Posted on 05/19/2005 5:39:11 PM PDT by gobucks
The presence of a foreskin, like a tumor, changes my infant son from a baby boy to a potential patient who, potentially, 'needs' treatment. This approach of yours still doesn't make sense. And as for female clitorectomy, given how that appendage has no use other than sexual stimulation ... just like the foreskin (wouldn't prepuce be better a term?) ... how, ethically, can you distinguish the two? Something still doesn't click.
How can you distinguish between the female clitoris and the male foreskin?
Cut off the entire head of your penis and get back to me on that.
Cutting off the clitoris is equivalent to cutting off the glans penis....... (the entire head of the penis).
And as for HIV in Africa, I have read enough to get HIV and associated research has been politicized such that it is difficult to get the big picture regarding anything about it. I am also relatively very very familiar w/ equatorial African culture. There is much that is never spoken of...
That is your prerogative as part of your study to take it or leave as you think best.
Polybius, I appreciate your attempt to be balanced, but somehow, your arguments, from a MEDICAL viewpoint only, don't make sense. A foreskin is not a preexisting condition that REQUIRES treatment - and neither does any part of a female anatomy.
Somehow, we are just not communicating.
Asking a doctor for a "Yes" or "No" answer is dealing with an issue solely from a MEDICAL viewpoint.
For example: "The treatment you need to have for your breast cancer is a mastectomy, plus chemotherapy regimen C plus radiation."
What about the younger woman who feels she would rather die than lose a breast to a mastectomy?
That is why we don't TELL patients what to do. We give them choices and let them decide what they believe is best for them.
In my own mind it is very obvious to me that you should NOT circumcise your child as you feel psychologically very uncomfortable about it. Therefore, it seems to me that uncircumcised is the right choice for you and you should take that route.
That, however, is a decision that I did not choose for you with a "Yes" or "No" answer but one that I coaxed out of you by putting the ball in your court and refusing to hit it for you.
It may be different for another set of parents who live in a community where circumcision is so common that NOT being circumcised does bring you a "social stigma" in sex related matters (ridicule at the school gym.....rejection by women who prefer circumcised males.....the father puts credence on HIV reports that you do not put credence on.....different strokes for different folks) and that father desperately wants his son to fit in socially but is being handed a guilt trip by those who tell him he has no moral right to decide what is best for his own son.
Do you see the process?
You have reached your decision, not by a doctor telling you "yes" or "no" but as a father deciding what is best for your own child.
The role of the doctor is say things such as, "Ummmm......No. The male glans penis is NOT the equivalent of the female urethral meatus. That is a bogus claim and you should not make your choice based on that falsehood."
In the end, however, it is YOUR choice. Not the doctor's choice and not the Moral Police's choice.
I didn't make myself clear. I of course do not equate full Muslim style female circumcision with infant boy circumcision.
So, I make myself clear now. It seems that you are explicitly stating that ANY kind of cutting on the infant or otherwise female sexual anatomy as performed by a DOCTOR for a non medical reason would be forbidden by your stated standard of ethics. So to get rid of 'seems', I ask you this: would you give pros or cons about female circumcisons to patients?
I am not referring to wholesale amputation of sex organs either. I am referring to even slight removal of skin attached to any part of the sexaul anatomy, of any amount as removed by a DOCTOR. If I understand you right, no doctor in his right mind would counsel parents 'well, its up to you whether or not she will be given this minor surgical procedure." In short, any cutting, no matter how minor, much less major, is off limits if no medical reason is given as necessary for females.
The starting point, however, for infant boys is different. There are some "medical" reasons, not yet present, why a circumcision, even though the infant boy is sound, may be a good idea; but it is up to the parents to authorize the DOCTOR to do it.
You see my point? The starting point for infant girls, girls, and women is black and white: no need whatsoever to cut. For boys, a need potentially exists, because DOCTORS indicate that need exists, even though NO MEDICAL REASON EXISTS at the time of circumcision.
In short, it only makes sense if the Doctor is also affililated with some religous faith or another...; for everything I have seen so far refers to putting a check on the consequences of FUTURE behavior, not exsiting conditions.
It just doesn't ... click.
I am not the one who has beat this issue over the head with the "ethics" club. That, I believe, was TDunn.
Ear piercing in Hispanic female infants is extremely common in the U.S. The "cons" are possible infection, bleeding, etc. The "pros" are that it makes Mom feel happy. It has no "medical" application whatsoever.
