Would you perform non-necessary circumcisions?

[FlowRate]

---

Members do not see this ad.

absolutely not. 75% of you said you would commit surgical rape of children with out any hesitation in this thread.

Obviously ethics and detailed circumcision information are not required for you to know or for the parent's to know before permanently maiming their children with cosmetic amputations that are designed and intended to denude, desensitize, and immobilize another persons sexual organs.

I seriously doubt any of you had this information available in your text books, and i doubt even less that you will even be able to convey that information to parents.

No benefits are proven , but the harms and losses are.

But Craig, it's how we've always done things!

+1, good posts.

 

[LizzyM]

You are doctors and not rabbis, not religious figures. Stop activley promoting bronze age blood rights. The harms and losses that are proven, the benefits are not proven. This is what you need to convey to parents. Your job is not to mediate cultural rituals but to practice real medicine in response to actual aliments.

You have strong opinions. What are your responses to the following questions:

would you try to talk parents out of it?

would you refer to it a religious/cultural practice that has no place in modern medicine?

would you refer parents to a physician willing to perform the procedure?

 

[LizzyM]

I would defiantly talk parents out of it. I would first ask them why they want to do it. Then explain how and whay their reasons are irrational and unfounded. Then i would give them a binder of my notes. And encourage them to read it before deciding on the procedure.

Yes this has no place in modern medicine. For those who do think it is a relegious procedure i would show them my religion post i gave earlier. Further more hospital circs have no religious validity, hence children are denied religious rights.

I would not refer parents to a physician to have it done. Studys show that the more effort it takes to get it done the less likley they are to do it. For example, Ending medicaid coverage is a good proven technique.

You've got a good start for a personal statement right there.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

mr. g were you the victim of a tragic snip gone wrong incident

 

[FIREitUP]

You've got a good start for a personal statement right there.

+1, I look forward to working with Craig as a physician.

This thread is absolutely ridiculous; I think hoody is blaming her boyfriend's small penis on his circumcision. Get over it Hoody, it would have been small with or without a circumcision.

 

[FlowRate]

You've got a good start for a personal statement right there.

You seem to be pro-circumcision, why? Clearly the medical literature is conflicted on whether there is real, statistically valid benefit.

Would you (or any other circumcision defender reading this) refer a female child and her parents to a physician who was willing to perform a non-necessary labiaplasty, because the parents believed in religious FGM?

 

[0919mmk]

Craig thanks for your very sensible posts. I was trying to make a couple of these points earlier, and you've said it all very reasonably and logically, the bottom line being that this is an unnecessary procedure.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

You seem to be pro-circumcision, why? Clearly the medical literature is conflicted on whether there is real, statistically valid benefit.

Would you (or any other circumcision defender reading this) refer a female child and her parents to a physician who was willing to perform a non-necessary labiaplasty, because the parents believed in religious FGM?

And would you realize that effectively comparing FGM to circumcision is basically the equivalent of saying Hitler in an argument. You lose by default.

FGM: A means of sexism and degradation of women into objects and property.
Circumcision: The removal of a piece of unimportant skin which will overall cause very little harm or anything to the child. Is it necessary? No.. But is it a tool of sexism and making men feel lesser? No!

 

[0919mmk]

And would you realize that effectively comparing FGM to circumcision is basically the equivalent of saying Hitler in an argument. You lose by default.

FGM: A means of sexism and degradation of women into objects and property.
Circumcision: The removal of a piece of unimportant skin which will overall cause very little harm or anything to the child. Is it necessary? No.. But is it a tool of sexism and making men feel lesser? No!

You should really read a couple of the references Craig is quoting. a) It is not an unimportant piece of skin. b) It does cause harm, including psychological harm. c) It is a tool of sexism in that it's original purpose was to reduce the male sexual capacity (esp. for masturbation). FGM we can all agree is evil, but it would probably be a lot less easy to agree that if 75% of women reading this had been mutilated like that themselves.

 

[FlowRate]

And would you realize that effectively comparing FGM to circumcision is basically the equivalent of saying Hitler in an argument. You lose by default.

FGM: A means of sexism and degradation of women into objects and property.
Circumcision: The removal of a piece of unimportant skin which will overall cause very little harm or anything to the child. Is it necessary? No.. But is it a tool of sexism and making men feel lesser? No!

You obviously don't understand that female circumcision is a cultural religious practice. I am asking about if people would perform it on babies.

Many rituals have been spawned from Christianity, focusing on reducing the sexuality of the males in the culture. They are similar.

