Would you perform non-necessary circumcisions?

[Hoody]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Babies cry after the circ because they're uncovered and cold.

You know this how? Cause they whispered in your ear, "Smq, you just cut my penis up but I'm all good, I'm just cold"?

Perhaps you should "Please stop conjecturing and assuming about things that you clearly do not know anything about."

 

[Caffeine Junkie]

When every baby in the nursery is going home to a 23 year old unemployed mother of seven with a tattoo on her face it's REALLY hard to convince yourself that, down the line, that kid is going to use condoms regularly.

Who uses condoms? Before I go out I pop a hand full of B-12, Penicillin, and Viagra...Combining that with my full proof "removal" technique never fails. I should teach a sex-ed class! 😀

 

[Hoody]

OH MY GOD.

OH MY GOD.

Whip out (no pun intended) the sound evidence that back your claims and we won't have any problems. Oh wait...there is no sound evidence that male circumcision is medically indicated and should routinely be performed.

You were saying?

 

[swamprat]

I'm surprised that so many people are against circumcisions... I was circumcised as a baby and I don't hate my parents or even remember having it done - and I'm pretty happy about it, none of the ladies complain and they always come back for seconds... I thought most people were circumcised these days. If I have a son he'll get circumcised too.. it decreases risk of HIV and other STDs and its cosmetically more pleasing 😎

 

[smq123]

You know this how? Cause they whispered in your ear, "Smq, you just cut my penis up but I'm all good, I'm just cold"?

Perhaps you should "Please stop conjecturing and assuming about things that you clearly do not know anything about."

Ummm....because when they're covered up, they're asleep, even though I'm snipping away?

I've done circs before, and seen how the kids react. How many have YOU done?

OH MY GOD.

Whip out (no pun intended) the sound evidence that back your claims and we won't have any problems. Oh wait...there is no sound evidence that male circumcision is medically indicated and should routinely be performed.

You were saying?

🙄

That's not my point.

My point is that you CLEARLY have no idea how the procedure is even done. You've never done one, and I'm very doubtful that you've even seen one.

I HAVE done circs. I know what kind of block is used. I've never done one without analgesia. And I have NEVER used lidocaine in the hopes of "controlling bleeding" because I know that lidocaine doesn't...actually....control....bleeding.

I have not claimed, even once, in this thread that circumcision is medically necessary or even the "best" thing to do. That was not my objection to your posts. If you don't want your kid to be circ'ed, that's fine. That's your call. But don't denigrate the ENTIRE practice without having a single clue of a) when it is performed, b) how it is performed, c) the dangers of having it performed later in life.

 

[n3xa]

I noticed that most of the the babies cried A LOT when they were first strapped down on the table, but by the time the gomco clamp was on and it was time to cut, they were a lot more calm, even quiet. I was shadowing a urologist and a FP resident at the time.

I've dated men with anteaters. A little extra skin dun' bother me. A lack of endurance will. 😉

 

[BaronVonZ]

I find it interesting how the general feeling among those against performing the procedure is "I don't want to circumcise my male offspring, therefore I will not allow my patient body to choose otherwise" mixed with a little bit of "there are no medical benefits. I don't care WHAT the research says."

I can appreciate expressing your views on the procedure as an unnecessary risk when speaking with patients, but denying them the procedure?

It frightens me that such people want to become doctors :|

 

[RingTailedDoc]

When every baby in the nursery is going home to a 23 year old unemployed mother of seven with a tattoo on her face it's REALLY hard to convince yourself that, down the line, that kid is going to use condoms regularly.

Why don't we just cut the whole thing off then, since circumcision only reduces disease transmission and doesn't prevent it. Penile amputation would do the trick. Since infants born into less than ideal circumstances will always make poor choices, let's just nip it in the bud 🙄.

No, no, no, no, no. Circumcisions become a HUGE deal for anyone past the newborn stage. Newborns heal up from the circ on their own. It's a very routine procedure.

Anyone past the newborn stage? REQUIRES SUTURES. The remaining piece of foreskin will not heal and re-attach to the skin without being sutured in place.

A urologist once told me that the BEST time to circumcise a child is at birth. Anything past that requires GENERAL anesthesia (I guess you could do a spinal, though), an OR, and suturing the remaining foreskin back to the shaft.

And I would not say that there is no benefit to circumcision. If you've ever had a patient come to your office or the ER with phimosis (or, worse PARAphimosis ), you will see the benefits to circumcision!

