Printable View
@LF
Well, without the inconsistencies; is it such a outlandish notion that parents don't have the right to have elective surgery done on their children without a medical specialist deeming that surgery necessary? Or invasive procedures like tattoos and piercers and the like?
And while you write your answer remember that I am not opposed to circumcision at all, but I also find it hard to square this circle.
I'm not quite sure why you're so intent upon allowing people to maim their children. There is no grey zone here, as you imply. It is not necessary. There is no use. It does not serve any objective purpose.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Would you also allow amputation of the little finger or the little toe if some numbnut religion called for it? Removal of the earlobes? Or permanent removal of all body hair through Electrology?
And "regardless of consent"? There is NO consent. The only reason why parents are allowed to act as a proxy is that they're deemed to be their guardians! They're to protect their children.
Come on. Explain to me how circumcision "protects" an infant. As of yet, I've not seen any argument from you that I would not also have seen from the morons who defend their "right" to beat their children bloody.
And, sure, I don't have an idea what "medical necessity" means. Oh, wait, I do! It's a procedure which has been shown consistently through medical trials to actually improve the patient's condition. Strangely enough, your own code of law seems to agree with me. I can grant you an extension of the definition as to be "a procedure which has a greater chance of doing good than harm". However, circumcision does not even fulfill that one.
Which means that cosmetic surgery in case of burn wounds or a disfiguration would be in. A sex change or circumcision would be out.
Where do you draw the line between cosmetic surgery for 'disfiguration' and frivolous cosmetic procedures? Should you be allowed to remove webbing between fingers or toes? What about removing a benign mole? Electrolysis?
I think we can all agree that in the Western world it is likely that physical health benefits of circumcision are fairly minor - possibly reduced incidence of penile cancer being the most likely. Yet large numbers of people in the Western world are still circumcised, and for most it isn't a religious thing (let's ignore the relatively smaller number of Muslims and Jews for now). It's mostly a cosmetic/social procedure, and parents do it earlier rather than later to spare their child significant psychological trauma and a tougher recovery time.
But I really don't think there's such a big problem with allowing parents to choose whether to make such decisions for their children - they make plenty of other permanent decisions for them and it's awfully hard to say they're actually harming them (or helping them, I'll admit).
The line is drawn when there is absolutely no benefit. As in this case: Your infant does not get any benefits from a circumcision.
Again: You're trying to drag circumcision into a grey area. It isn't. In this case it actually is black: No purpose.
And, please, "spare them from psychological trauma"? Heh. You seem to think that infants are brainless puppets who have no connection to the outside world at all.
http://books.google.de/books?id=Qh19...ots=DKv77J-mlF, page 13
I'd be very careful to assume that, just because they can't articulate themselves, infants are more resilient to such procedures. After all, infancy is a stage where the brain is creating a huge network of neurons.Quote:
[...]This confirms human newborn research in which the failure to provide anesthesia or analgesia for newborn circumcision resulted not only in short-term physiologic perturbations but also in longer term behavioral changes[...]
I mean, just look at soldiers with PTSD. This is when their brain is fully-formed and has a stable network. And yet PTSD due to stress and trauma poses a huge problem. And then we have children and infants - their brain is not fully-formed and has no stable network. Why do we automatically assume that stress and trauma for infants and children is somehow wiped away by some magic forget-me-all-mechanism?
edit: Pages 112ff (Heading: "Memory of pain") of the linked book should assert my concerns as actually valid.
