I absolutely will not...

[beetlerum]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Sorry, I stick with it being a parental personal choice. Like I said before, this is going to be a circular agrument. Some people will be for, some against, and that's they way it will be.

How do you feel about female circumcision? Is it a parental choice to remove part of the clitoris? If not, how do you distinguish it?

Look, I suppose you could argue that it's a parental choice whether to remove the child's right arm. Heck, in some cultures it's effectively a parental choice whether to let the infant child live. And I suppose it is "circular" in the sense that all moral beliefs are ultimately based, in a sense, on nothing more than personal preference. But that makes the circularity point kind of a silly argument. I will continue to have moral beliefs, as will you, I assume.

 

[Beau Geste]

Wait, you're saying that it's a matter of opinion whether a foreskin is an aberration? Every male is born with a foreskin. It is by definition not an aberration. Can people who practice female circumcision say that the clitoris is an aberration?

Sure - people have their opinions as to what is beautiful vs. ugly (ugly tends to be aberration).

It's silly to argue this. I don't think people are right or wrong on the male circumcision issue.

Female circumcision is a different story. Removing the clitoris is not the same as removing foreskin. Males who are circumsized still have quite a bit of sensation, so the logic is off there.

I prefer to think that if the procedure is not illegal and widely acceptable, then leave it up to the patient or the parents to get it done. They can deal with their own inner demons after that.

 

[Beau Geste]

How do you feel about female circumcision? Is it a parental choice to remove part of the clitoris? If not, how do you distinguish it?

Look, I suppose you could argue that it's a parental choice whether to remove the child's right arm. Heck, in some cultures it's effectively a parental choice whether to let the infant child live. And I suppose it is "circular" in the sense that all moral beliefs are ultimately based, in a sense, on nothing more than personal preference. But that makes the circularity point kind of a silly argument. I will continue to have moral beliefs, as will you, I assume.

See my previous post re: legal vs. illegal procedure. Illegal procedure in the US = removing right arm (unless for a legitmate reason) or killing infant. Also, if you read before I am vehemently opposed to abortion, so why would I be for killing a newborn?

Seriously, you aren't going to change my mind, and I won't change yours. I accept that. Now you need to accept that.

 

[notdeadyet]

Circumcision actually removes a pretty significant portion of the really erogenous tissue on the penis. Sure, it is possible that it doesn't affect sensitivity, but I would have to say that the burden is squarely on those who say it has no effect.

Men- Raise your hand if you feel that your penis just isn't sensitive enough?

Bueller... Bueller...?

 

[Erina]

Men- Raise your hand if you feel that your penis just isn't sensitive enough?

Bueller... Bueller...?

Coming from a girl, I wouldnt' want a guy with a REALLY sensitive penis...wouldn't want him to get too worked up too quickly... 😉

 

[notdeadyet]

Coming from a girl, I wouldnt' want a guy with a REALLY sensitive penis...wouldn't want him to get too worked up too quickly... 😉

Exactly. I'm sure that there are probably guys out there whose girlfriends' complain that they just aren't sensitive enough down there and that they get tired of the three hour sex, but I haven't met 'em.

 

[Rafa]

Exactly. I'm sure that there are probably guys out there whose girlfriends' complain that they just aren't sensitive enough down there and that they get tired of the three hour sex, but I haven't met 'em.

I suppose it could be a problem if you (a girl) were dating a pornstar. Those guys are trained to keep going and going and going...

*off to investigate link between energizer and playboy bunny*

 

[beetlerum]

Sure - people have their opinions as to what is beautiful vs. ugly (ugly tends to be aberration).

It's silly to argue this. I don't think people are right or wrong on the male circumcision issue.

Female circumcision is a different story. Removing the clitoris is not the same as removing foreskin. Males who are circumsized still have quite a bit of sensation, so the logic is off there.

I prefer to think that if the procedure is not illegal and widely acceptable, then leave it up to the patient or the parents to get it done. They can deal with their own inner demons after that.