Interesting point, I didn't realize circumcision was more complex in older children/adults. That should definitely be mentioned to parents when recommending circumcision, in addition to a summary of the other benefits and risks. Although I'm not so sure phimosis is a valid basis for circumcision on its own, as it seems to occur in <1% of uncircumsized males. Risks of complications from circumcision seem to be at or above that number.

 

[Barcu]

Does it not also prove my point? I am aruging against it because there is lack of sufficient and consistent evidence that proves its of any real benefit.

And I said there are medical risks. Are you really going to routinely perform a procedure in which the overall risk outweighs any benefit because its socially favorable?

The risks are just as great as the benefits (if not more). You keep trying to down play the risks because you obviously are pro circumcision. That's not being unbiased and its a disservice to your patients.

perhaps people on this board don't agree with performing a procedure that isn't medically indicated? You argue earlier that doctors cannot make the decision to circumsize independent of the parents and here you are saying that doctors shouldn't be allowed to refuse. In other words, parents can force the doctor to perform a procedure that is not shown to be of any medical need. Makes perfect sense. 😕

Because the lit says there are potential risks and benefits, I think the evidence proves both of our points. And due to that, routine circumcision is not recommended, but left up to the parents to decide (taking in medical, cultural, and social factors).

I am not necessarily pro-circumcision. I do not have a boy and honestly do not know what I would do. However, I feel that the choice should be up to the parents. And I personally believe that the medical benefits are noteworthy. But again, they do not indicate that everyone needs to be circumsized.

I would never try and influence parents to circumsize. I would let them know of the risks and benefits. The only reason I am coming off as biased is because many people in this thread do not seem to know much about the procedure and are having gut reactions that it is "wrong" or "mutilation." Yes there are risks. But for the most part, it is a quick and safe procedure.

And you are twisting my words. I said I disagree with those who say they wouldn't perform the procedure. I never said they should be forced to.

There are some posts right above me that you need to read too, from someone who has actually done the procedure.

Thank you smq123 for clarifying some things.

 

[cowme]

 

[Negrodamus]

Why would someone want to cut out a piece of their dick?

 

[Hoody]

That's not my point.

Its not my point either (or intended to be). This isnt about HOW the proceudre is done, this is about WHY or WHY NOT the procedure shuold be done.

Perhaps we got a little off track on the logistics of the procedure but in reality, we were mainly trying to discuss the necessity of the procedure itself.

I've dated men with anteaters. A little extra skin dun' bother me. A lack of endurance will. 😉

😱

 

[Caffeine Junkie]

Because it just looks silly, I mean...


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

[Negrodamus]

I find it interesting how the general feeling among those against performing the procedure is "I don't want to circumcise my male offspring, therefore I will not allow my patient body to choose otherwise" mixed with a little bit of "there are no medical benefits. I don't care WHAT the research says."

I can appreciate expressing your views on the procedure as an unnecessary risk when speaking with patients, but denying them the procedure?

It frightens me that such people want to become doctors :|

It frightens me more that potential physicians propagate the mutilation of non-consenting newborns. We could remove many body parts and organs that have a chance of becoming pathogenic. Hell, we could save over half a million women and untold billions of dollars a year by performing a double mastectomy on every newborn girl.

 

[Hoody]

It frightens me more that potential physicians propagate the mutilation of non-consenting newborns. We could remove many body parts and organs that have a chance of becoming pathogenic. Hell, we could save over half a million women and untold billions of dollars a year by performing a double mastectomy on every newborn girl.

Nail on the head, yo.

Why don't we just prophylacticly remove everyone's gallbladder, appendix, adenoids and tonsils when they are born as well (especially since those tend to give much more problems later in life than an uncut dick). 👍

 

[Hoody]

There are some posts right above me that you need to read too, from someone who has actually done the procedure.

I'm not twisting your words, or trying to. I'm just telling you how I interpreted them. I appreciate your clarification.

Regarding your statement about "need to read"....what does having performed the procedure have to do with the actual need for the procedure?

I really could give a flying frick how the procedure is done. I want to know WHY its being done so often when there is really no indication.

 

[Barcu]

It frightens me more that potential physicians propagate the mutilation of non-consenting newborns. We could remove many body parts and organs that have a chance of becoming pathogenic. Hell, we could save over half a million women and untold billions of dollars a year by performing a double mastectomy on every newborn girl.

