The Circumcision Discussion - Page 121Register Today!
- May 19, '09 by Joe12Quote from xokissmekatexoI think that is what this board is for and I am very willing to share whatever information I have on this topic. I'll add that I think it's clear that there was no knowledge conveyed in my rhetorical question. It was meant to illustrate a point.In response to Joe12:
I neither said I was for nor against. I was simply sharing information that I had learned. Shoot me, but I thought this Listserv was to learn and be supported (which I have done very much in the last few days, thank you all). The same thing I replied to Consult2 I can obviously apply to you... I am a nursing student, going into my third semester, I am NOT experienced and I am not armed with the copious amount knowledge that you fronted your rebuttle with to now throw some ignorant sarcastic statement back at you.
Quote from xokissmekatexoI will say it again, you were all in my shoes once too, how about showing some understanding, I thought part of nursing was teaching and being compassionate. As I am not yet a nurse, maybe you could look at it like patient teaching and I could actually learn something from you more experienced ones in a constructive manner... keyword... CONSTRUCTIVE.
And this was the point I was making. In what way is it being compassionate circumcising a child for non-therapeutic reasons? I am more than willing to share as much information as you're willing to accept. Just ask a question and you'll get an answer, I promise.
Quote from xokissmekatexoOk so here I will address this point; there is a significant difference between a vaccination and a circumcision. Vaccination are medically therapeutic and circumcision is not. To be medically therapeutic three conditions need to be met:The facts in this discussion and all the evidence provided from both sides shows only one thing... this is merely an opinion, an opinion of a parent. Vaccinations are choice or an opinion and most of you would be horrified to hear that a mother wasn't taking her child to receive vaccinations. All numbers aside, vaccinations themselves hurt yes, however they have deadly side effects, just as NOT getting them has side effects, these numbers may not be equal, but it's the parents choice to decide what is the lesser of two evils to them.
1. 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. That these benefits are necessary to the well-being of the child.
None of these conditions is fulfilled for routine infant male circumcision. Now if we compare that to vaccination, it may be the case that there are harms associated with vaccination however, I am not aware of another effective way to obtain the benefits provided by a Measles vaccine or Polio Vaccine. I am not aware of an effective way to protect against those diseases. That is the difference.
Quote from xokissmekatexoBecause if we view a child's foreskin as having a valid function, we are no more justified in amputating it than any other part of the child's body unless the operation is medically required treatment and the least harmful way to provide that treatment.I've read posts in which parent's were seemingly crucified and ridiculed for simply saying that they did or would have their son circumsized.
Quote from xokissmekatexoNo, but there is a significant difference between populations. The UK is far more like the US and not even close to Africa.One thing I have noticed is the websites and databases all this material is being pulled from. Some of the articles on both sides, yes are legit., however, there was a discrepancey with research done in Africa but that same person turned around and posted a website related to research done in the UK. I realize that the UK is closer related to the US then is Africa, but if information is dismissed because of the location of the source than ALL related resources should be considered irrelavent unless done and researched in the US.
Quote from xokissmekatexoJust like any other body part the foreskin can occasionally have problems. But we don't prophylactically remove those either, without really good reason. A woman finding out she has a significantly higher risk for breast cancer certainly qualifies. But that is a decision the woman makes for herself, informed consent. Would you support testing infant girls for this gene and removing their breasts as infants? I certainly hope not. When the girl is old enough she can make that decision. And if a man wants to get circumcised, that should be his decision. Exceptions in both cases of course for true medical needs before the age of consent.Apparently these are "just the facts" however, each side is providing the same amount of "facts" and disputing evidence. Again, what this boils down to is choice. Foreskin has the POTENTIAL to cause complications and you can't argue that... it is a risk for a potential complication (maybe not NANDA approved, but still a risk). Equally as so if the foreskin is removed there are potential complications. A woman finding that she has the gene for breast cancer can have her breasts removed because they are a threat or a potential complication and we don't crucify her for her decision.
Quote from xokissmekatexoFirst of all, you should know I have one of these foreskins so I'd like to know what problems it could cause because I've never had one (and nobody I know who has it has had a problem so far as I know). Second, I've never been ridiculed in gym and never known anyone to be ridiculed. Perhaps part of the reason was that nobody got naked or showered in gym however there were plenty of other times when I was in that position and it was never a problem. I continue to use these types of facilities to this day, in fact I shower more often at the pool (and/or gym) than I do at home and there is no privacy. I am sure this is TMI but there is a large mix as it were and nobody says anything to anybody. So I'd sure like to know where this whole ridicule locker room thing comes from. And you're the first one ever to say they would remove their kids earlobes.So Joe12 if my son had earlobes that could potentially give him trouble and ridicule in gym class later on in life, yes, I would ask for the lido and have his earlobes removed!
Having said that, I am willing to share information and answer whatever questions pop up. I strongly encourage further questions.Last edit by Joe12 on May 19, '09
- May 19, '09 by Smurfette752Right on Joe....and I'd like to say also that my 92 year old grandfather has a foreskin...never had a problem. So does my son's 43 year old father, never a problem. So does my 27 year old brother, never a problem. So does my 2 year old son, never a problem.
- May 20, '09 by Joe12Quote from libnatI can't believe I missed this. We did talk about it recently here:Male circumcision could significantly reduce the burden of HIV, study suggests.
- May 20, '09 by consult2"So Joe12 if my son had earlobes that could potentially give him trouble and ridicule in gym class later on in life, yes, I would ask for the lido and have his earlobes removed!"
ANY body part has the POTENTIAL to cause trouble, so why should the foreskin be the ONLY part removed due to this?
As for ridicule in gym class, with the rate being 50/50 (and as low as 32% in some places, I daresay this will hardly be a factor.
