UTI is treated antibiotically, not amputatively.
In the 1980s, retrospective studies by Wiswell et al. suggested that 98-99% of intact (non-circumcised) male infants will not develop UTI (compared with his finding of 99.9% in circumcised male infants). In 1989, the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) cautioned that Wiswell’s studies comparing the two groups may be methodologically flawed, and that the percentage of intact male infants who will not develop UTI may be even higher. Research in the 90s has since confirmed that Wiswell’s studies are flawed, as the AAP cautioned, and that the incidence of UTIs in intact male infants is significantly lower than the 1-2% he reported.
Females have higher rates of UTI in childhood and throughout life than either intact or circumcised boys.
European doctors cite American birthing practices, not the foreskin, as the cause of the U.S.’s allegedly higher rate of UTI in intact boys.
UTI in males often results from a congenital abnormality which predisposes the child to bacterial infection. Such congenital abnormalities have nothing to do with the foreskin.
Antimicrobial management of UTI in infants is routine, and the outcome generally good. Penile Cancer

Among intact (i.e., non-circumcised) males, 99.999% will not develop penile cancer [The rate of penile cancer is 1 in 100,000. It is one of the rarest cancers, rarer even than male breast cancer.]
Testicular cancer strikes 1 in 300 males, prostate cancer 1 in 11. (Source: American Cancer Society)
It has been suggested that performing 100,000 infant circumcisions – thus removing in 100% of those circumcisions 100% of the foreskin’s irreplaceable health benefits – in order to possibly prevent an otherwise preventable cancer in one elderly man is absurd.
Annually, there are more infant deaths from infant circumcisions than deaths from cancer of the penis.
It has been erroneously claimed that penile cancer virtually never occurs in men who have been circumcised in infancy.
In a recent study on penile cancer, a full 20% of the study-group had been circumcised at birth.

http://www.caringforkids.cps.ca/babies/Circumcision.htm (http://www.caringforkids.cps.ca/babies/Circumcision.htm)

Circumcision is a “non-therapeutic” procedure, which means it is not medically necessary. Parents who decide to circumcise their newborns often do so for religious, social or cultural reasons.

Therefore :
“Circumcision: can any rational thinker defend it ?”

Nope.

Yalius

17th July 2007, 04:31 PM

OK, here we go.

My wife will give me oral gratification. She would not for a previous boyfriend who was not circumcised.

Game over.;)

Abooga

18th July 2007, 07:37 AM

She would not for a previous boyfriend who was not circumcised.

That´s what they all say... :rolleyes:

ClintonHammond

18th July 2007, 09:04 AM

"The entire practice is utterly disgusting and I seriously cannot understand how people are defending it. Must be some sort of brainwashing because I really don't get it."

Hear hear!

cloudshipsrule

18th July 2007, 11:08 AM

Were those posting in this thread, who are opposed to the procedure, circumcized as infants?

osmosis

18th July 2007, 03:15 PM

Ivor, Agreed. I would literally defend myself with lethal force if someone tried to circumsize me as an adult.

I'd defend my child with lethal force, but not necessarily myself..

Speaking of which, when I was born the doctors were going to circumsize me just because it was such a routine practice they didn't even think about it. My mom literally had to ask "where are you taking him?" and then "uh, no."

That was 1974 and apparently things are changing for the better. RIC is becoming less common.. although it's still too common IMO

I've never had a woman turn her nose up at my penis, or refuse to gratify me in any way. I was with a woman about (guessing) 15 years older than me recently, and she had never seen an uncut before. She didn't complain though :)

robinson

18th July 2007, 07:00 PM

I won't go down on a woman unless she has been circumcised.

Darat

19th July 2007, 03:16 AM

It one of the many common arguments used in support of all forms of genital mutilation - whether female or male.

Some of the others are:

hygiene
aesthetics
tradition

Lithrael

19th July 2007, 03:39 AM

OK, here we go.

My wife will give me oral gratification. She would not for a previous boyfriend who was not circumcised.

Game over.;)

Some less than generously proportioned girls can't have comfortable sex with a circumcised guy, though. More friction isn't always good. :(

And a quick shower will do wonders for a previous boyfriend.

Abooga

19th July 2007, 04:05 AM

It one of the many common arguments used in support of all forms of genital mutilation - whether female or male.

Some of the others are:

hygiene
aesthetics
tradition

I think Loss leader offered another argument: Let´s call it the "legalistic" argument: The parents are considered to be THE SAME individual as the child. Therefore the child is not unconsenting, his parents´ will is his will. Nice dodge, isnt´t it?

But then why are there laws that protect children from possible abuses even from the child´s parents? Why did this guy lose the custody of his kid? http://www.estrelladigital.es/a1.asp?sec=esp&fech=17/07/2007&name=custodia,
(I didn´t have the time to answer Loss Leader´s posts last week and I just found this amusing example...)

Ivor the Engineer

19th July 2007, 06:52 AM

From AIDS (hah) thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2781661#post2781661):

We shouldn't hijack this thread, Ivor. I am 100% against unanesthetized circumcisions and have been since the first time I saw the procedure done in 1976.

Fantastic. That means there's only one difference between our positions.

There are many elective surgical procedures parents consent to for their children. Parents have the position of making medical decisions for their infants.

Is there any similar to male infant circumcision? I can't think of any. Anybody?

Don't just give a name of an elective procedure, I want to see a comparison of the details (such a duration, pain, observable physical impact, short and long term risks/benefits/costs, etc.) between circumcision and the procedure you think is similar to it.

That is all I am going to say about that topic in this thread. This is the second thread I have seen you carry the circumcision discussion into. And you don't think you are a bit emotional over the subject?

I've jokingly referred to this thread's protagonists elsewhere.

My gripe is the hypocrisy I see in parents having their infant circumcised and physicians performing the procedure. Inconsistency bothers me.

Loss Leader

19th July 2007, 09:01 AM

I think Loss leader offered another argument: Let´s call it the "legalistic" argument: The parents are considered to be THE SAME individual as the child. Therefore the child is not unconsenting, his parents´ will is his will. Nice dodge, isnt´t it?

I'm sorry, but this misrepresents my argument. I did not offer the laws of substituted judgment as an independent reason for circumcision. Substituted judgment is just the mechanism by which parents choose circumcision. It's not the reason they choose it. My car is not the reason I go to work; it is the way I get there.

I, in fact, never offered any argument in favor of circumcision. I offered an argument in favor of allowing other parents to choose circumcision. That argument was that the benefits to a society of allowing a broad range of cultures and practices outweigh any benefit that might come from an absolute prohibition against circumcision.

But then why are there laws that protect children from possible abuses even from the child´s parents? Why did this guy lose the custody of his kid? http://www.estrelladigital.es/a1.asp?sec=esp&fech=17/07/2007&name=custodia

As I have explained numerous times, the state does have an interest in protecting the health and safety of its incompetent citizens. However, this interest must be balanced against religious freedom and family integrity (among other things). In the case of circumcision, at least, the courts and legislatures are so far unanimous that whatever harm circumcision might cause, it is not enough to outweigh those other factors.

Abooga

19th July 2007, 10:08 AM

I, in fact, never offered any argument in favor of circumcision. I offered an argument in favor of allowing other parents to choose circumcision.

Rather subtle difference, if any...

Seems that you´re defending circumcision, anyway, and what looks like for utilitarian reasons...

Most people here seem to think that bodily integrity is a fundamental right, not to be trumped by anyone´s religion or "family integrity". There are many examples, like the one I linked before, where the child´s fundamental rights are to be protected from his parents. Don´t you see a similarty with circumcision? What do you think the difference is (in a moral sense) between circumcision and, for example FGM, apart from the extent of the damage done?

That argument was that the benefits to a society of allowing a broad range of cultures and practices outweigh any benefit that might come from an absolute prohibition against circumcision.

I wouldn´t call for a total prohibition, of course.

But, do you know what would be really impressive? The jewish communities addressing the issue in a reasonable way, thus (logically) changing the custom and performing the operation with the reach of adulthood (on consenting individuals). That would be really good P.R. for the jews... ;)

Ivor the Engineer

19th July 2007, 10:50 AM

I wouldn´t call for a total prohibition, of course.

But, do you know what would be really impressive? The jewish communities addressing the issue in a reasonable way, thus (logically) changing the custom and performing the operation with the reach of adulthood (on consenting individuals). That would be really good P.R. for the jews... ;)

That's the thing: even the members of barbaric religions that still practice infant/child circumcision know that the chances of convincing a 18+ year-old male to consent to circumcision is soooooo uncertain (in a multicultural society), they have to "get in there quick" while the law allows parents to inflict their will on the child. Pathetic. Seems like a distinct lack of faith to me.

Loss Leader

19th July 2007, 11:31 AM

Don´t you see a similarty with circumcision? What do you think the difference is (in a moral sense) between circumcision and, for example FGM, apart from the extent of the damage done?

As "the extent of the damage done" is a necessary factor in a balancing test that weighs, in part, the extent of the damage done, it is impossible to answer your question without reference to "the extent of the damage done."

That would be really good P.R. for the jews... ;)

Your implication that Jews either require or should seek "good P.R." is offensive to my ethnicity.

Ivor the Engineer

19th July 2007, 12:07 PM

Some evidence for Skeptigirl:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15890696

Circumcision for the prevention of urinary tract infection in boys: a systematic review of randomised trials and observational studies.

Singh-Grewal D, Macdessi J, Craig J.

Department of Paediatrics and Child Health, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, Australia.

OBJECTIVE: To undertake a meta-analysis of published data on the effect of circumcision on the risk of urinary tract infection (UTI) in boys. DATA SOURCES: Randomised controlled trials and observational studies comparing the frequency of UTI in circumcised and uncircumcised boys were identified from the Cochrane controlled trials register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, reference lists of retrieved articles, and contact with known investigators. METHODS: Two of the authors independently assessed study quality using the guidelines provided by the MOOSE statement for quality of observational studies. A random effects model was used to estimate a summary odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Data on 402,908 children were identified from 12 studies (one randomised controlled trial, four cohort studies, and seven case-control studies). Circumcision was associated with a significantly reduced risk of UTI (OR = 0.13; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.20; p<0.001) with the same odds ratio (0.13) for all three types of study design. CONCLUSIONS: Circumcision reduces the risk of UTI. Given a risk in normal boys of about 1%, the number-needed-to-treat to prevent one UTI is 111. In boys with recurrent UTI or high grade vesicoureteric reflux, the risk of UTI recurrence is 10% and 30% and the numbers-needed-to-treat are 11 and 4, respectively. Haemorrhage and infection are the commonest complications of circumcision, occurring at rate of about 2%. Assuming equal utility of benefits and harms, net clinical benefit is likely only in boys at high risk of UTI.

Here's what a UK medical site recommends:

http://www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/40024657/

Circumcision has other suggested benefits and indications:

Recurrent UTI.3 Circumcision is associated with a significantly reduced risk of UTI (Odds Ratio = 0.13); but the benefit of circumcision only outweighs the risk in boys who have either had recurrent UTI's, or are at high risk of UTI (eg high grade vesicoureteric reflux (≥grade 3). 4,5 Although the relative risk of a UTI in the uncircumcised male infant is 4 to 20 times higher as compared to circumcised male infants, the absolute risk is low (less than 1%). Hence recommending circumcision in all newborn infants on these grounds is not sustainable.

Prevention of penile cancer. This rarely occurs in circumcised men but in countries where there is a high level of personal hygiene the condition is also rare.6 Human papilloma virus (HPV) genotypes 16,18, 31 and 33 are responsible for the great majority of cervical,vulval, vaginal, anal and penile cancers. Circumcision is claimed to reduce the risk of HPV infection in men. Yet again however the low absolute risk means that there is not an argument for universal circumcision.

Reduction in the risk of sexually transmitted disease (particularly ulcerative diseases like syphilis). This is as yet unproven.7 A meta-analysis of 27 studies does apparently show reduction in risk of STD transmission associated with circumcision.8 However other studies show the opposite. Sexual practices of circumcised men may differ from those who are uncircumcised related to their religion.

As for UTI:

http://www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/40000338/

Prognosis
Most children recover quickly and completely with antibiotic treatment.
Recurrence of urinary tract infection is more likely in:

Younger children i.e. aged less than 6 months
Girls compared to boys
Vesicoureteral reflux grade 3 - 5, compared with reflux grade 1- 2, or no reflux
Dysfunctional voiding syndrome16; this is an abnormality of emptying, due to either a small-capacity, unstable bladder or a large-capacity, poorly emptying bladder.

Vesicoureteric reflux (VUR) is found in about 1% of normal infants and normally resolves over several years.17 However, it is a risk factor for pyelonephritis, which can cause renal scarring, which can lead to hypertension and impaired renal function.

Prevention
A common sense approach is advised given the lack of conclusive evidence.18
Relief of voiding dysfunction; good hygiene; wiping from front to back after micturition in girls; avoiding constipation, bubble baths, chemical irritants, and tight clothing.

Children with significant urinary tract abnormalities and/or frequent symptomatic UTI may benefit from prophylactic antibacterials (trimethoprim or nitrofurantoin).15

There is not enough evidence available to assess the benefits/risks/optimal treatment schedules for prophylactic antibiotics in children.

Prodigy suggest that children who suffer a second UTI within a year should receive short-term prophylactic antibiotics and be referred for their assessment for long-term use.7

Just one episode of reflux of infected urine may initiate chronic pyelonephritis, so screening for bacteriuria is useless.18 But once a UTI is suggested e.g. by urine microscopy in an infant, treat it at once before culture sensitivities are known, as renal damage may be about to happen.

Screen siblings for reflux.18

Common Sense != Mutilate Child's Genitals.

Morrigan

19th July 2007, 01:17 PM

Your implication that Jews either require or should seek "good P.R." is offensive to my ethnicity.

Ever the professional victim huh?

By the way, criticizing a group because of their traditional, religious practice of circumcision has nothing to do with criticizing their ethnicity, so quit being a drama queer already.

Loss Leader

19th July 2007, 02:24 PM

By the way, criticizing a group because of their traditional, religious practice of circumcision has nothing to do with criticizing their ethnicity,

I didn't complain about any criticism of a tradition or religious practice. I complained because Abooga implied that Jews are required or advised to seek "good P.R." There's a difference.

so quit being a drama queer already.

Your language is immature and unbecoming.

Roadtoad

19th July 2007, 08:00 PM

You know, this started out being an informative and interesting thread.

Anyone for a few recipes for crepes?

kellyb

19th July 2007, 09:08 PM

I think Ivor's last post was rather informative and interesting. :)

osmosis

19th July 2007, 11:06 PM

It's actually quite refreshing to find a professional <insert profession here> who isn't afraid to admit they don't know something from their own field of expertise.

lol one time many years ago I made a comment that was described by my good friend as "one of the most honest things he's ever heard."

He had asked me a question and I replied, "You're asking the wrong guy.. oh wait, you're actually asking the right guy, I just don't know."

hehe still get a tiny chuckle from that one

osmosis

19th July 2007, 11:15 PM

Some of the others are:

hygiene
..

This may be a valid concern in some parts of today's world, certainly it was valid everywhere until very recently, what with all our fancy running water and showers and soap.

Until I found out about circumcision being used to mark slaves, I was under the general impression that it may have actually been a good idea 2000 years ago, just like certain other Jewish traditions, such as not eating pork. Before reliable refridgeration was commonly available, it may have been best to avoid the pork, Jewish or not.

Too bad I was wrong about that, it fit so perfectly into my interpretation of Meme Theory.

autumn1971

20th July 2007, 12:04 AM

First, I am not a doctor or a lawyer. I am a father, and I do love my son. He was circumsised, and I believe that the advantage he gains here (USA) from being circumcised is greater than the small benefits due to the reduced rate of disease transmission. He is going to get laid more than the uncircumsised kid (again, this applies only to America), he is not going to miss his foreskin, he has no memory of the actual procedure (and his feeding habits never even slightly changed [yes, breast fed, and his sleeping habits were so good that my wife insists that I can not claim to have been a newborn's father, as he was so well mannered), and the tiny loss of sensory information, at least as I have experienced in this country with women who have had sex with me as well as one of my intact friends (hey, college, stuff happens), has been a plus. Also, they say it looks bigger when flaccid.

Yes. Infant circumcision is not necessary.

Yes, infants feel pain (was there anesthesia when your child's cord was cut?).

It is not, nor can it be, remembered, much less cause trauma later in life.

Freud was absoloutly incorrect in every assertion he ever made that was testable.

Yes, if randomly clipping earlobes became fashionable I would be first to say that it is not needed, but also first to point out that it is not traumatic or barbaric.
It simply is.
disagree about the medical necessity, but stop before your knee-jerk reaction to a basically neutral procedure causes you to spout rhetoric that pins you down as a demegouge.
I will not argue for necessity, only for the basic neutrality of the procedure. And in this method of rational argument, female circumcision still appears to be an unnecessary as well as detrimental procedure (even assuming that it happened in surgical environments).
Cheers.

kellyb

20th July 2007, 12:19 AM

Yes, infants feel pain (was there anesthesia when your child's cord was cut?).
No, because the unbilical cord doesn't have any pain sensing nerves in it.
http://health.yahoo.com/topic/children/baby/article/mayoclinic/F0F73250-701F-4590-BFA55E9E2D4AB61E

During pregnancy, the umbilical cord supplies nutrients and oxygen to your developing baby. After birth the umbilical cord is no longer needed, so it's clamped and snipped. This leaves behind a short stump. The umbilical cord doesn't contain pain-sensitive nerve fibers, so your baby won't feel anything during this rite of passage.