It frightens me the most (and mostest) that you think this is a convincing argument against circumcision.

That is my cue to exit this once-relatively intelligent discussion. Again, I understand the argument against circumcision. I think an argument can be made to circumsize and not to cirumsize.

THAT IS WHY IT IS NOT ROUTINE AND LEFT UP TO THE PARENTS TO DECIDE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[smq123]

Its not my point either (or intended to be). This isnt about HOW the proceudre is done, this is about WHY or WHY NOT the procedure shuold be done.

Perhaps we got a little off track on the logistics of the procedure but in reality, we were mainly trying to discuss the necessity of the procedure itself.

Fair enough.

But don't blast other people for "not reading the evidence" on the risks of circumcision, without having taken the time to educate yourself on circs and how they are done.

If you're against circs because they're not medically necessary, are you opposed to doing Botox, breast augmentation, liposuction, rhinoplasty, and other medically unnecessary procedures? Are you also opposed to people taking antibiotics for OM when it (probably) isn't strictly medically necessary either? Epidurals during pregnancy aren't, strictly speaking, medically necessary either (considering that our great-grandparents had kids without them)....are you opposed to those? Neither is continuous EFM, but that's a different discussion for a different day.

A lot of what we do in medicine isn't strictly medically necessary, if you stop and think about it.

 

[Myuu]

I suppose you missed the bits about cultural traditions and safety concerns (i.e. the bulk of the thread)?

 

[NickNaylor]

OH MY GOD.

Whip out (no pun intended) the sound evidence that back your claims and we won't have any problems. Oh wait...there is no sound evidence that male circumcision is medically indicated and should routinely be performed.

You were saying?

There's no evidence that breast augmentation, rhinoplasty, or any host of cosmetic procedures are medically indicated. Are you against those as well?

Edit: didn't see smq's post above...

 

[Barcu]

I'm not twisting your words, or trying to. I'm just telling you how I interpreted them. I appreciate your clarification.

Regarding your statement about "need to read"....what does having performed the procedure have to do with the actual need for the procedure?

I really could give a flying frick how the procedure is done. I want to know WHY its being done so often when there is really no indication.

Fine. I'll respond to you one more time since our discussion was still ongoing.

Babies don't NEED to be circumsized. There, you happy? But there are very good reasons to do so. That is why it is left up to the parents to decide and not routine. And the "let the kids decide" argument is not very convincing. There are complications if you do the procedure later and life. And parents make decisions for kids, that is there job until the kid is 18.

Just because something isn't necessary does not mean we shouldn't do it. That is true for medicine and life in general.

 

[Torr]

it decreases risk of hiv and other stds and its cosmetically more pleasing 😎

+1

 

[Hoody]

If you're against circs because they're not medically necessary, are you opposed to doing Botox, breast augmentation, liposuction, rhinoplasty, and other medically unnecessary procedures?

No, because generally these people are consenting for themselves.

Are you also opposed to people taking antibiotics for OM when it (probably) isn't strictly medically necessary either?

Yes, most definitely. Are you not?

Epidurals during pregnancy aren't, strictly speaking, medically necessary either (considering that our great-grandparents had kids without them)....are you opposed to those?

No, again, consenting adult makes choice here.

A lot of what we do in medicine isn't strictly medically necessary, if you stop and think about it.

Other than cosmetic surgery, I really can't think of any procedures outside of circumcision that are routinely performed in which the immediate risks outweigh the long term benefits. Can you?

 

[Negrodamus]

There's no evidence that breast augmentation, rhinoplasty, or any host of cosmetic procedures are medically indicated. Are you against those as well?

Edit: didn't see smq's post above...

I think your missing the point. It isn't only medical necessity, it is the fact that a non-needed medical procedure is being done to someone who doesn't have the ability to consent.

Would you be comfortable performing plastic surgery on a toddler or someone with profound mental ******ation? If not, how can you rationalize circumcision, which is essentially a cosmetic procedure for anyone who can understand what a condom is?

 

[Wolfman89]

Especially by members of BYU basketball team.

lmao

oh snap.


how do you get caught for that shiz anyway? hahahha.

I'm pretty sure he knocked up his girlfriend. Even if he hadn't we still would have beaten them Wednesday night.

