Decline in circumcision rate could cost billions

[tod evans]

How so? I would regard the unnecessary amputation of an organ (the foreskin is considered an organ, like the rest of the skin) as quite obviously harmful. The problem with the argument for leaving it to the parents is that it's not the parents' body ("property" if you prefer) to decide what to do with except in truly important procedures (like some exotic surgery to save the child's life) which the child is too incompetent to decide on.

The parent as legal guardian has authority to accept or decline any medical procedure for their child...... Declining lifesaving procedure is a parents right....No matter how unethical you or I may find the decision it is their right under law.

Same with any elective cosmetic surgery such as clef-pallet repair or minor surgery like clipping the frenulum on a tongue tied infant or even circumcision.

The government should NEVER be afforded the authority to make medical decisions for anyone, hell they can't even keep bridges repaired what would they do with a childs mitral-valve?

It's cool to argue opinions until somebody tries to make opinions law.......I find it best to argue against more laws.

 

[jmdrake]

How so? I would regard the unnecessary amputation of an organ (the foreskin is considered an organ, like the rest of the skin) as quite obviously harmful. The problem with the argument for leaving it to the parents is that it's not the parents' body ("property" if you prefer) to decide what to do with except in truly important procedures (like some exotic surgery to save the child's life) which the child is too incompetent to decide on.

Let's see. Foreskin = organ because skin = organ so an ear piercing = amputation since it involves removal of a bit of skin. Sorry, but color me unconvinced by your argument. That said, the tonsils are an organ. Preventative tonsillectomies are no longer vogue. But I don't think they should be banned. They went out of vogue because the data suggested there was no advantage to them, not because of cheap emotional arguments comparing them to fingers. As the "battle of the papers" shows, the medical jury is still out on circumcision. When your side turns to emotionalism I tune it out.

 

[phill4paul]

Hey it's only skin. Parents are allowed to tattoo their children. Right?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

How so? I would regard the unnecessary amputation of an organ (the foreskin is considered an organ, like the rest of the skin) as quite obviously harmful. The problem with the argument for leaving it to the parents is that it's not the parents' body ("property" if you prefer) to decide what to do with except in truly important procedures (like some exotic surgery to save the child's life) which the child is too incompetent to decide on.

The foreskin is not an organ. It is a very small part of an organ. Also, if we are not allowed to remove organs, what about an appendectomy? Where do you draw the line with these laws?

 

[jmdrake]

Hey it's only skin. Parents are allowed to tattoo their children. Right?

Sadly no. Not even with the child's consent.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ken-grandfathers-care-hes-allowed-tattoo.html

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Hey it's only skin. Parents are allowed to tattoo their children. Right?

Well, no, not under the current law. But we are not exactly in favor of current law, are we?

 

[AgentOrange]

The parent as legal guardian has authority to accept or decline any medical procedure for their child...... Declining lifesaving procedure is a parents right....No matter how unethical you or I may find the decision it is their right under law.

In what country? Not in the US it isn't. There have been many cases where parents lost their right to make medical decisions for their child, because a doctor/institution took the parents to court when they refused a lifesaving procedure. Not just for obviously lifesaving procedures, but also in murky gray cases (ie chemotherapy where the prognosis was low.) Parents have also went to prison for murder because their child died after they refused a life-saving procedure.

Edited to add...this even extends to preborn children. Pregnant women have been forced to get treatments that a judge has deemed necessary for their preborn child. There was even one case where a judge ordered a pregnant women in the first trimester forcibly hospitalized because a doctor thought she was at risk of miscarriage (the woman had refused because she had no sick leave at her job and had older children to take care of.)

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Q: How much does a circumcisor earn?

A: $20 bucks per hour, plus tips..

IIRC, it is $500...

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Seems MSM will try to drum up more business. With irrelevant factoids....

http://news.yahoo.com/5-things-didnt-know-circumcision-121207406.html

5 Things You Didn't Know About Circumcision

1. It was once touted as a cure for paralysis
2. The foreskin is more complex than you might think
3. The first-recorded circumcision happened in Egypt
4. It may have caught on as a status symbol
5. Circumcisions leave unique marks

Organ or not?

2. The foreskin is more complex than you might think

The foreskin isn't just skin. Think of it as more like an eyelid for male genitals. On the inside, the foreskin is made up of mucous membrane, analogous to the inside of the eyelid or the inside of the mouth. It's this moist environment that seems to be responsible for the foreskin's association with sexually transmitted infections. The foreskin also contains a large number of Langerhans cells, a type of immune cell targeted by HIV infection.

Women have a foreskin equivalent, too: the clitoral hood, which protects the clitoris much as the foreskin covers the glans. The foreskin and the clitoral hood, known in gender-neutral terms as the prepuce, evolve from the same tissue in the womb. [10 Odd Facts About the Female Body]

 

[low preference guy]

all the supposed medical benefits of circumcision are about the same if it occurs at birth or at 18, when the individual should be able to decide whether he wants a circumcision. on the other hand, there are people, including doctors, who regret that their parents removed their foreskins when they had no choice, so the degree of psychological harm of the amputation is unpredictable.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

all the supposed medical benefits of circumcision are about the same if it occurs at birth or at 18, when the individual should be able to decide whether he wants a circumcision. on the other hand, there are people, including doctors, who regret that their parents removed their foreskins when they had no choice, so the degree of psychological harm of the amputation is unpredictable.