Morrigan

20th July 2007, 01:19 AM

I didn't complain about any criticism of a tradition or religious practice. I complained because Abooga implied that Jews are required or advised to seek "good P.R." There's a difference.

Right. Jews are a religious group as well as an ethnic group, and whatever "good PR" he implied they might need was clearly regarding their religion.

Your language is immature and unbecoming.

*shrugs* Your pompousness is as tedious as your whiny victim mentality.

He is going to get laid more than the uncircumsised kid (again, this applies only to America),

1) Evidence?
2) Even if true - How do you feel about the fact that this very argument can be (and is) used to defend female circumcision in African tribes? ("My daughter will never find a husband unless I mutilate her genitals, better get on with it!")

he is not going to miss his foreskin,

See 2) above.

Also, they say it looks bigger when flaccid.
Because that's an important point to consider, worth mentioning. Of course. :newlol

They get more desperate every time, it seems...

Abooga

20th July 2007, 02:22 AM

As "the extent of the damage done" is a necessary factor in a balancing test that weighs, in part, the extent of the damage done, it is impossible to answer your question without reference to "the extent of the damage done."
.

I think you´re being deliberately obtuse, but you seem to agree that the only difference between FGM and circumcision or the earlobe-clipping axample is the "extent of the damage done", otherwise being morally equivalent. The point is that some of us wouldn´t admit ANY irrecoverable damage whatsoever to be inflicted on unconsenting individuals for the reasons of maintaining tradition, religion etc. The extent of the damage matters in the sense that the immorality of the action is more or less serious, like it´s not the same if you steal 1$ from Walmart or you steal some poor widow´s life savings. One more seriously wrong than the other, but both wrong, both "stealing". See now? I think you do, you´re just too cunning in sophistry and misdirection...

Your implication that Jews either require or should seek "good P.R." is offensive to my ethnicity.

I´ve never seen anyone so quick at finding anything offensive! Read what I said again please, and see you have no reason to play the victim´s card, I was just making a sort of joke. Sort of, because it is true that I´d find it impressive if Jews did that, personally. But you don´t need to take offense for this, mh´key?

Ivor the Engineer

20th July 2007, 03:03 AM

First, I am not a doctor or a lawyer. I am a father, and I do love my son.

I never doubted it for a second.

He was circumsised, and I believe that the advantage he gains here (USA) from being circumcised is greater than the small benefits due to the reduced rate of disease transmission.

Let's look at the claimed benefits:

He is going to get laid more than the uncircumsised kid (again, this applies only to America)

Urban myth. Any evidence?

he is not going to miss his foreskin

Not now he isn't. You got in there quick, didn't you?

he has no memory of the actual procedure (and his feeding habits never even slightly changed [yes, breast fed, and his sleeping habits were so good that my wife insists that I can not claim to have been a newborn's father, as he was so well mannered)

Not much research into the medium to long term effects. Most experiments performed have shown a difference similar to PTSD. You'll ignore these, though.

and the tiny loss of sensory information, at least as I have experienced in this country with women who have had sex with me as well as one of my intact friends (hey, college, stuff happens), has been a plus.

How do you know it's a "tiny loss"? Quite a few men who have been circumcised as adults would disagree. How do you know your son would not have had the same opinion as them?

Also, they say it looks bigger when flaccid.

No, they don't. If a man wants to make his bits look bigger, he should shave off his pubic hair. I've heard shaved men get laid more:p

Yes. Infant circumcision is not necessary.

I agree.

Yes, infants feel pain (was there anesthesia when your child's cord was cut?).

Kellyb has answered this. I'll add that it's necessary to detach the umbilical cord and it's done quickly.

It is not, nor can it be, remembered, much less cause trauma later in life.

Even if I accept your statement as true (I don't - memory is more than just what is able to be recalled), why does that make it ethical?

Freud was absoloutly incorrect in every assertion he ever made that was testable.

I agree. Don't think I (or anybody else here) have used any Freudian arguments. They are quite amusing though:)

Yes, if randomly clipping earlobes became fashionable I would be first to say that it is not needed, but also first to point out that it is not traumatic or barbaric.

Two questions:

1) Would physicians be offering the service for non-consenting infants?
2) Would it be ethical for a parent to permanently alter their child's body for fashion?

It simply is.

I think what you mean is that you feel nothing for what you have taken away from your child.

disagree about the medical necessity, but stop before your knee-jerk reaction to a basically neutral procedure causes you to spout rhetoric that pins you down as a demegouge.

The procedure is not "neutral". Once it has been performed it is impossible to undo. It causes unnecessary pain... etc.

I will not argue for necessity, only for the basic neutrality of the procedure.

Then I will also argue that it is a violation of the child's basic human rights.

And in this method of rational argument, female circumcision still appears to be an unnecessary as well as detrimental procedure (even assuming that it happened in surgical environments).
Cheers.

Even just a little cutting of the labia or clitoral hood?

What no person in favour of infant circumcision seems able to acknowledge is that there are similar ways to mutilate (or cut if you prefer) the female genitalia that are just as "neutral". That just makes them hypocrites.

fls

20th July 2007, 05:57 AM

I think you´re being deliberately obtuse, but you seem to agree that the only difference between FGM and circumcision or the earlobe-clipping axample is the "extent of the damage done", otherwise being morally equivalent. The point is that some of us wouldn´t admit ANY irrecoverable damage whatsoever to be inflicted on unconsenting individuals for the reasons of maintaining tradition, religion etc. The extent of the damage matters in the sense that the immorality of the action is more or less serious, like it´s not the same if you steal 1$ from Walmart or you steal some poor widow´s life savings. One more seriously wrong than the other, but both wrong, both "stealing". See now? I think you do, you´re just too cunning in sophistry and misdirection...

You are begging the question. That some of you wouldn't admit any intervention that could have permanent effects is the point being argued.

In order to make your example involving money analogous, the question should be changed to whether or not it is reasonable to expect that, under the circumstances, someone would willingly give you the money.

ETA: I don't think it's fair to refer to sophistry and misdirection. It gives the impression that one can safely ignore attempts to have a more sophisticated or analytical discussion.

Linda

cloudshipsrule

20th July 2007, 06:09 AM

Ivor the Engineer

20th July 2007, 06:43 AM

How do those of you against infant circumcision feel about breast feeding? Based on numerous studies it seems breastfeeding is the best thing for a child (Improved immunity, better neurological development, etc), yet many mothers choose to go straight to formula, forever alterning the development of the child. Do you think this is a more serious offense than altering the look of the penis?

My personal opinion is that based on the evidence, breast feeding is better than formula (especially if you don't have a clean water supply:rolleyes:).

However, breast feeding involves two individuals. The mother's milk is hers to do with as she wishes. It is her responsibility to make sure the child thrives, whatever she chooses to do.

The foreskin belongs to the child and unless it is causing or likely to cause a problem, should not be removed for someone else's reasons.

Ivor the Engineer

20th July 2007, 06:50 AM

You are begging the question. That some of you wouldn't admit any intervention that could have permanent effects is the point being argued.

In order to make your example involving money analogous, the question should be changed to whether or not it is reasonable to expect that, under the circumstances, someone would willingly give you the money.

ETA: I don't think it's fair to refer to sophistry and misdirection. It gives the impression that one can safely ignore attempts to have a more sophisticated or analytical discussion.

Linda

How much for (part of) your little finger? $1? $100? $10,000? more?

How much to alter your (I assume;)) perfectly healthy genitals (only a little bit of tidying up, nothing major)?

Loss Leader

20th July 2007, 07:22 AM

The point is that some of us wouldn´t admit ANY irrecoverable damage whatsoever to be inflicted on unconsenting individuals for the reasons of maintaining tradition, religion etc.

Yes, I'm quite well aware that if you were to conduct the balancing test, you would find against allowing parents to circumcise their children. I don't care about your position, but I'm aware of it.

But you don´t need to take offense for this, mh´key?

I'll be the judge of what I find offensive, thank you.

cloudshipsrule

20th July 2007, 07:48 AM

gethane

20th July 2007, 08:35 AM

Against circumcision and breastfed all 5 of my children. Still bfing the youngest who's 18 months old. I'm a strong advocate of bfing as well. If you are going to have children, might as well do everything you can to make them as healthy and whole as you can.

Intact young boys look so much more NORMAL. They don't have their glans just hanging out there for all to see. And diaper concerns are MUCH easier. No poop under the ridge, in the hole, etc. And my son did have a UTI at 6 months old. Guess what? He took antibiotics, no amputation of foreskin necessary. No troubles since.

And cloud, you are brainwashed. It's really really hard to see around the brainwashing of "circumcision = normal." Once you get the blinders off, it becomes SO very clear as to why its wrong to intentionally cut off part of your baby's genitals. Really.

cloudshipsrule

20th July 2007, 09:00 AM

Intact young boys look so much more NORMAL.

Normal in this case is a matter of opinion, and the definition would vary according to local. A child born with down syndrome is completely normal for a child with down syndrome. A circumcised child looks much more normal in a room full of circumcised children than one who is uncircumcised.

I know we'll simply have to agree to disagree on the issue of circumcision, and I'm fine with that.

I just think there are many other larger problems in the world to worry about than whether or not it's wrong or right to circumcise a male child. There are far worse choices that adults make, with far worse consequences than circumcising their child.

People choose to drive drunk and kill large numbers of people every year. (Many accidentally kill their own siblings and children driving drunk and crashing.) Some parents choose to smoke around their children, even in cars, causing harm to the child. Some husbands/wives choose to cheat on their spouse, ruining their marriage and any chance of a normal (There's that word again!) family life for their kids. Some of those kids grow up depressed and even suicidal. (I've never known an individual who was depressed because he was circumcised, but I'm sure they're out there.) Some single mothers choose to give their child up for adoption, and many of those orphaned kids grow up never having a home, depressed and lonely never thinking about their circumcised penis.

All of the above examples, and countless others, are, to me, larger problems than circumcision.

I grew up my entire life never thinking about the appearance of my penis until I stumbled upon this thread. This thread has not served to change my mind at all. I imagine that people's opinions on circumcision prior to reading this thread will not be changed either. Those for it will still be for it, and those against the same. This thread has simply made me aware that people have differing opinions about most everything in life.

Life is about choices. Some choices we make will harm others and in many of those cases we won't even ever know about the harm we caused. Some choices we make will make other peoples lives a little bit better. It's about doing the best one can for their family and community. For my family it was better to circumcise our son. He will grow up and never think twice about the appearance of his penis unless he happens to stumble upon this long dead thread.

Ivor the Engineer

20th July 2007, 09:12 AM

Potential social-psychological issues with uncircumcised male children in certain cultures where circumcision is the norm should not be taken lightly, in my opinion.

In first world countries there are apparently as many pros as there are cons to circumcision, disregarding the removal of body tissue, which seems to be the thorn-in-the-side for the anti-circumcision crowd. So, it basically boils down to an argument for or against permanently altering the appearance of the male genitalia.

In my opinion, the potential consequences of not altering the appearance in my 'neck of the woods' outweighs my reluctance to choose having the procedure performed on my child.

What do you think these consequences are? How severe are they? E.g., are they as bad as if you're black? Is there a earnings difference between circumcised and uncircumcised males after adjusting for other factors?

Does every sexual encounter hinge on a woman's aesthetic preference for a body part that when erect looks similar cut or un-cut? Have you ever seen an uncircumcised penis?

I've asked the opinions of about a dozen co-workers, all of whom had been circumcised as infants (In fact, I know no male who is not circumcised, but then I haven't asked to see the penises of all the males I know either.), and not one of my co-workers was upset about the procedure having been done to them as infants. They found my questioning humerous as if to say ' Why wouldn't I have been circumsized?"

My mother thinks it was ok for her to be caned across the hands for fighting in school. Why wouldn't she have been caned? Beating children was "normal" back then. Still is in many parts of the world. Teaches them discipline and respect for authority.

I know I'm not upset about being circumcised, and if I hadn't been circumcised as a child I would have felt rather 'odd' taking a shower after kick ball in middle school. I would have felt out of place when I was in the military showering with a bunch of other guys. I've also asked my wife about her opinion. She was engaged to a non-circumsized Brazilian. She likes my appearance better. (Brain-washed?) She did not hesitate to consent having our little one circumcised. Never occured to her to question the practice.

So no kid you've ever known got teased about some aspect of his body? E.g., weight, height, length, colour, hair, nose, ears, lips, legs, spots, birthmarks, etc.?

Have I been brain-washed? Don't care! I think I have a great looking 'unit', and I'm glad I didn't have to fork out the money and time for recovery to get circumcised as an adult.

Are those of you against circumcision circumcised yourselves? Are you pissed off about it?

No and no.

Concerning using the term mutilation simply to verbally berate those who are pro-circumcision. It's as appropriate as someone calling poop on a stick 'art'. It's really a matter of opinion, and in common vernacular, a circumsized penis is not 'mutilated'.

mu·ti·late:
1. to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.
2. to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.

Foreskin, while perhaps nice for some people to have, is about as essential to a normal, functional life as an appendix.

Or a little finger. How much can I offer you to have it removed? How about your son's little finger. Much simpler operation when he's young.

Or a girl's labia. A little nip/tuck could do wonders for her chances of getting regular cunnilingus when she's older.

Who defines perfect from imperfect? I think my penis is perfect, and so have many women. I don't consider myself disfigured, nor does any other circumcised male I know consider themselves disfigured. Perhaps I was injured for a brief time after the procedure, but I got over it.

What is anyone else's concept of physical perfection got to do with giving an individual choice with regard to their own body?

This anti-circumcision movement is rather new, and reminds me of typical vegan arguments. Are the anti-circumcision individuals here vegetarians? Is it o.k. to mutilate and kill a cow for your hamburger or steak? Is that not worse than circumcision. Is a cow's life less valuable than the foreskin of a child?

I'm not anti-circumcision, though I am vegetarian. I'm not bothered about eating meat.

The difference between a cow and a child is even if you wait 18 years a cow will still not be able to make an informed choice.

cloudshipsrule

20th July 2007, 09:36 AM

What do you think these consequences are? How severe are they? E.g., are they as bad as if you're black? Is there a earnings difference between circumcised and uncircumcised males after adjusting for other factors?

Can we quantify the consequences? I can only speak from my own experience. For me it would have been worse to have been uncircumcised. Obviously you didn't grow up in the Southeastern part of the US.

So no kid you've ever known got teased about some aspect of his body? E.g., weight, height, length, colour, hair, nose, ears, lips, legs, spots, birthmarks, etc.?

Exactly. Kids will be teased. Why give them something else to get teased about by not circumcising them in a culture where it is the norm.

Or a little finger. How much can I offer you to have it removed? How about your son's little finger. Much simpler operation when he's young.

Really, how common is this practice? Is it normal where you live? It's not a comparison, because it is not an accepted practice where I live. Circumcising a male child is.

What is anyone else's concept of physical perfection got to do with giving an individual choice with regard to their own body?

My statement had nothing to do with the act of circumcision itself, but rather calling the procedure mutilation. It is a valid point in that regard.

The difference between a cow and a child is even if you wait 18 years a cow will still not be able to make an informed choice.

I wasn't comparing the life of a cow to the life of a child. I was comparing a cow to the foreskin of a penis. Is one worth more or less than the other?

kellyb

20th July 2007, 11:41 AM

Can we quantify the consequences? I can only speak from my own experience. For me it would have been worse to have been uncircumcised. Obviously you didn't grow up in the Southeastern part of the US.
That was in the past, though. Many, many more boys in the US are left intact now.

Exactly. Kids will be teased. Why give them something else to get teased about by not circumcising them in a culture where it is the norm.
There haven't been any surveys done in the past few years, but the national average is probably close to 50/50 now. Once the scale tips in favor of more children being left intact, would it cruel to circumcise a child at that point, in your opinion, because of the fact that more than half his peers could, in theory, make fun of him for not having all of his penis?

cloudshipsrule

20th July 2007, 11:54 AM

There haven't been any surveys done in the past few years, but the national average is probably close to 50/50 now.

I believe this varies by region also.

Morrigan

20th July 2007, 12:42 PM

A child born with down syndrome is completely normal for a child with down syndrome. A circumcised child looks much more normal in a room full of circumcised children than one who is uncircumcised.
Genius analogy. Compare intact kids, born like every other healthy male human on Earth, with kids missing an important chromosome! :)

cloudshipsrule

20th July 2007, 12:56 PM

Genius analogy. Compare intact kids, born like every other healthy male human on Earth, with kids missing an important chromosome!

A wee bit of sarcasm? Perhaps out of context my analogy wouldn't stand, but given the post I was replying to it was apropos. Normal is relative.

Incidentally, I wasn't comparing intact kids with ones missing a chromosome. I was comparing ones missing a chromosome with other ones missing a chromosome.

gethane

20th July 2007, 01:16 PM

Ivor the Engineer

20th July 2007, 01:26 PM

Can we quantify the consequences? I can only speak from my own experience. For me it would have been worse to have been uncircumcised. Obviously you didn't grow up in the Southeastern part of the US.

You imagine it would have been worse. Did you know some kid whose life was made a living hell because he was uncircumcised?

Exactly. Kids will be teased. Why give them something else to get teased about by not circumcising them in a culture where it is the norm.

Your missing the point. It doesn't matter what you make your kids look like. There's always something other children will find to make fun of.

Really, how common is this practice? Is it normal where you live? It's not a comparison, because it is not an accepted practice where I live. Circumcising a male child is.

