CDC rec to counsel all males about benefits of circumcision

Nurses General Nursing

Published

You are reading page 35 of CDC rec to counsel all males about benefits of circumcision

allnurses Guide

wtbcrna, MSN, DNP, CRNA

5,125 Posts

Specializes in Anesthesia.
You have OPINIONS (horror of horrors!)? I'd like to see peer-reviewed scientific research or your opinion doesn't count ;)

Seriously though.. Men = rational. Women = emotional :sarcastic: What a tired old stereotype.

Self-image is an interesting thing. When I read your posts in this particular thread, I think there's a real discord between what you likely feel that you're projecting and what I'm seeing. I see a lot of emotion and some defense mechanisms. This isn't an attack on you, it simply means that you're part of the human species. There's nothing wrong with emotion, I freely admit that this subject strikes a cord in me. It is good though, to recognize that we sometimes approach a subject with a significant emotional component invested, because it does have an effect on what and how we perceive and how we react. This isn't unique to you or me, it applies to all of us.

Even if one were to accept your analysis that objective fathers worry about medical matters and emotional mothers are concerned with their child's pain and self-image. Is one better than the other? Aren't they all factors that should be taken into account?

And the stereotype that people that have their sons circumcised are mutilating their sons is not a stereotype?

I wouldn't say that the women are more emotional than men is completely a stereotype, since there is a lot of research to support it has neruohormonal influences in the brain causing different patterns of thinking in males and females.

German Center for Research and Innovation - The Neuroscience of Gender

In this thread and the other thread on circumcision anti-circumcision people have called pro-choice and pro-circumcision people unethical, barbarians, and mutilators of boys. I think that is more than enough reason to get defensive especially when these people can not offer anything but personal opinions.

Now we come back to the purpose of the thread, should the CDC provide peer-reviewed scientific literature on the risk and benefits of male circumcision?

allnurses Guide

wtbcrna, MSN, DNP, CRNA

5,125 Posts

Specializes in Anesthesia.
Same here. Plus, it's pretty easy to just explain why there's a difference when they do ask.

wtbcrna, I've suspected you were a circumcised male for much of this conversation. Being in favor of circumcision doesn't equal being objective, as you described those fathers. And from this conversation I think you're going to have a lot of trouble keeping your own bias out of your patient interactions. Plus, as a CRNA you'd have to work against your own profit motive if you advised against circumcision.

Your vehemence makes a lot more sense now.

You need to look at my profile. I am USAF CRNA. I don't work on a fee per case basis, and most CRNAs don't either. CRNAs generally work on an hourly or salary basis, and if there was never another circumcision that came to the operating room it would have minimal effect on the anesthesia market. It is ignorant assumption again on your part.

Any "vehemence" that I have portrayed through my responses are for people that expect people to make public policy decisions on people's unscientific opinions, and for people that refuse to even attempt to utilize research to back up their opinions on science.

Specializes in Pediatrics, High-Risk L&D, Antepartum, L.
And the stereotype that people that have their sons circumcised are mutilating their sons is not a stereotype?

No, that isn't creating a stereotype. That is an opinion about an action. Saying people who circ are heartless...stereotype (and I'm not saying they are heartless). Saying circ is mutilations...opinion of an action. Different. I personally do believe that circ is mutilation of the human body.

From Merriam Webster "to cause severe damage to (the body of a person or animal)" or "to ruin the beauty of (something) : to severely damage or spoil (something)"

As I believe that removal of a body part is severe and damaging...it fits for me. I also believe the human body is a thing of beauty in the most natural form...again it fits for me.

It isn't any different for than those who split their tongues or alter their physical appearance drastically. I know what is to come "no medical benefit". Again...I don't believe that the medical benefits from circ justify the procedure. I believe there are far better methods. And no I'm not interested in doing homework to back up my opinion...which was formed from previous research. While circ may decrease certain things...doesn't mean we need to decrease them this way.

RNsRWe, ASN, RN

3 Articles; 10,428 Posts

And from this conversation I think you're going to have a lot of trouble keeping your own bias out of your patient interactions.

In all fairness.....the same could be said (and sometimes much more easily recognized) of others in this thread......on the opposite side of the issue.....even to the point of people actually SAYING they won't keep their bias to themselves.

liberated847

504 Posts

Specializes in CEN, CFRN, PHRN, RCIS, EMT-P.
I really haven't even tried to refute the research showing positive effects. I do think much of it is biased and tainted by cultural acceptance of the practice.

My position is that any claimed benefit can be had in less invasive, more ethical ways than amputating healthy, functional body parts. Circumcision isn't the best, or only, way to reap the benefits you're seeking. Cutting off body parts should never be the first tactic, and should never be imposed on a person who hasn't consented. If an adult makes the choice for himself, fine, it's his body.

