Would you perform non-necessary circumcisions?

[O2Doc]

---

Members do not see this ad.

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

There are entire organizations of complaining circumcised men, actually.

http://www.noharmm.org/separated.htm

http://www.norm-uk.org/index.html

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1680141,00.html

I know, I know, it's a tiny minority and it's even sometimes funny reading the rants. But in the end these are people who have had an unnecessary procedure done to them, and one they feel impacted them negatively.

 

[Perrotfish]

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.

My beliefs:

I think that a parent has the right to do anything that doesn't significantly endanger or functionally alter their child. Things that damage or destroy a working organ (Male castration, female 'circumcision', female mastectomy) or that could pose a significant risk to the child (eye color change, a tummy tuck on a child) are out. However anything cosmetically significant but funcionally neutral (repair of a cleft lip, male circumcision, ear piercing) are just fine.

However I also believe that a physicians have a right to their own consciences, and while a parent may do any cosmetic procedure they wish to their child I, as the physician, have a right not to perform the procedure if I believe the procedure is not in the best interests of my patient. These reasons don't need to be medical, they can be moral or cultural. "I think it looks stupid" is also a perfectly good reason for me not to perform a cosmetic procedure on a child. If my opinion is contradicted by either a majority or a strong minority of physicians (no circumcisions) then my patients will go to someone else and that's fine. If my opinions similar to almost all other physicians (no boob jobs for boys/prepubescent girls) and that funcionally prevents my patients from cosmetically altering their child as they see fit then that's fine too.

 

[O2Doc]

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 no.

"Illegal" isn't really an argument. Abortion was once illegal in this country too, people didn't go "well, it's illegal so let's not even discuss whether it should be legal".

If a proposal was made to allow hoodectomy (without removal of any part of the clitoris, in a proper medical setting), would that be ok?

Allowing male circumcision predates the studies that now show a small medical benefit. Circumcision was and as practiced is still mostly religious/culturally based, with a few medical studies now showing some benefit. We have no clue whether hoodectomy has any benefit or not because there are no such studies; but lack of such studies in the past didn't make circumcision illegal either.

 

[the duck]

I'd preform them. My kids will also be getting them.

As for the "baby is in pain" argument, the few Bris's I've been too, the baby has seemed way more traumatized by being cold, and not in their mothers arm that actually after the procedure itself, which takes about 5 seconds.

Also, it gives another excuse to throw a party, which I'm always down for 🙂


As for the danger, its way safer than having your kid play football, and it does have some, fairly minor, medical benefits.

 

[0919mmk]

My beliefs:

I think that a parent has the right to do anything that doesn't significantly endanger or functionally alter their child. Things that damage or destroy a working organ (Male castration, female 'circumcision', female mastectomy) or that could pose a significant risk to the child (eye color change, a tummy tuck on a child) are out. However anything cosmetically significant but funcionally neutral (repair of a cleft lip, male circumcision, ear piercing) are just fine.

However I also believe that a physicians have a right to their own consciences, and while a parent may do any cosmetic procedure they wish to their child I, as the physician, have a right not to perform the procedure if I believe the procedure is not in the best interests of my patient. These reasons don't need to be medical, they can be moral or cultural. If my opinion is contradicted by either a majority or a strong minority of physicians (no circumcisions) then my patients will go to someone else and that's fine. If my opinions similar to almost all other physicians (no boob jobs for boys/prepubescent girls) and that funcionally prevents my patients from cosmetically altering their child as they see fit then that's fine too.

See, I dont know...that just doesnt seem right to me. Shouldn't every person get a say in whether they are permanently cosmetically altered or not?

 

[0919mmk]

...

 

[Barcu]

See, I dont know...that just doesnt seem right to me. Shouldn't every person get a say in whether they are permanently cosmetically altered or not?

In an ideal world, yes.

Legally in the US, no. There is consent in these procedures, and it comes from the parents. That's a whole other issue if you disagree with that. To me it makes sense. These are time-sensitive issues (even with circumcision as someone noted that much more can go wrong later in life), and children cannot possibly make these decisions for themselves.

 

[Docindhouse]

Jew's circumcise at around birth or so. I believe some African tribes circumcise as a right of passage.

I believe biblically its around the 8th day after birth. I believe some african tribes do it around that time too

 

[Negrodamus]

In an ideal world, yes.