You're stepping too easily over the responsability of the involved third party who is to do the procedure. Also, is it really that hard to differentiate between that what causes physical or mental suffering and that what doesn't?Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Difference being that foreskin has a necessary function and purpose; mainly lubrication and protection of the penis, but also enhanced pleasure during sex.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
If someone wanted to ban all elective procedures on minors on the basis that they can't consent and no one should be consenting for them, I would consider that stance reasonable. I expect, however, that the medical profession might be less than thrilled with it and members therein would be marshaling up all sorts of counter-arguments, many of them reasonable, that I can't begin to guess at. But no one here is really talking about something like that. Khend has come closest but he and I both know he's making an empty concession as a means to a rhetorical end. Instead people *mostly without any medical background* have arbitrarily decided some things are mutilation and are consequently abhorrent *and some other things either aren't or simply don't matter* and have decided that what they think must be made law, that all others must adhere to what they think. The AMA isn't calling for circumcision to be banned. The national pediatrics associations haven't passed any resolutions condemning parents imposing such "barbarisms" on their children. I remember an earlier thread, on FGM, and everyone was appalled because doctors had suggested that such should be carried out here, since it would be better than the risks the girls would face when their parents chose to seek that somewhere else. Feminists in particularly were furious, even though exactly that argument is a staple in why abortions should be easily accessible. I was one of the few who wasn't interested in blindly imposing my views on everyone else through the legislative regulatory and police powers. I don't see what makes this moral line Khend and others are drawing here different from the one others try to draw regarding embryonic stem cells, or the one animal-rights types want to draw against animal-testing *or other research or even pet-ownership* At it's heart it's all just more "One True Way" behavior, denying any validity to a perspective other than one's own, and I don't have any patience for that crap.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
While I agree with most of what you say I don't think that abortion is a good example here. The procedure itself is legal. We're talking about procedures that border on the illegal. I'm pretty certain that if we'd be facing a new group that feels you need to lop off an earlobe of an infant (or something else not necessarily dangerous) for religious reasons only I think we'd have an entirely different reaction to it than circumcision for the simple reason that we are more used to it.
There's no purpose to a lot of cosmetic procedures, but I don't have any problem with parents carrying them out on their kids. See: moles, excessively hirsute girls, webbed fingers, etc, etc. Define 'benefit' for me, please - can it not include psychosocial benefits?Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
As for the pain thing, I never suggested doing circumcisions without topical anesthesia. This is a straw man - it's like you're saying "but if you don't use sterilized instruments, the kids might get an infection!". I can't speak to the trauma associated with the pain (though undoubtedly there is some afterwards), but I doubt infants have any conception of identity with their foreskin, so they're not going to be psychologically upset it's gone in the way that a 5-year-old Minx (or 18-year old Minx) might be. Furthermore, their healing response is far swifter, which is a very relevant point.
Hair has a function too, but I wouldn't begrudge a parent taking their daughter in for electrolysis. It's purely a social phenomenon, of course, but I don't think it should be illegal.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
I didn't think I'd used abortion as an example, except to point out one incredibly hypocritical bit of arguing from when that bioethics board of a pediatric group issued that advisory on FGM. But ok, sure, it can work as an example. Yes, it's legal, now anyway. So is circumcision. And yeah, sure, all sorts of things which we accept as banal might be viewed with horror by someone for whom they are far less familiar. The latter perspective isn't any more inherently objective or right by that questionable virtue. What I'm ranting against is that holier-than-thou myopia, this attempt to declare and enforce one perspective over all others. Khend et al insist they're "thinking of the children." Guess what, so are the anti-abortionists. Khend chooses to portray them as malevolent obscurantists trying to ruin lives and himself as a right-thinking civilized man but I'm not seeing all that much difference between 'em. There is validity in how Khend interprets things but there's validity the other way as well, and in all sorts of perspectives betwixt the two or with nothing to do with either. I am not eager to declare one perspective to have the force of law over all others, and if people weren't such blind One True Way dipshits they wouldn't be this eager either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Well, first of all: Comparing a mole to foreskin is misleading. Do you wave your schlong regularly in public so everyone can see your circumcision? No? Then why do you equate it to a publicly visible mole? Again, you're trying to drag something into a grey area when it actually does not belong there.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Secondly, yes, anesthesia. That's a great idea. Now here's the kicker: When I undergo a procedure (for instance, I had to have a suspect birthmark removed), the doctor asks me: "Does it hurt?" and if I say "Yes" I get more analgesic.
That does not work with infants. They can't give such feedback and as a result, they'll be subject to massive pain. During and after the procedure. Oh, and you're worried about the psychological factor? Well, gee, don't you think that a 5year old would be horrified of such a procedure for a reason?
Lastly, you would not begrudge a parent taking away all their daughter's hair? Permanently? Are you daft?