This is one of the few areas where I agree with Red Kryptonite

macawake, MSN

2,141 Posts

And the stereotype that people that have their sons circumcised are mutilating their sons is not a stereotype?

I wouldn't say that the women are more emotional than men is completely a stereotype, since there is a lot of research to support it has neruohormonal influences in the brain causing different patterns of thinking in males and females.

You really didn't have to dig up some research, I was joking you know :)

I think that your example here is rather apples and oranges. Even if you can find some gender specific characteristics, my reason for calling it a stereotype is that the individual variance is huge. The world isn't made up of women who are predominantly emotional 100% of the time and men who are 100% rational all of the time. Some women are certainly more calm and rational than some men and vice versa. Generalizing a character trait to all women or all men is flawed.

The difference is that 100% of people who have their sons circumcised actually have them circumcised. All of them, 100%. However whether you choose to regard these people as being medically responsible, followers of tradition or mutilators (if we must use that word, I haven't at any time in this debate), in my opinion is a value judgement based on your own convictions and/or biases. You're attaching a label of sorts on a group of people who do actually perform a common act.

Edit: I just noticed that you used mutilating, not "mutilators". Well that is a description of an act, not a person. You may not agree with the description, but some people feel that it's accurately describes the removal of a part of the body.

Just to be clear. While I have called the act of removing healthy body parts of infants when no medical necessity is present barbaric, I've never called parents barbarians for doing it. I don't wish to personalize it like that and to offend, my aim is to question/critisize/raise awareness about the act itself , not to attack the person.

Now we come back to the purpose of the thread, should the CDC provide peer-reviewed scientific literature on the risk and benefits of male circumcision?

By all means, let's.

Of course we can provide it, but I have a feeling that your presentation of it and mine might look slightly different :wideyed: ;)

Cultural Bias and Circumcision: The AAP Task Force on Circumcision Responds

Your version:

((((((Although task force members did not find the data sufficiently compelling to justify a recommendation for routine neonatal circumcision))))))), we did find that THE BENEFITS ARE SUBSTANTIAL enough to allow parents to make this decision for their male children.

My version:

Although task force members DID NOT FIND THE DATA SUFFICIENTLY COMPELLING TO JUSTIFY A RECOMMENDATION FOR ROUTINE NEONATAL CIRCUMCISION !!!!!, we did find that the benefits are substantial enough to allow parents to make this decision for their male children.

The above is definitely tongue in cheek, but I do believe that it accurately portrays the different way you and I view this evidence (and how differently American and European pediatricians interpret it).

allnurses Guide

wtbcrna, MSN, DNP, CRNA

5,125 Posts

Specializes in Anesthesia.
You really didn't have to dig up some research, I was joking you know :)

I think that your example here is rather apples and oranges. Even if you can find some gender specific characteristics, my reason for calling it a stereotype is that the individual variance is huge. The world isn't made up of women who are predominantly emotional 100% of the time and men who are 100% rational all of the time. Some women are certainly more calm and rational than some men and vice versa. Generalizing a character trait to all women or all men is flawed.

The difference is that 100% of people who have their sons circumcised actually have them circumcised. All of them, 100%. However whether you choose to regard these people as being medically responsible, followers of tradition or mutilators (if we must use that word, I haven't at any time in this debate), in my opinion is a value judgement based on your own convictions and/or biases. You're attaching a label of sorts on a group of people who do actually perform a common act.

Edit: I just noticed that you used mutilating, not "mutilators". Well that is a description of an act, not a person. You may not agree with the description, but some people feel that it's accurately describes the removal of a part of the body.

Just to be clear. While I have called the act of removing healthy body parts of infants when no medical necessity is present barbaric, I've never called parents barbarians for doing it. I don't wish to personalize it like that and to offend, my aim is to question/critisize/raise awareness about the act itself , not to attack the person.

By all means, let's.

Of course we can provide it, but I have a feeling that your presentation of it and mine might look slightly different :wideyed: ;)

Cultural Bias and Circumcision: The AAP Task Force on Circumcision Responds

Your version:

My version:

The above is definitely tongue in cheek, but I do believe that it accurately portrays the different way you and I view this evidence (and how differently American and European pediatricians interpret it).

This isn't about my version or your version. Do you believe that the CDC and the AAP is incapable of providing unbiased circumcision information, because it differs from your opinion on circumcision?

I am not proposing that I would personally provide this information to patients/parents, and if I did I would give them the written information and leave the parents alone to make a decision then come back later to answer any questions.

I personally could care less if parents choose to have their sons circumcised or not. It doesn't make me any difference as long as they offered unbiased information on the subject.

Esme12, ASN, BSN, RN

1 Article; 20,908 Posts

Specializes in Critical Care, ED, Cath lab, CTPAC,Trauma.

thread closed for staff review

+ Add a Comment