Re: The Circumcision Discussion Originally Posted by vashtee 
I consented, but it was for religious reasons. However, men are waiting in line in Africa to have it done to reduce their risk of contracting HIV. I consider their consent valid.
As do I. And as long as they limit it to adults, I have no personal problem with that anymore than getting a tattoo or a Prince Albert. I think it's weird but it isn't my decision. They are adults after all. But it is a bit hard to imagine why one would consent when given the following facts:
1. You can get circumcised but you must be choosy about your sexual partners and always where a condom to protect yourself from HIV.
2. You don't need to get circumcised but you must be choosy about your sexual partners and always where a condom to protect yourself from HIV.
This is why you have to focus on children because it's easier in terms of compliance.
Originally Posted by vashtee I know many of you like to deny there is any therapeutic value, but even the American Academy of Pediatrics is is reviewing its position because of recent studies.
I am certainly aware of that. The thing that surprises me is that most other first world countries have properly categorized this approach as context sensitive, limited to countries of high prevalence; even the WHO guidelines state as much. The Australian's published their
information sheet regarding this situation in late 2007 as did the relevant groups in
France and some other places.
I wonder how much evidence you will need to have in order to change your position? Also, I wonder if the vehemently anti-circ people are the same group who tend to be anti-vaccine?
Well wonder no more, I'll tell you. The procedure must be medically therapeutic and by that I mean that:
1. The overall the medical benefits should outweigh the risks and harms of the procedure required to obtain them.
2. This procedure is the only reasonable way to obtain these benefits.
3. These benefits are necessary to the well-being of the child.
Especially in the situation of proxy consent, it is necessary that we use the most conservative approaches that are reasonably expected to work first. Since circumcision isn't, by far, the most effective or least invasive approach it should be deferred. Even in Africa but especially in first world low prevalence countries like the US.
Since you bring up vaccinations though I'll point out that they meet the criteria outlined above. All vaccines I can think of (most anyway) protect against diseases that I can get just by being in public. I don't really have to do something specific to get Measles for example. I am also pretty sure that a vaccine is the most efficient and most reasonable way to protect myself or a child from measles (if you know a better way please let us know though I am not sure living in a bubble counts.). Therefore it is a reasonable and ethical intervention that can be authorized on behalf of the child.
As far as the men in Africa, I am not quite sure they are getting the full story or understand the situation completely but they are adults; here is a better analogy. When you see intact European, Australian, Chinese, South and Central American and Canadian men lining up to get circumcised by the bus load, then you've proabably found a reasonably ethical reason to perform it on an infant.
Nursing News