I guess you would be okay with removing part of the clitoris. That would still leave the girl with some sensation. I think that would be the most comparable to male circumcision. Though no one can say for sure about women without clitorises vs. men without foreskins. Some men report a very big difference after circumcision, as frankly seems logical. So I reject the idea that it's not comparable and it is very bad, in my opinion, that future doctors think it is okay to routinely remove a normal part of a healthy body simply because it is culturally accepted.

Wouldn't you at least accept that it's a little weird that this erogenous part of a normal penis is the single part of the body that parents are allowed to remove? No parent can decide to remove their kid's toe or a small part of the tongue or even a toenail. Just think about that for a second. Heck, if parents wanted a tiny part of the tongue, they'd be called monsters.

 

[DoctaJay]

Please stop unnecessarily mutilating young male babies over dubious procedures, especially since it's irreversible (at least without huge expense) and something the child has no choice in.

Usually people against circumcision are those who aren't circumsized themselves. I personally (and of course I'm bias) think that it looks better and given the fact that almost no man meticulously scrubs his penis, its easier to keep clean.

 

[Beau Geste]

I guess you would be okay with removing part of the clitoris. That would still leave the girl with some sensation. I think that would be the most comparable to male circumcision. Though no one can say for sure about women without clitorises vs. men without foreskins. Some men report a very big difference after circumcision, as frankly seems logical. So I reject the idea that it's not comparable and it is very bad, in my opinion, that future doctors think it is okay to routinely remove a normal part of a healthy body simply because it is culturally accepted.

Wouldn't you at least accept that it's a little weird that this erogenous part of a normal penis is the single part of the body that parents are allowed to remove? No parent can decide to remove their kid's toe or a small part of the tongue or even a toenail. Just think about that for a second. Heck, if parents wanted a tiny part of the tongue, they'd be called monsters.

No, I won't accept that, and no I wouldn't be okay with removing part of the clitoris. My religion doesn't require it, and I don't think it improves health. On the other hand, I do think it improves health removing foreskin.

Seriously, what part of "You're not changing my mind" do you not get?

Persistent bugger.... I'll give you that!

 

[beetlerum]

See my previous post re: legal vs. illegal procedure. Illegal procedure in the US = removing right arm (unless for a legitmate reason) or killing infant. Also, if you read before I am vehemently opposed to abortion, so why would I be for killing a newborn?

Seriously, you aren't going to change my mind, and I won't change yours. I accept that. Now you need to accept that.

I know you're not for killing a newborn. That's not the point. And I'm not talking about morality, not legality. I think you would agree that full female circumcision is wrong even where it's legal. I was just pointing out that your "circular" point could apply to any moral issue. Saying that is is equivalent to beautiful vs. ugly basically assumes away the moral debate (i.e. takes your side as right, with the belief that it is just personal preference).

Sadly, yes, I can see I won't change your mind.

 

[Beau Geste]

Sadly, yes, I can see I won't change your mind.

Why is it sad? Because YOU think it is? Please, get down off the cross. It's a legal procedure and there are documented benefits of doing it. It's not against my religion, and when my (future) son grows up, he's probably not going to give a damn one way or another. We're not going to be in therapy because I had his foreskin snipped.

Get over youself.

 

[beetlerum]

No, I won't accept that, and no I wouldn't be okay with removing part of the clitoris. My religion doesn't require it, and I don't think it improves health. On the other hand, I do think it improves health removing foreskin.

Seriously, what part of "You're not changing my mind" do you not get?

Persistent bugger.... I'll give you that!

Well, it's not just a theoretical issue. I'm assuming you are a future doctor. Thus, I think it's worth the attempt.

Okay, so I assume that if there was some evidence for a very modest benefit to health (one that could also be achieved through appropriate behavior, like condom use), you would support partial removal of the clitoris. I don't know how you could possibly distinguish that from male circumcision.

Of course, since the health benefits are modest and controversial, you mght think it should be left to the person to decide for himself. It does seem weird that this part of the healthy body, and this one alone, would have a negative impact on health, but who knows. And even the American Academy of Pediatrics basically admits that the evidence for health benefits is very weak.