How about someone address the question instead of hand-waving then posing a strawman argument? Anyone posting an opinion in this thread should clearly answer these two questions below before going any further:

1a. Would you cut the non-necessary* tissue of a baby girl's genitalia, because the parents asked you to? Why?

1b. Would you cut the non-necessary tissue of a baby boy's genitalia, because the parents asked you to? Why?

2. Do you believe parents have sole, proprietary ownership over their children's bodies? Why?

*we'll concede that, even though it's factually incorrect for male and female children

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

You should really read a couple of the references Craig is quoting. a) It is not an unimportant piece of skin. b) It does cause harm, including psychological harm. c) It is a tool of sexism in that it's original purpose was to reduce the male sexual capacity (esp. for masturbation). FGM we can all agree is evil, but it would probably be a lot less easy to agree that if 75% of women reading this had been mutilated like that themselves.

Relative to a finger it is an unimportant piece of skin. Also I'd really like a non-Freudian explanation of how it can cause psychological damage. I'd also like to see documents from the original implementation of circumcision to which express such sentiments. Alright since those don't really exist.. I'd like to see how the implementation of circumcision proved to reduce masturbation in the populace. I'd be hell bent to say that statistics will say it didn't.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

You obviously don't understand that female circumcision is a cultural religious practice. I am asking about if people would perform it on babies.

Many rituals have been spawned from Christianity, focusing on reducing the sexuality of the males in the culture. They are similar.

How about someone address the question instead of hand-waving then posing a strawman argument? Anyone posting an opinion in this thread should clearly answer these two questions below before going any further:

1a. Would you cut the non-necessary* tissue of a baby girl's genitalia, because the parents asked you to? Why?

1b. Would you cut the non-necessary tissue of a baby boy's genitalia, because the parents asked you to? Why?

2. Do you believe parents have sole, proprietary ownership over their children's bodies? Why?

*we'll concede that, even though it's factually incorrect for male and female children

you speak for a we now?

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

You obviously don't understand that female circumcision is a cultural religious practice. I am asking about if people would perform it on babies.

Many rituals have been spawned from Christianity, focusing on reducing the sexuality of the males in the culture. They are similar.

How about someone address the question instead of hand-waving then posing a strawman argument? Anyone posting an opinion in this thread should clearly answer these two questions below before going any further:

1a. Would you cut the non-necessary* tissue of a baby girl's genitalia, because the parents asked you to? Why?

1b. Would you cut the non-necessary tissue of a baby boy's genitalia, because the parents asked you to? Why?

2. Do you believe parents have sole, proprietary ownership over their children's bodies? Why?

*we'll concede that, even though it's factually incorrect for male and female children

If you want to be addressed you should give us the same courtesy that you demand. I.e droping the ridiculous strawman you're employing yourself.

 

[Negrodamus]

If you want to be addressed you should give us the same courtesy that you demand. I.e droping the ridiculous strawman you're employing yourself.

How is it a straw man? Removing a piece of skin is removing a piece of skin. Let's say the parents wanted you to remove the clitoral hood. Would you still perform it like you would a male circ.

 

[FlowRate]

If you want to be addressed you should give us the same courtesy that you demand. I.e droping the ridiculous strawman you're employing yourself.

"No u!"

There is no strawman here. I am distilling the issue to its core components.

 

[FlowRate]

you speak for a we now?

It's a concession I made in response to his point, i.e. we. Concede in the sense that it will not be the focus of debate for the time being. Good try at being funny though. 👍

You're welcome to actually contribute to the current discussion. I know you're a smart, articulate guy when you want to be.


------------------


Keeping this on track:

1a. Would you cut the non-necessary* tissue of a baby girl's genitalia, because the parents asked you to? Why?

1b. Would you cut the non-necessary tissue of a baby boy's genitalia, because the parents asked you to? Why?

2. Do you believe parents have sole, proprietary ownership over their children's bodies? Why?

 

[dmission]

No, I would not. I don't believe in the benefits of circumcision, nor do I agree with the procedure itself (i.e. no analgesic). To me, it makes absolutely no sense to cut off a part of a newborn's genitals, no matter how many studies you can cite showing reduced transmission/infection of or by blah blah.

Anyone else see a problem here?

 

[RogueUnicorn]

It's a concession I made in response to his point, i.e. we. Concede in the sense that it will not be the focus of debate for the time being. Good try at being funny though. 👍

how was that funny? concessions are made by one party, you don't concede things together. i was mainly hoping you were being royal.