If an infant girl is born with unusually large labia minora, that is not a "birth defect" but simply the way some people are. If the parents decide that the child would not be as susceptible to irritation and infection and would look better with a little labial minora trimming, there is nothing "unethical" about that.
In American culture, female circumcision has essentially zero cultural acceptance while male circumcision has been the norm of white American males for almost a century.
Islamic female circumcision has never had any documented medical benefits. the pros are: Zero.
U.S. style male circumcision has the pros of greater social acceptance in present day white American society, it solves the smegma problem, it reduces the number of infections and the latest research shows that it decreases the chances of HIV spread during HETEROSEXUAL sex.
Regardless of the propaganda, circumcision does not have ZERO benefits.
So, to compare a procedure with ZERO American cultural acceptance and ZERO benefits to a procedure that actually prevents a "sexual stigma" (as stated in the paper that Hermann posted) in the majority of white Americans and has documented benefits is a red herring.
The position of the American Academy of Pediatricians is that the risks of NOT circumcising are not great enough to make circumcision NECESSARY or to make it a ROUTINE procedure.
There is a world of difference between "not necessary" and "useless".
Four-wheel drive is not "necessary" in every automobile but it is certainly not "useless".
To twist the issue around to claim that circumcision has ZERO benefits and that the parents who decide to choose circumcision for their child and the doctors who perform then are "unethical" is simply a falsehood and a slander.
The starting point, however, for infant boys is different. There are some "medical" reasons, not yet present, why a circumcision, even though the infant boy is sound, may be a good idea; but it is up to the parents to authorize the DOCTOR to do it.
Exactly. Way before my time, they say that circumcisions were performed routinely whether the parents asked or not. I wouldn't know for sure any more than I would know about what things were really like in college during the 1950's. I wasn't there.
However, any doctor who performs any such procedure without the specific request and consent of the parents would be crucified in Court with a giant lawsuit in today's America. The times have changed from "Doctor's Choice" to "Parent's Choice".
For boys, a need potentially exists, because DOCTORS indicate that need exists, even though NO MEDICAL REASON EXISTS at the time of circumcision.
Well, it is not "Doctors" indicating anything. That way of thinking ( "If Galen said so, it must be true." ) went out with the advent of the Scientific Method a few hundred years ago. In the modern world, research studies indicate the need for this or that and the state of knowledge is constantly changing.
But, that point aside.....
Yep. That is called a "Prophylactic" procedure.
When some non-emergent abdominal surgeries are performed, it is not uncommon to perform a "Prophylactic Appendectomy" if the patient wants one.
Pros: You never have to worry about getting appendicitis.
Cons: As the study shows, 15 extra minutes in surgery and half a day longer in the hospital.
Prophylactic mastectomies are also offered to women who have a high risk of future breast cancer in a now normal breast: certain genetic markers, lobular cell breast carcinoma.
In short, it only makes sense if the Doctor is also affiliated with some religious faith or another...;
The statement does not follow.
You have assumed that prophylactic surgery does not exist or is somehow immoral or unethical. That is not the case as shown above.
We have pretty well established that you should and will chose to leave your son uncircumcised. That sounds like the right choice for your family.
However, to falsely claim that prophylactic surgery is somehow immoral or unethical and then force that morality on doctors strips away the right of other parents who may decide that circumcision is the right choice for their child.
If as much time and energy had gone into finding a medical justification for female circumcision as has gone into finding a medical justification for male circumcision, I am sure Pediatrics and The New England Journal of Medicine would publish articles touting the medical benefits of female circumcision.
Polybius - Regardless of the propaganda, circumcision does not have ZERO benefits.
There are medical benefits to cutting off any part of the human body. If you cut off a child's healthy toes, he or she will never have athletes foot or an ingrown toenail. However the potential medical benefits of cutting off a child's toes do not far outweigh the risks and harms of the surgery. In other words there is no NET medical benefit to cutting of a child's toes.
Likewise there are potential medical benefits to cutting off a boy's healthy foreskin, but the potential medical benefits of cutting off a boy's foreskin do not far outweigh the medical risks and harms of the surgery. In other words there is no NET medical benefit to cutting of a normal, healthy part of a boy's penis.
Polybius - U.S. style male circumcision has the pros of greater social acceptance in present day white American society
Is it ethical for a doctor to surgically alter an Asian child's eyes so the child looks less Asian for "greater social acceptance in present day white American society"?