Edit: Wouldn't it just be a lot easier to have the rule that you don't remove a normal part of a baby's body unless you have a good reason. Seriously. It's also a waste of resources.

 

[Beau Geste]

Well, it's not just a theoretical issue. I'm assuming you are a future doctor. Thus, I think it's worth the attempt.

Okay, so I assume that if there was some evidence for a very modest benefit to health (one that could also be achieved through appropriate behavior, like condom use), you would support partial removal of the clitoris. I don't know how you could possibly distinguish that from male circumcision.

Of course, since the health benefits are modest and controversial, you mght think it should be left to the person to decide for himself. It does seem weird that this part of the healthy body, and this one alone, would have a negative impact on health, but who knows. And even the American Academy of Pediatrics basically admits that the evidence for health benefits is very weak.

Guess what? The world is full of contradictions - get used to it! Last time I'll say it since you can't understand: I AM NOT FOR CLITORAL REMOVAL. Maybe because I'm a woman, maybe because there's just not as much skin covering the clitoris as a penis, and there's no evidence that the clitoris gets really dirty, unless you don't wash (which entails other issues).

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

My husband is circumcised and has NO problems with sensation. Those who are circumcised that claim they have less sensation - how do they REALLY know?

This is an easy one to answer. Search back through the pages of this thread, and you'll find someone who needed to be circumcised as an adult because of an injury, and he claimed that there was less sensation. Certainly, a sample size of 1 doesn't prove anything, but your question was about HOW it would be possible to know, and anecdotal evidence from those circumcised as adults is a very straightforward way.

 

[mvenus929]

Just a few notes...

I will *probably* have my sons circumcised, but for religious reasons, so that's not particularly important in this discussion. And please, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but Jews don't get circumcised because they think circ. is beautiful, but because it represents a bond with god.

As for those who say that the US is the only country that routinely does them (for cleanliness or health...), I was talking to someone in Australia, and she said that her entire family does it (when in their teens, apparently) for that reason. They may be the exception rather than the rule, but it's worth pointing out anyway.

And for those who say cutting off the foreskin is akin to cutting off a breast... it's apples and oranges... the breast's main purpose is to provide food for an infant (breastfeeding has tremendous benefits, as it helps give the child antibodies, and studies have shown there might be a cognitive link as well). Cutting off the breast would essentially remove the milk ducts and prevent this from happening. Removing the foreskin does not affect the child of the circ. male. And wouldn't the closest thing on a female be the clitoral hood, rather than the clitoris? If that's the case... again, apples and oranges.

As a side note... what does everyone consider 'newborn'?

 

[Beau Geste]

This is an easy one to answer. Search back through the pages of this thread, and you'll find someone who needed to be circumcised as an adult because of an injury, and he claimed that there was less sensation. Certainly, a sample size of 1 doesn't prove anything, but your question was about HOW it would be possible to know, and anecdotal evidence from those circumcised as adults is a very straightforward way.

How do we know that the neurons don't re-route when it's done as a newborn. As an adult there's less likelihood of regeneration.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

Would you discourage genetic testing, vaccinations, and artificial birth control? If so, would it be on the grounds of harm possibly caused to the patient because of these services? I am not trying to pick on you, just understand the thought process behind this. I can see discouraging elective C-sections because they do cause more harm to the mothers than natural birth, under ordinary circumstances, and my feeling about being an MD is that your job is to improve the overall health of the patient. But if studies show that circumcision does cut down (no pun intended) on risk of HIV infection both for circumcised males and their sexual partners, and vaccinations do prevent disease, why are you against them? Or do you just think that those studies aren't trustworthy enough to believe in?

What would it take by the way of scientific proof for you to change your mind about circumcision and vaccinations?

There are no valid studies that show that circumcision leads to a lower incidence of HIV. ESPECIALLY here in the US. Yes, I am, once again, calling the studies posted on the first pages of this thread invalid.

I totally agree with everything else you said, however 🙂

 

[Beau Geste]

Just a few notes...

I will *probably* have my sons circumcised, but for religious reasons, so that's not particularly important in this discussion. And please, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but Jews don't get circumcised because they think circ. is beautiful, but because it represents a bond with god.