And, yes, Fuzzy, I'm not thrilled by elective cosmetic surgery of any kind. But then you also have to consider:
Does the removal of a mole pose a threat to the child? No.
Does a mole serve a bodily function? No.
Those two answers have to be answered with "yes" in the case of foreskin. As such, trying to pose a mole as the equivalent to foreskin is a strawman. It's dishonest arguing because the two are not equivalent.
Oh, and great, just because I don't children to be subjected to absolutely uncessary pain, I'm the dipshit. I also notice that you still haven't come up with a valid argument as to why exactly this procedure is necessary to be done on infants. Oh, please and let go this idiotic "Think of the children" argument you're waving around, Fuzzy. What exactly would constitute an argument not "thinking of the children" when we're talking about a procedure almost exclusively done on children, you moron?
Massive pain? Don't be ridiculous, I told you it hurts no more than cutting your hair. And I am speaking from experience; I was fully consious when it happened and I knew what was happening. It is an odd kind of snipping feeling, but really not worse than snipping those little skin thingies I sometimes get under my armpits and then have 'shaved' by a doctor. The pain afterwards also isn't really pain but an uncomfortable feeling because of the sudden exposure of the tip of the penis. I would bet that if it's that little actual physical suffering for a 7 year old, it's even less for a baby that doesn't even know what's happening.
LF: for what it's worth, the AMA may not be against it but the dutch organisations for doctors and paediatricians have officially stated they are against circumcision on minors, due to medical complications and the, well, irreversibility of it. They do have a medical background, so there you go.
AAP has changed and updated its policy statement over time, though. There's an ongoing task force. The UK and some other nations have policy statements that outright condemn infant circumcision. I think the WHO policy advocates adult circumcision in Africa for prevention of HIV/AIDS.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org...rics;103/3/686
People were appalled because AAP had recommended physicians do a "surgical prick" of the girl's genitalia, to satisfy parents' demands for some kind of cutting with bleeding. They since reversed that policy. http://aappolicy.aappublications.org...ics;125/5/1088 There was also argument that using terms like cutting (FGC) instead of mutilation (FGM) was an attempt to candy-coat what was being done to little girls.Quote:
I remember an earlier thread, on FGM, and everyone was appalled because doctors had suggested that such should be carried out here, since it would be better than the risks the girls would face when their parents chose to seek that somewhere else. Feminists in particularly were furious....[snip]
Sorry, but I don't take your sample size of 1 seriously. I take studies seriously, which are referenced in the book I linked. And this "hurts no more than cutting hair" I also can't really take seriously, considering the huge amount of nerve endings present in the foreskin. Whereas hair does not have nerves, I might add.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
And this "doesn't even know what's happening" is also an idiotic notion, sorry, but I have to put it that blunt. Do you also kick cats and burn dogs because "they don't know what's happening"?
Is it because infants can't tell you: "That hurts, stop that"? Just because they can't articulate themselves DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY DON'T FEEL PAIN. Or that they'll forget everything just because they can't actively remember such stuff. Geeze guys, you really seem to think that infants are nothing more than mere meat puppets without emotion, feelings or memory.
You obviously did not even look at the link. Do that.
An FYI---AAP recommends using local anesthetic for infant circumcisions. Because it is painful, and infants do feel pain.
I was actually thinking of the locker room and the bedroom. Being the only uncircumcized guy in a gym class (or grossing out one's potential sexual partner) is a very valid psychological/social reason for a cosmetic procedure. Obviously it's not true in most of Europe, but it definitely is in certain parts of America.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
A topical anesthetic should be sufficient. I'm not particularly concerned about completely eliminating pain from every procedure on the planet, just reducing it to manageable (i.e. non-traumatic) levels.Quote:
Secondly, yes, anesthesia. That's a great idea. Now here's the kicker: When I undergo a procedure (for instance, I had to have a suspect birthmark removed), the doctor asks me: "Does it hurt?" and if I say "Yes" I get more analgesic.
