Surgery on normal newborns besides circumcision?

[Kai Zhur]

Do physicians perform any surgeries on normal newborns besides circumcision? By "normal" I mean excluding treatment of conditions which occur in only a small percentage of newborns. So that excludes cleft lip, polydactyly, etc.

Is circumcision totally unique in that a physician cosmetically alters a normal newborn based exclusively upon parental preference? If so, and if you plan to perform circumcisions upon parental request, how do you justify refusing other unnecessary surgeries on newborns which parents might want?

Edit:
No such surgeries have been identified. Some physicians apparently perform circumcision on a newborn based only on these qualifications:

1) The newborn is male
2) The newborn appears able to withstand the surgery
3) A parent or guardian consents for the newborn

Of the surgeries suggested in the comments, none are based only on the above criteria:

Cleft lip repair: Performed only on patients with cleft lip birth defects.
Pierced ears: Not performed by physicians, therefore not an issue in medicine. No tissue excised.
Braces: Not surgery. No excision of tissue.
Jaw surgery to straighten teeth: Restricted to the small subset of patients with a jaw abnormality correctable with surgery. Physicians will not perform this surgery on any minor whose parents ask for it.
Hemangioma removal: Hemangioma are malformations not normally present in patients.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[ml66uk]

Circumcision is unique in that respect. The closest comparison I can think of is when they used to remove children's tonsils as a preventative measure.

 

[kronickm]

Do physicians perform any surgeries on normal newborns besides circumcision? By "normal" I mean excluding treatment of conditions which occur in only a small percentage of newborns. So that excludes cleft lip, polydactyly, etc.

Is circumcision totally unique in that a physician cosmetically alters a normal newborn based exclusively upon parental preference? If so, and if you plan to perform circumcisions upon parental request, how do you justify refusing other unnecessary surgeries on newborns which parents might want?

We get it Kai Zhur, you don't like circumcision. Is there really any need to start a new thread?

 

[Tired]

Do physicians perform any surgeries on normal newborns besides circumcision? By "normal" I mean excluding treatment of conditions which occur in only a small percentage of newborns. So that excludes cleft lip, polydactyly, etc.

Last I checked, cleft lip repair was performed exclusively for cosmetic reasons.

But apparently you're cool with that.

What's wrong, you have some kind of foreskin fetish?

 

[Kai Zhur]

Last I checked, cleft lip repair was performed exclusively for cosmetic reasons.

If you are unwilling to recognize the fundamental difference between a congenital abnormality (congenital malformation, birth defect, whatever one calls it) which in your own terminology can be "repaired", versus that which is normal (in this case nearly universal), then it will not be possible to have a serious discussion with you on this subject.

 

[Miami_med]

There is another thread on this page already talking about circumcision. Unless this starts going in a profoundly different direction, I will probably close it and let this discussion continue there.

 

[Tired]

If you are unwilling to recognize the fundamental difference between a congenital abnormality (congenital malformation, birth defect, whatever one calls it) which in your own terminology can be "repaired", versus that which is normal (in this case nearly universal), then it will not be possible to have a serious discussion with you on this subject.

Foreskin is a congenital malformation.

Now prove me wrong.

 

[HurricaneKatt]

]Last I checked, cleft lip repair was performed exclusively for cosmetic reasons.[/b]

But apparently you're cool with that.

What's wrong, you have some kind of foreskin fetish?

Cleft pallates can cause various medical and dental problems if not fixed.
Cleft lip=cleft palate?

 

[Tired]

Cleft lip=cleft palate?

No, not the same.

You're right about cleft palates though.

 

[Kai Zhur]

Foreskin is a congenital malformation.

Now prove me wrong.

How do you define the terms "foreskin" and "congenital malformation"?

 

[Tired]

How do you define the terms "foreskin" and "congenital malformation"?

What do you mean by "define"?

 

[Kai Zhur]

What do you mean by "define"?

As I said earlier, it is obvious you are unwilling to have a serious discussion.