Again, missing the point: The point was how much do you value parts of your body? What would you accept for (part of) your little finger to be cut off?

I.e. how much do you value your body integrity?

Why did you value your son's less?

My statement had nothing to do with the act of circumcision itself, but rather calling the procedure mutilation. It is a valid point in that regard.

Sorry I offended your sensibilities.

I wasn't comparing the life of a cow to the life of a child. I was comparing a cow to the foreskin of a penis. Is one worth more or less than the other?

You cannot equate human rights to physical payments. Or is this a question about animal rights vs. human rights?:confused:

How many cows would you accept for your little finger?

cloudshipsrule

20th July 2007, 01:38 PM

Apparently I value my (non-existent) foreskin as much as a hangnail. Same for my child. I really am glad it's gone on both of us, and that's not denial. (Said the cruel bastard.)

Gethane, I have nothing to come to terms with. I live a happy, normal life just as millions of other circumcised individuals do.

(Though sometimes in the wee hours of the night I do find myself standing by the fridge with the door open just enough to let a little light escape as I wrap chicken skin around the head of my penis and imagine what it must have been like to spend my youth with my little friend cloaked in a crown of foreskin.):)

tabitha

20th July 2007, 01:58 PM

I know its really hard to come to terms with the idea that something was done to you, without your permission, for no good reason, and you ARE missing an important part of yourself that has a function. It's especially hard once you've perpetrated this abuse upon a child that you love. That doesn't change the fact that its a human rights issue.

Children have the right to grow to adulthood with all their pieces and parts barring medical necessity.

I think this is the crux of it. People arguing in favour of circumcision have either been circumcised themselves (and don't know what they are missing) OR have circumcised a child of theirs, maybe without all the facts. Of course they are going to try to defend it, by whatever means possible. To think you have put a child thorough unneccesary surgery, which will ultimatley be to their detriment must be a horrible place to be. Of course they love their chidren. I just don't see how any person looking at the facts of circumcision would choose to do so on a newborn now, in this day and age. I *get* the religious argument, although don't agree with it. But other than that, if you look into circumcision befor your baby is born, how can you come to a conclusion that it is better to circ?. it really doesn't make sense. Especially on a forum like this!:confused:

cloudshipsrule

20th July 2007, 02:02 PM

To think you have put a child thorough unneccesary surgery, which will ultimatley be to their detriment must be a horrible place to be.

So I'm sitting around waiting for that time when it becomes a detriment in my own life? I'm 36. At what age does this detrimental effect manifest itself?

People arguing in favour of circumcision have either been circumcised themselves (and don't know what they are missing) OR have circumcised a child of theirs, maybe without all the facts.

The same could be said of the anti-circumcision crowd on this forum. How many of those are circumcised and how many are not? Are the uncut ones simply upset that they would now have to fork out their own money to have a more attractive penis?

cloudshipsrule

20th July 2007, 02:11 PM

I'm trying in vain to find a local chapter of CVA. (Circumcision Victims Anonymous) Anyone have a linky for the Internet?

Tabitha, if it's so bad for a male to be circumcised as an infant, why is it males elect to have the surgery performed for cosmetic reasons as adults? What do they think they are missing by being uncircumcised?

kellyb

20th July 2007, 02:17 PM

Tabitha, if it's so bad for a male to be circumcised as an infant, why is it males elect to have the surgery performed for cosmetic reasons as adults? What do they think they are missing by being uncircumcised?

What percentage of men do that?

tabitha

20th July 2007, 02:22 PM

So I'm sitting around waiting for that time when it becomes a detriment in my own life? I'm 36. At what age does this detrimental effect manifest itself?.

Well you'll never know how much better sex can be intact. You never had that choice.

The same could be said of the anti-circumcision crowd on this forum. How many of those are circumcised and how many are not? Are the uncut ones simply upset that they would now have to fork out their own money to have a more attractive penis?

I don't think many intact males would let you circumcise even if you gave them money! Really, it is quite easy (and cheap) to get circumcised as an adult. Why don't men opt for this...could it be that the foreskin has a function?;)

tabitha

20th July 2007, 02:25 PM

I'm trying in vain to find a local chapter of CVA. (Circumcision Victims Anonymous) Anyone have a linky for the Internet?

You may want to try google - I di a quick search and found a few groups!;)

cloudshipsrule

20th July 2007, 02:25 PM

Well you'll never know how much better sex can be intact.

For the man or the woman? Are there studies showing it's better one way or the other? Could be it's better for circumcised men, couldn't it?

tabitha

20th July 2007, 02:27 PM

For the man or the woman? Are there studies showing it's better one way or the other? Could be it's better for circumcised men, couldn't it?

Both:D

cloudshipsrule

20th July 2007, 02:36 PM

Here's one account where the results post-circumcision were better:

http://www.circinfo.com/an_account.html

cloudshipsrule

20th July 2007, 02:40 PM

What percentage of men do that?

In this study about 9 out of 123 circumcised men did it electively for no medical reason.

http://circs.org/library/fink/index.html

Tabitha, it would seem that it can be better to be circumcised according to this study:

http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Aktion=ShowAbstract&ProduktNr=224282&Ausgabe=230970&ArtikelNr=85930

and this informal survey:

http://www.slate.com/id/2136062/

Skepticybe

20th July 2007, 04:34 PM

He is going to get laid more than the uncircumsised kid (again, this applies only to America)
That's just ridiculous. If anything, there is a tremendous benefit to avoiding the very tiny number of women who are that shallow and petty.

Also, depending on where in America you live, circumcision may now be the minority. You may have inadvertently doomed your son to being rejected by the same shallow and petty women, who in the next generation can't stand the thought of a mutilated penis.

On the other hand, had you left your boy intact, his fully-functional penis may have given him an advantage when it comes to bringing women to orgasm. Now that would definitely get him laid more. I know I never had trouble getting repeat business.

he is not going to miss his foreskin ...
the tiny loss of sensory information ... has been a plus.
The male ego self-defense mechanism demands that we consider ourselves nothing less than whole and fully functional. You're right that he probably won't miss his foreskin, and he will likely insist that his penis is better the way it is. This same bias is also a problem for any circumcision satisfaction study.

The fact is that you truly have no idea what you have lost, or what your son has lost, as you are no longer capable of feeling the sensations that would have been produced by your foreskin.

If your son wants it, fine. Why shouldn't he make this choice for himself, based in the information available? You have taken something from him that can't be given back. If you're right and he would be better off circumcised, he could have had it done when he could make the choice himself, and any of the "benefits" would have still been there.

kellyb

20th July 2007, 04:42 PM

In this study about 9 out of 123 circumcised men did it electively for no medical reason.

http://circs.org/library/fink/index.html

You know that does not answer the question, don't you?

osmosis

20th July 2007, 07:33 PM

Potential social-psychological issues with uncircumcised male children in certain cultures where circumcision is the norm should not be taken lightly, in my opinion.

Appeal to tradition fallacy and circular reasoning: everyone should be circumcised because everyone is circumcised. If everyone else believed the left arm should be amputated as an offering to god, would you do it to your infant so he or she would "fit in"?

In first world countries there are apparently as many pros as there are cons to circumcision, disregarding the removal of body tissue, which seems to be the thorn-in-the-side for the anti-circumcision crowd.

You're just imagining that thorn, it's not actually there. In first world countries, there are (apparently) NO pros to circumcision, it's all con, whether one chooses to realize it or not.

If someone presents some good medical evidence indicating the procedure routinely, that might change, but so far the evidence does not exist or nobody has posted it.

In my opinion, the potential consequences of not altering the appearance in my 'neck of the woods' outweighs my reluctance to choose having the procedure performed on my child.

In my opinion, that's not your decision to make.

I've asked the opinions of about a dozen co-workers, all of whom had been circumcised as infants (In fact, I know no male who is not circumcised, but then I haven't asked to see the penises of all the males I know either.), and not one of my co-workers was upset about the procedure having been done to them as infants. They found my questioning humerous as if to say ' Why wouldn't I have been circumsized?"

Right, why wouldn't they? A mere 30 years ago, most doctors didn't even bother asking the parents for permission before they did it. Of course they're circumcised.

As for their apparent lack of concern, well I know for a fact there are plenty of infibulated women in this world who not only defend the procedure and it's effects, they'll hold their children down while it's being performed.

Are those of you against circumcision circumcised yourselves? Are you pissed off about it?

No, and yes. But then, I know things you apparently don't, such as a good woman will accept your body with or without that supposedly "unimportant" piece of skin that has thousands of nerve endings in it. And that human rights issues are infinitely more important than vague notions of "fitting in".

Who defines perfect from imperfect? I think my penis is perfect,

Of course you do. Almost every man does.

and so have many women.

I bet some of them were just telling you what you wanted to hear, because they knew how obsessed you are with it.

This anti-circumcision movement is rather new, and reminds me of typical vegan arguments.

That's hardly an accurate comparison, anti-circ is about human rights, vegans, at least the way you're portraying them, are about animal rights. I wouldn't know, myself, I'm not the caricature of a vegetarian, tree-hugging, pot smoking activist you are trying to make me out to be. Well, except for that last part.

osmosis

20th July 2007, 07:36 PM

*shrugs* Your pompousness is as tedious as your whiny victim mentality.

Agreed.. however, DNFTJ

cloudshipsrule

20th July 2007, 07:44 PM

You know that does not answer the question, don't you?

Sorry. I was being facetious. I know there is a percentage of men who get circumcised as adults, but I cannot find numbers. I realize the percentage for elective surgery is low compared to those who have the surgery due to medical problems.

kellyb

20th July 2007, 07:57 PM

Sorry. I was being facetious. I know there is a percentage of men who get circumcised as adults, but I cannot find numbers. I realize the percentage for elective surgery is low compared to those who have the surgery due to medical problems.

It's low, period. Very low.

kellyb

20th July 2007, 08:02 PM

This guy is funny. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxQHI1TlI8Y

E.J.Armstrong

21st July 2007, 05:28 AM

There are plenty of emotional posts here and at the same time, not everyone on either side of the discussion has posted emotional arguments.

However, your dismissal of everything I posted about the UTIs and about different people having different values by this attempt to attack the messenger isn't likely to lead to a productive discussion.

Try this key word:

equivocal (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/equivocal)
I notice that you have not addressed the substantive points again or addressed my questions as to what words you emotionally claimed were absurd.

By definition most non-medical genital mutilation of defenceless infants is not carried out because they have a UTI. I have already dealt with the mutilation of body parts for disease prevention and you fail to address the point of who is the definer of risk/reward or why you do not promote similar operations.

Try this key word - Euphemism.

cloudshipsrule

21st July 2007, 07:16 AM

By definition most non-medical genital beautification of completely willing infants is not carried out because they have a UTI. I have already dealt with the beautification of body parts for disease prevention and you fail to address the point of who is the definer of risk/reward or why you do not promote similar operations.

There. Fixed the quote fer ya'.

You're welcome.

cloudshipsrule

21st July 2007, 07:18 AM

It's low, period. Very low.

How many adult males get circumcised as adults? Whatever that number is, 7 percent of them choose to do it sans medical reasons.

Blue Mountain

21st July 2007, 09:20 AM

(most of post snipped) I've also asked my wife about her opinion. She was engaged to a non-circumsized Brazilian. She likes my appearance better.
Well, she is your wife! :D "You know I love you, honey, but if I had to tell the truth, I much preferred his penis over yours!"

To quote Snoopy's famous stories: "About this time, the relationship began to go downhill."

ClintonHammond

21st July 2007, 09:32 AM

1140 posts... and still the answer is "no"

E.J.Armstrong

21st July 2007, 09:48 AM

There. Fixed the quote fer ya'.

You're welcome.
Thanks. You definitely made it better.

robinson

21st July 2007, 10:43 AM

It appears one can defend anything. Even cutting skin of the little babies penis.

BlackKat

21st July 2007, 11:30 AM

These posts just go on and on and on...

But until one can convince the vast majority of the American (as one of the primary circumcising countries) public that circumcised penises are not better looking, better performing, and better smelling/tasting than penises with a vestigial foreskin Americans will continue to, by some majority, to circumcise their male children.

I certainly have not been convinced that foreskins are not repulsive.
There's nothing irrational about carefully weighing the advantages to having one against the advantages of not having one, and coming to an evidence based decision that the have-nots are better off. And there is nothing irrational about coming to that same conclusion for your child who is in no state to make ANY decisions for themselves about anything (some would argue this holds true until they're about 35).

Like any subject where there are two valid positions (not counting extremists on either side - but particularly those who like to use emotionally charged words and dredge up Freudian psychology) the best way for the medical profession to approach this kind of procedure is "to each their own". And here in the U.S. that is what they do.

ClintonHammond

21st July 2007, 11:37 AM

"the best way for the medical profession to approach this kind of procedure is "to each their own"
So, choosing to mutilate children is o.k. with you?

"here in the U.S. that is what they do"
Since when did the U.S. (outside of their own opinion) become the moral meter-stick for the whole planet?

"I certainly have not been convinced that foreskins are not repulsive."
No more repulsive than an elbow, or an ear canal, or labia.... to a rational human anyway.

Gurdur

21st July 2007, 11:53 AM

1140 posts... and still the answer is "no"
Wrong.
As an impartial observer, the answer appears to be mixed.
It appears one can defend anything. Even cutting skin of the little babies penis.

You left out those of us who think there are much bigger problems to worry about.

robinson

21st July 2007, 12:18 PM

True. The reason for cutting off part of a babies penis, is religion.

ClintonHammond

21st July 2007, 12:26 PM

"As an impartial observer"
No such beast.

"the answer appears to be mixed"
I've yet to see a good reason given for arbitrarily hacking off a piece of an infant... Religion is NOT a good reason... Tradition is NOT a good reason... Some twisted, repressed B.S. sense of aesthetics SURE AS HELL isn't a good reason...

There are some rare situations where it's medically beneficial, sure... like having ones appendix out when it gets infected....

BlackKat

21st July 2007, 12:35 PM

"the best way for the medical profession to approach this kind of procedure is "to each their own"
So, choosing to mutilate children is o.k. with you?

Again with the emotionally charged language. Freud would be proud. I don't think I have seen you contribute to this discussion much beyond one liners.

"here in the U.S. that is what they do"
Since when did the U.S. (outside of their own opinion) become the moral meter-stick for the whole planet?

Well being that the U.S. is one of the only countries where infant circumcision is predominantly performed, and the the members of this forum are also predominantly American, likely because JREF is an American organization, and the boards are in English which is predominantly spoken and written in America. And that all the discussions around the patient-physician relationship in this thread have revolved around mostly American doctors and nurses...

"I certainly have not been convinced that foreskins are not repulsive."
No more repulsive than an elbow, or an ear canal, or labia.... to a rational human anyway.
None of those items ooze fetid liquids quite like an uncircumcised penis does, nor do they contribute to disease, nor are they vestigial.

True. The reason for cutting off part of a babies penis, is religion.
The primary reasons for circumcision outside of a few minority cultures is aesthetics and cultural uniformity and to a smaller degree, disease prevention. In the United States (again because this is where most of us are from and where circumcision is most common Clinton) only 2-5% of circumcisions are performed for religious reasons. 2% Jewish (and whether it is religious or merely racial/cultural at this point is arguable) and 1-3% Arabic or Evangelical.
Circumcision is almost exclusively a secular act.

Morrigan

21st July 2007, 12:35 PM

Are the uncut ones simply upset that they would now have to fork out their own money to have a more attractive penis?
Riiiiiiiiight.

Agreed.. however, DNFTJ
Do not feed the... Jew? :D

How many adult males get circumcised as adults? Whatever that number is, 7 percent of them choose to do it sans medical reasons.
Huh? Where do you get that 7% figure from?
So 7% of all intact men decide to get circumcised as adults, without medical reason to boot. Is that what you are claiming?

But until one can convince the vast majority of the American (as one of the primary circumcising countries) public that circumcised penises are not better looking, better performing, and better smelling/tasting than penises with a vestigial foreskin Americans will continue to, by some majority, to circumcise their male children.
Yeah, yeah, you're brainwashed, we get it.

(Better performing huh... evidence has been posted that suggests intact penises help bring women to orgasm. Uh-oh.)

I certainly have not been convinced that foreskins are not repulsive.
Honestly, I'd have to say it's because you are not quite right in the head. I don't mean to make ad hominems, but to claim a piece of skin is "repulsive" just shows how thoroughly brainwashed you are.

Morrigan

21st July 2007, 12:38 PM

Again with the emotionally charged language. Freud would be proud. I don't think I have seen you contribute to this discussion much beyond one liners.

The irony is crushing.

None of those items ooze fetid liquids quite like an uncircumcised penis does,
What?

nor do they contribute to disease,

What?

nor are they vestigial.

What?

You haven't followed the thread at all, have you. In fact, you learned nothing at all, you just kept plugging your ears, "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU! EWW FORESKIN BAD, UGLY!" 'til kingdom come.

cloudshipsrule

21st July 2007, 03:07 PM

Huh? Where do you get that 7% figure from?
So 7% of all intact men decide to get circumcised as adults, without medical reason to boot. Is that what you are claiming?

I think if you'll read what I wrote one more time you'll realize that that is not what I said.

I've come across the 7% figure (Of men who have DECIDED to get circumcised) several times in articles on the subject.

Has anyone posted links to the recent studies in Africa where the risk of AIDS contraction is reduced by nearly 50% when adult males are circumcised?

cloudshipsrule

21st July 2007, 03:08 PM

I don't mean to make ad hominems, but to claim a piece of skin is "repulsive" just shows how thoroughly brainwashed you are.