*shrugs* Doesn't really concern me. Parents make decisions for their kids because they believe they know better, and that's perfectly reasonable IMO.Quote:
Oh, and you're worried about the psychological factor? Well, gee, don't you think that a 5year old would be horrified of such a procedure for a reason?
Not all, unless it was socially appropriate. I know a lot of women of Middle Eastern descent who are incredibly grateful to the inventors of various hair-removal technologies, including the more permanent ones. They started using these (at their parents permission and direction) long before they reached the age of majority for social reasons. Doesn't bother me.Quote:
Lastly, you would not begrudge a parent taking away all their daughter's hair? Permanently? Are you daft?
There are potential complications from nearly any procedure, including the other cosmetic procedures I included above. Their rate is very low, but then so is the complication rate from circumcision. And I'm not sure why you can't choose to remove something that has a function but not a critical one.Quote:
And, yes, Fuzzy, I'm not thrilled by elective cosmetic surgery of any kind. But then you also have to consider:
Does the removal of a mole pose a threat to the child? No.
Does a mole serve a bodily function? No.
I think this is an interesting question, especially because you frame it as a purely elective cosmetic procedure while waving away the psychological aspects that would be relevant to understanding just how "elective" a procedure is. I myself would view this not as a purely cosmetic question but rather as a medical question: what would be better for the child's psychological health? I don't know the answer to that question, but I can see some legitimate arguments in favour of performing such surgery.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Cosmetic surgery can be medically justified if you concede that mental health is a legitimate medical reason for performing surgery. A kid who's been bullied all his short life for his giant ears to the extent that he tries to cut them off himself, surgery might be justified there. Someone who's very worried about a mole or the like, well, minor surgery may be a very good solution for that worry.
In these cases, the tradeoff may be worthwhile.
So, let's ask ourselves: how important is circumcision for the physical and psychological health of a non-Muslim, non-Jewish boy born today? What can we say--truthfully--about the pros and cons? That might help us clear this confusion about parental rights, parental consent, medical proxies, etc.
This is a complicated issue that sort of transcends science and medicine, because personal experience and culture plays an important part, too. Probably not many adult men (who were circumcised as infants) could openly welcome new scientific data suggesting they were "mutilated or disfigured" in their youth. Against their will and without consent. Let alone suggestions it was done without any "medical necessity" by their parents/guardians. Or that their parents were not acting in their best interests, with the best knowledge available at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
It doesn't really do much good for anyone to take the One True Way Fuzzy mentioned. That pits men-against-men, culture-against-culture, parents-against-sons....and medicine is left in the moving middle with no way to make everyone "happy". :(
edit
"Yet it's widely accepted for parents to do this, outside of some militant circles arguing that parents are foisting a gender identity on their child." It's a tangent, but there's a Canadian couple raising their child "gender-free". Sounds radical and militant, for sure. Lots of blogosphere, mental health and parenting sites going on about this.....:eek:
PS. I'm a dirty European but I'm pretty sure there are restrictions--in most western countries--on what parents may or may not do (or choose not to do) with the minds and bodies of their children, irrespective of permanence.
I agree that psychological benefits in a socially relevant setting are the real 'benefit' here outside of the religious framework, for essentially any cosmetic procedure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
In the US, there are non-religious communities where essentially every boy is circumcised. I think this would provide a sufficient psychosocial reason to go forward with the procedure. From first-hand accounts, it's my understanding that it can make for a very awkward locker room experience, and an even more traumatic bedroom experience.
Obviously I'm not saying that parents should necessarily circumcise their child, but I do think there's adequate reasons why they might want to in the appropriate social and cultural context.