Legally in the US, no. There is consent in these procedures, and it comes from the parents. That's a whole other issue if you disagree with that. To me it makes sense. These are time-sensitive issues (even with circumcision as someone noted that much more can go wrong later in life), and children cannot possibly make these decisions for themselves.

I guess I disagree with our current legal system. There is a reasonable difference between truly time sensitive situations, surgery because of a car accident or an appendicitis, and those that are mostly elective.

I don't think I could justify it, as a potential parent or physician, without knowing that the individual in question wanted it.

I'll give you an example. (Again the specifics are probably wrong but the question is still valid) Lets say the parents of a 13 year old boy converted to Islam or Judaism and wanted their child to receive a circumcision. However, the boy in question doesn't want it. Would you as a physician perform a procedure, with limited medical benefits, on someone who doesn't consent?

 

[Geekchick921]

"Illegal" isn't really an argument. Abortion was once illegal in this country too, people didn't go "well, it's illegal so let's not even discuss whether it should be legal".

If a proposal was made to allow hoodectomy (without removal of any part of the clitoris, in a proper medical setting), would that be ok?

Allowing male circumcision predates the studies that now show a small medical benefit. Circumcision was and as practiced is still mostly religious/culturally based, with a few medical studies now showing some benefit. We have no clue whether hoodectomy has any benefit or not because there are no such studies; but lack of such studies in the past didn't make circumcision illegal either.

I made a comment about something like this in the post you quoted, but I think I editted to include that after you quoted me.

While it's not something I would personally choose (nor would I imagine most people for whom FGM is not already part of their culture), if that was offered to prevent having girls held down while a lay person cuts them much more severely without proper equipment or analgesia, I would be okay with that. Your comparison to abortion is pretty apt here, actually, considering the options for a woman that wanted to terminate prior to Roe v. Wade.

 

[smq123]

See, I dont know...that just doesnt seem right to me. Shouldn't every person get a say in whether they are permanently cosmetically altered or not?

Well, you could make that argument about EVERY decision that you make for your children.

Is it right to take your children to church/synagogue, and, from a young age, teach them beliefs that will stay with them forever? I've had a number of gay friends who say that they were "scarred for life" from being made to go to church and hearing that homosexuality is wrong etc.....does that mean that you should wait to go to church until your kid is a teenager and "old enough" to decide?

Is it right to put your children in a public school when they might have done better in a private school environment, or vice versa?

Is it right to live in an area where there's less diversity, so that your children grow up with a narrower range of experiences than they would elsewhere?

We make decisions for children all the time, based on the judgement of their parents. A lot of those decisions have long term, possibly even permanent effects. That's just the way life is.

 

[smq123]

I'll give you an example. (Again the specifics are probably wrong but the question is still valid) Lets say the parents of a 13 year old boy converted to Islam or Judaism and wanted their child to receive a circumcision. However, the boy in question doesn't want it. Would you as a physician perform a procedure, with limited medical benefits, on someone who doesn't consent?

I don't think this is a valid question, though.

Like I said before, circumcision in a 1 day old is routine. They heal up on their own, they only need local anesthesia, they don't need antibiotics after it, etc.

A circumcision in a 13 year old is not routine. It's a much bigger deal, and the risks (anesthesia, sutures, length of procedure time, risk of infection) are significantly higher.

 

[Perrotfish]

I'll give you an example. (Again the specifics are probably wrong but the question is still valid) Lets say the parents of a 13 year old boy converted to Islam or Judaism and wanted their child to receive a circumcision. However, the boy in question doesn't want it. Would you as a physician perform a procedure, with limited medical benefits, on someone who doesn't consent?

There's a big difference between a child who doesn't consent because he can't talk and one who is actively saying he doesn't want the procedure. The parents still have a right to decide on the child's care, but with an actively dissenting child and no time sensitivity (they'll heal just as badly as a full adult) I think you'd be hard pressed to find a physician who would do it.

A more relevant question would be: what would you do with a child with a cleft lip? Unlike a cleft palate this shouldn't significanly affect their ability to eat or speak. You'd just be fixing them so that they conform to society's standards of normal. Like circumcision, the child is too young to consent or dissent. Is it alright to 'fix' that child?