As for those who say that the US is the only country that routinely does them (for cleanliness or health...), I was talking to someone in Australia, and she said that her entire family does it (when in their teens, apparently) for that reason. They may be the exception rather than the rule, but it's worth pointing out anyway.

And for those who say cutting off the foreskin is akin to cutting off a breast... it's apples and oranges... the breast's main purpose is to provide food for an infant (breastfeeding has tremendous benefits, as it helps give the child antibodies, and studies have shown there might be a cognitive link as well). Cutting off the breast would essentially remove the milk ducts and prevent this from happening. Removing the foreskin does not affect the child of the circ. male. And wouldn't the closest thing on a female be the clitoral hood, rather than the clitoris? If that's the case... again, apples and oranges.

As a side note... what does everyone consider 'newborn'?

within a week or two after birth, although most circumcisions are done 1-2 days after birth (because moms are discharged 1-2 days after birth, sometimes even sooner).

 

[mvenus929]

within a week or two after birth, although most circumcisions are done 1-2 days after birth (because moms are discharged 1-2 days after birth, sometimes even sooner).

Alright, thanks.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

How do we know that the neurons don't re-route when it's done as a newborn. As an adult there's less likelihood of regeneration.

How do we know that they DO? Why take the chance? Why not just remove every infant's appendix while you are at it? Because circumcision is somehow different? Go look at the pictures that were posted of babies that had MRSA infections as a result of their circumcision. Circumcision has REAL risks and QUESTIONABLE benefits.

I agree that it is a personal choice, but why not let the person who "owns" the penis make that choice when they are able.

I also don't buy the religious argument. I know of few intelligent people who simply follow their religion like mindless drones and don't question questionable practices.

 

[beetlerum]

Guess what? The world is full of contradictions - get used to it! Last time I'll say it since you can't understand: I AM NOT FOR CLITORAL REMOVAL. Maybe because I'm a woman, maybe because there's just not as much skin covering the clitoris as a penis, and there's no evidence that the clitoris gets really dirty, unless you don't wash (which entails other issues).

Well, I give you sincere credit for admitting that it may be just a contradiction and a gender bias. However, you are not being fair to your future male patients. Seriously, how would you feel if some male doc had the reverse opinion?

Just take a step back and think about what you're saying. You're saying that is okay to remove part of the erogenous tissue on a man, but not on a woman. Again, how would you feel if a guy said the opposite? You would be pissed off, and rightly so. Imagine if you had had part of your clitoris removed without your permission.

 

[beetlerum]

How do we know that they DO? Why take the chance? Why not just remove every infant's appendix while you are at it? Because circumcision is somehow different? Go look at the pictures that were posted of babies that had MRSA infections as a result of their circumcision. Circumcision has REAL risks and QUESTIONABLE benefits.

I agree that it is a personal choice, but why not let the person who "owns" the penis make that choice when they are able.

I also don't buy the religious argument. I know of few intelligent people who simply follow their religion like mindless drones and don't question questionable practices.

Exactly. Men don't regrow frenulums. Their glans remain keratinized. They certainly don't regrow foreskins.

This is such an absurd debate in a way. It's an extra procedure, for cryin out loud. Why not just decide that you don't remove parts of the body for no reason and stop doing the procedure.

 

[DrBowtie]

Exactly. Men don't regrow frenulums. Their glans remain keratinized. They certainly don't regrow foreskins.

This is such an absurd debate in a way. It's an extra procedure, for cryin out loud. Why not just decide that you don't remove parts of the body for no reason and stop doing the procedure.

Because there would be a lot of angry jews.

This debate is futile and I can't believe it is still on going. If you don't want to do it, DON'T. Refer them to someone who will. You aren't going to change any minds.

 

[Beau Geste]

Well, I give you sincere credit for admitting that it may be just a contradiction and a gender bias. However, you are not being fair to your future male patients. Seriously, how would you feel if some male doc had the reverse opinion?