And a different cultural background as well. One major argument being leveled is that this act is nothing but an abhorrent expression of culture and that doctors over here are letting culture justify inflicting "massive pain." But there's nothing but perspective suggesting that particular relationship and so there is just as much weight to the idea that doctors elsewhere are actually expressing a cultural meme rather than necessary medicine when they go so far as to prohibit the procedure. And as I think is fairly clear by now, I'm rather against legislating culture. For that matter, another bit of hypocrisy that irritates me is this delusion people have that their cultural decisions are backed by objective medicine or science, and that their culture is not affecting how they interpret seemingly objective data. I remember a thread way back on Atari on a relative preference in US medicine to rely on drug therapy and in European medicine to rely on surgery.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Yes, I'm aware. I went back and reread that earlier thread where the reversal was mentioned. They reversed position because of the massive public outcry, i.e. they caved to politics and public pressure. Relatively easy and harmless to do since they did not, after all, particularly like what they had proposed, just seeing it as an ethical compromise in the face of an insistent parent.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Perhaps American schools should divert some of the money that goes towards buying Creationist books to worthwhile investments such as a few hundred thousand penis atlases :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Re. the reaction of peers and women: hypothetically speaking, if circumcision of little kids were illegal other than for medical or religious reasons, would kids born after the ban have to worry about being the only one in their class with a foreskin?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
You're against legislating culture. Politics and public pressure from insistent parents is cultural, too. I'd go so far as to say NOT banning infant male circumcisions outright IS legislating for culture. What else would you call it?Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Probably not within a generation or so, but why would we want to ban it? It's a perfectly reasonable cosmetic procedure. I think it would be a vast overreach on the part of the government to do so, at least by US law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Prohibiting a cultural practice says "you cannot express this facet of culture." Allowing it *not mandating it* says "you can express this facet of culture if you choose." Many people do not so choose. To cite statistics posted on this forum before, circumcision rates in the US raised sharply before WWII, going from some 30% of the newborn male population to 60% by the war's end and 80% by 1950. Over the last few decades the practice is in relative decline, currently back down to somewhere between 60 and 70% generally, albeit with incredibly sharp regional differences. West of the Rockies the numbers are down in the 30-40% range, they're hovering around 50% in the South, in the Central part of the country circumcision rates basically haven't fallen at all, they're still in the 80s, and I can't remember what the NE and Eastern Seaboard numbers are. Along non-regional lines, circumcision is more popular with Latinos than with non-Hispanic whites, and I know one reason the North-Central rates are so high is because circumcision rates are quite high among those with a Polish background. Most countries have a number of cultures within them and this is particularly true in the US which has seen constant major immigration from multiple sources over the full length of its 200+ year history. As a cultural expression this isn't a binary choice but one or more of many statements "My parents were Polish, I'm from Pennsylvania-Dutch stock, I grew up in Southern California, I'm a New York Reform Jew. . ." Which culture is "you may choose" legislating, GGT?Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
I think you misunderstood me, Fuzzy. I'd say not legislating an outright ban of circumcision is an admission and acceptance of "choosing" an alternative, an option. For cultural or religious reasons, out of a certain respect for parents who are immigrants, especially. ie, I understand why the US AAP has the policy stance they do.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
I made an extraneous (but relative) "political" observation (earlier) about US insurance companies not covering the procedure, and Medicaid not reimbursing for it, either. That translates into only wealthier people able to pay OOP, not a procedure that's actually open for multiple cultural practices. If you know what I mean.
:haha: Don't know why guys are in the locker room comparing penises, but whatever floats your boat I guess.
I realize this is anecdotal, but I asked my uncut husband recently about this. I actually had to have him show me what people are talking about here, either I've only fooled around with uncut males my whole life or I'm just not very observant. Penises aren't pretty anyway, but to cut it just so baby can look like it's father's sad penis seems laughable. I'm sure in the future when they cover the 21st century and prior centuries, they will think us barbarian for such an action.
Or maybe it will go the other way. When you are born they will remove all "unnecessary" parts; the appendix, tonsils, moles, breasts if there is a history of cancer, etc etc etc. So we all look the same.
Anyway, maybe it is because he is from the midwest area of the U.S., but he's never had a problem being whole. No teasing, no problems.
But I guess if it makes everyone feel better about their not-whole penii, then continue on.
Actually, as I understand it the Midwest has the highest circumcision rate among newborns in the US (around 80%). The data might be skewed a bit since it only looks at circumcisions done while still at the hospital, but it's still far larger than most other parts of the country. I don't know exactly why this is, but it might be because circumcisions is highest among non-Hispanic whites country-wide, and there is no shortage of those in the Midwest (speculation, I'll admit).