Another question. What do you do with an underage patient who says he does want a cosmetic procedure? A 13 year old isn't competent to consent to his own medical care in any event, right? Would you circumsize the 13 year old if he and his parents wanted it or should he wait until he was 18? What if he was 9? What if he was 5? At what point would his opinion be enough to sway you?

 

[Torr]

There are entire organizations of complaining circumcised men, actually.

http://www.noharmm.org/separated.htm

http://www.norm-uk.org/index.html

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1680141,00.html

I know, I know, it's a tiny minority and it's even sometimes funny reading the rants. But in the end these are people who have had an unnecessary procedure done to them, and one they feel impacted them negatively.

I don't agree that the procedure itself is harmful in most cases but the site I did click on had some valid points.

As far as the diseases prevented, I guess the issue is HIV risk goes down but other STD's seem to be more prevalent in men that had it done (I spent very little time checking the sources on that!). But, would you rather prevent HIV or Chlamydia anyway?

The argument about quality of sex was probably the most valid IMO. As the site said "most guys don't know what they're missing". Felt bad for the one guy who had it done later in life and really DID know what he was missing.

 

[addo]

Ilikedrugs, thats just ridiculous. Really? a doctor is to say whether an ancient religious tradition is necessary? thats very closed minded doc

Whatever, id take the circumcision business to the rabbi, or rather to the mohel.

 

[deleted307836]

I haven't read through this entire thread, and this may be TMI, so I apologize for those two things upfront. But I REALLY wish I had never been circumcised. I think it's a disgusting procedure that doctors have no right to perform on an unconsenting patient. I don't see how anyone could view it as anything else besides mutilation, albeit a form that is religiously acceptable.

RE: UTIs, STIs, etc... From what I have seen the links between circumcision and UTI's are not well founded. Regarding STI's... both partners need to protect themselves with other means anyway. If you can't do that then you may need to suffer the consequences. But please don't snip me in some public health effort under the premise that I'm not capable of protecting myself.

BTW, I see females arguing for circumcision as analogous to males arguing against abortion. Not that they don't have a right to, but, you know...

 

[Torr]

I haven't read through this entire thread, and this may be TMI, so I apologize for those two things upfront. But I REALLY wish I had never been circumcised. I think it's a disgusting procedure that doctors have no right to perform on an unconsenting patient. I don't see how anyone could view it as anything else besides mutilation, albeit a form that is religiously acceptable.

If you don't mind me asking, why do you wish it hadn't been done? Don't say the principle. What negative consequences have you experienced? I'm actually genuinely curious because I've never met someone who felt that way.

 

[smq123]

I haven't read through this entire thread, and this may be TMI, so I apologize for those two things upfront. But I REALLY wish I had never been circumcised.

If you don't mind my asking, why do you wish that you had never been circumcised?

I'm genuinely curious. I had a friend tell me that he was upset that his parents had decided to circumcise him, but couldn't offer any further insight past "I'm just not happy about it."

 

[Mr Hippopotamus]

I really don't see the big deal about this. I was circumcised when I was a few days old. It wasn't a big deal. As people have pointed out above, newborn circumcisions are a fairly easy, straightforward procedure. So that seemed to be the logical time to do it.

BUT I DIDN"T CONSENT! OH NO! On the other hand, I was tiny and incapable of speech. Informed consent is difficult with an infant. So my parents made the call. You know what else I didn't consent to? Inoculations. And I do remember how much those sucked.

So basically, why wouldn't you perform circumcisions? It's simple, has dramatic effects on STD transmissions, and your (newborn) patients won't remember it, and probably won't even miss their foreskin until someone points out that it's missing.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

/\
Body Dysmorphic Disorder? I kid I kid.

 

[Wolfman89]

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.

This is pretty much what I was going to say. In the US parents have legal consent on treatments done on their infants.

And honestly a circ done on a newborn is less painful and less complicated than one done when the said patient could make a conscious decision on their own.

 

[Torr]

If you don't mind my asking, why do you wish that you had never been circumcised?

I'm genuinely curious. I had a friend tell me that he was upset that his parents had decided to circumcise him, but couldn't offer any further insight past "I'm just not happy about it."

Hey! Don't steal my thunder 😏. I joke.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

I really don't see the big deal about this. I was circumcised when I was a few days old. It wasn't a big deal. As people have pointed out above, newborn circumcisions are a fairly easy, straightforward procedure. So that seemed to be the logical time to do it.