Just take a step back and think about what you're saying. You're saying that is okay to remove part of the erogenous tissue on a man, but not on a woman. Again, how would you feel if a guy said the opposite? You would be pissed off, and rightly so. Imagine if you had had part of your clitoris removed without your permission.

Double standards exist all around. Tough titties. In a perfect world life would be perfect. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Some doctors make a living off of extraneous procedures.

I don't see you engaging them in debate.

At this point, I don't want to be an FP, OB/GYN, Peds or Urologist, so I'm not worried about practicing foreskin removal. But, if a parent wanted it, and I WAS in that specialty, I would do it.

And why don't you let me worry about my own parenting?

 

[Beau Geste]

Because there would be a lot of angry jews.

This debate is futile and I can't believe it is still on going. If you don't want to do it, DON'T. Refer them to someone who will. You aren't going to change any minds.

My point exactly!

But guilty for keeping it going.

 

[mvenus929]

Because there would be a lot of angry jews.

As someone has mentioned before, those who get it done for religious reasons typically don't go to a doctor to have the procedure preformed. They have to go to someone who is trained religiously in that area, otherwise the circ. is invalid. So that really shouldn't be considered in this conversation.

 

[zimmie256]

I agree with Beetlerum!

The circumcized penis develops a hard keratinized layer of skin on its top. Uncirc'd penises are softer due to the normal, protective and retractable foreskin. Furthermore, due to the exposure, circ'd penises are LESS sensitive. Any sensory nerves in the tip have been turned off due to overstimulation in the early years. Consequently, men who are circ'd have less sensation. Uncirc'd men have more sensation due to the protective and natural presence of the foreskin, which maintains the tip of the penis in its normal, soft state. Thus, the nerves are preserved and not dulled as in circ'd men.

Finally, it is really sad that the myth about circumcision is perpetuated today. The only reason that the practice was initiated was in an attempt to curb masturbation in teenage boys. But, studies have shown (do the search yourself!) that circ'd boys masturbate a lot earlier than does who are not. Clinically, there is no reason for circumcision. Generally, the parents , and particularly the father, want to have their sons circ'd so that the sons will now 'look' like their dads! That's really sad. Interestingly, the educated population are now turning away from circumcision since there is no reason for it!

And honestly, it doesn't help to be circ'd in sex, either. Why do you think US men are not glorified as great lovers, while the French, Italian, Spanish among other uncirc'd internationals are? Think about it! 😉

Don't forget about the Brazillians... 😉

 

[DrBowtie]

As someone has mentioned before, those who get it done for religious reasons typically don't go to a doctor to have the procedure preformed. They have to go to someone who is trained religiously in that area, otherwise the circ. is invalid. So that really shouldn't be considered in this conversation.

They said the procedure should just be outlawed. So hence forth they are now in the discussion 😉

 

[Beau Geste]

I've had many international boyfriends, and sorry, but the US guys were the best as far as sex goes! 👍

However, the international guys were more romantic. I think THAT'S where the idea of better lover comes in.

 

[beetlerum]

They said the procedure should just be outlawed. So hence forth they are now in the discussion 😉

True, and I'm willing to say that you can't do it for religious reasons, just as you shouldn't be able to remove a girl's clitoris for religious reasons.

 

[beetlerum]

Double standards exist all around. Tough titties. In a perfect world life would be perfect. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Some doctors make a living off of extraneous procedures.

I don't see you engaging them in debate.

At this point, I don't want to be an FP, OB/GYN, Peds or Urologist, so I'm not worried about practicing foreskin removal. But, if a parent wanted it, and I WAS in that specialty, I would do it.

And why don't you let me worry about my own parenting?

I don't understand. Yes, double standards exist, just as immorial behavior exists. But why would you want to participate in this? Why are you so attached to the idea of letting people remove a part of the penis? It is so bizarre.

 

[DrBowtie]

True, and I'm willing to say that you can't do it for religious reasons, just as you shouldn't be able to remove a girl's clitoris for religious reasons.

Again, my response is that Jewish groups have a lot of lobbying power which would never let your law be passed.

 

[beetlerum]

Again, my response is that Jewish groups have a lot of lobbying power which would never let your law be passed.