One of my colleagues had a patient on service years ago, a teenage male, who had to be circumcised out of medical necessity (I cannot recall the precise reason). Being a teenage male, the day after the procedure he began developing good ol' morning wood, which, in combination with the freshly stitched wound... well, let's just say you could hear the screaming down the hall.

Ouch.

 

[Perrotfish]

Would you be comfortable performing plastic surgery on a toddler?

Sort answer is yes, and its done quite often for a variety of what are ultimately cosmetic congential defects. Extra fingers and toes get removed, cleft lips get repaired, warts get burned off, ears get pierced and plenty of middle class suburban kids get really, really painful procedures done by orthodontists and dermatologists before they're old enough to consent to care. Circumcision is a 5 minute procedure with a nerve block, my teeth were in agony for 3 YEARS with those f-ing braces. And none of those procedures have medical benifits anything like significantly reducing STD transmission or preventing phimosis. Parents are responsible for their children, and that includes their children's medical care.

 

[tabascosauce]

it seems like hoody.......is adamant..............about keeping his hoody............







YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

 

[Negrodamus]

Sort answer is yes, and its done quite often for a variety of what are ultimately cosmetic congential defects.

When has foreskin ever been considered a congenital defect?

And none of those procedures have medical benifits anything like significantly reducing STD transmission or preventing phimosis.

Wouldn't condom use and abstinence be a better method of preventing and reducing rates of STIs?

I'll ask this question again, should parents be able to elect a double mastectomy for their new born girls for cultural/religious/social/potential-medical reasons?

 

[Kaustikos]

I really could give a flying frick how the procedure is done. I want to know WHY its being done so often when there is really no indication.

Go here and read post #7

 

[LizzyM]

I'll ask this question again, should parents be able to elect a double mastectomy for their new born girls for cultural/religious/social/potential-medical reasons?

If you are asking that question, you are too ignorant of physiology of lactation and the link between breasts and infant nutrition to deserve an answer.

 

[Geekchick921]

If you are asking that question, you are too ignorant of physiology of lactation and the link between breasts and infant nutrition to deserve an answer.

Seriously.

Also, I can't help but think that is a completely pointless procedure, as any remaining breast tissue (and you never get all of it) will develop at puberty anyway. Also, even a prophylactic bilateral mastectomy in adult women isn't fool proof, as again, you cannot get all of the breast tissue down by the muscle, and it can still become cancerous.

 

[CougarMD]

If you are asking that question, you are too ignorant of physiology of lactation and the link between breasts and infant nutrition to deserve an answer.

😍
Sounds like you are affiliated with a baby-friendly hospital, Lizzy 🙂

 

[O2Doc]

Fair enough.

But don't blast other people for "not reading the evidence" on the risks of circumcision, without having taken the time to educate yourself on circs and how they are done.

If you're against circs because they're not medically necessary, are you opposed to doing Botox, breast augmentation, liposuction, rhinoplasty, and other medically unnecessary procedures? Are you also opposed to people taking antibiotics for OM when it (probably) isn't strictly medically necessary either? Epidurals during pregnancy aren't, strictly speaking, medically necessary either (considering that our great-grandparents had kids without them)....are you opposed to those? Neither is continuous EFM, but that's a different discussion for a different day.

A lot of what we do in medicine isn't strictly medically necessary, if you stop and think about it.

True. And like you when I saw babies being circumcised they cried at the restraint and the cold, and had usually stopped crying by the time the procedure was about to begin.

But in my experience most parents choose to circumcise for cultural or religious reasons, not because they pored over studies and position statements from medical associations. So I wonder how many people who have no problem circumcising boys would be willing to support/perform hoodectomies on baby girls for cultural reasons.
(And I'm specifying hoodectomy, rather than clitoridectomy or infibulation, because that's the procedure most analogous with male circumcision. It is also a type plastic surgery that is performed on adult women with their full consent, so we're not talking medical horrors here).

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

You truly are.. extra spicy today .

 

[orthomyxo]

It frightens me more that potential physicians propagate the mutilation of non-consenting newborns. We could remove many body parts and organs that have a chance of becoming pathogenic. Hell, we could save over half a million women and untold billions of dollars a year by performing a double mastectomy on every newborn girl.

Nail on the head, yo.

Why don't we just prophylacticly remove everyone's gallbladder, appendix, adenoids and tonsils when they are born as well (especially since those tend to give much more problems later in life than an uncut dick). 👍

Here are the only two people in here that are making any sense. I'm getting pissed off, so I'm going to whip out (no pun intended) some scientific ****.