BUT I DIDN"T CONSENT! OH NO! On the other hand, I was tiny and incapable of speech. Informed consent is difficult with an infant. So my parents made the call. You know what else I didn't consent to? Inoculations. And I do remember how much those sucked.

So basically, why wouldn't you perform circumcisions? It's simple, has dramatic effects on STD transmissions, and your (newborn) patients won't remember it, and probably won't even miss their foreskin until someone points out that it's missing.

Most people who are against circumcision are usually uncircumcised and feel like they are "intact"( I.e Elevating themselves above others) and then others who are really anal about control and finally the ones who have a bad self image. I mean I'm taking the Freudian perspective here but, I think you've got something wrong with you if you seriously hate your member.

 

[Wolfman89]

Most people who are against circumcision are usually uncircumcised and feel like they are "intact"( I.e Elevating themselves above others) and then others who are really anal about control and finally the ones who have a bad self image. I mean I'm taking the Freudian perspective here but, I think you've got something wrong with you if you seriously hate your member.

While there are a lot of issues with Freudian psychology through a modern psychological perspective, it does not completely invalidate his ideas.

 

[addo]

Most people who are against circumcision are usually uncircumcised and feel like they are "intact"( I.e Elevating themselves above others) and then others who are really anal about control and finally the ones who have a bad self image. I mean I'm taking the Freudian perspective here but, I think you've got something wrong with you if you seriously hate your member.

How could you possibly make that assumption? have you talked to 1000s of men about how they feel about circumcision?

thats bogus, and i dont want to say why lest I go into TMI territory.

 

[LizzyM]

To those who would not perform this procedure:

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?

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

How could you possibly make that assumption? have you talked to 1000s of men about how they feel about circumcision?

thats bogus, and i dont want to say why lest I go into TMI territory.

It's my opinion. A accumulation of a plethora of anecdotes. However the body image part was actually in a Mind & Body article.

 

[Wolfman89]

How could you possibly make that assumption? have you talked to 1000s of men about how they feel about circumcision?

thats bogus, and i dont want to say why lest I go into TMI territory.

It is not necessarily bogus. If they feel inadequate it is quite possible that they blame their inadequacy on lacking a foreskin.It is quite 'easy' to say that things would be better if only you had "x, y, and z" but while in reality it is still possible that your develop the same 'problems'. It would not apply to every case, but no explanation can do that.

 

[transfec]

"I don't believe in it, no matter what study you show me!!"

I can only imagine that kind of attitude being problematic for you in this field.

As far as children having no consent, you're exactly right! They don't have consent! You can apply this to every single choice a parent makes for their children. It's as if some of you are using this one argument as a soap box for arguing your stance on a much bigger issue.

 

[deleted307836]

If you don't mind me asking, why do you wish it hadn't been done? Don't say the principle. What negative consequences have you experienced? I'm actually genuinely curious because I've never met someone who felt that way.

If you don't mind my asking, why do you wish that you had never been circumcised?

I'm genuinely curious. I had a friend tell me that he was upset that his parents had decided to circumcise him, but couldn't offer any further insight past "I'm just not happy about it."

Good question. My full answer *would* definitely be TMI for SDN though.

 

[hiyaman]

I think anyone who is born with a cleft lip would not mind to have it repaired without their consent when they are born.....

The social stigma that a child can face with a cleft lip can be really damaging to their mental health. Not to mention the other problems associated with it.

 

[deleted307836]

To those who would not perform this procedure:

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?

1 - Absolutely not

2 - Absolutely not

3 - Yes

As long as the procedure is legal, I would always provide parents with the proper referrals and resources for their child to undergo it if that is what they so choose.

 

[addo]

It is not necessarily bogus. If they feel inadequate it is quite possible that they blame their inadequacy on lacking a foreskin.It is quite 'easy' to say that things would be better if only you had "x, y, and z" but while in reality it is still possible that your develop the same 'problems'. It would not apply to every case, but no explanation can do that.

I was talking about the claim that most people who are against circumcision are the ones who are uncircumcised. There is no way you could reasonably say that.

 

[Torr]

Why doesn't someone (less lazy than I) get an SDN Poll up on this since there's been enough back and forth discussion.

Something along the lines of how many MEN:

1) Are happy that they were circ'ed
2) Are unhappy that they were
3) Are happy being un-circ'ed
4) Are unhappy being un-circ'ed
5) Don't care?