You're welcome to actually contribute to the current discussion. I know you're a smart guy when you want to be.

wow flashbacks to elementary school. thanks mrs. miller

 

[FlowRate]

Relative to a finger it is an unimportant piece of skin. Also I'd really like a non-Freudian explanation of how it can cause psychological damage. I'd also like to see documents from the original implementation of circumcision to which express such sentiments. Alright since those don't really exist.. I'd like to see how the implementation of circumcision proved to reduce masturbation in the populace. I'd be hell bent to say that statistics will say it didn't.

Separation of the circumcised foreskin from the glands is extremely painful for some and definitely worrisome as well.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Separation of the circumcised foreskin from the glands is extremely painful for some and definitely worrisome as well.

Source? I'd like you to provide evidence which examines primarily children whom are circumcised.

 

[Negrodamus]

Source? I'd like you to provide evidence which examines primarily children whom are circumcised.

What evidence do you need. Of course it hurts to have someone cut off a piece of your junk.

 

[FlowRate]

Source? I'd like you to provide evidence which examines primarily children whom are circumcised.

Read G's posts from earlier. He actually has scholarly literature. All I have is anecdote. It's really aside from the point, though. Those are secondary results. I'm talking primary issues, as the secondary stuff has been beaten to death over the last 5 pages.

------------------


Keeping this on track:

1a. Would you cut the non-necessary* tissue of a baby girl's genitalia, because the parents asked you to? Why?

1b. Would you cut the non-necessary tissue of a baby boy's genitalia, because the parents asked you to? Why?

2. Do you believe parents have sole, proprietary ownership over their children's bodies? Why?


Results from thread so far: Literature is conflicted on whether there is any statistically significant medical benefit. There is the potential for serious negative side-effects, as with all surgeries. We are assuming the tissue is actually not necessary.

 

[Barcu]

I am not an expert on neither male or female anatomy. But I think coming up with an analagous situation in females is a weak argument. This has already been discussed in previous pages.

Yes, there sure are a lot of sources referenced, which overwhelms you into believing the opinions of Craig G. But many of the sources are older, and many sources are questionable (look back at Parts Unknown's post where he links to the letters to the editor of some of the studies. It raises some questions). Not to say they aren't legitmate, but the debate is complicated, and both sides are trying to over-simplify the debate and discredit sources from both sides. Despite Craig G's posts, there is a bunch of evidence that touts the benefits of circumcision. We can argue this point forever. If you support one side, you will find evidence to support your opinion.

For someone who claims to know what science is, Craig seems to be very close-minded to evidence contrary to his opinion.

I'm not saying Craig G. is wrong, or that we should circumsize everyone. I just do not agree that it is mutilation or "surgical rape" (seriously?). I think that it is a decision that should be made based on the beliefs of each patient. And in this case, that is the parents, since they can legally consent for their children. I will say it again, if you disagree with that last part, that is a completely different issue that is much larger than this debate.

 

[FlowRate]

I know it's not Kosher to talk about mod action, but I felt like Craig G's posts were useful toward this thread, if only as dissenting opinion. What gives?

 

[Barcu]

I know it's not Kosher to talk about mod action, but I felt like Craig G's posts were useful toward this thread, if only as dissenting opinion. What gives?

I wasn't saying Craig G.'s posts weren't useful. I am disagreeing with him. Listing a bunch of sources doesn't make you right. Earlier in the thread are sources describing the benefits. Again, you can find sources that back up your opinion whatever it is.

He also said he would convince people to not circumsize and would make it harder to find a different doctor who would circumsize by not referring the patient to another doc. That's just being unreasonable.

I'm not pro or anti. I don't think it's my place to make that decision for someone else.

 

[slatermd]

I know it's not Kosher to talk about mod action, but I felt like Craig G's posts were useful toward this thread, if only as dissenting opinion. What gives?

good q. I would imagine he violated TOS somewhere in those massive posts and/or with all of the references.

 

[Barcu]

I know it's not Kosher to talk about mod action, but I felt like Craig G's posts were useful toward this thread, if only as dissenting opinion. What gives?

Oh, now I realized what you meant. I'm on a tiny screen.

I didn't think he did anything wrong, but I can't say I know the tos by heart.

 

[Hoody]

I know it's not Kosher to talk about mod action, but I felt like Craig G's posts were useful toward this thread, if only as dissenting opinion. What gives?

wow....seriously, seriously disappointing. 😕

especially when you have unfiltered garbage like this rolling around...

This thread is absolutely ridiculous; I think hoody is blaming her boyfriend's small penis on his circumcision. Get over it Hoody, it would have been small with or without a circumcision.