By the way, it is your responsibility to prove your own assertions. You asserted that "Foreskin is a congenital malformation." Prove it. I won't hold my breath waiting.

 

[Tired]

As I said earlier, it is obvious you are unwilling to have a serious discussion.

By the way, it is your responsibility to prove your own assertions. You asserted that "Foreskin is a congenital malformation." Prove it. I won't hold my breath waiting.

You're right, I'm unwilling to have a serious discussion. I just think it's funny when folks like you get worked up over things that are entirely unimportant.

By the way, I'm still right, repair of cleft lips is done entirely for cosmetic reasons. The fact that you find an uncircumcised penis attractive, but a cleft lip unattractive, is entirely beside the point.

 

[Kai Zhur]

You're right, I'm unwilling to have a serious discussion. I just think it's funny when folks like you get worked up over things that are entirely unimportant.

Or maybe you act like it's funny, and pretend that is unimportant, because you were hurt by this surgery long ago, and can't see why anyone else should escape the same fate?

In all fairness, I do not know if that is true. Just a hunch.

 

[Tired]

Or maybe you act like it's funny, and pretend that is unimportant, because you were hurt by this surgery long ago, and can't see why anyone else should escape the same fate?

Or maybe your first girlfriend told you that your uncircumcised penis was ugly, and ever since then you've been trying to convince everyone (and yourself) that it's normal.

Just a hunch . . .

 

[Kai Zhur]

Laugh all you like, but if you were circumcised, it had an effect on you.

In the unlikely event you can take this seriously, read this:
Circumcision and Human Behavior
The emotional and behavioral effects of circumcision.


I'll note here that there the only answer to the original question thus far is that indeed, neonatal circumcision is unique in that a physician physically alters a normal newborn (the only qualifications are being male, healthy enough to withstand it, and a willing parent) with no medical need.

 

[Tired]

In the unlikely event you can take this seriously, read this:

Like most people, I can't take this seriously, and I'm not going to read it. Your entire proposition is just silly, and in all honesty, the only reason I'm even posting in this thread is that I find your straight-faced strident beliefs incredibly amusing. You're like a flat-earth member.

 

[Kai Zhur]

Like most people, I can't take this seriously, and I'm not going to read it. Your entire proposition is just silly, and in all honesty, the only reason I'm even posting in this thread is that I find your straight-faced strident beliefs incredibly amusing. You're like a flat-earth member.

The proposition that physicians have a duty to newborn patients, including preservation of the normal functioning of their genitals, should not be amusing to anyone in the medical profession.

 

[Tired]

The proposition that physicians have a duty to newborn patients, including preservation of the normal functioning of their genitals, should not be amusing to anyone in the medical profession.

Dude, you're a riot! I love it.

 

[Kai Zhur]

Dude, you're a riot! I love it.

I hope you take other issues of ethics in medicine more seriously than this one.

 

[Tired]

I hope you take other issues of ethics in medicine more seriously than this one.

This is a non-issue, which is why it's so easy to laugh.

 

[Kai Zhur]

This is a non-issue, which is why it's so easy to laugh.

It's not an issue to someone who believes that "Foreskin is a congenital malformation."

For those who understand normal male anatomy, it's an issue.

 

[ml66uk]

This is a non-issue, which is why it's so easy to laugh.

In the countries where they cut girls, the people there think that's no big deal too, and that the people against it don't know what they're talking about and are wasting time worrying about nothing. Try talking with them.

Seriously, try convincing some Egyptian or Malaysian blogger that cutting their daughter isn't a non-issue. Chances are they'll react the same way you're behaving here. Maybe if you realise how being accustomed to female circumcision makes both men and women defend and continue it, you'll look at male circumcision in a different way.

Of course, this could all backfire on me, and you'll start agreeing with them. It's surprisingly difficult to defend male circumcision, but be against the mild forms of female circumcision.

 

[smq123]

I have never understood why guys get so worked up about circumcision.