I know it's primarily cultural/religious in origin. I just don't understand the men that are complaining about it and whether it really is an issue I'm like oblivious to.

On second thought I doubt anyone would partake in that. I don't thnk I'd share that info. Lol.

 

[803]

hell yeah i would.... I wouldn't want any boys having grow up being uncircumsized. In the south, girls think that is gross.....

So if you want the kid to have a good future sex life then snip away

 

[addo]

On second thought I doubt anyone would partake in that. I don't thnk I'd share that info. Lol.

well thanks to citylights you already got one result.

 

[n3xa]

hell yeah i would.... I wouldn't want any boys having grow up being uncircumsized. In the south, girls think that is gross.....

So if you want the kid to have a good future sex life then snip away

Facepalm.

 

[RingTailedDoc]

To those who would not perform this procedure:

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?

1. No, I would attempt to offer them as unbiased an opinion of the procedure as possible. I would reference the literature and offer the potential risks and potential benefits of the procedure. If they asked me for a specific recommendation, only then would I suggest they do not go forward with the circumcision.

2. No, I think circumcision has a place in modern medicine, like all cosmetic procedures have a place in modern medicine. It is unusual that it found its place in medicine retrospectively, but that doesn't make it any less of a viable option for those who choose it.

3. Yes. If I had informed them of the risks and benefits and they still wanted to go forward with the procedure, I would refer them. I think the only instance where I'd intervene would be if the patients clearly had misinformation about circumcision (that it somehow prevents diseases, etc.), I would attempt to set the record straight. But I would still attempt to do so in an unbiased manner.

 

[theWUbear]

im pissed off at this thread and i don't even have an opinion on the subject

 

[Torr]

well thanks to citylights you already got one result.

Yea, and I honestly have no problem talking about personal matters either. I just would be reluctant to vote on an SDN poll about something very personal. Might just be me.

I never really put much thought into this issue before. In my family we all do it.

Why you mad Wu?

 

[Mazdave]

The main debate seems to be whether the potential benefits outweigh the potential risks based on the research, and I find it interesting that in the US, where circumcision is culturally very common, the majority seems to interpret the research as clearly showing benefits while in countries where circumcision is almost unheard of (such as in Scandinavia), the research is being interpreted as only showing dubious benefits.

 

[Wolfman89]

The main debate seems to be whether the potential benefits outweigh the potential risks based on the research, and I find it interesting that in the US, where circumcision is culturally very common, the majority seems to interpret the research as clearly showing benefits while in countries where circumcision is almost unheard of (such as in Scandinavia), the research is being interpreted as only showing dubious benefits.

Makes sense. Our cultural lens colors our perspectives and how we would interpret something.

 

[Geneticist]

Of course.

 

[shopsteward]

Most of the studies into differential infection rates for circumcised/uncircumcised relate to sub-Saharan Africa, where considerations apply which are not so relevant to the developed world (eg access to health and hygiene information, access to clean water and washing facilities, and cultural, religious, economic and distribution issues relating to condoms).

To the extent that relevant studies do show infection control benefits from circumcision, they don't show that it confers such a degree of benefit that someone who has been circumcised should risk their health by relying on the fact that they are circumcised to avoid safe sex practices. Would a physician perform a circumcision where the parents gave as their reason "We want our son to be x% less likely to catch HIV when he has unprotected sex?" Would a physician advise a male who had been circumcised that he did not need to practise safe sex?

As for the idea that a newly born child should be circumcised because there is currently said to be a culture among the opposite sex at least a generation older than that child that the uncircumcised penis is sexually unattractive then, ye gods and fishes, what a dreadful world we live in.

Circumcision of the newborn is in the end a religious and/or social and cultural phenomenon, and like other such phenomena, the fact that it is taken for granted by significant numbers of people makes it neither right nor immutable. Despite the tendency for someone who has been subject to such phenomena to validate their experience by passing it on to the next generation, I suspect that male newborn circumcision is a practice which will not last much longer, except among particular groups where there are very strongly held religious/cultural/traditional reasons.

 

[patel2]

The main debate seems to be whether the potential benefits outweigh the potential risks based on the research, and I find it interesting that in the US, where circumcision is culturally very common, the majority seems to interpret the research as clearly showing benefits while in countries where circumcision is almost unheard of (such as in Scandinavia), the research is being interpreted as only showing dubious benefits.