Or, perhaps, because of the culture where you live you've been brainwashed into believing it's always best to keep the foreskin.

ClintonHammond

21st July 2007, 03:19 PM

What Morrigan said....

"None of those items ooze fetid liquids quite like an uncircumcised penis does"
You really gotta get your head outa yer backside....

Ivor the Engineer

21st July 2007, 04:00 PM

Has anyone posted links to the recent studies in Africa where the risk of AIDS contraction is reduced by nearly 50% when adult males are circumcised?

That's a whole different thread. The RCT's in Kenya and Uganda showed 50% protective effect of circumcision against infection with HIV in males.

However, it is not reasonable to think circumcision would automatically have similar success elsewhere. For example, the US has both one of the highest incidences of HIV and circumcision in the developed world.

robinson

21st July 2007, 06:26 PM

Hey, don't start bringing facts into this discussion buddy. Next thing you know, somebody might do a study on people who died from AIDS and how many were circumcised. Then where will we be?

BlackKat

21st July 2007, 11:43 PM

What Morrigan said....

"None of those items ooze fetid liquids quite like an uncircumcised penis does"
You really gotta get your head outa yer backside....

When I see more than 1 in 10 men washing their hands in public restrooms after urinating MAYBE, just maybe then I will actually believe that all you men with unenhanced penises are really properly keeping them clean.

Ivor the Engineer

22nd July 2007, 04:27 AM

Nobody has answered my questions:(

1) How much money would you have to be paid to have (a piece of) your little finger removed?

$1?, $1000?, $1million?, No amount would be enough?

2) How much money would I have to pay you to let me surgically alter your genitals in some way? I promise you'll still be able to reach orgasm after.

$1?, $1000?, $1million?, No amount would be enough?

E.J.Armstrong

22nd July 2007, 06:07 AM

When I see more than 1 in 10 men washing their hands in public restrooms after urinating MAYBE, just maybe then I will actually believe that all you men with unenhanced penises are really properly keeping them clean.

You just cannot make this stuff up.

Correct me if I'm wrong but what you seem to be saying is that because you've never liked the rolls of fat oily skin around the midriff of ugly obese women, which 90% of the time hides who knows what germs and smells and nasties, that you would mutilate their stomachs in infancy lest they grow up and offend your sensibilities.

E.J.Armstrong

22nd July 2007, 06:11 AM

Or, perhaps, because of the culture where you live you've been brainwashed into believing it's always best to keep the foreskin.

Oh my god - I've been brainwashed into believing that it is good to have my eyes cut out at birth. How could I be so blind to my brainwashing?

E.J.Armstrong

22nd July 2007, 06:17 AM

I certainly have not been convinced that foreskins are not repulsive.

So what exactly? THat people were not convinced that your face was not repulsive doesn't give them the right to cut bits of your face at birth in case you grow up to be repulsive.

Mutilating the genitals of defenceless infants to make you happy is child abuse.

ClintonHammond

22nd July 2007, 08:34 AM

"When I see more than 1 in 10 men washing their hands in public restrooms after urinating MAYBE, just maybe then I will actually believe that all you men with unenhanced penises are really properly keeping them clean."

1) Human urine is sterile when it leaves the body.
2) the water you just drank was urine one day not too long ago
3) you watch men pissin'??? You gotta get a hobby.
4)what does washing ones hands have to do with foreskin?!?!?!
5)how long have you been living in The Victorian Age?

"Mutilating the genitals of defenceless infants to make you happy is child abuse."
+1!!

Roadtoad

22nd July 2007, 09:57 AM

osmosis

22nd July 2007, 10:30 AM

Do not feed the... Jew? :D

Correct ;)

Morrigan, Osmosis - this commentary and others like it skirt very close to racial remarks aimed at specific members. I strongly advise that you refrain from making this - and similar comments - of this type. Only generalized comments are permissible under the membership agreement.

Gurdur

22nd July 2007, 10:47 AM

True. The reason for cutting off part of a babies penis, is religion.
Not necessarily at all. Since other reasons have been explained, it would be dishonest to make that claim, wouldn't it?

"As an impartial observer"
No such beast.
You wish.
I've yet to see a good reason given for arbitrarily hacking off a piece of an infant.
You've yet to see a reason you agree with. That is something completely different. I think if you'll read what I wrote one more time you'll realize that that is not what I said.

I've come across the 7% figure (Of men who have DECIDED to get circumcised) several times in articles on the subject.

Has anyone posted links to the recent studies in Africa where the risk of AIDS contraction is reduced by nearly 50% when adult males are circumcised?
Yes, they've been posted in several threads now.

Hey, don't start bringing facts into this discussion buddy. Next thing you know, somebody might do a study on people who died from AIDS and how many were circumcised. Then where will we be?
The facts have been cited. That you don't like them is a subjective matter.

If I had a choice, I wouldn't allow anyone to alter my body in any way. I don't even have tats, if that tells you anything.
I have no tats at all, either. Same reason.
Agreed.. however, DNFTJ
Do not feed the... Jew?

Correct ;)

Nothing like a bit of self-righteous bigotry and racism to make you feel warm and tingly all over, eh?

Back in the old days you coulda done more than just only scream on a bulletin board. Pity for you.

Ivor the Engineer

22nd July 2007, 11:54 AM

If I had a choice, I wouldn't allow anyone to alter my body in any way. I don't even have tats, if that tells you anything.

Thanks RT. I'm hoping for pro-circ. posters to answer them as well, though I doubt any will.

cloudshipsrule

22nd July 2007, 12:48 PM

Oh my god - I've been brainwashed into believing that it is good to have my eyes cut out at birth. How could I be so blind to my brainwashing?

Are you implying foreskin actually has as much use as the human eye in the world in which we live?

E.J.Armstrong

22nd July 2007, 01:34 PM

Are you implying foreskin actually has as much use as the human eye in the world in which we live?

I had hoped you would get it but sadly it seems not. Let me be a tad more direct then.

What gives you (or anyone) the right to decide what is appropriate to chop off defenceless infants for purely cosmetic reasons?

Many people grow up to have ugly heads. Perhaps you have too, who knows. Should they perhaps be removed in case they might offend your sensibilities in the future?

Why not let some of the defenceless grow up into 200 lb weightlifters, then try approaching them with a sharp knife pointed at their genitals while cooing softly 'This is going to hurt you more than it hurts me' and see how long you manage stay upright.

I submit only cowards would cut bits off defenceless children for cosmetic reasons that they wouldn't cut off people of their own size without consent. I notice that not one single mutilation proponent has agreed that people could mutilate their own genitals without consent. Does that tell us anything I wonder?

BlackKat

22nd July 2007, 01:49 PM

I had hoped you would get it but sadly it seems not. Let me be a tad more direct then.

What gives you (or anyone) the right to decide what is appropriate to chop off defenceless infants for purely cosmetic reasons?

Many people grow up to have ugly heads. Perhaps you have too, who knows. Should they perhaps be removed in case they might offend your sensibilities in the future?

Why not let some of the defenceless grow up into 200 lb weightlifters, then try approaching them with a sharp knife pointed at their genitals while cooing softly 'This is going to hurt you more than it hurts me' and see how long you manage stay upright.

I submit only cowards would cut bits off defenceless children for cosmetic reasons that they wouldn't cut off people of their own size without consent. I notice that not one single mutilation proponent has agreed that people could mutilate their own genitals without consent. Does that tell us anything I wonder?

Careful there. Your arguments are starting to sound like those used by people who protest outside Planned Parenthood.

In order to make such statements you need to provide irrefutable evidence that circumcision harms rather than benefits the infant.
There is none.

Ivor the Engineer

22nd July 2007, 02:09 PM

In order to make such statements you need to provide irrefutable evidence that circumcision harms rather than benefits the infant.

Symptoms similar to PTSD classed as harm (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=9057731&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus)?

ETA: I forgot. A 1% absolute risk reduction for a condition 98%+ of infants don't get is a huge benefit:rolleyes:

BlackKat

22nd July 2007, 02:12 PM

Symptoms similar to PTSD classed as harm (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=9057731&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus)?

From that link:
Among the circumcised group, preoperative treatment with Emla attenuated the pain response to vaccination.

That is the minimum anesthetic used during circumcision in US Hospitals with options going all the way up to a complete nerve block on the penile dorsal nerve.

kellyb

22nd July 2007, 02:12 PM

kellyb

22nd July 2007, 02:14 PM

From that link:
Among the circumcised group, preoperative treatment with Emla attenuated the pain response to vaccination.

That is the minimum anesthetic used during circumcision in US Hospitals with options going all the way up to a complete nerve block on the penile dorsal nerve.

Actually, the minimum is nothing. Followed by sugar water.

Roadtoad

22nd July 2007, 02:18 PM

Ivor the Engineer

22nd July 2007, 02:21 PM

From that link:
Among the circumcised group, preoperative treatment with Emla attenuated the pain response to vaccination.

The circumcised + Emla group still had an increased pain response over the uncircumcised group.

That is the minimum anesthetic used during circumcision in US Hospitals with options going all the way up to a complete nerve block on the penile dorsal nerve.

Now you're just saying what you and all the "I'm a good person and condone hurting healthy children" physicians here would like to be true.

ETA: Perhaps being bound by the wrists and ankles to a table induces some stress and discomfort?

cloudshipsrule

22nd July 2007, 04:11 PM

"I'm a good person and condone hurting healthy children"

So far this thread has failed to show the harm that will befall circumcised infants when they reach adulthood.

What is this elusive harm? I haven't seen it in my life.

Should I be expecting it anytime soon, or when I'm in my 40's? 50's? Never?

Loss Leader

22nd July 2007, 04:24 PM

Many people grow up to have ugly heads. Perhaps you have too, who knows. Should they perhaps be removed in case they might offend your sensibilities in the future?

It's not quite the same thing but some parents are choosing to put their children in helments (http://www.cranialtech.com/) for up to a year to correct a flattening or other deformation of the skull. I assume the helmets are hot and uncomfortable and I know from talking to parents that children are treated differently by adults when wearing them. And yet some parents choose to inflict this on their children despite the fact that the children have no choice and some ... don't chose to do so.

And the world keeps turning.

I submit only cowards would cut bits off defenceless children for cosmetic reasons that they wouldn't cut off people of their own size without consent.?

You're confusing two different concepts: "without consent" and "without the capacity to consent". "Without consent" implies that the procedure is against a person's will. Remember, children circumcised by their parents are not being cut without their consent. They are not being cut against their will. They are being circumcised because they lack the capacity to consent and their parents have substituted their judgment for the infants. The infants cannot consent or refuse; they are incapable of doing so.

I'm not arguing whether circumcision is right or wrong. I'm arguing that you are committing the fallacy of equivocation. Plenty of anti-circ people on this board have managed to defend their position quite well without confusing failure to consent with failure to be able to consent.

I notice that not one single mutilation proponent has agreed that people could mutilate their own genitals without consent.

Sure, let me be the first. I, Loss Leader, am a proponent of allowing Jews (including myself) to circumcise their children. I hearby state unequivocally that should I ever be in a position where I am unable to give or withhold informed consent for a medical procedure, I would like my wife to substitute her judgment as to what is in my best interests and exercise my consent on my behalf including but not limited to mutilating my genitals.

Fair enough?

Does that tell us anything I wonder?

It tells me that you misunderstand some basic legal concepts underpinning our society's entire concept of the self, informed consent and substituted judgment.

Loss Leader

22nd July 2007, 04:25 PM

Perhaps being bound by the wrists and ankles to a table induces some stress and discomfort?

You will be happy to know that such a procedure is not used during the Jewish bris.

Ivor the Engineer

23rd July 2007, 02:19 AM

So far this thread has failed to show the harm that will befall circumcised infants when they reach adulthood.

What is this elusive harm? I haven't seen it in my life.

Should I be expecting it anytime soon, or when I'm in my 40's? 50's? Never?

Care to answer my questions? Afraid you may find out you're a hypocrite?

You're confusing two different concepts: "without consent" and "without the capacity to consent". "Without consent" implies that the procedure is against a person's will. Remember, children circumcised by their parents are not being cut without their consent. They are not being cut against their will. They are being circumcised because they lack the capacity to consent and their parents have substituted their judgment for the infants. The infants cannot consent or refuse; they are incapable of doing so.

You are confusing the law with common sense. You are circumcising your children as infants because you have such little faith in your ability to convince them to have it performed when they would be old enough to give informed consent. Pathetic.

Sure, let me be the first. I, Loss Leader, am a proponent of allowing Jews (including myself) to circumcise their children. I hearby state unequivocally that should I ever be in a position where I am unable to give or withhold informed consent for a medical procedure, I would like my wife to substitute her judgment as to what is in my best interests and exercise my consent on my behalf including but not limited to mutilating my genitals.

You are answering a different question. Circumcision is an elective procedure. I.e. one physicians offer to perform to make money even though they know it is painful and medically pointless for the vast majority of infants.

The question you should be answering is:

Would you mind if your wife consented on your behalf for unnecessary cosmetic surgery to be performed on you?

You will be happy to know that such a procedure is not used during the Jewish bris.

That makes it all ok then:rolleyes:

cloudshipsrule

23rd July 2007, 03:45 AM

You are answering a different question. Circumcision is an elective procedure. I.e. one physicians offer to perform to make money even though they know it is painful and medically pointless for the vast majority of infants.

Do you mean vast majority except in Aids-Prone regions in Africa and other third world nations?

Care to answer my questions? Afraid you may find out you're a hypocrite?

Frankly, I assumed the questions you put in posts replying to me were hypothetical since they were irrelevant to the discussion. Like this one:

1) How much money would you have to be paid to have (a piece of) your little finger removed?

$1?, $1000?, $1million?, No amount would be enough?

For me the amount removed would be proportional to the amount paid me. For a cool million I'd remove the entire finger. If my parents had elected to remove part of my little finger while I was an infant I would have grown up used to it, and would have embraced it as a unique compared to everyone else's whole finger.

Or this one:

2) How much money would I have to pay you to let me surgically alter your genitals in some way? I promise you'll still be able to reach orgasm after.

$1?, $1000?, $1million?, No amount would be enough?

What, exactly, would you do for the million? You could have one of my balls for a million.

Are there any silly questions I've missed? Repost them and I'll try to check back and answer them.

Ivor the Engineer

23rd July 2007, 04:23 AM

Do you mean vast majority except in Aids-Prone regions in Africa and other third world nations?

Yes. Even in these countries there is still a considerable number of unknown variables that could make it go wrong.

Frankly, I assumed the questions you put in posts replying to me were hypothetical since they were irrelevant to the discussion. Like this one:

1) How much money would you have to be paid to have (a piece of) your little finger removed?

$1?, $1000?, $1million?, No amount would be enough?

For me the amount removed would be proportional to the amount paid me. For a cool million I'd remove the entire finger. If my parents had elected to remove part of my little finger while I was an infant I would have grown up used to it, and would have embraced it as a unique compared to everyone else's whole finger.

Or this one:

2) How much money would I have to pay you to let me surgically alter your genitals in some way? I promise you'll still be able to reach orgasm after.

$1?, $1000?, $1million?, No amount would be enough?

What, exactly, would you do for the million? You could have one of my balls for a million.

Are there any silly questions I've missed? Repost them and I'll try to check back and answer them.

With my current financial situation I would not sell any of my body parts for any price.

The point of the asking the questions was to find out if you put a positive value on your body integrity. You do and it is pretty high.

Now explain how you managed to put a negative value on your child's healthy, functional foreskin when you put a positive value on your own body integrity.

cloudshipsrule

23rd July 2007, 05:27 AM

The point of the asking the questions was to find out if you put a positive value on your body integrity. You do and it is pretty high.

Now explain how you managed to put a negative value on your child's healthy, functional foreskin when you put a positive value on your own body integrity.

The problem with this retort to my answers is this:

I don't value foreskin.

I value the integrity of my son's little finger, as, apart from some sort of birth defect, all his classmates should have intact little fingers.

On the contrary, at least 76% of his classmates (probably more given my local) will be circumcised. He'll fit right in with the rest of the brain-washed school children!

Ivor the Engineer

23rd July 2007, 05:59 AM

The problem with this retort to my answers is this:

I don't value foreskin.

No, you actually put a negative value on this particular piece of normal, healthy and functional body tissue, while at the same time put a positive value on other normal body parts. That's why you're a hypocrite.

I value the integrity of my son's little finger, as, apart from some sort of birth defect, all his classmates should have intact little fingers.

Apart from some sort of birth defect, all his classmates should have intact foreskins.

On the contrary, at least 76% of his classmates (probably more given my local) will be circumcised. He'll fit right in with the rest of the brain-washed school children!

What happens to the other 24%? Are they shunned? Have stones thrown at them? Have burning phalluses left on their front lawn?

Tell me what awful acts of discrimination a boy or man will face if he is not circumcised in your neck of the woods.

BlackKat

23rd July 2007, 06:27 AM

No, you actually put a negative value on this particular piece of normal, healthy and functional body tissue, while at the same time put a positive value on other normal body parts. That's why you're a hypocrite.

Apart from some sort of birth defect, all his classmates should have intact foreskins.

What happens to the other 24%? Are they shunned? Have stones thrown at them? Have burning phalluses left on their front lawn?

Tell me what awful acts of discrimination a boy or man will face if he is not circumcised in your neck of the woods.

I fail to see any hypocrisy. That's like saying if you like one movie you must like ALL movies.

I can tell you what will happen if someone is not circumcised in America:
They stand a good chance of never being on the receiving end of oral sex.
They stand a good chance of never being on the delivering end of anal sex.
They stand a small chance of never being on the delivering end of conventional intercourse.