A lot of my male friends who have been "upset" that they were circumcised never had any good reasons for being upset. As far as I could tell, their main objection was a knee jerk reaction of, "Someone messed with MY family jewels without asking me! WAHHH!" But none of them would admit to abnormal function, and all of them seemed to have an interest in pursuing sexual activity. What was the big deal?

The proposition that physicians have a duty to newborn patients, including preservation of the normal functioning of their genitals, should not be amusing to anyone in the medical profession.

How does circumcision prevent the "normal functioning" of genitals? Circumcised guys urinate normally, get erections, ejaculate, and have children. That's what male genitals are supposed to do....so how does circumcision prevent that?

And if you're worried about sensation, there are newer studies showing that it isn't as big a concern as people think it is.

If you don't want to circumcise your kid, that's fine....but why get so worked up about what other people decide to do?

In the countries where they cut girls, the people there think that's no big deal too, and that the people against it don't know what they're talking about and are wasting time worrying about nothing. Try talking with them.

You're not seriously comparing female circumcision to male circumcision, are you?

Please.

Female circumcision has been proven, over and over again, to decrease sensation. That's the entire purpose.

As I mentioned above, new research is showing that male circumcision does NOT decrease sensation. Circumcised men go on to enjoy perfectly satisfactory sex lives.

Female circumcision makes it difficult for women to urinate normally. Last I checked, circumcision doesn't alter the way that men urinate.

Trying to compare the two is just silly.

 

[Miami_med]

OK everyone, let's lay off the personal insults.

As far as this topic is concerned, I understand that it's a big deal to some people, but I think that it's fair to say that most people are pretty unfazed either way.

Three benefits to circumcision:
1. Fewer neonatal UTIs (Not a big number either way)
2. Lower incidence of HPV and contracting other STDs, including HIV, when exposed
3. Lower incidence of complication when an inexperienced nurse (or a cc-3) puts in your foley

As far as altering normal anatomy for cosmetic reasons, we do it all the time:

Aside from the malformations, we can also list pierced ears in babies, braces, etc...

 

[Tired]

In the countries where they cut girls, the people there think that's no big deal too, and that the people against it don't know what they're talking about and are wasting time worrying about nothing. Try talking with them.

Seriously, try convincing some Egyptian or Malaysian blogger that cutting their daughter isn't a non-issue.

Foreigners don't concern me. I don't care about them or their children.

Kind of sad that you can't defend your position except by referring to another, infinitely more brutal, practice done in underdeveloped nations.

 

[Pharmavixen]

In the countries where they cut girls, the people there think that's no big deal too, and that the people against it don't know what they're talking about and are wasting time worrying about nothing. Try talking with them...Of course, this could all backfire on me, and you'll start agreeing with them. It's surprisingly difficult to defend male circumcision, but be against the mild forms of female circumcision.

The sex columnist Dan Savage said it best, calling those people who equate male circumcision with female genital mutilation as guilty of "me-too" ism, and what they do to women would be equivalent to chopping off the entire head of the penis.

Women who have been mutilated in this way are incapable of enjoying sex. The idea is to ensure their fidelity and so that men can be sure the children are theirs. OTOH, men who have been circumcised have normal sexual functioning.

As a consequence of female genital mutilation, many women have significant health problems, and many girls die. The same cannot be said for male circumcision.

Like I said in the other thread, I don't think there's any reason to circumcise routinely and would not have had boy children cut if I'd had boys instead of my daughters. But the fanaticism of the anti-circumcision people goes way out into fantasy territory.

Men who have not been cut are not sexual superbeings. Trust me on this

 

[PeepshowJohnny]

Oh and nobody's mentioned it, but Kai Zhur's article is by doctors whose affiliation is "Doctors Opposing Circumcision - Physicians for Genital Integrity".

Yep, no conflict of interest there.

Listen, this is a nonissue. At the hospitals I've worked at the parents are asked "Are you interested in circumcision for your son?". There is non strong arming them into one way or another. 100% of the families have an answer "Yes" or "No" already prepared, so they've already made up there minds.