Ever heard of female circumcision? It involves the removal of the clitoris. Can somebody tell me how male circumcision is different, other than the fact that, in just about every context, the former is considered to be a severe form of mutilation and a violation of human rights? And if you say the analogous procedure is a hoodectomy, please enlighten me with its medical indication in otherwise healthy patients.

No significant difference between cut and uncut men in terms of STD contraction: http://www.cirp.org/library/general/laumann/

I'm done with this thread.

 

[Negrodamus]

If you are asking that question, you are too ignorant of physiology of lactation and the link between breasts and infant nutrition to deserve an answer.

I may have gotten the specifics wrong but the question is still valid. What should be the limit on performing medical procedures on non-consenting individuals? What else can you remove and why, if you can remove foreskin for cultural or potential medical reasons.

I'm not trolling, I'm looking for a serous answer.

 

[Geekchick921]

Here are the only two people in here that are making any sense. I'm getting pissed off, so I'm going to whip out (no pun intended) some scientific ****.

Ever heard of female circumcision? It involves the removal of the clitoris. Can somebody tell me how male circumcision is different, other than the fact that, in just about every context, the former is considered to be a severe form of mutilation and a violation of human rights?

No significant difference between cut and uncut men in terms of STD contraction: http://www.cirp.org/library/general/laumann/

YAY! Someone FINALLY pulled this ridiculous comparison out.

Are you serious or are you really that dim?

1. Female circumcision (often referred to as female genital mutilation, FGM) is illegal and classifies as child abuse in this country. Male circumcision counts as neither of those.
2. FGM is usually performed on older children, without any anesthesia, by someone other than a medical professional, and usually with instruments that you'd never see in an OR, like razors, scissors, broken glass, etc. Male circumcision in this country is generally performed with some form of analgesia and with proper, sterile surgical equipment.
3. Male circ involves removing the foreskin of the penis. Even the most mild forms of FGM usually involve removing part or all of the clitoris. The most severe forms of FGM involve "the entire clitoris and some or all of the labia minora are excised, and incisions are made in the labia majora to create raw surfaces. The labial raw surfaces are stitched together to cover the urethra and vaginal introitus, leaving a small posterior opening for urinary and menstrual flow. In Type III FGM, the patient will have a firm band of tissue replacing the labia and obliteration of the urethra and vaginal openings." or "different practices of variable severity including pricking, piercing or incision of the clitoris and/or labia; stretching of the clitoris and/or labia; cauterization of the clitoris; and scraping or introduction of corrosive substances into the vagina." The anatomy is difficult to compare, but last time I checked, male circumcision doesn't involve burning the glans of the penis, sewing the urethra shut, or scraping the urethra with a pipe cleaner dipped in Comet.
4. There are no documented medical benefits to FGM that I have ever heard of. There are several for male circ, but the thing is that they are for problems that are rare to begin with. If I had to guess, this is likely why the AAP has the stance on male circumcision that it has.
5. Complications and life-long effects of FGM are more common and more severe than those of male circumcision, due to the manner and severity of the procedure. There are a lot of them and you can read ALL about them in the links below.

Sources:
AAP Circumcision Policy Statement
AAP FGM Policy Statement

 

[Kaustikos]

Female circumcision just sounds....ugh. How can you be so daft to think it's a logical comparison to male circumcision?

 

[smq123]

Other than cosmetic surgery, I really can't think of any procedures outside of circumcision that are routinely performed in which the immediate risks outweigh the long term benefits. Can you?

Well,

1) You're kind assuming that there are NO long term benefits to circumcision, or that they're so miniscule as to be negligible. I disagree in that there ARE some benefits to circumcision, although they're not necessarily uber-compelling. But they're there, and I wouldn't say that they're negligible either.

2) There are a few cancer operations where the immediate risk is quite high, and the long term benefits are sort of...meh. The Whipple is probably the best-known of these. It's quite a dangerous procedure (it's one of the rules of surgery: don't f*** with the pancreas), and I've seen people come very close to dying after it, even though it's done so frequently now as to be considered routine at some centers. (As a med student, I scrubbed in on 3 a week during my surgery rotation.) The 5 year survival rates after it aren't very impressive either - around 20%. Really, for a lot of people who have it done, they're hanging on to the hope that it will be curative for them, even though we know it isn't for most. Does that mean we should stop offering it?