Having never taken a communal shower with other men I'm not sure what sort of teasing may occur. But I'm sure someone else here who went to middle schools that had such things in their gym locker rooms could contribute.

I would be interested to learn (and not surprised to find it true) if Americans (due to higher rates of circumcision) are more likely to engage in oral and anal sex than their largely uncircumcised counterparts in other countries. A couple of the studies already linked here have hinted at this but since this has not been the focus of the study not really extrapolated on.

Darat

23rd July 2007, 06:32 AM

...snip...

I can tell you what will happen if someone is not circumcised in America:
They stand a good chance of never being on the receiving end of oral sex.
They stand a good chance of never being on the delivering end of anal sex.
They stand a small chance of never being on the delivering end of conventional intercourse.

...snip..

Absolute rubbish - I've had plenty of sex in the USA and having a foreskin never seemed to a hindrance.

cloudshipsrule

23rd July 2007, 06:41 AM

No, you actually put a negative value on this particular piece of normal, healthy and functional body tissue, while at the same time put a positive value on other normal body parts. That's why you're a hypocrite.

I've answered your questions. If you don't mind, I'd like your answer to the question I asked you:

Oh my god - I've been brainwashed into believing that it is good to have my eyes cut out at birth. How could I be so blind to my brainwashing?

Are you implying, with your above statement, foreskin actually has as much use as the human eye in the world in which we live?

How about this..... Are your hands more important to your career than your foreskin?

If you answer yes, are you being a hypocrite?

Ivor the Engineer

23rd July 2007, 07:11 AM

Are you implying, with your above statement, foreskin actually has as much use as the human eye in the world in which we live?

No. Neither do my little fingers, sense of smell, one of my kidneys, toes, hair, etc.

How about this..... Are your hands more important to your career than your foreskin?

Yes.

If you answer yes, are you being a hypocrite?

No.

I place a positive value on ALL my body parts. That is not to say I place the SAME value on them. E.g., I'd rather loose my little finger to frost-bite than my entire hand.

You have placed a negative value on one particular body part and a positive on the rest. Why did you dislike that part of your son? Why are your aesthetic preferences so important for him? Will you be insisting he likes the same music as you too?

Ivor the Engineer

23rd July 2007, 07:21 AM

I fail to see any hypocrisy. That's like saying if you like one movie you must like ALL movies.

The hypocrisy comes from hacking off the foreskin but not other normal pieces you don't like. E.g., A woman's labia can be pretty ugly to some people. I don't see you arguing for them to be trimmed to your idea of perfection.

cloudshipsrule

23rd July 2007, 07:22 AM

You have placed a negative value on one particular body part and a positive on the rest. Why did you dislike that part of your son? Why are your aesthetic preferences so important for him? Will you be insisting he likes the same music as you too

You don't think that that is a ridiculous conclusion?

Do you shave? Do you get haircuts?

Please don't tell me you place a negative value on facial hair. Please don't tell me you don't value long, natural, uncut hair on the top of your head.

(The above is just as extreme as asking me the music question.)

Loss Leader

23rd July 2007, 07:47 AM

You are confusing the law with common sense. You are circumcising your children as infants because you have such little faith in your ability to convince them to have it performed when they would be old enough to give informed consent.

No, I was answering E.J. Armstrong. He was confusing "lack of consent" with "lack of capacity." You and I are not. We disagree about what can and should be done to a child during his incompetency, but we agree on the definitions of the concepts.

You are answering a different question...

The question you should be answering is: Would you mind if your wife consented on your behalf for unnecessary cosmetic surgery to be performed on you?

No, I was answering E.J.A.'s question. But I'll answer yours as well. Yours is actually easier than his because it doesn't contain nearly as much emotional language. Here goes:

Should I, Loss Leader, ever become incapacitated and incapable of giving or withholding informed consent, I would like my wife to substitute her judgment as to what is in my best interests and exercise my consent on my behalf including but not limited to unnecessary cosmetic surgery.

Good enough?

That makes it all ok then:rolleyes:

Excellent. I'm glad we've wrapped this up. :)

Loss Leader

23rd July 2007, 07:49 AM

Absolute rubbish - I've had plenty of sex in the USA and having a foreskin never seemed to a hindrance.

Your English accent gives you an unfair advantage.

Ivor the Engineer

23rd July 2007, 07:50 AM

You don't think that that is a ridiculous conclusion?

Forcing your son to only listen to a certain type of music would be less cruel than permanently altering his body.

Do you shave? Do you get haircuts?

Yes and Yes.

Please don't tell me you place a negative value on facial hair. Please don't tell me you don't value long, natural, uncut hair on the top of your head.

(The above is just as extreme as asking me the music question.)

You haven't seen what I've got under that hat:D

They are my aesthetic preferences for my body. If at some point I wish to grow a beard or long hair I can. They are reversible choices. Also, hair is dead with no nerve endings and foreskin has both sensory and sexual functions (not that I expect you to know this).

The closest equivalent to infant circumcision would be a parent having the child's hair follicles killed off so the child could never grow hair on that part of their body again.

Ivor the Engineer

23rd July 2007, 08:10 AM

Should I, Loss Leader, ever become incapacitated and incapable of giving or withholding informed consent, I would like my wife to substitute her judgment as to what is in my best interests and exercise my consent on my behalf including but not limited to unnecessary cosmetic surgery.

Good enough?

No. That is not an answer to the question I asked.

The question was:

Would you mind if your wife consented on your behalf for unnecessary cosmetic surgery to be performed on you?

You're smug answer relies on the fact that your wife could not consent for you to have unnecessary plastic surgery and the doctors would be breaking the law performing it.

So, let's say you wake from a coma, look down and find your wife has elected to have your foreskin restored during your stupor. She's been lying to you all these years about how she prefers you cut! Are you seriously saying you would not mind?

Loss Leader

23rd July 2007, 08:41 AM

No. That is not an answer to the question I asked.

The question was:

Would you mind if your wife consented on your behalf for unnecessary cosmetic surgery to be performed on you?

You're smug answer relies on the fact that your wife could not consent for you to have unnecessary plastic surgery and the doctors would be breaking the law performing it.

So, let's say you wake from a coma, look down and find your wife has elected to have your foreskin restored during your stupor. She's been lying to you all these years about how she prefers you cut! Are you seriously saying you would not mind?

No, Ivor, I answered the question. You just didn't like my answer. I'll back up and take you through my reasoning and maybe your fondness for my answer will grow:

The reason I am able to circumcise my son is because, as his parent, I believe it is in his best interests and the law doesn't care enough to disagree. If I didn't think circumcision was in my son's best interests, I would have no right to do it. I am exercising his judgment for him. I am doing what I think he would want me to do if he were capable of understanding the issues and forming an informed opinion about them.

[I realize you disagree with whether it's in his best interests and whether he would really consent if he could, but I'm only talking about why I'm allowed by law to consent for him and not whether I should.]

Now, if I were incapacitated and unable to give or withhold consent, I trust my wife to make my decisions for me based on what is in my best interests. And the law trusts her as well. If she were to direct a doctor to mess with my junk - attach a foreskin or cut off another piece or whatever - the only reason she would or could is because she believed it to be in my best interests (and it wasn't so obviously harmful that the law cared enough to overrule her).

If I wake up from my coma and find my foreskin has been reattached, would I mind? The answer is no. The only way that could happen is if my wife thought it was in my best interests.

You throw in the words "unncessary surgery" and what my wife "prefers." When you do so, you misunderstand informed consent and substituted judgment. Circumcision is not "unnecessary surgery" for my son as far as I am concerned. I do not circumcise him because I "prefer" it. To me, such a procedure is necessary for his best interests and it is what I think he would want if he could want something.

I would not mind my wife making any of the same decisions for me as she and I make for our son.

[And, in fact, I have been incapacitated in the past and my wife has consented to procedures on my behalf including insertion of a catheter (which messed with my junk) and haircuts and shaves (which were purely cosmetic).]

ClintonHammond

23rd July 2007, 08:45 AM

osmosis

23rd July 2007, 09:03 AM

I can tell you what will happen if someone is not circumcised in America:
They stand a good chance of never being on the receiving end of oral sex.
They stand a good chance of never being on the delivering end of anal sex.
They stand a small chance of never being on the delivering end of conventional intercourse.

a) BS
b) BS
c) BS

News flash: Women don't usually know ahead of time if he's cut or not. Unless his pants are WAY too tight.

Just an anecdote: I'm not cut, and I've made out like a bandit. Seriously. I've had more sex with more women in more kinky ways than I can even summarize. Not one has ever complained about that little piece of skin, noone has denied me access to any orifice or refused me any favors. Noone has ever implied that I wasn't clean enough, and many have complimented me on my ability to make them tingle all over. They seem to appreciate the fact that I'm with them in the moment, not just jackhammering them so my under-sensitive penis can feel something.

I just don't know where you get your superstition that cut men have more sex or more of anything, really. It's totally bogus.

osmosis

23rd July 2007, 09:10 AM

Nothing like a bit of self-righteous bigotry and racism to make you feel warm and tingly all over, eh?

Er, wrong. I simply thought it best not to fan the flames of a particular fire that showed no signs of responding to rational argument.

Back in the old days you coulda done more than just only scream on a bulletin board. Pity for you.

Nah, that's fine, I'm too lazy to do anything but scream in this forum.

Ivor the Engineer

23rd July 2007, 09:56 AM

No, Ivor, I answered the question. You just didn't like my answer. I'll back up and take you through my reasoning and maybe your fondness for my answer will grow:

The reason I am able to circumcise my son is because, as his parent, I believe it is in his best interests and the law doesn't care enough to disagree. If I didn't think circumcision was in my son's best interests, I would have no right to do it. I am exercising his judgment for him. I am doing what I think he would want me to do if he were capable of understanding the issues and forming an informed opinion about them.

[I realize you disagree with whether it's in his best interests and whether he would really consent if he could, but I'm only talking about why I'm allowed by law to consent for him and not whether I should.]

You are making up an image of what you would like your son's body to be like and imposing it on him. You have said it yourself: your son is incapable of deciding - he cannot 'want' to be circumcised; it is all your idea. There is no history of your son showing a preference for circumcision for you to make an informed choice.

Your son's health is not under threat. There is no medical need to have him circumcised. The only thing that demands your son be circumcised is your (not your son's) chosen religion's dogma. He cannot have a religion since his cognitive abilities are too limited to understand the concepts. He has the right to freedom of religion, including freedom from your religion. Your religious dogma does not apply to him.

Now, if I were incapacitated and unable to give or withhold consent, I trust my wife to make my decisions for me based on what is in my best interests. And the law trusts her as well. If she were to direct a doctor to mess with my junk - attach a foreskin or cut off another piece or whatever - the only reason she would or could is because she believed it to be in my best interests (and it wasn't so obviously harmful that the law cared enough to overrule her).

Many medical procedures are extremely harmful. What makes the difference in this case is intent and the likely knowledge of your wishes the person giving consent on your behalf is expected to have. That's why it is usually someone who has lived with you for many years.

If I wake up from my coma and find my foreskin has been reattached, would I mind? The answer is no. The only way that could happen is if my wife thought it was in my best interests.

What! After posting pages of how important circumcision is for a Jewish man, you are now saying that waking up with your foreskin restored would not be upsetting to you?

There is another way it could happen: Your wife could manipulate people around her into thinking it was what you would want, when it is only what she wants.

You throw in the words "unncessary surgery" and what my wife "prefers." When you do so, you misunderstand informed consent and substituted judgment. Circumcision is not "unnecessary surgery" for my son as far as I am concerned. I do not circumcise him because I "prefer" it. To me, such a procedure is necessary for his best interests and it is what I think he would want if he could want something.

You misunderstand the meaning of the word 'informed'. As far as your son is concerned you are little more 'informed' than a total stranger as to his 'wants'.

Why not wait and see what he wants? Will you be buying all his toys upfront too?

I would not mind my wife making any of the same decisions for me as she and I make for our son.

[And, in fact, I have been incapacitated in the past and my wife has consented to procedures on my behalf including insertion of a catheter (which messed with my junk) and haircuts and shaves (which were purely cosmetic).]

Asking somebody what someone they have know for many years would want is reasonable. They have a model of that person in their brain based on experience interacting with them.

You have no idea what your son will want. All you know is what you want your son to want. You appear to fool yourself into thinking you have abilities you do not.

BTW, stop using haircuts and shaves as examples. They are completely reversible procedures. Circumcision is not.

BlackKat

23rd July 2007, 10:18 AM

" I can tell you what will happen if someone is not circumcised in America:
They stand a good chance of never being on the receiving end of oral sex.
They stand a good chance of never being on the delivering end of anal sex.
They stand a small chance of never being on the delivering end of conventional intercourse."
That is the biggest load of unfounded bullskite I've read in this thread.... They'd "Stand these chance" according to whom? You? And what, may I as makes you an authority to even hazard such wild and bizarre claims?

"and the law doesn't care enough to disagree"
... yet.

a) BS
b) BS
c) BS

News flash: Women don't usually know ahead of time if he's cut or not. Unless his pants are WAY too tight.

Just an anecdote: I'm not cut, and I've made out like a bandit. Seriously. I've had more sex with more women in more kinky ways than I can even summarize. Not one has ever complained about that little piece of skin, noone has denied me access to any orifice or refused me any favors. Noone has ever implied that I wasn't clean enough, and many have complimented me on my ability to make them tingle all over. They seem to appreciate the fact that I'm with them in the moment, not just jackhammering them so my under-sensitive penis can feel something.

I just don't know where you get your superstition that cut men have more sex or more of anything, really. It's totally bogus.

Both of you are from Canada which means you don't count. We're talking about Americans as in from the USA.

And the statements I made are not BS as you so rudely put it. You just don't agree with them because you are afraid it means I am saying you don't get as much sex as Americans do up in Canada where you're from. I am not. I am saying if you came from Canada to America many women would not find your penises attractive. Just as if I came from America to Canada many women there might not find my penis attractive if circumcision is not the norm there.

Relax a little there. If you like your own penises that's ok.
All the uncircumcised males in this thread are acting like a bunch of people who attend Rennaissance Fairs and just learned the general public thinks of them as dirty, smelly hippies with capes and no life. So defensive...

Most women in America expect penises to be circumcised and are frequently repulsed when they are not. Whether you think their aversion to uncircumcised penises is right or not does not change the fact that they don't like them.
http://www.circs.org/library/williamson/index.html

Conversely things might be different in countries where circumcision is not prevalant. One thing anti-circumcision posters like the throw out is this:
http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/

Of course the same "anti-circ" website on another page admits:
The study, conducted by Kristen O' Hare [sic] concludes "the anatomically complete penis offers a more rewarding experience for the female partner during coitus." However, O'Hare even acknowledges the study's shortcomings: The respondents were not selected randomly and several were recruited using a newsletter put out by an anti-circumcision organization.

In short, just because you have had sex with someone does not change the fact that most (not all) women in the U.S.A (not Canada or Eritria or wherever you're from) don't like putting foreskins in their mouth.

Gurdur

23rd July 2007, 10:24 AM

Er, wrong. I simply thought it best not to fan the flames of a particular fire that showed no signs of responding to rational argument.
Oh, you "thought it best not to fan the flames" and you did that by using wholesale bigoted statements about ethnic groups?

Fascinating. This says a great deal about your integrity.
Nah, that's fine, I'm too lazy to do anything but scream in this forum.
"Lazy" might be one word for it.

Darat

23rd July 2007, 10:24 AM

...snip...

In short, just because you have had sex with someone does not change the fact that most (not all) women in the U.S.A (not Canada or Eritria or wherever you're from) don't like putting foreskins in their mouth.

What a shame for USA women.

cloudshipsrule

23rd July 2007, 10:37 AM

Just an anecdote: I'm not cut, and I've made out like a bandit. Seriously. I've had more sex with more women in more kinky ways than I can even summarize. Not one has ever complained about that little piece of skin, noone has denied me access to any orifice or refused me any favors.

Would you describe these women as attractive?

It's been stated in this thread that proper cleaning of an uncircumcised penis is essential, correct? How much time does one spend in the shower cleaning one's uncut penis? 30 seconds? 1 minute?

Loss Leader

23rd July 2007, 10:42 AM

You are making up an image of what you would like your son's body to be like and imposing it on him ...

Yes, yes. I'm quite well aware that you disagree that circumcision is in my son's best interests and that you disagree about the law's view of when a parent can substitute his judgment for a child. It doesn't change a thing about my answer to your question, however.

What! After posting pages of how important circumcision is for a Jewish man, you are now saying that waking up with your foreskin restored would not be upsetting to you?

Yup. That's what I'm saying. Because the only way that could be true is if my wife thought it was in my best interests.

There is another way it could happen: Your wife could manipulate people around her into thinking it was what you would want, when it is only what she wants.

This is what my crim professor used to call "fighting the hypo." If this were the case, my wife would not have made a decision based on my best interests. She would be guilty of assault and I would be quite upset.

This is utterly irrelevant to the legal concepts surrounding circumcision of an infant, however, at least the way the law stands today.

You misunderstand the meaning of the word 'informed'. As far as your son is concerned you are little more 'informed' than a total stranger as to his 'wants'.

Oh, you are absolutely wrong. You are fundamentally and fatally mistaken. Not only that, you've mixed up "informed" and "consent." "Informed" means able to comprehend the risks and benefits of the proposed procedure. I am able to comprehend those risks and benefits. What you probably mean is that I am in no better position to substitute my judgment for my son than a stranger. Of course, this is absolutely ridiculous.