And as others have stated, we do "cosmetic" stuff on kids all the freaking time. My sister had freaking surgeries on her jaw because her teeth weren't straight, but not bad enough that they affected her ability to eat. My cousin just had a hemangioma fixed, not a problem, just unsightly.

This is a NON ISSUE. If you people want to cut circumcision rates, target the freaking parents. We doctors DON'T CARE. We know there are no conclusive benefits either way so it's up to parents decision for cultural and aesthetic reasons, which is perfectly acceptable.

 

[Tired]

Oh and nobody's mentioned it, but Kai Zhur's article is by doctors whose affiliation is "Doctors Opposing Circumcision - Physicians for Genital Integrity".

 

[Kai Zhur]

I have never understood why guys get so worked up about circumcision.

A lot of my male friends who have been "upset" that they were circumcised never had any good reasons for being upset. As far as I could tell, their main objection was a knee jerk reaction of, "Someone messed with MY family jewels without asking me! WAHHH!" But none of them would admit to abnormal function, and all of them seemed to have an interest in pursuing sexual activity. What was the big deal?

The fact a lot of your male friends, and many other men, are upset about it should be taken seriously. Difficulty understanding why may be due to cultural inculcation. Consider whether there are any parts of your own body which, if removed in infancy, would cause you no distress as an adult. Try to understand the difficult position in which an adult male is placed by neonatal circumcision. Recognizing the harm can, itself, be unsettling.

How does circumcision prevent the "normal functioning" of genitals? Circumcised guys urinate normally, get erections, ejaculate, and have children. That's what male genitals are supposed to do....so how does circumcision prevent that?

If you watch this video, you will see a computer generated animation of the function of normal male anatomy starting at 2:30. Normal functioning includes more than urination, erection, and ejaculation. An addition of particular importance is sensation, of which the parts excised by circumcision are especially capable.

And if you're worried about sensation, there are newer studies showing that it isn't as big a concern as people think it is.

The study you cites does not address sensation. It addresses satisfaction, and is contradicted by other studies, such as Kim/Pang, which found significantly reduced pleasure and increased difficulty masturbating.

Sensation (fine-touch) was addressed by Sorrells. The findings of this study are not contradicted by any other. This study found that areas excised by circumcision are more sensitive to fine-touch than any others.

The fact that circumcision removes highly sensitive areas of a man's sexual organ is, by itself, justification for any man to be upset if this surgery was performed without any medial need. Retaining the ability to reproduce and derive some, or even a lot of enjoyment from sex does not ameliorate what has been lost.

 

[Kai Zhur]

Three benefits to circumcision:
1. Fewer neonatal UTIs (Not a big number either way)
2. Lower incidence of HPV and contracting other STDs, including HIV, when exposed
3. Lower incidence of complication when an inexperienced nurse (or a cc-3) puts in your foley

The list of risks is also substantial. There seems to be a solid medical consensus that the potential benefits do not exceed the risks.

Why don't we count loss of sensation from the foreskin as one of the undesirable effects? It can be (and has been) quantified.

As far as altering normal anatomy for cosmetic reasons, we do it all the time:

Aside from the malformations, we can also list pierced ears in babies, braces, etc...

Excision of sensitive sexual tissue is unlike either of these. Braces remove no healthy tissue. Pierced ears are not performed by physicians, and also do not remove tissue.

A suitable comparison should involve excision of normal, healthy tissue with sensory function.

 

[Kai Zhur]

And as others have stated, we do "cosmetic" stuff on kids all the freaking time. My sister had freaking surgeries on her jaw because her teeth weren't straight, but not bad enough that they affected her ability to eat. My cousin just had a hemangioma fixed, not a problem, just unsightly.

Hemangioma are classified as malformations. Normal male anatomy is not.
When your sister had her jaw surgery, was she a minor incapable of expressing her desire to have the surgery? I don't think a physician would perform jaw surgery under such circumstances unless there was a clear medical benefit.

