The Circumcision Discussion - Page 95Register Today!
- Feb 21, '09 by AirforceRNAhhh, I just couldn't stay away...I tried...really I tried.
1 : to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect <the child mutilated the book with his scissors>
2 : to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of
I'd say the definition fits, although I suppose the words "imperfect" and "essential" can be debated.
Once again, this thread seems to be diving into the realm of personal attacks. We all have our opinions and we are entitled to them, regardless of our position or lack thereof on this board. Just because Elvish doesn't agree with you, or you don't agree with her or her terminology doesn't give you the right to attack her...that's just rude. This board grants us a certain amount of anonymity and allows us to share feelings and opinions that we would never be allowed to disclose at work.
My personal advice (if I can be so bold) is for both of you to take your discussion to the PM side of things so it doesn't have to be aired publicly
- Feb 21, '09 by Spidey's momQuote from k-t-didyou wouldn't walk into a room and say it, but you have no problem coming into this forum and saying it, yet we are still real people, capable of being insulted just like your patients. i would hypothesize that the majority of mothers on the board chose circ. and you accused us of mutilating our children, who i guarantee you are every bit as precious to us as yours are to you. . far from respectful. perhaps your position in this community relieves you of the duty to be respectful to other members?
i agree with your post except for the last sentence. elvish is always careful to listen - she is also passionate about many causes and her posts reflect that passion. she doesn't use her position as "staff". truly.
i can certainly see how people can think it circumcision is mutilating (i personally wish i had won over my husband and ex-husband). . .however i don't agree with calling parents names.
and she didn't make the comment you and i remarked about - it was post #924 by janism:
"the only reason i can see for circumcision is to make parents happy. i refused to mutilate my boys and their father is also 'intact'. of course they were taught strict hygiene-they would have whether or not they were circumcised."
i think we as a community can disagree on the issue - but you and i agree that someone shouldn't say things like the part in red above.
- Feb 21, '09 by Spidey's momQuote from firstyearstudentSaying someone's body has been mutilated is a judgement and depends on the values of any given community. One man's mutilation is another man's way cool body modification. I don't believe in circumcision of children because, as a parent, I personally don't feel I have a right to make any significant body modification to my minor child without his informed consent. I wouldn't get my infant daughter's ears pierced, either. Or get my children tattoos. And despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of men do not have sexual dysfunction due to circumcision, I don't have convincing evidence that it doesn't affect sensitivity or sexual responsiveness, so it stays on until there's a good reason for it not be there.
When my son's are 18 (or perhaps younger if they whine enough) they can get their foreskins cut off if they want and then get a Prince Albert stud rammed through their glans if they want that, too. Until then, forget it!
As far as dads complaining they want their son's penis to look like theirs, 1) In my family my husband doesn't whip his penis out and compare it with my sons' regularly, 2) when my sons have seen their dad's penis they were more "traumatized" by pubic hair and my husband has no intention of shaving.
My boys learned to pee from standing by dad in the bathroom and peeing together. They weren't traumatized. And we are loggers - we pee in the woods - this story is also on this long long thread (Airforce . . .I wiinced when I saw this thread come up again) . . . .but #2 son and dad were out in the woods and had to pee so got out of the pickup and over by a tree and peed . . . with son looking over and saying "You're a really good pee'er dad".
- Feb 21, '09 by hypocaffeinemiaQuote from k-t-didI'm a guy and I can safely from the anonymity and objectivity of this forum call it mutilation.you wouldn't walk into a room and say it, but you have no problem coming into this forum and saying it, yet we are still real people, capable of being insulted just like your patients. I would hypothesize that the majority of mothers on the board chose circ. And you accused us of mutilating our children, who I guarantee you are every bit as precious to us as yours are to you. . Far from respectful. Perhaps your position in this community relieves you of the duty to be respectful to other members?
We have both female and male genital mutilation in this world. One's illegal in the U.S., one's the status quo. Go figure. I make no apologies to anybody offended by pointing out what it is.
- Feb 21, '09 by 2curlygirlsAnd why do people keep doing it? Mostly because we want Junior to have the same unnecessary surgery his daddy did. To heck with the risks and pain!
I don't get it.
- Feb 21, '09 by k-t-didWith all due respect, Airforce Rn, who attacked whom? I just expressed surprise at a lack of respect from those who basically accused a large percentage of this community of mutilating our children. And I apologize if I addressed this to the wrong poster.
- Feb 21, '09 by SmilingBluEyesI think we, in some cases, have to agree to disagree. For some, circumcision IS mutilation----it certainly is the surgical altering of a very delicate part without the consent of the boy undergoing this procedure. It is not of medical necessity in most cases at the time of its performance; even the APA put out a statement to that affect. However, for religious or other concerns (tradition being a debatable one), people seek to have this procedure done for their kids. No one here wants to be considered a child-abuser due to making this choice.
I think it helps me to try to get past the anger and just see what the other person is saying, not just his/her words. I really work to read carefully his/her POSITION. And then at the end of the day, I can agree to disagree without resorting to insults (direct attacks) and counterattacks.