Treating certain rare pediatric brain cancers, too, offers high immediate risks, and questionable long term benefit. Even IF they do survive the cancer, they're almost certain not to come out of the treatment mentally intact. And we treat these kids without THEIR consent; like circumcision, the decision is made by the parents. But that's what often happens - these kids are alive, but by treating them you're dooming them to the likelihood that they will face a future of profound (iatrogenic) mental ******ation. Does that mean that the treatment shouldn't be offered?

Same thing with the super-premie babies that they work so hard to save in the NICU. VERY high risk treatments for most of these babies, with no certainty that they'll survive the next few weeks. Even if they do survive, again, there is always a high likelihood that they will have severe physical and mental limitations. Do we not try to save them? We can't ask the babies if they're willing to live a life filled with such physical and mental limitations...so do we not bother?

So yeah, lots of things that we do in medicine that don't ensure any long term benefit, but with a lot of immediate risk. Compare that to circumcision, which might not offer a lot of long term benefit, but pretty low immediate risk.

 

[RingTailedDoc]

Here are the only two people in here that are making any sense. I'm getting pissed off, so I'm going to whip out (no pun intended) some scientific ****.

Ever heard of female circumcision? It involves the removal of the clitoris. Can somebody tell me how male circumcision is different, other than the fact that, in just about every context, the former is considered to be a severe form of mutilation and a violation of human rights?

No significant difference between cut and uncut men in terms of STD contraction: http://www.cirp.org/library/general/laumann/

I'm on the "boy with the junk should have the right to choose and not the parents" side, but I don't think this is a valid argument. Male circumcision involves removal of the foreskin, and has a small effect on sensitivity if any. Female circumcision is total removal of the clitoris and wipes out most female sexual stimulation (it would be the equivalent of removing a man's entire penis). And there aren't any health benefits - instead there's far greater health risks.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Here are the only two people in here that are making any sense. I'm getting pissed off, so I'm going to whip out (no pun intended) some scientific ****.

Ever heard of female circumcision? It involves the removal of the clitoris. Can somebody tell me how male circumcision is different, other than the fact that, in just about every context, the former is considered to be a severe form of mutilation and a violation of human rights?

No significant difference between cut and uncut men in terms of STD contraction: http://www.cirp.org/library/general/laumann/

Male circumcision isn't a tool of sexism and degradation of men. Female genital mutilation is foremost a method of degrading women into devices for your amusement.

 

[donttazemebro]

I'm on the "boy with the junk should have the right to choose and not the parents" side, but I don't think this is a valid argument. Male circumcision involves removal of a small portion of the penis, and has a small effect on sensitivity if any. Female circumcision is total removal of the clitoris and wipes out most female sexual stimulation (it would be the equivalent of removing a man's entire penis). And there aren't any health benefits - instead there's far greater health risks.

WHAT? last i checked they just remove skin.

 

[RingTailedDoc]

WHAT? last i checked they just remove double flapped skin.

you're right, I meant foreskin. oops 😳

 

[Torr]

If your problem is that parents make decisions for their unconsenting child, that’s just stupid. What are you supposed to do for the first part of your child’s life when they can’t communicate? Now I can’t even pick out a wall-paper theme for my infants nursery cause who’s to say he/she will actually like Thundercats? I’m oldschool.
There’s no social negative stigma towards circumcised penises, the procedure has become so routine that very rarely do things go wrong, and if pain is minimized then what’s the problem? Lopping off your daughter’s breast?? What?
It has been shown to reduce HIV risk and there is enough faith in the studies backing this that public health officials sent docs overseas to places like Africa just to perform circ’s on populations with high HIV mortality rates.
Is this an issue for anyone as an adult? Are guys realizing at 21 that “Man, I wish I had never been circumcised!” I’ve honestly never heard a complaint from an adult male about missing his foreskin

 

[Barcu]

I may have gotten the specifics wrong but the question is still valid. What should be the limit on performing medical procedures on non-consenting individuals? What else can you remove and why, if you can remove foreskin for cultural or potential medical reasons.

I'm not trolling, I'm looking for a serous answer.

Here is your serious answer. Circumcision is a quck, safe procedure with known medical benefits (whether you think these are significant is up to you and why the stance of medical professions is that it is up to the parents to decide). There are risks of course, but they are rarely serious or long-term.