This is a NON ISSUE. If you people want to cut circumcision rates, target the freaking parents. We doctors DON'T CARE.

Why don't you care? Your patient is the child, not the parent. There are innumerable surgeries which you would perform on an informed and consenting adult, but not on a child. Why don't you care what your patient will think of it when he becomes an adult? You know statistically that very few informed males consent to the surgery. Why doesn't that factor into whether you perform it on a newborn who does not need it for any medical reason?

We know there are no conclusive benefits either way so it's up to parents decision for cultural and aesthetic reasons, which is perfectly acceptable.

This is an important issue in medicine. Ethically, can physicians perform surgery on individuals unable to consent for merely "cultural" reasons? Or, does proxy-consent exist to facilitate the medical needs of the patient? I propose the later.

 

[edmadison]

Three benefits to circumcision:
1. Fewer neonatal UTIs (Not a big number either way)
2. Lower incidence of HPV and contracting other STDs, including HIV, when exposed
3. Lower incidence of complication when an inexperienced nurse (or a cc-3) puts in your foley

I believe that you for forgot the single largest benefit to circumcision. Some find performing fellatio on an uncircumcised penis distasteful (I'm not at all sorry about the pun) and will either not engage in the act or engage in it less often.

Ed

 

[ml66uk]

You're not seriously comparing female circumcision to male circumcision, are you?

Foreigners don't concern me. I don't care about them or their children.

Kind of sad that you can't defend your position except by referring to another, infinitely more brutal, practice done in underdeveloped nations.

Yes, I am seriously comparing female circumcision to male circumcision. Female circumcision covers a far greater range of operations than male circumcision, from the extreme forms, which are truly horrific, to a girl having a symbolic nick in her clitoral hood under local anaesthetic in an operating theatre. Far more extreme forms than the latter used to be practised in the USA. There are articles in US medical literature up until the 1950's recommending female circumcision, claiming the same benefits as, and pointing out the similarities with male circumcision. Blue Cross/Blue Shield had a code for clitoridectomy right up until 1977, and there are middle-aged and elderly American women, who have parts of their genitals missing.

One victim wrote a book about it:
Robinett, Patricia (2006). "The rape of innocence: One woman's story of female genital mutilation in the USA."
N.p.: Aesculapius Press. ISBN 1-878411-04-7.

The west now has a zero-tolerance approach to any form of female genital cutting - a Dutch doctor who suggested the pinprick approach as an alternative to anything more radical was roundly condemned. I don't see how we can really expect countries to stop female circumcision when male circumcision is being promoted though. I think there are only three countries (the USA, Israel, and the Philippines) where more than 50% of boys are cut, but less than 10% of girls.

There's a range of operations to male circumcision too btw. The usual method of circumcision up until 100 AD was to just remove the overhanging foreskin, without separating anything from the glans. The standard procedure in the Philippines is a dorsal slit. The operation is practised in very different conditions too - 20 people have died due to male circumcision in just one province of South Africa this year.

The milder forms of female circumcision do far less damage than the usual form of male circumcision. That's why I suggested you try convincing some Egyptian or Malaysian blogger that cutting their daughter isn't a non-issue.

Here's a recent comment from a circumcised woman on a Malaysian blog:
I hate it when people generalize ALL Muslims. When they mention female circumsion, they will always equate it to genital mutilation (NOT THE SAME!!!) We have the best healthcare professionals, and the most hygienic hospitals for circumcisions in Malaysia. What's the big deal about female circumcision anyway? I'm circumcised and I probably achieve more orgasms than the average Mat Salleh chick.

The study quoted by smq123 is very hard to take seriously, as the subjects seem to have reported unrealistic levels of satisfaction for everything. 98%+ satisfaction levels for everything? Let's all move there. Even on their figures, 99.9% of intact men were satisfied, but only 98.4% of circumcised men. A more realistic study of adult men being circumcised without a specific medical indication is this one.