I didn't know that was your point. My discussion is about the morality of the procedure. But a law isn't needed. If doctors took a stand against the procedure, the one procedure allowing removal of a normal part of an infant's body, it would go a very long way to getting rid of this very very bizarre tradition.

By the way, it was started to stop kids from masturbating. It's acceptance on SDN shows the power of culture.

 

[Quynh2007]

this thread reminded me of something I had read for a class last fall (I took it from my blog since I can't find the original document):

Monday, October 17, 2005

One of the first thing I learned today at 8:24AM:

"For premature babies, expectations of sentience have been even lower; thought, feeling--even the capacity for pain--was dismissed in the baby born early. since the advent of neonatal intensive care units in the late 1960s through the late 1980s, breathing tubes, suction tubes, feeding tubes, and shunts were routienly installed WITHOUT ANY ANESTHESIA. Shrieks of pain and terror were discounted by medical professionals as being reflexive and without meaning....

A 1993 survey showed that 12 percent of doctors performing circumicisions believed that babies do not feel pain, 35% believe they will not remember it even if they do; and only half used any form of anesthesia....

for babies born to loving, welcoming, nurturing families, these early rituals have been a rude shock but have been ameliorated by parental handling and family support. But for babies born into negative or compromised family circumstances where stress has been and will continue, this awakening to life as a painful and discounting experience provides the first factors in the violence equation"

 

[Instatewaiter]

Honestly, this is the stupidest discussion I have ever seen. Really, how did it get to 22 pages? I can't believe I responded. That's 2 minutes of my time that I will never get back. damnit

 

[mvenus929]

I didn't know that was your point. My discussion is about the morality of the procedure. But a law isn't needed. If doctors took a stand against the procedure, the one procedure allowing removal of a normal part of an infant's body, it would go a very long way to getting rid of this very very bizarre tradition.

By the way, it was started to stop kids from masturbating. It's acceptance on SDN shows the power of culture.

If people can deny vaccines for religious reasons, then they should be able to get a foreskin removed for religious reasons. And once again, it doesn't matter if doctors stop performing these procedures, because Jewish people don't do it through doctors, but rather someone trained in the religious ritual. This person may or may not be a doctor. People have different sets of morals... some of you obviously think this is a barbaric procedure (and you're certainly not alone in the course of history), but some people see it as something special, and others see it as beneficial. And I can just see people arguing abortion to this comment, but whatever. Not everyone has the same moral code. If you don't want to perform the procedure, don't. Simple as that.

And circumcisions have taken place for thousands of years. So only the widespread practice of them now may have started to stop kids from masturbating. I'm sure a lot of mothers wanted it done for cleanliness as well, however misguided that may or may not have been.

 

[Jejton]

That's not what I mean- I mean med students lining up to do a vaginal exam on an unconscious woman for the sake of learning, not a necessary medical procedure.

There was a lot of controversy about this- has it changed?

My wife had this happen to her. Neither one of was asked if it was ok ( obviosly it was her, not my decision, but being her husband, I should have been approached at the very least ). At the time, my wife was too embarressed to say anything because of the whole doctor-god aura ( you know, never question the docs ) but she was also embarressed and upset that she was treated like a piece of meat. Noone bothered to mention to her until after the fact that students and residents would be coming in and out of her exam room during a gyno exam ( not a routine one ) and this just added to the humiliation of the whole experience.

 

[Schaden Freud]

Whoa! Blast from the past.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

My wife had this happen to her. Neither one of was asked if it was ok ( obviosly it was her, not my decision, but being her husband, I should have been approached at the very least ). At the time, my wife was too embarressed to say anything because of the whole doctor-god aura ( you know, never question the docs ) but she was also embarressed and upset that she was treated like a piece of meat. Noone bothered to mention to her until after the fact that students and residents would be coming in and out of her exam room during a gyno exam ( not a routine one ) and this just added to the humiliation of the whole experience.