A WOMAN can indeed have here breasts removed, but is anyone advocating forcefully removing them from her when she is an infant? Quite a difference from advocating forcefully removing the foreskin from infant boys.
Returning to location vs studies, regardless of location of the studies, EMPIRICAL evidence from the real world debunks any claim of HIV reduction--and THIS invalidates any claim of reduction.
When there is a discrepancy, the empirical evidence wins out.
BTW, how is the information posted here NOT constructive simply because it contradicts your beliefs?
- May 20, '09 by xokissmekatexoWell, it certainly wasn't constructive to begin with... I was answered sarcastically. And I'm sorry if I was overly defensive, but this has been the norm for me since starting nursing school with most of the experienced nurses. I ask that if any of you come across nursing students, to teach them without making them feel like they are absolute idiots as many nurses do. Maybe some have forgotten, but it's very discouraging, and right now is the best time to mold us, remember we will be caring for you and your families one day too, so teach us the way you'd want a nurse to treat you as a patient.
I wont argue that I think men should have a choice of whether or not they should have their own foreskin removed, however, I its the choice of a parent and I don't think it's therapuetic to go around trying to make people feel stupid or being so blatant about the fact that they are less informed than yourselves. Abortion is a whole different subject I know, but I would like to know if their are some that don't agree with a parents choice to have the foreskin removed but do agree with a parents choice to completely REMOVE a child?
I was never arguing the fact that it shouldn't be done, I was relating what I had learned, and I am receptive when you are constructive, to see both sides of the argument. I will however argue that it's a parent's choice and just as much that if it is the parent's choice to do so they should have the right to be (constructively) informed and able to make that decision without being judged. I believe that our perception of an infant experiencing pain has come a long way from the past but still has much further to go in the future. We learned this semester (and excuse my lack of a drug name, pharmacology is not my strongest suit) that in the not so distant past a certain drug was commonly used in the NICCU to sedate babies, they were still very capable of feeling pain, but just were unable to respond to it. I was horrified. I cried when my children received injections and even asked if it hurt the baby to have the umbilical cord cut with my first child and for this reason MY son was not circumsized... suprised? It was a huge argument that actually ended a relationship (petty? I thought so), but still my choice. However, my "brother-in-law" at that time confided he was uncircumsized and really wished his mother had circ'd him because he was teased unrelentlessly in highschool. I simply debate that it is a parent's choice and we shouldn't make them feel bad about it.
- May 20, '09 by consult2" I simply debate that it is a parent's choice and we shouldn't make them feel bad about it."
And I have to ask again,
WHY SHOULD a parent have the right to deliberately cause unnecessary pain and harm to an unconsenting infant when there is not a single scientifically-credible benefit, and a lot of scientifically-credible evidence of unnecessary harm and pain?
BTW, if your BIL feels so badly, remember HE has the choice to be circumcised..those not so fortunate are not able to do so---doesn't it all it all boils down to PERSONAL choice and human rights?
IF a parent chooses to cause any OTHER form of deliberate harm, should we take extra caution to avoid making them feel badly for their decision to do so?
If the answer is yes, then WHY is THIS particular decision also not subject to the same judgment?
- May 20, '09 by lamazeteacherQuote from Smurfette752-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.But it is a multi-million dollar "business" doctors and hospitals would loose a significant amount of money if everyone stopped circ'ing, and they know this... and even if it is still $35, think about how many circ's they do in one month (depending on the hospital, obviously) that is an awful lot of money.
My point about the money, is that compared to other inflated costs, it really isn't a significant amount - certainly not enough to make the cost a reason for doing/not doing circumcisions. OB has been known to bring much less profit to hospitals, and is considered a "loss leader" that will bring other business to most facilities - really! :hngon:
- May 20, '09 by brilloheadAlong these same lines, I personally feel it is inappropriate for parents to pierce the ears of their infant daughter.
I got my ears pierced on my 10th birthday, after having begged my mother for a couple of years at that point. (She got hers done on the same day, which was also her own birthday... she was 42yo and had always used clip-on earrings up to that point.)
Piercing is an elective procedure (granted, it is a huge cultural thing in some tribes in remote regions, but for people likely to read this forum on the internet, it is not a "religious/ethnic" rite). There is danger of actual permanent harm, particularly with the way MRSA has been spreading into the community. There is a continued danger should the infant remove a stud and swallow it or aspirate it. There is a danger of having the earring ripped out while at play or in sports as she ages.
Yes, it's the parents' "right" to have their daughter's ears pierced, and a significant enough portion of the population will have it done so that a baby girl with pierced ears is not seen as "weird" or "wrong" and she's not likely to get ridiculed over it (which I don't even buy that excuse regarding circumcision.... my son's been participating in team sports for five years now and it's never been brought up to him).
But just because the parent has the "right" to pierce the baby's ears, does that make it appropriate to do so?
What if the baby got an infection?
What if the baby removed an earring and poked her eyeball with it? or swallowed it? or aspirated it?
What if a playmate grabbed onto an earring and ripped it right through her earlobe?
What if the baby grows up and decides that she doesn't want pierced ears? Yes, she can let her holes grow closed, but she'll still have a scar and/or a "dent" in each lobe afterward.
There is no medical reason to have the ears pierced, and there are quite a few things that can go wrong if you have the ears pierced. If a parent were to ask my opinion, I would point out all of these points, but then it would be my duty to step aside and let them make the decision. I have to let it go... it's not my baby, and I'm not going to have to answer to the baby when she's all grown up and upset that this was done to her when she didn't want it done (or something bad happened as a result).
I look at circumcision and ear-piercing as two sides of the same coin. I don't have to own a penis to have an opinion about infant circumcision, and I don't have to have pierced or non-pierced ears to have an opinion about infant piercing.