Good work, SDN.....are any of you federal employees by chance? 🙄

 

[0919mmk]

Agreed - this was a healthy discussion and I for one think CragG was adding valuable input. I have no idea what TOS is, but I would suggest the mods un-delete him. Unless I am missing something here, but he was definitely not being more offensive than anyone else, and clearly not trolling...

 

[RogueUnicorn]

the mods just don't up and delete controversial posters. what likely happened was a duplicate id, or a known spammer, etc etc.

 

[Parts Unknown]

This debate always reminds me of instant replay in the NFL: you need incontrovertible evidence to overturn the call on the field. So far there isn't any.

It is somewhat of a shame that Craig G was deleted, but be wary of those bearing many references. Nobody needs that much substantiation if they have a fundamentally compelling argument. It's much more likely that his postings were exercises in selective quoting, lifted from other sites populated by the anti-circ crowd.

Actually, if you want to make your head spin without the drawbacks of paint thinner, click back and forth between NOHARMM and CircInfo.net.

 

[Spin]

This debate always reminds me of instant replay in the NFL: you need incontrovertible evidence to overturn the call on the field. So far there isn't any.

It is somewhat of a shame that Craig G was deleted, but be wary of those bearing many references. Nobody needs that much substantiation if they have a fundamentally compelling argument. It's much more likely that his postings were exercises in selective quoting, lifted from other sites populated by the anti-circ crowd.

Actually, if you want to make your head spin without the drawbacks of paint thinner, click back and forth between NOHARMM and CircInfo.net.

Oh god. The banana in the CircInfo's header.... seriously?

 

[JokerMD]

asdf

 

[FlowRate]

what a silly argument....

the bottom line is that you cant make freakin decisions when you are a newborn.

heck you cant even make most decisions for your health when you're 10.

so all you guys saying "OHH well i don't want a procedure done without my consent" are making a real stupid argument. and no, the procedure is not "unnecessary." the health benefits are arguable, but from what ive heard, the overall trend is in favor of STI transmission.

also, circumcisions are a really traumatic experience for adults and there are lots of complications associated with them.

so yes, id perform the circumcision if a parent requested it. i'm not saying parents should be forced to circumcise their boys, but cmon....

I feel like it's easy to hand wave the "parents consent for their children." Argument without really understanding its ethical or legal background. A large part of the reason ethics boards, social workers, etc. have a function in hospitals is because of the issues of consent and positive decision-making.

An example, parents generally may not force their religious views on a child's medical decisions (i.e. can not refuse blood transfusions in a life-death situation).

1a. Would you cut the non-necessary* tissue of a baby girl's genitalia, because the parents asked you to? Why?

1b. Would you cut the non-necessary tissue of a baby boy's genitalia, because the parents asked you to? Why?

2a. Do you believe parents have sole, proprietary ownership over their children's bodies?

2b. addition in response to this post in particular: Do you believe parents should have the ability to consent for/above their children in all respects? Anything the parent wants done to their child should be done?

 

[Ursa]

If you have ever seen a circumcision you will know that the procedure is super simple and quick. For those of you saying its wrong to "hack off a piece of newborn skin", you are dramatically overanalyzing this little procedure. All it takes is a little Lidocaine and a very specific procedural instrument which deadens the skin before they cut anything off. Oh and of course, some "sweeties". I would compare its simplicity to a punch biopsy. The cost-benefit is definitely worth it if the parents want it done.

 

[Parts Unknown]

An example, parents generally may not force their religious views on a child's medical decisions (i.e. can not refuse blood transfusions in a life-death situation).

Are you kidding me? Parents can and do exert their personal/religious views on their child's medical decisions with near impunity. Your example of end-running parental authority usually requires 1. a life and death situation, and 2. an order from a judge.

 

[ILikeDrugs]

Wow, time flies when you're busy. I didn't think this thread would last this long.

For the people (page 2 or 3) that have never heard from someone who was circumcized and is against it... well, that would be me. I was not circumsized because of some aesthetic or STI prevention reason. I was circumcized because some delusional *****, my biological father (I'm not sure what religion he belonged to), believed in some delusional ***** who may or may not have lived 3500 years ago. The fact that I have a scar on my dick because some guy (fictional or real) heard voices in his head, 3500 years ago, telling him to cut off his son's foreskin is really friggin crazy to me. So now I have a desensitized dick because of a mentally disordered person who may or may not have lived 3500 years ago. I also don't buy into the studies that show that circumcision helps prevent HIV. There are studies that don't show the same results. I also don't believe in performing cosmetic surgery on the genitals of an infant. That's just friggin stupid to me (unless of course its to help fix some deformity).

