The Circumcision Discussion - page 99
I know this can be a HUGE debate, and I'm not looking to start any arguments. I was just wondering as you are OB nurses. I'm expecting a boy in July and not sure if we should circ. or not. My... Read More
0"Some cried for a few minutes and then stopped. To me it did not seem that the lidocaine made much of a difference because that hurts being injected. It seems that they cried just as much either way."
Of course! After the initial pain, they retreated in a trauma-induced coma-like state
"My ex-boyfriend was not circ. and he was embarrased about it when we first got together. Since most men are circ. when you are one of the few that are not I think it can be embarassing for you. He always said that he wished it would have happened when he was a baby because now it would be a big ordeal."
Not if you are educated and know that YOU are the lucky one--knowledge is a great confidence builder.
HOW would it be a BIGGER ordeal now than as an infant?
- Click Here To Get More Topics Like This! Get the hottest topics and toons in your inbox.
1Quote from morteBeing a bit lazy are we?well, consult.....i was waiting for you, and you didnt disappoint.....i really wasnt looking forward to going back thru all the posts to find the info....lol
0Quote from lamazeteacher.Here's some common sense:
Since countries where circs are routinely done, are more developed (except for the Scandinavian countries) stats are available, as record keeping is better, and computerized.
In underdeveloped countries doing circs, less reliable data is stored and availability of it is difficult to obtain, especially in most African countries. Anecdotal information changes the way things are done there, and that takes much more time.
In SCIENCE, all it takes is ONE valid exception to make a theory invalid--you got them in Scand. and Japan--and the other rates for various countries are valid ENOUGH to complete the picture.
IF circumcision reduces HIV by 50%, WHY do we not see this alleged reduction in the real world?
If circumcision reduces HIV by 50%, HOW & WHY do we oft times see an increase in HIV --up to 88 fold?
0"An circumcision...is done with a lidocaine,"
"does not cut into muscle, does not cut through a protective membrane that would expose major organs to possible infection and has minimal blood loss. It is considered a minor surgical procedure."
not to the victim--and not to those who die from it directly or indirectly.--onlt to the perpetrators.
"An appendectomy, is considered major surgery. It is done through general anesthesia and all of the risks of intubation, cutting through major muscles of the abdominal cavity, thus, placing the body at risk for adhesions, major infection, stitches, etc."
So? one is UNNECESSARY and the other is necessary--what is your point?Last edit by Elvish on Aug 5, '09 : Reason: member PMed
0"Well, I guess the CDC, World Health Organization, Unicef, and other, internationally recognized organizations that are dedicated to the PREVENTION of disease, are all wrong."
Well, they certainly were on the latest swine-flu pandemonium they manufactured--and the bird flu, and...
and Again, IF it is their OPINION that circumcision reduces HIV, WHY do we NOT see this reduction? Either their OPINIONS are wrong, or reality is wrong--so, which is it?
0Aug 5, '09 by brillohead, ADN, RNCome to think of it, there sure seems to be one heck of a lot of HIV in Africa where circumcision is not routinely practiced....
0Quote from brilloheadAnd it is just as prevalent in areas that DO circumcise and those that don't --something does not compute logically.Come to think of it, there sure seems to be one heck of a lot of HIV in Africa where circumcision is not routinely practiced....
0Aug 5, '09 by brillohead, ADN, RNQuote from consult2But...but...but... circumcision is supposed to help prevent HIV infection... how can that be???? :icon_rollAnd it is just as prevalent in areas that DO circumcise and those that don't --something does not compute logically.
0""Well, I guess the CDC, World Health Organization, Unicef, and other, internationally recognized organizations that are dedicated to the PREVENTION of disease, are all wrong."
Well the circumcision and HIV rates come from those organizations whose opinions you cite, so this begs the question: Why do their own stats contradict their opinions?
Perhaps because "medical science" is mostly a consensus of OPINIONS (sometimes based on facts and evidence, and sometimes contradicted by it) and "science" is a consensus of the evidence?
0Quote from brilloheadExactly! You got me.But...but...but... circumcision is supposed to help prevent HIV infection... how can that be???? :icon_roll
0Quote from D.R.A.The OPINIONS may be equal, but the facts and evidence are not--try following your brains. And the end of the day, WHY do something that has no proven benefit and proven harm? Which direction does one's brains lead?I say phooey on medical reasons....you are already probably pretty educated on those. You will have 6 of one opinion, half a dozen for the other side. At the end of the day, follow your heart:heartbeat Best of luck with your decision:wink2:
0Aug 5, '09 by morteQuote from consult2yup, and i was getting ready for my massage appointment.....then to bed to work 3rd shift.....lol.....thanks againBeing a bit lazy are we?
0Aug 5, '09 by dnp2004Since this is an anonymous international forum, I am wondering how many practitioners on this forum would be okay with removing what they might consider "nonessential" tissue from a female infant, with lidocaine/xylocaine of course?