Polybius - it solves the smegma problem
Good personal hygiene solves the so-called "smegma problem". In 2005 almost all Americans have indoor plumbing and can take a shower every day. It takes an intact male about 3 seconds in the shower to clean his foreskin. It is more difficult for women to maintain good genital hygiene than intact men, but no one suggests cutting off parts of a girl's genitals to solve her "smegma problem" except in Africa.
That is exactly what it is - at least mine and I doubt I am the only woman built that way. No bump for the urethra - just an opening. Thanks, Polybius.
I never realized that my hubby being "uncut" could be the reason for a lot of my yeast infections. He is 60 and wished to heck he had been (done). Had an infection when he was little (being a little boy and not washing good and of course, heaven forbid, not letting his mom do it) We had our son done (1973). I could have cared less one way or the other, but he was adamant that Kelly have it done so he wouldn't have to go through what Dad did.
In Great Britain and other industrialized countries doctors treat infections with medication, not surgery.
The British Medical Association says, "Unnecessarily invasive procedures should not be used where alternative, less invasive techniques, are equally efficient and available. It is important that doctors keep up to date and ensure that any decisions to undertake an invasive procedure are based on the best available evidence. Therefore, to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate."
Polybius - The times have changed from "Doctor's Choice" to "Parent's Choice".
Now the times are changing again from "Parent's Choice" to "Individual's Choice". Since infant circumcision is not medically necessary more and more people now feel that the only person who has the right to decide on circumcision is the male himself once he is an adult.
Polybius - Well, it is not "Doctors" indicating anything.
By asking parents if they want to circumcise their son doctors give legitimacy to medically unnecessary genital surgery.
Polybius - However, to falsely claim that prophylactic surgery is somehow immoral or unethical and then force that morality on doctors strips away the right of other parents who may decide that circumcision is the right choice for their child.
When doctors use a different standard of care for a boy's penis than they use for the rest of his body, there is an ethical problem.
Currently doctors will only remove a child's tonsils if there are repeat infections that do not respond to medication. Doctors stopped doing prophylactic tonsillectomies several decades ago and it did not take federal legislation to get them to stop. Also doctors do not do tonsillectomies for cultural or social reason.
Currently doctors will only put pressure equalization tubes in a child's ears if there are repeat infections that do not respond to medication. Doctors do not do put PE tubes in a child's ears without a valid medical indication and doctors do not put PE tubes in a child's ears for cultural or social reasons.
When doctors remove a child's tonsils or put PE tubes in a child's ears there is a medical condition present that requires intervention for treatment. That same standard of care should be used for a boy's foreskin.
I believe the prophylactic surgery idea is the reason for circs. Having it done as a baby is less painful (and no memories) than having to have it done as an adolescent or an adult if you have problems - such as the foreskin not retracting fully. Our new SIL is from Scotland and intact. He has a problem with it and will have to have the surgery done now. As Polybius said, it is the parents who have to make the decision and a doctor can not tell them what they should do (even though some do)When our oldest daughter (now 35) was little, we had her ears pierced when she was five (she wanted to wear earrings). They like to have never healed as she fiddled with them constantly. When our youngest (26) was born, we went ahead and had hers pierced at 6 months since we knew she would want to do the same. She healed very fast. There are some decisions that parents have to make in all aspects of their childs life that they agonize over. I can guarantee you that if a child has not been circumcized and experiences a problem later in life, he will wish to heck that his parents had went ahead and had it done as a baby. My hubby (intact and 60 years old) says that men who obsess over not doing it or that it lessened their sexual experience are (1) not comfortable in their manhood and (2) relating their sexual problems to it. (it's not long enough, big enough and poor baby, it had it's skin cut off and I am missing some pleasure that I just KNOW I am missing) I believe that God gave men the foreskin for the same reason that He gave animals a foreskin - to protect the penis (before we started to wear clothing)
Thank you for posting that. I was wondering the same thing myself.
My two boys hardly felt a thing when they were circumcised. Not sure if that's normal or if my Ped. is just great at what she does. But I do remember when my brother needed a circumcision at four...it was awful. I would hate to take that risk. Do what you think is right. But remember, by not circumcising at birth it doesn't necessarily mean you are not circumcising.
Love,
Sara
What an insane idea that not snipping the end will lead to cancer.
Really stupid idea there miss.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.