What are your responses to the following questions:

would you try to talk parents out of it?

would you refer to it a religious/cultural practice that has no place in modern medicine?

would you refer parents to a physician willing to perform the procedure?

I wouldn't try to talk the parents out of it. I think I would just say "Ok." (with a blank stare) if they told me that they planned on circumcizing their son. If it's being done for religious purposes, then it has no place in medicine. Physicians aren't witch doctors to be performing religious ceremonies. If it's being done for a medically related purpose, such as for the reasons that others have stated earlier, then it should be taken care of by a physician. If it's being done for religious/cultural/aesthic reasons, I wouldn't refer the parents to a doctor that would perform the procedure because I don't feel like I need to be a part of that, nor do I want to be a part of that. However, if there is a legitimate medical reasons, as others have stated earlier (persistent inflammation/infection), than I would have no problem performing the procedure myself nor would I mind referring the patient to someone that knows how.

If there ever comes a time where I am to perform circumcisions, it will only be for medically related reasons. I won't do it for religious/cultural/cosmetic reasons. I'm not training to become a physician for those reasons.

 

[LizzyM]

Physicians aren't witch doctors to be performing religious ceremonies.

Would you baptize a Catholic couple's baby if the newborn were in danger of death in the delivery room or the NICU? It is my understanding that even non-Christians can do so in an emergency and residents are taught how to do it.

 

[Parts Unknown]

So now I have a desensitized dick because

How do you know it's desensitized?

 

[Geekchick921]

Would you baptize a Catholic couple's baby if the newborn were in danger of death in the delivery room or the NICU? It is my understanding that even non-Christians can do so in an emergency and residents are taught how to do it.

I heard this more than once, I believe from one of my religious vocation teachers, during my 13 years of Catholic education (k-12). This is absolutely allowed in an emergency. The ritual is actually very simple. http://www.beginningcatholic.com/baptism.html

 

[O2Doc]

Would you baptize a Catholic couple's baby if the newborn were in danger of death in the delivery room or the NICU? It is my understanding that even non-Christians can do so in an emergency and residents are taught how to do it.

Where? I've never heard of this and a quick straw poll among the residents/faculty milling around here right now tells me that none of them have heard of it either.

I'm not saying no resident is ever taught to do this, possibly some are, somewhere, but why would the medical system even focus on teaching one specific ritual of one specific religion to its residents?

 

[Spin]

Would you baptize a Catholic couple's baby if the newborn were in danger of death in the delivery room or the NICU? It is my understanding that even non-Christians can do so in an emergency and residents are taught how to do it.

That's a really tough question. Since a baptism is only a symbolic gesture -- wouldn't do any harm if the baby somehow lived -- and it could help the parents be more at peace with their child's death, I think I would do it. I would need to know whether the parents wanted me to ahead of time; I would need them to know that I'm not religiously qualified to do a baptism; and I would not do it if it meant getting in the way of people who were trying to save the baby's life.

Note: I'm an agnostic atheist, but I used to be very religious and can still relate to people who are.

 

[LizzyM]

Where? I've never heard of this and a quick straw poll among the residents/faculty milling around here right now tells me that none of them have heard of it either.

I'm not saying no resident is ever taught to do this, possibly some are, somewhere, but why would the medical system even focus on teaching one specific ritual of one specific religion to its residents?

Most likely in areas where there is a large Catholic population: Boston to New York to Philly, Chicago, St. Louis, California, Florida, Texas. It is less then 20 words said while pouring water on the head (or any part of the body if the head is not accessible).

Most likely to be most familiar to OBs and pediatricians (I once heard it mentioned by a Jewish pediatrician who trained in NY & Boston).

If someone is in danger of death, anyone is qualified to perform a baptism -- even a non-believer.

 

[Spin]

Where? I've never heard of this and a quick straw poll among the residents/faculty milling around here right now tells me that none of them have heard of it either.

I'm not saying no resident is ever taught to do this, possibly some are, somewhere, but why would the medical system even focus on teaching one specific ritual of one specific religion to its residents?

That's what I want to know. There are probably rituals that would make parents of other religions slightly more at ease with their child's death. If we're going to be taught how to baptize, we should be taught the others too. (I really don't think it's our place to do ANY of them, but I can't think of any way that doing them conflicts with my basic morals.)