Kai's original point is a valid one. There is no other operation where we remove healthy living tissue from a normal newborn. We would refuse to cut off any other part of a baby's body at the parent's request. The male prepuce is being treated as a birth defect.

 

[Pharmavixen]

From The World Health Organization:

FGM is recognized internationally as a violation of the human rights of girls and women. It reflects deep-rooted inequality between the sexes, and constitutes an extreme form of discrimination against women. It is nearly always carried out on minors and is a violation of the rights of children. The practice also violates a person's rights to health, security and physical integrity, the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the right to life when the procedure results in death.

Female genital mutilation is classified into four major types:

Clitoridectomy: partial or total removal of the clitoris (a small, sensitive and erectile part of the female genitals) and, rarely, the prepuce (the fold of skin surrounding the clitoris) as well.
Excision: partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora (the labia are "the lips" that surround the vagina).
Infibulation: narrowing of the vaginal opening through the creation of a covering seal. The seal is formed by cutting and repositioning the inner, and sometimes outer, labia, with or without removal of the clitoris.
Other: all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, e.g. pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterizing the genital area.

Immediate complications can include severe pain, shock, haemorrhage (bleeding), tetanus or sepsis (bacterial infection), urine retention, open sores in the genital region and injury to nearby genital tissue.

Long-term consequences can include:

recurrent bladder and urinary tract infections;
cysts;
infertility;
the need for later surgeries. For example, the FGM procedure that seals or narrows a vaginal opening (type 3 above) is surgically changed to allow for sexual intercourse and childbirth, and sometimes stitched close again afterwards;
an increased risk of childbirth complications and newborn deaths.

Both male and female circumcision may be rooted in a fear of human sexuality. But the consequences for women are far more devastating, given the imbalance of power between men and women.

An argument can be made that circumcising boys is the unnecessary excision of a healthy body part. I am totally on side with thinking of it as a minor form of mutilation. But making fantastical comparisons to far more mutilating procedures only discredits the people making such arguments, and ultimately hurts their cause.

 

[Dirt]

I believe that you for forgot the single largest benefit to circumcision. Some find performing fellatio on an uncircumcised penis distasteful (I'm not at all sorry about the pun) and will either not engage in the act or engage in it less often.

Ed

 

[facetguy]

I believe that you for forgot the single largest benefit to circumcision. Some find performing fellatio on an uncircumcised penis distasteful (I'm not at all sorry about the pun) and will either not engage in the act or engage in it less often.

Ed

This alone should end all further discussion.

 

[ml66uk]

I believe that you for forgot the single largest benefit to circumcision. Some find performing fellatio on an uncircumcised penis distasteful (I'm not at all sorry about the pun) and will either not engage in the act or engage in it less often.

There are countries where parents believe that their daughters will not find husbands and never be able to have sex if their daughters don't have genital surgery. Doesn't make it right. Some of these procedures do less damage than male circumcision, but they're still illegal in the USA (even for a consenting adult, though the legislation is routinely ignored for labiaplasty and designer vagina operations).

Why don't we just let the owner of the genitals decide for themselves? Like I said before, adult circumcision hurts less, is less dangerous, and the results are cosmetically better.

Hard to assess objectively I know, but I personally don't believe that a man can enjoy fellatio as much if he has been circumcised. I know that women who are used to circumcised men are much rougher about it..

 

[Pharmavixen]

Neo-hippie that I am, I don't like any surgery on normal, healthy people, and that includes body modification such as piercings and tattoos.

I used to work in a drugstore where the cosmetician did ear piercings. The pharmacy tech and I would be in the back filling the prescriptions when we'd hear a baby screaming bloody murder, and we'd know another parent had their kid's ears pierced. And the tech would mutter, "More child abuse."

 

[Tired]

Why don't we just let the owner of the genitals decide for themselves?

I always ask, but all they do is scream and I can never get a clear answer . . .