This except it's more like the US is interpreting the data to show all these amazing benefits, while every single other country in the world comes to the opposite conclusion. Lettuce be reality though... most parents circumsize their son only because they think that being cut looks "normal" and for aesthetics, since that is the look they are used too (though, at the cost of reduced sensitivity). For 99% of people, it is a knee-jerk reaction, not a decision based on a careful analysis of the potential benefits and risks.

 

[StudyShy]

When I had my boys, I let my husband decide on what would be the best for them since he understands what it is like to be a male. As a mother, however, it was so hard to see my boys in pain after the procedure. Those little ones hurt, and a takes a good two weeks for the incision to heal up to the point where I didn't have to worry about harming their penises while changing their dipers.

I plan to go into OB, and my OB was the one who circumcised both of my boys. I don't know if I would want to perform such procedures on children who cannot consent to the treatment.

That being said, though, now I don't have to worry about my boys making sure that they really clean their little weiners like my mom had to worry about my brothers (who are uncirmcised) had to worry about making sure that they clean under their foreskins.

I heard the sex is better for the female when the male is uncumcised, but this is not from personal experience. lol

 

[J-Rad]

1) ...Every Peds residency I've looked at requires you to do a certain number of circumcisions to graduate...

Not overly germane to the thread, but for you: Circ's are a "should provide exposure to" procedure, per the RRC for pediatrics. Not a required procedure.
www.acgme.org/acWebsite/downloads/RRC.../320pr106.pdf (page 14). If someone has an ethical issue with it, they should be allowed to not participate.

 

[IlaEm]

Ok, so I did read the entire thread, but there are way too many responses I wanted to quote. I'll just touch on a few points....

For whoever was talking about circs being "retrospective" in terms of medical evidence, this is true, but I don't understand the argument. There are many healthy practices performed today that had been done for years before a medical benefit was discovered. I don't think you should be able to discount circs because the discovered health benefits (however significant or insignificant they may be) came later.

A Bris occurs 1 week after birth (on the 8th day of life)

Having witnessed numerous circs, I agree that crying has little to do with the procedure itself.

Regarding circs occurring at an older age, I have heard mixed responses. 1). My friend had it done at the age of 8 when his family immigrated to the US. He definitely remembers it and it is not a fond memory, but he is glad it was done. He just wishes it had happened as a baby. 2). My African friend had a circ performed at the age of 14 in a tribal ceremony on top of a mountain. They used a razor. He is lucky to not have contracted HIV from the experience and otherwise feels fine with it happening. 3). My 25 year old friend elected to have the procedure a month ago for cosmetic reasons.

With all 3 occasions, the men are happy to have had it done.

 

[Hoody]

Even if he hadn't we still would have beaten them Wednesday night.

Dude. Even my team beat your team and my team is freakin bottom feeder. 😛

I was stoked tho. Go Lobe's. 👍

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

I'm a chick. so, yeah....

hoodectomy

I don't like this word. I feel like I'm about to get cut out. 🙁

A circumcision in a 13 year old is not routine. It's a much bigger deal, and the risks (anesthesia, sutures, length of procedure time, risk of infection) are significantly higher.

Is this not the same for every procedure in life though (in general, risk increases with age)?

To those who would not perform this procedure:

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?

1. No
2. No
3. Yes.

im pissed off at this thread and i don't even have an opinion on the subject

why so mad, yo? 😕


I'm going to be honest. The only reason I am against them is because of my SO. He did not at enjoy his expereince's during resdiency and has been vocal about his positions against it. Granted he did his residency in the 90's, perhaps things (the procedure) has changed? And though I aruged this wasnt about the logistics of the procedure itself, that's where his disdain started....the other arguments against it came later..

 

[slatermd]

I'm going to be honest. The only reason I am against them is because of my SO. He did not at enjoy his expereince's during resdiency and has been vocal about his positions against it.

You're SO isn't the first and won't be the last. I know that I will not like doing circs during residency (aside...you're a little strange if you like doing them).

I won't try to get out of it...it's something like respecting the patient's autonomy. You can always explain pros and cons and hope the parents consider them. Whether they choose for or against, hopefully they are making an informed decision and it's not just the dad going "I'm circumcised so all my sons have to do it to. GET'ER DONE!!!"