 

[O2Doc]

If someone is in danger of death, anyone is qualified to perform a baptism -- even a non-believer.

The specific site mentioned in this thread says that

But in an emergency, anyone can baptize—even a non-Catholic or non-Christian. All that is required is that the person baptizing:

• Intend to do what the Catholic Church does in this sacrament

That's kind of a sticking point. If I'm a non-believer but maybe spiritual and I believe that I'm somehow ensuring this person's soul's potential entry into an afterlife that's impartant to their religion, I can see that by saying the words and pouring on some water I "intend to so what the Catholic Church does in this sacrament".
If I'm a non-believer (or believer in something else) who internally rolls their eyes at the very idea of original sin/some water poured on the head being in any way relevant to salvation/the afterlife/Heaven/God/whatever, then no, I don't see that pouring some water ona dying infant or whoever and saying the words is by itself indicative such intent. My intent could be simply to do the easiest thing to get me out of the sad situation, or to impress an attending, or any other number of possible intents that have zero to do with souls and entry to heaven.

That at least is the Catholic Church's view. Many Christian denominations don't baptize infants at all. Some baptize but don't require baptism for salvation so there's no need for "emergency baptism". Eastern Orthodoxy doesn't allow a non-believer to baptise, Anglicans require the baptizer to be themselves baptized, and some Protestant denominations don't seem to have the "intent" thing that I've found so maybe anyone can do it no matter what.

Really, baptism is a topic fraught with complexity. It's more than just "hey, Christian infant about to die, better teach residents to grab and baptize it". Even within Christian traditions there's such divergence, and that's not even touching the many other religions which maybe also have some necessary-to-salvation rites of passage. If it's going to be taught formally in the medical curriculum anywhere, Christianity can't be singled out as the only religion being taught.

 

[dawgbone]

I watched my newborn son undergo a circumcision last month, and I can tell you he was not in the least bit of discomfort. He just laid there peacefully, holding my hand and staring at me.

The procedure itself is incredibly simple -- how doctors mess it up is beyond me. I paid close attention to what the pediatrician was doing, and I like to think I could do it myself with supervision.

As for cost, it was done at a military hospital so no one got any extra dough.

 

[ninefivethree]

I'm pretty sure they usually give a local or apply a topical anesthetic as well as give the baby a sugar-dipped pacifier.

That's what they did with the procedure I watched. They gave a local anesthetic

 

[LizzyM]

Really, baptism is a topic fraught with complexity. It's more than just "hey, Christian infant about to die, better teach residents to grab and baptize it". Even within Christian traditions there's such divergence, and that's not even touching the many other religions which maybe also have some necessary-to-salvation rites of passage. If it's going to be taught formally in the medical curriculum anywhere, Christianity can't be singled out as the only religion being taught.

My point (and I did have one) was that if you were going to object to circumcision if the parents were doing for religious or cultural reasons but have no problem with another religious custom that might be performed by a physician in some circumstances, then you'd need to work out what religious customs are acceptable and which are not according to your values.

The problem with saying it's ok if the parents want it for health reasons but not if it is for religous/cultural reasons is that you are going to get people telling you what you want to hear. Same thing happens in some places when people want to abort female fetuses.

 

[pntgrd]

I've seen several performed during my peds and ob-gyn roations. It was a very quick, almost bloodless procedure. For most, there was no crying at all.

Of course I'd do it (and probably will since I'm thinking of OB-GYN). Safe, fast, a lot of new data showing benefits in terms of HIV, HPV, and penile cancer, easier hygiene.

 

[O2Doc]

My point (and I did have one) was that if you were going to object to circumcision if the parents were doing for religious or cultural reasons but have no problem with another religious custom that might be performed by a physician in some circumstances, then you'd need to work out what religious customs are acceptable and which are not according to your values.

The problem with saying it's ok if the parents want it for health reasons but not if it is for religous/cultural reasons is that you are going to get people telling you what you want to hear. Same thing happens in some places when people want to abort female fetuses.

Very true, but then you get right back to the female equivalent. If we're ok with removing the foreskin for cultural reasons, why not the clitoral hood for same? Again, that procedure itself is certainly not considered barbaric even under our medical system, it's freely available to adult women in the US as an elective cosmetic procedure. There are even claims that it too helps with hygiene (like the foreskin, the clitoral hood can trap smegma).

Yet, even though there are cultures here who would love to get this done to their infant girls, it's not legal. The medical system makes value judgments on which cultural traditions to respect and which not to respect all the time; what's so different about picking and choosing religious ones?