 

[Terpskins99]

Furthermore... why should we allow those hair butchers mutilate natural beautiful hair?

Women, grow out your armpit and leg hair! Fight the power!

 

[Kai Zhur]

Furthermore... why should we allow those hair butchers mutilate natural beautiful hair?

Women, grow out your armpit and leg hair! Fight the power!

It is basically impossible that any medical student or doctor is sufficiently unintelligent to seriously compare excision of the male prepuce to cutting hair, correcting a birth defect, or other such nonsense. Instead, psychological and societal factors lead otherwise intelligent people to face this issue with jest or tortured logic.

Non-therapeutic newborn circumcision violates numerous principles of medical ethics. Its performance requires unique standards which cannot and are not applied to surgery any other part of the human body.

Within the expected lifetime of a child born today, the medical community will probably have long-since recognized and corrected this mistake. During the lifetime of people alive today, female circumcision too was practiced by the medical community in this country. Are all the medical students here aware of this history? Those who are not should become familiar with it:

Circumcision in the Female:
Its Necessity and How to Perform It, 1915

Circumcision of the Female, 1958

Female Circumcision:
Indications and a New Technique, 1959

For a personal example, read this excerpt from from The Rape of Innocence.

It is the responsibility of medical students and doctors of today to correct the mistakes of the previous, and of the current generation of practitioners. Stand up for the highest ethics of medicine, with the understanding that many of those who have previously accepted non-therapeutic circumcision, and those personally touched by it in particular, may be the most resistant.

 

[Terpskins99]

It is basically impossible that any medical student or doctor is sufficiently unintelligent to seriously compare excision of the male prepuce to cutting hair, correcting a birth defect, or other such nonsense. Instead, psychological and societal factors lead otherwise intelligent people to face this issue with jest or tortured logic.

Then I guess you live on a different planet, troll. I'm a 4th year med student and counting.

Arguing about circumcision makes just as little sense as arguing about cutting hair. Both of them are effectively cosmetic, though circumcision does lead to lower incidence of infection. Guess where I learned that? Bingo, Med school!

Thank you for playing, goodbye.

 

[Kai Zhur]

Then I guess you live on a different planet, troll. I'm a 4th year med student and counting.

Arguing about circumcision makes just as little sense as arguing about cutting hair. Both of them are effectively cosmetic, though circumcision does lead to lower incidence of infection. Guess where I learned that? Bingo, Med school!

Thank you for playing, goodbye.

If you are familiar with the history of female circumcision in the United States then you know that even brilliant doctors sometimes fail to uphold the ethical standards later generations take for granted. You may be a brilliant medical student, yet still lack the perspective necessary to see past a prevailing but waning paradigm. After all, you are specializing in medicine, not medical ethics. Physicians should not be the sole arbiters of what practices in medicine are ethical because few individuals are capable of adequately filling both roles simultaneously.

Removing the prepuce from a newborn boy is unlike any other surgery performed on newborns in the United States. In so doing, the physician fails to act in the best interest of the patient, fails to consider whether the patient would make this choice for himself (few would), and fails to preserve the normal bodily function of the patient, which includes a mobile and sensitive foreskin.

Take a look around. Countless men are aggravated by the unnecessary destruction of this part of their genitals. Listen to them.

 

[Terpskins99]

I was circumcised.

And while I appreciate your concern, I assure you my penis feels just fine.

 

[Kai Zhur]

I was circumcised.

And while I appreciate your concern, I assure you my penis feels just fine.

In medical school, did they teach you male anatomy, and are you sure they did so adequately? They may not have, since much of the discoveries are very recent.

Did they teach you about the ridged band? You were born with one, but you don't have one.

The ridged band is a recently described anatomical feature of the human male prepuce (foreskin). It is highly innervated and vascularized and plays an important role in controlling human sexual response.
The ridged band was only recently discovered and still is not mentioned in most textbooks of anatomy and urology.

That you feel fine is not the issue. What circumcised men do not feel due to loss of specific erogenous regions is an issue with which every physician dealing with male anatomy should be familiar.