I substitute my judgment for his regarding what he should wear, what he should eat, when he should go to sleep, what he should watch on tv, what rooms he should go in and everything else. I'm his parent and there is noone on the planet other than his parents who are presumed to be more knowledgeable about what is best for him. Or who are presumed to care more.

Otherwise, what is to stop a court from deciding that Angelina Jolie would raise my son better than I could and just giving her custody?

What you've done is create an ends-oriented analysis. You've started with the conclusion you'd like to see and then created a rule that you think gets you to that conclusion. But starting from the rule quickly reveals it to be utterly and unworkably moronic.

Asking somebody what someone they have know for many years would want is reasonable. They have a model of that person in their brain based on experience interacting with them.

Nope, that's not the rule. It's not just based on what the person would want, it's based on whether the substituted decision-maker is likely to care about the individual. My wife can substitute her judgment for mine when I'm incapacitated not because she has known me for years but just because she's my wife. If we were married ten minutes, she'd have the same ability as if we were married ten years. If we'd never met before our wedding night and I fell into a coma ten minutes after saying "I do," she wouldn have the same ability.

And parents of a ten-minute old infant have the same abilities as well.

You have no idea what your son will want. All you know is what you want your son to want. You appear to fool yourself into thinking you have abilities you do not.

What I want for my son is what he wants, full stop.

Ivor the Engineer

23rd July 2007, 10:56 AM

In short, just because you have had sex with someone does not change the fact that most (not all) women in the U.S.A (not Canada or Eritria or wherever you're from) don't like putting foreskins in their mouth.

Have you ever seen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erect) an erect uncircumcised penis? (wiki has a page on everything:))

Not a lot of difference between the two, is there?

The way you post reads you'd think the foreskin was a foot long:rolleyes:

Ivor the Engineer

23rd July 2007, 11:48 AM

Yup. That's what I'm saying. Because the only way that could be true is if my wife thought it was in my best interests.

This is what my crim professor used to call "fighting the hypo." If this were the case, my wife would not have made a decision based on my best interests. She would be guilty of assault and I would be quite upset.

This is utterly irrelevant to the legal concepts surrounding circumcision of an infant, however, at least the way the law stands today.

It is highly relevant. It is possibly one of the reasons the law will be changed. Because of deluded people like yourself. No doubt the Jewish and Muslim lobby groups will whine they're being persecuted.

Oh, you are absolutely wrong. You are fundamentally and fatally mistaken. Not only that, you've mixed up "informed" and "consent." "Informed" means able to comprehend the risks and benefits of the proposed procedure. I am able to comprehend those risks and benefits. What you probably mean is that I am in no better position to substitute my judgment for my son than a stranger. Of course, this is absolutely ridiculous.

Informed:

Possessing, displaying, or based on reliable information: informed sources; an informed opinion.

You are basing your decision on unreliable information. It is unreliable because it is incomplete. It is incomplete because you cannot know what your son's wants are. You use what you want to fill in the missing information and delude yourself that you are 'informed'.

I substitute my judgment for his regarding what he should wear, what he should eat, when he should go to sleep, what he should watch on tv, what rooms he should go in and everything else. I'm his parent and there is noone on the planet other than his parents who are presumed to be more knowledgeable about what is best for him. Or who are presumed to care more.

As a parent you are responsible for his well-being. Your rights to choose for him only go as far as to what does not harm him. All those things you have listed could be reason to remove him from your custody if choices you have made are considered to have caused him significant harm.

By definition, surgical procedures harm people. You cannot choose to have your son's appendix or tonsils removed if it is not medically required. In the not too distant future you will not be able to remove his foreskin for aesthetic or religious reasons either.

Otherwise, what is to stop a court from deciding that Angelina Jolie would raise my son better than I could and just giving her custody?

Because there is some common sense left in the law? But this does happen: Children are removed from their parents custody if they are not considered capable of looking after the child. If Angelina Jolie decided to become a foster parent there is every chance she could be considered better for your son than you.

What you've done is create an ends-oriented analysis. You've started with the conclusion you'd like to see and then created a rule that you think gets you to that conclusion. But starting from the rule quickly reveals it to be utterly and unworkably moronic.

No, what I've done is present logical arguments that you cannot answer and so you are running scared for the cover of the law that protects your religious "rights". Those rights will be curtailed. Religion is dying out, didn't you get the memo?

Perhaps it will be the thing that gets Jews standing shoulder to shoulder with Muslims, whining in unison?

Nope, that's not the rule. It's not just based on what the person would want, it's based on whether the substituted decision-maker is likely to care about the individual. My wife can substitute her judgment for mine when I'm incapacitated not because she has known me for years but just because she's my wife. If we were married ten minutes, she'd have the same ability as if we were married ten years. If we'd never met before our wedding night and I fell into a coma ten minutes after saying "I do," she wouldn have the same ability.

Hmmm. I think your parents or siblings may have some weight in the decision as to what happens to you if a person you've only know for 10-minutes is your legal next-of kin. If not it would make the law look really dumb. Something you appear to revel in.

And parents of a ten-minute old infant have the same abilities as well.

No, they don't. Nobody does. Not even your imaginary God. It gave us free-will, remember?

What I want for my son is what he wants, full stop.

Only in your deluded fantasy world.

kellyb

23rd July 2007, 12:08 PM

No doubt the Jewish and Muslim lobby groups will whine they're being persecuted.

And Christian. It's very much a religious thing to a lot of them, too.

Loss Leader

23rd July 2007, 12:30 PM

Informed:

Possessing, displaying, or based on reliable information: informed sources; an informed opinion.

You are basing your decision on unreliable information. It is unreliable because it is incomplete. It is incomplete because you cannot know what your son's wants are. You use what you want to fill in the missing information and delude yourself that you are 'informed'.

No, you're completely wrong here. And it's not just a matter of opinion; you're wrong on the very definition of the word.

The informed part of "informed consent" has only to do with understanding the risks and benefits of the procedure. It has nothing to do with knowing the subject person's desires. That can be an important part of the equation, but it's not what is meant by "informed." Since I have (thanks to this thread) read abundant medical evidence regarding the risks and benefits of circumcision, I am "informed." It's just that simple. There's no argument; you confused "informed" and "consent."

Hmmm. I think your parents or siblings may have some weight in the decision as to what happens to you if a person you've only know for 10-minutes is your legal next-of kin.

Nope. What you think is completely wrong. Sorry to have to tell you.

Only in your deluded fantasy world.

Considering the fact that you had a conversation in this very thread about your desire to improve your methods of persuasion, it's an odd choice to call me deluded. I can assure you that it does nothing to persuade me to adopt your point of view. In fact, it persuades me to want to disagree with you more.

tabitha

23rd July 2007, 12:43 PM

In short, just because you have had sex with someone does not change the fact that most (not all) women in the U.S.A (not Canada or Eritria or wherever you're from) don't like putting foreskins in their mouth.

Newsflash dude! When you give oral sex to an inatact guy, you don't have a foreskin in your mouth, at all! Jeez!
It's normally more pleausurable (erm read quicker;)) to DTD down there on an intact guy! In my (albiet limited) experience of circ'd men, it took waaaaaaaay longer, and made me loathe to attempt;)

Ivor the Engineer

23rd July 2007, 12:52 PM

And Christian. It's very much a religious thing to a lot of them, too.

They obviously dismiss what Paul had to say about circumcision:

1 Corinthians 7:18-19

Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts.

Galatians 5:2

Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.

ETA: From this (http://www.rationalchristianity.net/circumcision.html) site.

Miss Anthrope

23rd July 2007, 12:57 PM

What a shame for USA women.

She of course, speaks from her own limited experience and bias.

European men are quite likely to get lucky in the USA with the full spectrum of activities included.

BlackKat

23rd July 2007, 01:07 PM

Newsflash dude! When you give oral sex to an inatact guy, you don't have a foreskin in your mouth, at all! Jeez!
It's normally more pleausurable (erm read quicker;)) to DTD down there on an intact guy! In my (albiet limited) experience of circ'd men, it took waaaaaaaay longer, and made me loathe to attempt;)

While I don't feel qualified to quantify your methods of oral sex having never seen you perform it on someone...

The standard technique is to place most or all of the penis in one's mouth. This would mean that the foreskin, along with the glans and most of the shaft, is in one's mouth. This stimulates primarily the dorsal penile nerve (which is along the bottom side of the shaft) as the oral sex giver is moving the lips up and down the length of the shaft. Additionally the tongue of the oral sex giver is massaging the same dorsal nerve.

tabitha

23rd July 2007, 01:46 PM

While I don't feel qualified to quantify your methods of oral sex having never seen you perform it on someone...

The standard technique is to place most or all of the penis in one's mouth. This would mean that the foreskin, along with the glans and most of the shaft, is in one's mouth. This stimulates primarily the dorsal penile nerve (which is along the bottom side of the shaft) as the oral sex giver is moving the lips up and down the length of the shaft. Additionally the tongue of the oral sex giver is massaging the same dorsal nerve.

When an intact penis is erect, it looks pretty much like a circ'd one tbh. The foreskin rolls back. During oral sex, you do not have a foreskin in your mouth, really, you don't! I don't really know how to explain...your descriptions seems quite good:)

Miss Anthrope

23rd July 2007, 01:52 PM

Correct ;)

Morrigan, Osmosis - this commentary and others like it skirt very close to racial remarks aimed at specific members. I strongly advise that you refrain from making this - and similar comments - of this type. Only generalized comments are permissible under the membership agreement.

Quoting to get up to the most recent page.

Ivor the Engineer

23rd July 2007, 01:53 PM

Considering the fact that you had a conversation in this very thread about your desire to improve your methods of persuasion, it's an odd choice to call me deluded. I can assure you that it does nothing to persuade me to adopt your point of view. In fact, it persuades me to want to disagree with you more.

I'm not trying to persuade you or any other religious Jewish (or Muslim for that matter) people reading. I already know you believe you are a member of God's chosen people and that I am mere gentile. It says so in your story book*.

I have been presenting logical, common sense arguments so that everyone else can see what a deluded individual you are. Congratulations, you have excelled.

Just like the faiths that practiced FGM, your group will be forced to comply when the law is changed to stop parents mutilating their male children.

BTW, what's the Jewish obsession with ethnic purity? Why do you frown upon inter-faith marriages so much? Or is this something Jews don't like to talk about to non-Jews?

*Obviously 21st century Jews try to put a PC spin on this inherent in-group/out-group view of humanity of the Jewish faith. It falls flat on its face when you read interviews of Israeli children about what they think of (and presumably have been taught about) "impure" Arabs. (See The God Delusion p.254-256).

ETA: Found the answer myself.

No.56: Not to intermarry with gentiles.

So all those Jews who have are no longer Jewish! LOL!:D

E.J.Armstrong

23rd July 2007, 02:33 PM

Careful there. Your arguments are starting to sound like those used by people who protest outside Planned Parenthood.

In order to make such statements you need to provide irrefutable evidence that circumcision harms rather than benefits the infant.
There is none.

Your arguments are starting to sound like those people who protest that they must be right simply because they say so.

As an example, you make the claim not only do I have to satisfy a bogus requirement that you have erected but, having made the claim, you fail to provide a single shred of evidence to support it, whereas, if you had read the thread you would have seen the many links from reputable medical associations that supports my view that the mutilation is not routinely necessary. many people have posted examples of children dying and being damaged by routine medical mutilation for non-medical reasons. You may choose to interpret posting evidence as a lack of evidence but I would suggest that most rational people would not. The other problem you have in making your invalid comparison is that I am not against adults doing what they want to their own bodies. If they wish to mutilate their own genitals when they are presented with the facts and are harming no-one else I have no objection to them doing so.

Let me point you to some sites to save you having to look back up the thread: -
http://www.canada.com/topics/bodyandhealth/story.html?id=e6babb2a-2a92-4c8b-bcd2-8278ec64f880&k=89599
http://www.cirp.org/news/dailymail08-16-01/

See this
'. I was circumcised as a baby but now I want to re-grow my foreskin. Is this possible?

A. You are not alone in wanting the circumcision reversed. Requests for foreskin reconstruction, as it is called, is not at all uncommon, especially in America where very many more babies are circumcised than in the UK. There are two main reasons for men to request foreskin reconstruction, one physical the other psychological. On the physical side, following circumcision the glans of the penis may become less sensitive and a man may want foreskin reconstruction to reverse this. Although increased sensitivity of the glans has been reported following foreskin reconstruction, I am not at all sure whether this occurs in all men who have this procedure. On the psychological front, some men who were circumcised when infants feel hey were mutilated without their consent and develop a feelings of resentment and frustration. They feel their body is incomplete and that their penis may not be so attractive to a partner. They may become fixated on such feelings, which become intrusive on their daily life.'
from http://www.malehealth.co.uk/userpage1.cfm?item_id=188

Note that there are two main reasons cited for having foreskin reconstruction psychological and physical. The psychological includes '... men who felt they were 'mutilated without their consent...'

As a proponent of mutilating of defenceless infants genitals what do you have to say to those men when they could have been left to make their own choice when they grew up?

E.J.Armstrong

23rd July 2007, 02:59 PM

It's not quite the same thing but some parents are choosing to put their children in helments (http://www.cranialtech.com/) for up to a year to correct a flattening or other deformation of the skull. I assume the helmets are hot and uncomfortable and I know from talking to parents that children are treated differently by adults when wearing them. And yet some parents choose to inflict this on their children despite the fact that the children have no choice and some ... don't chose to do so.

And the world keeps turning.

You're confusing two different concepts: "without consent" and "without the capacity to consent". "Without consent" implies that the procedure is against a person's will. Remember, children circumcised by their parents are not being cut without their consent. They are not being cut against their will. They are being circumcised because they lack the capacity to consent and their parents have substituted their judgment for the infants. The infants cannot consent or refuse; they are incapable of doing so.

I'm not arguing whether circumcision is right or wrong. I'm arguing that you are committing the fallacy of equivocation. Plenty of anti-circ people on this board have managed to defend their position quite well without confusing failure to consent with failure to be able to consent.

Sure, let me be the first. I, Loss Leader, am a proponent of allowing Jews (including myself) to circumcise their children. I hearby state unequivocally that should I ever be in a position where I am unable to give or withhold informed consent for a medical procedure, I would like my wife to substitute her judgment as to what is in my best interests and exercise my consent on my behalf including but not limited to mutilating my genitals.

Fair enough?

It tells me that you misunderstand some basic legal concepts underpinning our society's entire concept of the self, informed consent and substituted judgment.

I am afraid that you are confused on a number of points.

1/ You confuse the need to correct deformities for valid medical reasons with causing deformites for no valid medical reasons.

2/ You are confused in claiming that I do not know the difference between the consent capability of the infant and the ability of parents to give their consent. The fact remains and has not been contradicted that the parents feel the need to mutilate their child and the child is defenceless in that action. In the case of non-medically indicated mutilation the procedure is carried out for the cosmetic reasons of the parents. The psychlogical and physical harm this does is indicated in the following: -
'There are two main reasons for men to request foreskin reconstruction, one physical the other psychological. On the physical side, following circumcision the glans of the penis may become less sensitive and a man may want foreskin reconstruction to reverse this. Although increased sensitivity of the glans has been reported following foreskin reconstruction, I am not at all sure whether this occurs in all men who have this procedure. On the psychological front, some men who were circumcised when infants feel hey were mutilated without their consent and develop a feelings of resentment and frustration. They feel their body is incomplete and that their penis may not be so attractive to a partner. They may become fixated on such feelings, which become intrusive on their daily life.' from http://www.malehealth.co.uk/userpage1.cfm?item_id=188

The parents have refused to allow the child to reach maturity and give informed consent.

3/You are confused in thinking that I am against adults mutilating their own genitals after they have been advised of the facts. I am not. If a person, having grown up in whatever faith or non-faith they wish, is given all the facts and decides of their own free will to mutilate their own genitals and in doing so harms no-one else I am completely happy with them doing so.

What is completely wrong is choosing to mutilate the genitals of those who cannot defend themselves and refusing them the chance to choose of their own free will to do it when they are adults and likewise have received all the facts. That is the crime.

4/ You are confused in claiming that I am not aware of the difference between informed consent and substituted judgement. As explained to you I am against people forcing their desire to mutilate the genitals of defenceless infants onto he said defenceless infants and refusing them the opportunity to grow up and carry out the procedure on their own adult bodies.

People who mutilate the defenceless are cowards.

BlackKat

23rd July 2007, 03:29 PM

Your arguments are starting to sound like those people who protest that they must be right simply because they say so.

As an example, you make the claim not only do I have to satisfy a bogus requirement that you have erected but, having made the claim, you fail to provide a single shred of evidence to support it, whereas, if you had read the thread you would have seen the many links from reputable medical associations that supports my view that the mutilation is not routinely necessary. many people have posted examples of children dying and being damaged by routine medical mutilation for non-medical reasons. You may choose to interpret posting evidence as a lack of evidence but I would suggest that most rational people would not. The other problem you have in making your invalid comparison is that I am not against adults doing what they want to their own bodies. If they wish to mutilate their own genitals when they are presented with the facts and are harming no-one else I have no objection to them doing so.

Let me point you to some sites to save you having to look back up the thread: -
http://www.canada.com/topics/bodyandhealth/story.html?id=e6babb2a-2a92-4c8b-bcd2-8278ec64f880&k=89599
http://www.cirp.org/news/dailymail08-16-01/

See this
'. I was circumcised as a baby but now I want to re-grow my foreskin. Is this possible?