That is about the best we can do here, failing to come to agreement on this heated issue. Education is key, folks! Evidenced based practices rely on this.
- Feb 21, '09 by JanisMI didn't realize my words would anger so many people, and I did not mean to accuse anyone of not loving their children. But I stand by the fact that my children were born perfect, and any changes to their bodies would have been a form of mutilation - to ME, at least. I would never accuse someone of being a bad parent for doing this, as many of my family have circumcised their boys and they are all loving, wonderful parents. It's just my personal feelings on the topic. Fair enough?
- Feb 21, '09 by hillarypeace2006Janis & Elvish, I don't see anyting offensive at all. The opinion happens to be shared by many that it is mutilation. If people who did make the decision to circ their sons, surely they gave it the enormous thought it deserved and and stand behind their deeply held convictions supporting their decisons without becoming "offended".
- Feb 22, '09 by dnp2004Hi all,
I posted the part of this story on another thread earlier today before I even know about this one. I registered at this site only a few days ago and can see it is a wealth of information. This is a true story that happened to me years ago. This thread brought back some old memories. I was born in the United States but have spent much of my life overseas in various military bases. The following happened before many of you on this thread were born but I can see that even now circumcision is a very polarized issue.
I once supervised at a facility where I was asked to assist in a circumcision. Having recently transferred to this U.S. hospital from another country I naively asked what was wrong with the babies penis, tightness? The doctor looked at me with a strange expression and said, "isn't it obvious, the problem is Junior needs his foreskin removed!" I asked why.
His reply was that the circumcision is being done on the boy because his parents wanted it for religious reasons. I told the surgeon that removal of any healthy body part without reason maybe a violation of the Hippocratic Oath, my medical license(s) and may have an impact on the hospitals future accreditation. I also reminded him that I had just transferred from a country that had doctors tried and convicted for performing unnecessary surgery only a few decades earlier. Some were found guilty of removing healthy body parts from infants! I was starting to become very upset with that doctor. This was partially because I had lost many family members during that period under the boot of war criminals.
I did not tell him that all of that though and asked if he or the hospital would circumcise a baby girl (removal of the clitoral hood) if it was her parents religious request. He barked at me, "who would do such a sick thing". Now remember, this was before the term FGM even existed and most westerners had never heard did not even know girls were circumcised too. I told him I have seen the results of these in several countries I had practiced in.
He told me only a sick barbarian would butcher a little girl in such a way and asked me to follow him to the President's room. All three of us had a lively discussion. First the Doctor told the President I compared him called him Dr. Josef Mengele this was a lie They told me "foreigners don't know how things are done here." I reminded them that I was born in the United States, was a citizen and had both parents serving in the U.S. military. I asked them if they knew that several countries performed both male and female circumcision for religious reasons. They said those countries were, "uncivilized"
Finally both of them tried to convince me the foreskin is as nonessential as the tonsils and appendix. I then told them removal of the tonsils and/or appendix is only indicated when a medical problem exists and that this baby seemed to be perfectly healthy. Since we were in a secular hospital that received Federal and State funding, I told them that the removal of an newborn's perfectly healthly body part, for mostly religious reasons, in a government funded hospital, seemed legally troubling at best and maybe an ethical violation at worst. I was sternly told to "just worry about the bedpans and leave the law to the lawyers". At which point I quickly reminded the both of them that I am an attorney with International Law being my specialty!
At which point I was immediately terminated because I was "insubordinate", "over-qualified" and "lacking of leadership qualities". They also told me they would contact the Board and get my license permanently revoked so I would not be able to practice in the United States ever again . The Board members were far more reasonable, one of them had a law degree as well. They said I did nothing wrong. After that I moved oversees for a while. Years later I can say I have no regrets
This termination did cause me to start to question the role of children, religion, caregivers and the law in the United States. Of course I realize that U.S. medical field is controlled by Federal, State, County and Local government. So my circumcision questions are rather generic:
- If I would have said I could not perform the circumcision due to my religious convictions would I have have a better leg to stand on?
- I have noticed there are religious non-medical practitioners that are allowed to perform circumcision (a medical procedure) without a license or fear of prosecution. Is it legal for religious non-medical practitioners and/or licensed medical personnel to perform a basic circumcision on an infant girl in the U.S.?
- If an infant or anyone under 18 is seriously injured or dies due to complications from circumcision (infection, bleeding, etc.) can the practitioner(s) be prosecuted if they are unlicensed but in the same religious group as the minor? If so on what charge? Since they unlicensed but ordained, I would imagine they might have total or partial immunity from prosecution.
- Based on what I have read in this thread (over 300,000 members with 900+ responses) I see that many healthcare providers consider the foreskin to be a unhygienic, cancer-prone, cosmetically flawed and basic non-essential piece of skin. The ear lobes could also be considered non-essential. Suppose a parent was a member of a religious group that required the ear lobes to be removed within 10 days of birth? Would a hospital perform such a procedure? If the hospital/doctor refused could an ordained clergy of the infants religion remove the ear lobes without being subject to arrest or prosecution?
That is enough for now,