Putting the ethics aside for a second, isn't this a HIPAA violation? Doesn't HIPAA stipulate that only those who must be involved in a patient's care should be privy to the patient's information? It is for this reason that I (or the doctor that I am shadowing) must ask each and every patient whether it is OK for me to observe. I think that if people (i.e. medical students) not involved in your wife's care observed her exam without her consent than that is a HIPAA violation, but I am no expert in these matters.

Whoa! Blast from the past.

I know, I totally forgot about this thread! It was a good one, back in its day!

 

[DrZeke]

here we go...

 

[Depakote]

 

[Writer1985]

Why are people bumping ANCIENT threads? Maybe the forums should state when all threads were started, because this is getting ridiculous.

 

[MonkeyNuts!]

I refuse to do pap smears. I believe the vagina is the house of the female spirit and I am morally opposed to disturbing the sanctity of the vessel.

Your friday nights must suck

 

[kapil_MD]

Your friday nights must suck

LOL....I'm sure he's joking.

 

[ICCONFETTI]

seriously. how old is this thread??

Anyways...

 

[Orthodoc40]

Is there anything that you absolutely will not do? For me, it's circumcision. I absolutely refuse 100% to do this surgery on a newborn without a medical reason, and I wonder if these types of hardline things matter once you show up to med school. I was talking with a Family Practice doc friend of mine yesterday who said that in her class they did 'dog lab' where they take a living dog and anesthetize it, and perform procedures on it, which results in the death of the dog. She said many students refused to do it. So I'm just wondering about things like this... anyone have insight?

In answer to the original question - I absolutely refuse to do any "dog lab" - not that many (do ANY?) schools still do this. Vivisection is out. Period. End of story. Try to make me do it - I quit.

 

[Jejton]

Sorry guys. I only realized how old this thread was after I posted. I'll check the dates of threads from now on.

 

[Jejton]

Putting the ethics aside for a second, isn't this a HIPAA violation? Doesn't HIPAA stipulate that only those who must be involved in a patient's care should be privy to the patient's information? It is for this reason that I (or the doctor that I am shadowing) must ask each and every patient whether it is OK for me to observe. I think that if people (i.e. medical students) not involved in your wife's care observed her exam without her consent than that is a HIPAA violation, but I am no expert in these matters.

I was going to not write on this thread ( after seeing people annoyed at the threads revival ) but I will reply to your question. She was asked if a resident ( or student I dont remember exactly but I can check with her ) can observe. She was not asked if half a dozen can take turns waltzing in during the course of the exam.

 

[Haemulon]

Goddamit. There are many pro-life OB/Gyns who will have nothing to do with elective abortion. There is no requirement at most OB/Gyn programs that residents perform elective abortions if they have moral objections. Some abortions are medically necessary. (Ectopic pregnancy, etc.) Additionally, the procedure for a D & C is the same whether it is an elective abortion or treatment for an incomplete spontaneous abortion. Therefore you will learn appropriate surgical techniques without having to murder babies in the process.

Now, you may find yourself ostracized by your collegues so you need to shop around for programs that are more accepting of diverse points of you (in this case the conservative one).

Please visit my blog at this link for the December archive where you may read an article called "A Subversive Thought" for the true facts about this issue and how it affects physicians.

http://pandabearmd.blogspot.com/2005_12_01_pandabearmd_archive.html

Good post. Regardless of one's personal opinions, just saying "i won't do abortions" seems pretty meaningless/ boderline ignorant. As you said, a D & C is the same procedure whether for a spontaneous miscarraige or an elective termination. And there are a number of other medical indications for pregnancy termination. But even given this, it would not be common to be in a position where one had no choice about performing it.

Also, some of the previous comments by other posters about what structures we are "supposed" to have is just plain silly. That argument against circumcision would then also apply to many plastic surgeries, gastric bi-passes, all kinds of other things. There are many many things that are done to alter or remove "normal" structures or physiological mechanisms in our bodies. It is not like we have an archetype human form that is the formal template to which all humans must comform. To impose an artificial sanctity onto such a theoretical form borderlines on religion. Now, having personal and religious beliefs and values is fine, but lets be real about our justifications. Just my 2 cents.