Not all surgeries meet those criteria, ESPECIALLY female circumcision (I know that wasn't you who said that but still emphasizing it). Comparing circumcision to masectomies is not an apt comparison either.

And children are not "non-consenting individuals." Parents have the legal power to decide for them. Perrotfish listed many examples of parents and medical professionals operating on children. If you have a problem with the laws of our country, that is an entirely different issue.

 

[O2Doc]

YAY! Someone FINALLY pulled this ridiculous comparison out.

Are you serious or are you really that dim?

1. Female circumcision (often referred to as female genital mutilation, FGM) is illegal and classifies as child abuse in this country. Male circumcision counts as neither of those.
2. FGM is usually performed on older children, without any anesthesia, by someone other than a medical professional, and usually with instruments that you'd never see in an OR, like razors, scissors, broken glass, etc. Male circumcision in this country is generally performed with some form of analgesia and with proper, sterile surgical equipment.
3. Male circ involves removing the foreskin of the penis. Even the most mild forms of FGM usually involve removing part or all of the clitoris. The most severe forms of FGM involve "the entire clitoris and some or all of the labia minora are excised, and incisions are made in the labia majora to create raw surfaces. The labial raw surfaces are stitched together to cover the urethra and vaginal introitus, leaving a small posterior opening for urinary and menstrual flow. In Type III FGM, the patient will have a firm band of tissue replacing the labia and obliteration of the urethra and vaginal openings." or "different practices of variable severity including pricking, piercing or incision of the clitoris and/or labia; stretching of the clitoris and/or labia; cauterization of the clitoris; and scraping or introduction of corrosive substances into the vagina." The anatomy is difficult to compare, but last time I checked, male circumcision doesn't involve burning the glans of the penis, sewing the urethra shut, or scraping the urethra with a pipe cleaner dipped in Comet.
4. There are no documented medical benefits to FGM that I have ever heard of. There are several for male circ, but the thing is that they are for problems that are rare to begin with. If I had to guess, this is likely why the AAP has the stance on male circumcision that it has.
5. Complications and life-long effects of FGM are more common and more severe than those of male circumcision, due to the manner and severity of the procedure. There are a lot of them and you can read ALL about them in the links below.

Sources:
AAP Circumcision Policy Statement
AAP FGM Policy Statement

Type II and III. But hoodectomy (type I FMG) is analogous, it's embryologically the same tissue, doing the same job of protecting the glans.

So as long as it's performed by a surgeon in a hospital on an infant girl, is hoodectomy for cultural reasons acceptable?

 

[RingTailedDoc]

I’ve honestly never heard a complaint from an adult male about missing his foreskin

maybe not his foreskin but...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

 

[Torr]

YAY! Someone FINALLY pulled this ridiculous comparison out.

Wow. I have never seen the procedure for this but thank you Geekchick921. I'm going to have nightmares involving comet.

 

[Geekchick921]

Type II and III. But hoodectomy (type I FMG) is analogous, it's embryologically the same tissue, doing the same job of protecting the glans.

So as long as it's performed by a surgeon in a hospital on an infant girl, is hoodectomy for cultural reasons acceptable?

To the best of my knowledge, there is no known medical benefit to any kind of female circumcision, including hoodectomy (and even Type 1 FGM may involve removal of part or all of the clitoris), and it is illegal in this country, so IMO no.

I have heard of doctors considering legimitizing a modified form of FGM. I'm personally not a fan of that, either, but it would be the lesser of two evils if it meant avoiding having a child held down why someone carves her up with a pair of scissors.

 

[0919mmk]

The thing that bothers me about this whole discussion is that we are ignoring the origin of this practice. It is/was primarily a religious practice - any evidence for health benefits are purely "retrospective" in that this procedure was not invented for medical reasons. It was invented based on "faith", and then studies were done that happened to back it up with medical benefits (and other studies showed no medical benefits)

100 years ago, circs were done with no known medical benfit. Since then, studies were done, but esentially, you are still mutilating (or call it whatever you want if that's too harsh a word) a baby's body without consent.

I don't mean to bash on religious practices, but there's definitely some christian-judeo-centrism going on. You and I think that female circumcision is pretty barbaric (for good reason, in my opinion). But male curcumcision could definitely be seen as barbaric by the standards of a culture that doesn't cut the male foreskin off... just take a step back for a minute is all...

Oh and cole/junkie, it only looks like an anteater if you have a choad