Truth.

 

[tod evans]

I stand corrected. :o

In what country? Not in the US it isn't. There have been many cases where parents lost their right to make medical decisions for their child, because a doctor/institution took the parents to court when they refused a lifesaving procedure. Not just for obviously lifesaving procedures, but also in murky gray cases (ie chemotherapy where the prognosis was low.) Parents have also went to prison for murder because their child died after they refused a life-saving procedure.

Edited to add...this even extends to preborn children. Pregnant women have been forced to get treatments that a judge has deemed necessary for their preborn child. There was even one case where a judge ordered a pregnant women in the first trimester forcibly hospitalized because a doctor thought she was at risk of miscarriage (the woman had refused because she had no sick leave at her job and had older children to take care of.)

 

[jmdrake]

Organ or not?

From your quote:

2. The foreskin is more complex than you might think

The foreskin isn't just skin. Think of it as more like an eyelid for male genitals. On the inside, the foreskin is made up of mucous membrane, analogous to the inside of the eyelid or the inside of the mouth. It's this moist environment that seems to be responsible for the foreskin's association with sexually transmitted infections. The foreskin also contains a large number of Langerhans cells, a type of immune cell targeted by HIV infection.

Women have a foreskin equivalent, too: the clitoral hood, which protects the clitoris much as the foreskin covers the glans. The foreskin and the clitoral hood, known in gender-neutral terms as the prepuce, evolve from the same tissue in the womb. [10 Odd Facts About the Female Body]

The tonsils and appendix are organs as well.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

From your quote:

2. The foreskin is more complex than you might think

The foreskin isn't just skin. Think of it as more like an eyelid for male genitals. On the inside, the foreskin is made up of mucous membrane, analogous to the inside of the eyelid or the inside of the mouth. It's this moist environment that seems to be responsible for the foreskin's association with sexually transmitted infections. The foreskin also contains a large number of Langerhans cells, a type of immune cell targeted by HIV infection.

Women have a foreskin equivalent, too: the clitoral hood, which protects the clitoris much as the foreskin covers the glans. The foreskin and the clitoral hood, known in gender-neutral terms as the prepuce, evolve from the same tissue in the womb. [10 Odd Facts About the Female Body]

The tonsils and appendix are organs as well.

Of course, it's a pro-circumcision article after all, and there seems to be a whole slew of them lately.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

all the supposed medical benefits of circumcision are about the same if it occurs at birth or at 18, when the individual should be able to decide whether he wants a circumcision. on the other hand, there are people, including doctors, who regret that their parents removed their foreskins when they had no choice, so the degree of psychological harm of the amputation is unpredictable.

It's not an amputation. Now you are just being obtuse.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

It's not an amputation. Now you are just being obtuse.

It most certainly is amputation. Per the dictionary:

am·pu·tate (

m

py

-t

t

)tr.v. am·pu·tat·ed, am·pu·tat·ing, am·pu·tatesTo cut off (a projecting body part), especially by surgery.


​

​

 

[PaulConventionWV]

It most certainly is amputation. Per the dictionary:

am·pu·tate (

m

py

-t

t

)tr.v. am·pu·tat·ed, am·pu·tat·ing, am·pu·tatesTo cut off (a projecting body part), especially by surgery.


​

​

The foreskin is not a projecting body part.

 

[VoluntaryAmerican]

The foreskin is not a projecting body part.

Mine projects when aroused.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Mine projects when aroused.

That is your penis, not your foreskin. Why did I just have to explain that to you? Nobody's going to chop off your penis.

 

[Nirvikalpa]

Let's see. Foreskin = organ because skin = organ so an ear piercing = amputation since it involves removal of a bit of skin. Sorry, but color me unconvinced by your argument. That said, the tonsils are an organ. Preventative tonsillectomies are no longer vogue. But I don't think they should be banned. They went out of vogue because the data suggested there was no advantage to them, not because of cheap emotional arguments comparing them to fingers. As the "battle of the papers" shows, the medical jury is still out on circumcision. When your side turns to emotionalism I tune it out.

Wow @ your so-called "argument." Tonsils are removed because they get inflamed, the person is having difficulty breathing/swallowing, it is a factor is sleep apnea, etc etc. Even "preventative tonsillectomies" as you describe them are usually offered by doctors after repeated infections (sinus, strep throat, mostly).

The foreskin is not an organ. It is a very small part of an organ.

That still makes it an organ. Scientifically, an organ is a collection of different tissues. Skin is the largest organ of the human body.

Also, if we are not allowed to remove organs, what about an appendectomy?

Good God, nice argument by generalization.

Appendectomy: The removal of the appendix, usually done in an emergency situation to treat appendicitis. See the difference?

There's not an intactivist on this earth that argues that all organs, especially dysfunctional ones, should remain inside the human body. The key here is that foreskin is not dysfunctional, but normal and healthy.

It's not an amputation. Now you are just being obtuse.

An an ad-hominem now? Good grief.

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

My boys will be whole; future hubby will have to understand that and be ok with it. That's on the "'must' list of potential mates" for me. When I am a doctor, I don't think he'll be able to argue with me, either.

Oh, HB34, I don't know how you stuck around this thread for so long.