A. You are not alone in wanting the circumcision reversed. Requests for foreskin reconstruction, as it is called, is not at all uncommon, especially in America where very many more babies are circumcised than in the UK. There are two main reasons for men to request foreskin reconstruction, one physical the other psychological. On the physical side, following circumcision the glans of the penis may become less sensitive and a man may want foreskin reconstruction to reverse this. Although increased sensitivity of the glans has been reported following foreskin reconstruction, I am not at all sure whether this occurs in all men who have this procedure. On the psychological front, some men who were circumcised when infants feel hey were mutilated without their consent and develop a feelings of resentment and frustration. They feel their body is incomplete and that their penis may not be so attractive to a partner. They may become fixated on such feelings, which become intrusive on their daily life.'
from http://www.malehealth.co.uk/userpage1.cfm?item_id=188

Note that there are two main reasons cited for having foreskin reconstruction psychological and physical. The psychological includes '... men who felt they were 'mutilated without their consent...'

As a proponent of mutilating of defenceless infants genitals what do you have to say to those men when they could have been left to make their own choice when they grew up?

First off people who "miss" foreskins they never had since neonatality are nuts. Like the movie Psycho nuts. Mostly they are just trying to find something to blame for sexual malfunctions with other causes (like because they're 60 and not supposed to have a functioning penis anymore). Same is true for people who become mass murderers later in life based on reasons like:
My mother didn't nurse me enough
I should have been a woman
I should have been a man
I got teased as a kid

Secondly the word is defenseless. A form of the word defense.

Thirdly the proper word is not "mutilating" but enhancing or if you are anti-circumcision you may be permitted to use altering instead. Your (and others) use of the word is a fairly transparent attempt to use emotions in this debate but it fails.

Fourthly the rate of surgical complications with circumcision is less than most procedures. 0.2-0.6% according to the AMA. Only if you believe tripe like "Mothers against circumcision" websites who say astounding numbers like 55% would complications be an issue... but if you believe them you are as nutters as they are. I think I will trust an impartial organization of doctors that is neither for nor against circumcision over propaganda websites.

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13585.html

Ivor the Engineer

23rd July 2007, 03:51 PM

Thabiguy

23rd July 2007, 04:06 PM

Secondly the word is defenseless. A form of the word defense.

This depends on where you live. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_spelling_differences#-ce_.2F_-se)

(Insert a witty remark relating this to some arguments in this thread.)

E.J.Armstrong

23rd July 2007, 04:14 PM

First off people who "miss" foreskins they never had since neonatality are nuts. Like the movie Psycho nuts. Mostly they are just trying to find something to blame for sexual malfunctions with other causes (like because they're 60 and not supposed to have a functioning penis anymore). Same is true for people who become mass murderers later in life based on reasons like:
My mother didn't nurse me enough
I should have been a woman
I should have been a man
I got teased as a kid

Secondly the word is defenseless. A form of the word defense.

Thirdly the proper word is not "mutilating" but enhancing or if you are anti-circumcision you may be permitted to use altering instead. Your (and others) use of the word is a fairly transparent attempt to use emotions in this debate but it fails.

Fourthly the rate of surgical complications with circumcision is less than most procedures. 0.2-0.6% according to the AMA. Only if you believe tripe like "Mothers against circumcision" websites who say astounding numbers like 55% would complications be an issue... but if you believe them you are as nutters as they are. I think I will trust an impartial organization of doctors that is neither for nor against circumcision over propaganda websites.

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13585.html

1/ Can I make a teensy weensy suggestion? People who do not agree with you are not, by definition, nuts. Some of them may indeed be nuts but calling them all nuts suggest a certain lack of, how can I put this discreetly, common sense on your part.

2/ I see you are a proponent of words can mean whatever you want them to mean. The word I used was defenceless and the word I meant to use was defenceless and the correct word is defenceless. See any number of dictionaries but let me pick say, the Oxford compact English Dictionary where it states 'defence n. (US defense)...'. In my language therefore I used the correct word. You can choose to use whatever language you want but please don't tell me how to speak my own language, thanks. Sorry, was that a tad patronising?

3/ As indicated in point 2/ I have not ever, do not now and never will need your permission for anything I do. Sorry, but you will simply have to live with it.
As you seem to need to resort to euphemism (see the Oxford compact English Dictionary for definition) feel free. What does the Free Dictionary online say about 'mutilation'. Amongst other things it defines 'mutilate' as '3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.'
I believe that is a perfect descritioon of mutilating the genitals of defenceless infants for non-medical reasons. QED.

4/ Yet more nutters! My my. That you feel the need to call those who disagree with you names I think says it all about the quality of your input and arguments.

See http://www.circumcision.org/position.htm for some august medical opinions
'003 British Medical Association
“The BMA does not believe that parental preference alone constitutes sufficient grounds for performing a surgical procedure on a child unable to express his own view. . . . Parental preference must be weighed in terms of the child's interests. . . . The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefit from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it. . . . Some doctors may wish to not perform circumcisions for reasons of conscience. Doctors are under no obligation to comply with a request to circumcise a child.”

2002 Royal Australasian College of Physicians

“After extensive review of the literature the RACP reaffirms that there is no medical indication for routine male circumcision. The possibility that routine circumcision may contravene human rights has been raised because circumcision is performed on a minor and is without proven medical benefit. . . . Review of the literature in relation to risks and benefits shows there is no evidence of benefit outweighing harm for circumcision as a routine procedure.”

2002 Canadian Paediatric Society (reaffirmed 1996 position)
“Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed.”

2000 American Medical Association

“The AMA supports the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics.”

1999 American Academy of Pediatrics

“Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.”

1996 Australian College of Paediatrics
“The Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons has informed the College that ‘neonatal male circumcision has no medical indication. It is a traumatic procedure performed without anaesthesia to remove a normal functional and protective prepuce [foreskin].’ ”

1996 Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons
“We do not support the removal of a normal part of the body, unless there are definite indications to justify the complications and risks which may arise. In particular, we are opposed to male children being subjected to a procedure, which had they been old enough to consider the advantages and disadvantages, may well have opted to reject the operation and retain their prepuce [foreskin]....The 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states that ‘State parties should take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children.’ ”

BlackKat

23rd July 2007, 04:21 PM

Yet more tripe from BlackKat. You should start your own website with the nonsense you offer as evidence to support circumcision.

The best estimate for complications is 2-10%. Most scientific papers and EBM sites quote the lower 2% figure. The benefit is a 1% absolute risk reduction of UTI, which do not occur in 98%+ of uncircumcised infants.

I linked the AMA site which has the 0.2-0.6%. Maybe their numbers refer to US only? Maybe not.

But anyhow no need to be rude. I've never tried to offer "evidence to support circumcision" only evidence to support the option of circumcision. I perfectly understand that there are negative AND positive effects to circumcision. But I support the parents' right to make the final decision after being informed of the benefits and risks by an impartial healthcare worker. And that deciding for cosmetic and sociocultural reasons is not wrong as those are valid reasons.

I myself have weighed the positive and negative effects of circumcision. I feel that living in the country I live in being circumcised is far more positive than negative. This may not hold true for people who live in other places or cultures. That is for their parents' to decide.

Maybe I do not value body integrity as much as most people... I do come from a subculture where tatttoos, piercings, hair dying, etc are all considered almost mandatory. And I would gladly circumcise any son of mine as I am ecstatic that I was circumcised as an infant. But by the statements people make here almost every US parent is some sort of sadomasichistic monster. They are not. They just want their child's penis to be right and to them right=circumcised.

I really have noticed in this thread that with very few exceptions, the people who are against circumcision are using a lot more rude or insulting language than they normally would. Why is that? What is it about this subject that makes them so emotional?

NewtonTrino

23rd July 2007, 04:28 PM

Would you describe these women as attractive?

It's been stated in this thread that proper cleaning of an uncircumcised penis is essential, correct? How much time does one spend in the shower cleaning one's uncut penis? 30 seconds? 1 minute?

I would argue it takes exactly the same amount as an uncut penis. Take some soap rub it up and down a couple of times and yer done. It's way less of a burden than cleaning your asscrack.

Anyway I'm going to stop listening to arguments from

a) People that have already been mutilated - phsycologically you need to believe you aren't mutilated. I get it, I would probably be in the same position.

b) Women who don't have the equipment. Sorry but I think it's pretty arrogant to think that your opinion matters.

As far as women complaining they wouldn't blow an uncircumcised guy it's pretty hard to tell the difference when erect and certainly I doubt you would notice if presented with it at that point.

Also I'm uncirced and I've lived in the US for my entire adult life and I've never had one woman complain about it. If anything they are excited to try something new. However, I am an outlier case anyway as I tend to associate with people that are a bit on the sexual fringe to begin with.

I asked a question way earlier in the thread that I still didn't get an answer to. Why do I keep hearing people talking about lotion at the same time as whacking off? My theory is that circ'd penises are a lot more broken than most people think. Not just sensitivity but actual function like easier whacking.

Comments? :p

NewtonTrino

23rd July 2007, 04:35 PM

I really have noticed in this thread that with very few exceptions, the people who are against circumcision are using a lot more rude or insulting language than they normally would. Why is that? What is it about this subject that makes them so emotional?

Simple we think that it's horrible mutilation (just as FGM is) and we feel strongly about it. To answer a question from earlier nobody touches my body for even $1M, especially not my gonads.

Also don't you think that it makes sense from an evolutionary biology perspective for men (and women) to be horribly sicked out by having their genitals messed with? Why do you think it hurts when you get kicked in the balls?

BlackKat

23rd July 2007, 04:37 PM

1/ Can I make a teensy weensy suggestion? People who do not agree with you are not, by definition, nuts. Some of them may indeed be nuts but calling them all nuts suggest a certain lack of, how can I put this discreetly, common sense on your part.

2/ I see you are a proponent of words can mean whatever you want them to mean. The word I used was defenceless and the word I meant to use was defenceless and the correct word is defenceless. See any number of dictionaries but let me pick say, the Oxford compact English Dictionary where it states 'defence n. (US defense)...'. In my language therefore I used the correct word. You can choose to use whatever language you want but please don't tell me how to speak my own language, thanks. Sorry, was that a tad patronising?

3/ As indicated in point 2/ I have not ever, do not now and never will need your permission for anything I do. Sorry, but you will simply have to live with it.
As you seem to need to resort to euphemism (see the Oxford compact English Dictionary for definition) feel free. What does the Free Dictionary online say about 'mutilation'. Amongst other things it defines 'mutilate' as '3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.'
I believe that is a perfect descritioon of mutilating the genitals of defenceless infants for non-medical reasons. QED.

4/ Yet more nutters! My my. That you feel the need to call those who disagree with you names I think says it all about the quality of your input and arguments.
...

1. I did not call people who disagree with me nuts. I called people who attrribute their impotency to missing their foreskin psychologically nuts.

2. Well pardon me. But here we say defense. Just like we also say color.

3. That is the same as clinic bombers who claim abortion is murder.

4. Again it wasn't people who disagree with me I called nuts. It was people who take a statistic and multiply it by 100 and claim their number is right. That's arch-propaganda if I ever saw it.

And the standard statement (including the AAP/AMA) most medical organizations make about circumcision is not against circumcision but is as follows:
Circumcision is not medically positive enough to reccommend it.
Circumcision is not medically negative enough to reccommend against it.
Parents should be informed of +/- and decide.
Pain killers should always be used for circumcision.

BlackKat

23rd July 2007, 04:58 PM

Simple we think that it's horrible mutilation (just as FGM is) and we feel strongly about it. To answer a question from earlier nobody touches my body for even $1M, especially not my gonads.

Also don't you think that it makes sense from an evolutionary biology perspective for men (and women) to be horribly sicked out by having their genitals messed with? Why do you think it hurts when you get kicked in the balls?

So you won't be getting a Prince Albert then? That's a shame.

Most people who are pro-circumcision think of the foreskin is a genetic throwback to penile sheathes animals that walk around on all fours use to keep the thing from dangling overmuch and keep it warm. Since we have underpants and walk upright this is why we don't have as much of a sheathe as in the past, and why eventually people will not be born with foreskins at all(or body hair for that matter). The reason by the way that the testicles (converse to the penis on most land mamals) do not normally retract into the body is to keep them from overheating and not having the ideal temperature for sperm production.

Ivor the Engineer

23rd July 2007, 05:03 PM

...That is for their parents' to decide...

No it is not.

I really have noticed in this thread that with very few exceptions, the people who are against circumcision are using a lot more rude or insulting language than they normally would. Why is that? What is it about this subject that makes them so emotional?

For me it's mainly the inflicting of pain and suffering on a helpless human for such pathetically small benefit. I struggle to understand a person who can witness a baby screaming in pain and distress needlessly for minutes and not want to stop it, or at least not repeat it.

I don't think parents who circumcise are monsters. I just think they have gotten used to the idea of this cruel and unusual punishment. They justify it by vastly playing up the tiny advantages and down-playing all the pain, suffering and complications.

Another reason it goes on is because the father must make sure his son looks like him. Why? My father felt no compulsion to inflict what his Grandmother did to him on me.

My final bug bare is the way pro-circ. people and physicians find infinite difference between any form of FGM and male circumcision. That is inconsistent and hypocritical. Both are cruel and unnecessary.

Just stop doing it! Your child's penis is perfect with a foreskin. He will love it the way it is and will not miss the pain and suffering of being circumcised.

osmosis

23rd July 2007, 06:17 PM

Oh, you "thought it best not to fan the flames" and you did that by using wholesale bigoted statements about ethnic groups?

No, but I'm apparently not allowed to "personalize" this discussion, which forces me to speak in overly general terms about certain things.

Fascinating. This says a great deal about your integrity.

I'm certain you don't understand what I meant.

osmosis

23rd July 2007, 06:33 PM

Both of you are from Canada which means you don't count. We're talking about Americans as in from the USA.

Oh right, only Americans count.. LOL :rolleyes:

And the statements I made are not BS as you so rudely put it.

Sorry, they were.

I am saying if you came from Canada to America many women would not find your penises attractive.

Again, BS. Canadians are very similar to Americans, at least northern Americans. It's not like you walk across that imaginary line and suddenly the circ rate jumps.

I'm pretty sure if I went to America (I have been there, you know) and hooked up with someone, she'd love it just as much as the other women did. What makes you think it would be so different in the USA?

Just as if I came from America to Canada many women there might not find my penis attractive if circumcision is not the norm there.

I'm sure only the truly shallow women on either side of the border would make such a judgement.

In short, just because you have had sex with someone does not change the fact that most (not all) women in the U.S.A (not Canada or Eritria or wherever you're from) don't like putting foreskins in their mouth.

LOL you're so clueless about this subject. It's not like a foreskin extends several inches beyond the glans.. at least, mine doesn't. When erect, it is a simple procedure to pull it back so it doesn't even show at all, if that's such a big deal. So far in my life, it's never come up, no pun intended.

osmosis

23rd July 2007, 06:39 PM

Would you describe these women as attractive?

Some were, some weren't. Some were absolutely gorgeous. Not sure why you're asking.

It's been stated in this thread that proper cleaning of an uncircumcised penis is essential, correct?

Yes, proper hygiene is important with or without a "fun flap."

How much time does one spend in the shower cleaning one's uncut penis? 30 seconds? 1 minute?

I can't speak for anyone else, but about 15 seconds, including rinse. I'm only guessing though, for some strange reason I've never timed the procedure.

Loss Leader

23rd July 2007, 07:13 PM

BTW, what's the Jewish obsession with ethnic purity? Why do you frown upon inter-faith marriages so much? Or is this something Jews don't like to talk about to non-Jews?

I'm not a rabbi so don't consider this an official answer but:

I don't think the desire of some Jews to have their children marry Jewish is much different in type or degree than the same desire among ethnic Italians, Greeks, Albanians, Koreans, etc. It tends to be law among my grandparents' generation, a strong tendency among my parents' and almost ignored among my own. I have more Jewish friends married to non-Jews than Jews.

I would probably ask for some evidence that there is a Jewish "obsession with ethnic purity" that differs significantly from any other immigrant group.

If such a tendency exists (and I do not agree it does), I would think that it is at least partly informed by a fear that our population is shrinking at too quick a rate. I don't know if you heard but we lost a large contingent a few years back.

*Obviously 21st century Jews try to put a PC spin on this inherent in-group/out-group view of humanity of the Jewish faith. It falls flat on its face when you read interviews of Israeli children about what they think of (and presumably have been taught about) "impure" Arabs. (See The God Delusion p.254-256).

This quote seems to conflate "Israeli children" with all Jews. The two groups are not the same. I, for exampe, have no ill will against Arabs and do not consider them "impure" in any way.

ETA: Found the answer myself.

No.56: Not to intermarry with gentiles.

So all those Jews who have are no longer Jewish! LOL!:D

From the evidence I have gathered, I would say that any religious prohibition is the least of any motivating factors. I know of no Jew who has refused to date non-Jews because of a religious prohibition. The social pressure to conform to parental expectation is much stronger. And even this, as I have said, is dying out.

cloudshipsrule

23rd July 2007, 07:32 PM

a) People that have already been mutilated - phsycologically you need to believe you aren't mutilated. I get it, I would probably be in the same position.

What a great way to go through life without really getting to know both sides of an argument.

So you couldn't learn something about the dangers of drug addiction or the benefits of drug rehab from a former drug addict?

osmosis

23rd July 2007, 08:38 PM

Most people who are pro-circumcision think of the foreskin is a genetic throwback to penile sheathes animals that walk around on all fours use...