 

[PeepshowJohnny]

Again, the article you cite is from:

Doctors Opposing Circumcision - Physicians for Genital Integrity

If this is is such an important, crucial issue why are the only people publishing on it from one group?

 

[fab4fan]

I always ask, but all they do is scream and I can never get a clear answer . . .

 

[ml66uk]

Furthermore... why should we allow those hair butchers mutilate natural beautiful hair?

Women, grow out your armpit and leg hair! Fight the power!

WTF!? You're comparing hair removal with cutting off healthy living tissue? And then you call someone else a troll!?

When was the last time a baby died because of having its hair cut? When was the last time one needed a sex change or contracted necrotizing fasciitis? Sure those are very rare, but they do happen. How about meatal stenosis? Loads of circumcised males have that.

What always happens is that the patient has the most sensitive parts of their penis excised without their consent. Sure, most of them won't care, but then the staunchest defenders of female circumcision are women that have been cut themselves. They think that's no big deal too, and that trying to stop it is cultural imperialism.

Again, the article you cite is from:

Doctors Opposing Circumcision - Physicians for Genital Integrity

If this is is such an important, crucial issue why are the only people publishing on it from one group?

It's not been known about for that long. One problem is that until recently, most anatomy books didn't even show the foreskin. That's a reflection of the fact that the foreskin was believed to be unimportant, and the fact they miss it out tends to perpetuate the belief. Imagine Gray's not showing the clitoral hood, or inner labia. If you were in a country where they were routinely removed, and they weren't in the book, you'd figure they were unimportant too.

Check out what the CPS, BMA, and RACP have to say about circumcision though. (I posted this and more in a thread elsewhere and asked for it to be made sticky, but it seems to have aged out).

Canadian Paediatric Society
http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/fn/fn96-01.htm
Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed.

http://www.caringforkids.cps.ca/pregnancy&babies/circumcision.htm
Circumcision is a "non-therapeutic" procedure, which means it is not medically necessary. Parents who decide to circumcise their newborns often do so for religious, social or cultural reasons. To help make the decision about circumcision, parents should have information about risks and benefits. It is helpful to speak with your baby's doctor.

After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions.

Royal Australasian College of Physicians
http://www.racp.edu.au/download.cfm?DownloadFile=A453CFA1-2A57-5487-DF36DF59A1BAF527
"After extensive review of the literature the Royal Australasian College of Physicians reaffirms that there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision."
(those last nine words are in bold on their website, and almost all the men responsible for this statement will be circumcised themselves, as the male circumcision in Australia in 1950 was about 90%. "Routine" circumcision is now *banned* in public hospitals in Australia in all states except one.)

British Medical Association
http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Conten...2,circumcision#Circumcisionformedicalpurposes
to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate.

National Health Service (UK)
http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/articles/article.aspx?articleId=649
Many people have strong views about whether circumcision should be carried out or not. It is not routinely performed in the UK because there is no clear clinical evidence to suggest that it is has any medical benefit.

Canadian Children's Rights Council
http://www.canadiancrc.com/Circumcision_Genital_Mutilation_Male-Female_Children.aspx
It is the position of the Canadian Children's Rights Council that "circumcision" of male or female children is genital mutilation of children.
...
The Canadian Children's Rights Council position is that there is no medical benefit to the routine genital mutilation (circumcision) of any children (defined by U.N. as those under 18 years of age). Further, all Canadian children, both male and female, should be protected by the criminal laws of Canada with regards to this aggravated assault. Currently, the protection provided by the Criminal Code of Canada includes only genital mutilation (circumcision) of female children.

 

[Kai Zhur]

Again, the article you cite is from:

If this is is such an important, crucial issue why are the only people publishing on it from one group?

The anatomical facts exist regardless of who thinks they are important, who researches them, and who publishes them.

If you deny the existence of this structure (the ridged band), why don't you just come out and say it.