I hope you're wrong about that, because that's the same kind of "reasoning" racists use to denegrate people with different skin tones and facial features.

BlackKat

23rd July 2007, 08:57 PM

I hope you're wrong about that, because that's the same kind of "reasoning" racists use to denegrate people with different skin tones and facial features.

No. It is not.

All animals that have penises have some form of penile sheathe. In primates it is less pronounced because we don't have our penises dangling in quite the same way as animals which remain more quadrupedal. Plus humans have been wearing clothing for a very long time. These things combined to necessitate a lesser version of the nearly fully retractable penis most mammals still utilize. In humans the foreskin is the penis sheathe.
http://books.google.com/books?id=A6AaAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA1&dq=Elements+of+the+Comparative+Anatomy+of+Vertebra tes
p. 382
http://manstouch.com/mensunderwear/historyofmensunderwear.html
LOL

osmosis

23rd July 2007, 09:32 PM

So far this thread has failed to show the harm that will befall circumcised infants when they reach adulthood.

What's wrong with the harm done during the procedure? Is that not enough harm? Is there something more shocking you'd prefer?

What is this elusive harm? I haven't seen it in my life.

It's a very subtle thing involving having slightly less enjoyment of sex, and being slightly less capable of bringing a woman to orgasm. But since it's the norm, most people do not know what they are missing.

It's also an ethical harm, having to live your life without a sensory organ, because someone else didn't have the presence of mind to give you any choice in the matter.

Unfortunately, few people seem to care about the ethical argument. Emotional appeals are what really sway opinions, not ethics.

osmosis

23rd July 2007, 09:51 PM

No. It is not.

Yes. It is.

To say that an uncircumcised male somehow resembles a four-legged animal is no different than saying, for example, that African-Americans resemble Neanderthals because of their heavy eyebrow ridges and strong jaw bones.

EeneyMinnieMoe

23rd July 2007, 10:18 PM

I'm not trying to persuade you or any other religious Jewish (or Muslim for that matter) people reading. I already know you believe you are a member of God's chosen people and that I am mere gentile. It says so in your story book*.

I have been presenting logical, common sense arguments so that everyone else can see what a deluded individual you are. Congratulations, you have excelled.

Just like the faiths that practiced FGM, your group will be forced to comply when the law is changed to stop parents mutilating their male children.

BTW, what's the Jewish obsession with ethnic purity? Why do you frown upon inter-faith marriages so much? Or is this something Jews don't like to talk about to non-Jews?

*Obviously 21st century Jews try to put a PC spin on this inherent in-group/out-group view of humanity of the Jewish faith. It falls flat on its face when you read interviews of Israeli children about what they think of (and presumably have been taught about) "impure" Arabs. (See The God Delusion p.254-256).

ETA: Found the answer myself.

No.56: Not to intermarry with gentiles.

So all those Jews who have are no longer Jewish! LOL!:D

Whoa, Ivor the Engineer, hold up! That is entirely unfair.

I'm not Jewish so I probably shouldn't be talking but Jews are one of the most ethnically diverse populations on the planet with a very, very long history of intermarriage. I was just reading about it today on about.com, in fact.

They have a lot of information about intermarriage:

http://judaism.about.com/od/interfaithissu2/Interfaith_Issues.htm
http://judaism.about.com/od/interfaithfamilies/a/intermarr_jew_2.htm

and quite alot about intermarriage in the USA:

http://judaism.about.com/od/americanjewry/a/amjews2000.htm

which confirms what Loss Leader was saying and what's been my experience as well: more Jews in the US are married to non-Jews than to Jews! Enspecially among young men, who are more prone to marriage to shiksas than the other way around.

robinson

23rd July 2007, 11:30 PM

Fascinating discussion. I never realized just how much circumcision changes the nature of a penis,
http://www.foreskin.org/33-color.htm
or how animal looking human beings are, if they are not cut.

And even cooler, in koalas the foreskin contains naturally occurring bacteria that play an important role in fertilization.
http://www.uq.edu.au/news/?article=2193

I can understand how somebody who has never observed, much less interacted with, a natural human penis, would be shocked by the appearance.

Examination of a natural human penis makes it obvious, that like almost every other mammal on the planet, (except the platypus and the echidna), nature devised a protective covering of skin for that sensitive organ, only revealing the moist and delicate head, when aroused, and ready for business.

MortFurd

24th July 2007, 02:57 AM

I would argue it takes exactly the same amount as an uncut penis. Take some soap rub it up and down a couple of times and yer done. It's way less of a burden than cleaning your asscrack.

Anyway I'm going to stop listening to arguments from

a) People that have already been mutilated - phsycologically you need to believe you aren't mutilated. I get it, I would probably be in the same position.

b) Women who don't have the equipment. Sorry but I think it's pretty arrogant to think that your opinion matters.

As far as women complaining they wouldn't blow an uncircumcised guy it's pretty hard to tell the difference when erect and certainly I doubt you would notice if presented with it at that point.

Also I'm uncirced and I've lived in the US for my entire adult life and I've never had one woman complain about it. If anything they are excited to try something new. However, I am an outlier case anyway as I tend to associate with people that are a bit on the sexual fringe to begin with.

I asked a question way earlier in the thread that I still didn't get an answer to. Why do I keep hearing people talking about lotion at the same time as whacking off? My theory is that circ'd penises are a lot more broken than most people think. Not just sensitivity but actual function like easier whacking.
Comments? :p
Maybe they just like to do it that way? I am circumcised, and don't need anything to help me have fun. You truly don't want to knwo how often that is, either.

To all those who claim sex is better uncut:
If it were any better than it is cut, I'd be a sex maniac and my wife would be bow legged and sore on the bottom all the time.

Ivor the Engineer

24th July 2007, 02:58 AM

Whoa, Ivor the Engineer, hold up! That is entirely unfair.

I'm not Jewish so I probably shouldn't be talking but Jews are one of the most ethnically diverse populations on the planet with a very, very long history of intermarriage. I was just reading about it today on about.com, in fact.

They have a lot of information about intermarriage:

http://judaism.about.com/od/interfaithissu2/Interfaith_Issues.htm
http://judaism.about.com/od/interfaithfamilies/a/intermarr_jew_2.htm

and quite alot about intermarriage in the USA:

http://judaism.about.com/od/americanjewry/a/amjews2000.htm

which confirms what Loss Leader was saying and what's been my experience as well: more Jews in the US are married to non-Jews than to Jews! Enspecially among young men, who are more prone to marriage to shiksas than the other way around.

So if modern Jews can go directly against commandment No. 56, why can't they go against commandment No. 17: To circumcise the male offspring? Some Jewish people already are.

Doesn't that fact blow Loss Leader's Jewish argument out of the water?

As for Muslims, there is actually no requirement for them to circumcise their children at all in the Qur'an!

BTW, 'shiksas' is a derogatory Jewish term for non-Jewish females married to Jewish men;)

Ivor the Engineer

24th July 2007, 03:46 AM

I'm not a rabbi so don't consider this an official answer but:

I don't think the desire of some Jews to have their children marry Jewish is much different in type or degree than the same desire among ethnic Italians, Greeks, Albanians, Koreans, etc. It tends to be law among my grandparents' generation, a strong tendency among my parents' and almost ignored among my own. I have more Jewish friends married to non-Jews than Jews.

I would probably ask for some evidence that there is a Jewish "obsession with ethnic purity" that differs significantly from any other immigrant group.

Yeah, the one thing humans excel at is prejudice. I agree with you that many immigrant groups behave in similar ways. In the UK this has been a resounding failure. Multiculturalism does not work.

If such a tendency exists (and I do not agree it does), I would think that it is at least partly informed by a fear that our population is shrinking at too quick a rate.

What's to fear? No ethnic group, unless small and isolated from others, can last for any significant length of time. Many have disappeared and it didn't hurt them a bit. I don't understand clinging to the past. Cultures mix and create new cultures.

I don't know if you heard but we lost a large contingent a few years back.

The same thing is happening in African now. Seems we haven't learned much in 60 years.

This quote seems to conflate "Israeli children" with all Jews. The two groups are not the same. I, for exampe, have no ill will against Arabs and do not consider them "impure" in any way.

Good.

From the evidence I have gathered, I would say that any religious prohibition is the least of any motivating factors. I know of no Jew who has refused to date non-Jews because of a religious prohibition. The social pressure to conform to parental expectation is much stronger. And even this, as I have said, is dying out.

So why can't commandment No. 17 die out too? Or be changed into a symbolic ritual that does not involve removing the foreskin, as is used when a non-Jewish man who is already circumcised converts to Judaism?

Ivor the Engineer

24th July 2007, 03:55 AM

Emotional appeals are what really sway opinions, not ethics.

Sad, but true. Today's terrorist is tomorrow's freedom fighter:rolleyes:

Gurdur

24th July 2007, 05:43 AM

... that's the same kind of "reasoning" racists use to denegrate people with different skin tones and facial features.

Like your "Do not feed the Jew" remark? What was your excuse again?

BlackKat

24th July 2007, 07:10 AM

Yes. It is.

To say that an uncircumcised male somehow resembles a four-legged animal is no different than saying, for example, that African-Americans resemble Neanderthals because of their heavy eyebrow ridges and strong jaw bones.

You might want to actually read what I write before hitting the reply button.
I did not say that at all (even if you completely jumble the words I wrote up to display in a different order) and indeed I think that this is merely a tactic of deliberate obsfucation intended to make you feel your posts are more righteous.

Again (for the third and final time I will restate my point)

Foreskins are the human version of the penile sheathe.
All animals have penile sheathes. It does not matter if you walk on four or two legs. And four legged animals are not inherently "less evolved" than primates. They just evolved on a divergent path. But because primates did evolve differently their penile sheathes are significantly less pronounced than animals that would have their penises bouncing around more because of their method of locomotion. Another reason that primates have smaller penile sheathes is because it is intended to keep the penis warm. But because primates (including the first humans) live in warmer climates than many mammals it does not need to cover the entire penis to maintain the required temperatures.

Now around 7000 years ago humans developed the first recognizable pair of underpants. And even before that they developed loin cloths.

Thus with the advent of underpants we do not need foreskins to keep penises warm or protect the glans at all. This may someday in the far distant future lead to children being born with even less foreskin, or eventually none. We have not had clothing long enough to chart this. Who knows? Maybe someday they'll determine baldness is a response to the first hats. Hard to say without enough data over several millennium past and future.

This does not serve to show people without foreskins "look more evolved" as you postulate. But it does show that humans (via clothing) have evolved past needing a foreskin. What it does show is the reasons for having a foreskin are mostly gone and that it has become largely vestigial. Whether one is circumcised or not the penis functions properly. Having a foreskin or not has been reduced to whether one likes the way it looks or does not.

Ivor the Engineer

24th July 2007, 07:38 AM

...But it does show that humans (via clothing) have evolved past needing a foreskin. What it does show is the reasons for having a foreskin are mostly gone and that it has become largely vestigial. Whether one is circumcised or not the penis functions properly. Having a foreskin or not has been reduced to whether one likes the way it looks or does not.

Replace 'foreskin' with 'little finger' and 'penis' with 'hand'.

Apart from that I disagree with your functional assessment of the foreskin. What about its function during intercourse? What about the lubricating function it provides?

Just because a human can survive without a certain body part does not make that part vestigial. Tonsils were thought to be vestigial by 'experts'. Given the same 'experts' have been very keen to remove the foreskin for over a hundred years, I doubt many of them would like to admit that they are ignorant of the human foreskin's function.

BlackKat

24th July 2007, 07:53 AM

Replace 'foreskin' with 'little finger' and 'penis' with 'hand'.

Apart from that I disagree with your functional assessment of the foreskin. What about its function during intercourse? What about the lubricating function it provides?

Just because a human can survive without a certain body part does not make that part vestigial. Tonsils were thought to be vestigial by 'experts'. Given the same 'experts' have been very keen to remove the foreskin for over a hundred years, I doubt many of them would like to admit that they are ignorant of the human foreskin's function.

You can't replace a non-functional object with a functional one and have the analogy work.

If you replaced the word 'foreskin' with 'ear lobe' it would work. I like my earlobes but some people do not. Ear piercing and even ear lobe stretching are common practices, including with infants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stretching_(body_piercing)
Nobody has ever (as a culture) promoted their complete removal but it could happen.

Tonsils were never thought to be vestigial as they have a place in the immune system but it was thought that removing them when they became inflamed was safer than not removing them. This debate still occurs to this day and has by no means been settled.

As to foreskins functions during intercourse...
We have this thing now called foreplay. It means lubrication is rarely an issue if you are doing it right.

Morrigan

24th July 2007, 08:06 AM

Or, perhaps, because of the culture where you live you've been brainwashed into believing it's always best to keep the foreskin.
Please. The onus is on you to prove that a body part ought to be removed, not to the way around.

When I see more than 1 in 10 men washing their hands in public restrooms after urinating MAYBE, just maybe then I will actually believe that all you men with unenhanced penises are really properly keeping them clean.
:newlol Oh, and non-sequitur noted.

Nothing like a bit of self-righteous bigotry and racism to make you feel warm and tingly all over, eh?

:newlol Okay, what the hell? Loss Leader is the one who brought up his Jewish heritage into this. In fact, he has done so quite vocally, quite insistently, and had no qualms about using it to play the victim. That's what we are making fun of, not the fact that he's Jewish.

I can tell you what will happen if someone is not circumcised in America:
They stand a good chance of never being on the receiving end of oral sex.
They stand a good chance of never being on the delivering end of anal sex.
They stand a small chance of never being on the delivering end of conventional intercourse.

What a bunch of bizarre, outrageous claims. With of course not a single shred of evidence... as always.

Forcing your son to only listen to a certain type of music would be less cruel than permanently altering his body.
Now now, let's not go too far. I can think of few worse things than forcing hip/hop on your kid... ;)

The closest equivalent to infant circumcision would be a parent having the child's hair follicles killed off so the child could never grow hair on that part of their body again.
Great idea. After all, hair is not useful, and it would prevent the child from having to do basic hygiene such as washing, brushing and trimming the hair, and plus, we all know shaved heads on boys are all the rage (just look at Vin Diesel!), he'll never get laid otherwise. And what's more, it reduces the possibility of harm such as having your hair pulled in a fight, as well as the xx% probability of having lice.

You're a genius. :D People who cling to such vestiginal body parts such as hair (we invented hats, duh, we don't need hair anymore!) are just emotional. It's all clear now. Let us destroy those follicles. For Great Justice.

Er, wrong. I simply thought it best not to fan the flames of a particular fire that showed no signs of responding to rational argument.
Silence, you vile RACIST you.

Would you describe these women as attractive?
...Why in the seven hells would you ask a question like that? I mean... wow.

It's been stated in this thread that proper cleaning of an uncircumcised penis is essential, correct? How much time does one spend in the shower cleaning one's uncut penis? 30 seconds? 1 minute?
Are you implying that a few seconds of hygiene is too much effort? I don't understand the point of this question. Do you NOT take time to wash your private parts? o_O On second thought, please don't answer that, too much information.

Ivor the Engineer

24th July 2007, 08:17 AM

You can't replace a non-functional object with a functional one and have the analogy work.

I would say the functionality of a little finger is less than that of the foreskin.

If you replaced the word 'foreskin' with 'ear lobe' it would work. I like my earlobes but some people do not. Ear piercing and even ear lobe stretching are common practices, including with infants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stretching_(body_piercing)
Nobody has ever (as a culture) promoted their complete removal but it could happen.

Would you be ok with earlobe modification being performed on infants? How about tattoos? How about infant labia reduction? Where do you draw the line to what can be done to an infant?

Tonsils were never thought to be vestigial as they have a place in the immune system but it was thought that removing them when they became inflamed was safer than not removing them. This debate still occurs to this day and has by no means been settled.

So worse than vestigial - a body part that is actively harmful! How did that slip through the evolutionary net?

As to foreskins functions during intercourse...
We have this thing now called foreplay. It means lubrication is rarely an issue if you are doing it right.

So circumcised men and their partners do not use more artificial lubricant than uncircumcised men? What about during masturbation?

ETA: BTW, tattooing is illegal in the UK for anyone under the age of 18 or (maybe) 16 with parental consent.

BlackKat

24th July 2007, 09:37 AM

I would say the functionality of a little finger is less than that of the foreskin.

Never typed, played an instrument, pitched a baseball, picked up an object?

Would you be ok with earlobe modification being performed on infants? How about tattoos? How about infant labia reduction? Where do you draw the line to what can be done to an infant?

Earlobes yes, tattoos yes, labia no.
The criteria is "Is this procedure medically beneficial or at least neutral?"
So long as it is either it's ok.
Circumcision is neutral btw.

So worse than vestigial - a body part that is actively harmful! How did that slip through the evolutionary net?

The body part is not actively harmful. It is beneficial so long as it remains uninfected (particularly by Streptococcal pharyngitis). But any body part which becomes infected can swell in a dangerous manner.

So circumcised men and their partners do not use more artificial lubricant than uncircumcised men? What about during masturbation?

No they don't.
In fact I have never heard of anyone using artificial lubrication for sexual activities that were not involving anal play or anal intercourse or latex (i.e. condoms). Does not mean it does not occur, but it is not that prevalent. In fact lubrication would decrease the friction sensations along the dorsal penile nerve at the base of the shaft which most people concentrate on during masterbation.

ETA: BTW, tattooing is illegal in the UK for anyone under the age of 18 or 16 with parental consent.

I and my siblings have all had tattoos long before 16, although in our cases it was against our parent's wishes.