Parents face so many difficult decisions when it comes to having a child: decisions about nursing, sleep patterns, discipline, teaching methods and, in the case of boys, whether or not to circumcise. In addition to being the most common surgery for males in the U.S., circumcision has been practiced in various cultures for centuries. Yet when it comes to the health and best interest of your newborn, is circumcision the way to go?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Dr. Morris please choose your words more carefully for the next forum. Neither Marilyn Milos or you are 'lying.' You have a difference of opinion and presenting alternate arguments as best possible. I have seen this 'lying thing' on both sides. By you calling another a 'liar' gives the impression second grade hasn't left you while on your journey into the Hallowed Halls of academia. It's OK to state where you think the opposite side or person is coming from. But it's better to use sarcasm. Mine to you is:
"The agility of the mind in your head never ceases to amaze me as you have learned to bend over and place it into your cave of elimination and without even smelling the stench emanating from the echoes of your pronouncements."
Your assignment professor is a come-back. No cheating. Do it on your own. Circumcision is a tough subject for all of us. Gallows humor is cathartic and OK and I'll understand from my military experiences. Give it a try. No grade, not even a pass or fail.
- DevilDocRetired
August 18, 2008 3:20AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(7)
Side: No
Ad Hominem attacks like saying someone is a 'liar' are an indication of a last resort to a loosing proposition. If you have that angst in frustration, then take a deep breath and re-assess. As long as the heading remains you are open to sarcasm and goading in return even with serious introjections. But it does make things less dull.
- DevilDocRetired August 18, 2008 10:05PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(6)
Side: No
Male circumcision is inherently harmful to the Child that is it is not perfomed on newborns in Europe and the British Medical Association ethical guidelines advise conserving the foreskin and a non invasive approach to foreskin management.
"The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefit from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it"
It is always beneficial not to carry out surgery when there are other non invasive alternatives. A recent series of circumcisions for religious reasons in an NHS facility reported an 18% complication rate. The overall rate of significant complications for circumcision may be of the order of 2%-10%. Complication rates of up to 55% have however been reported for circumcision. Recent studies have reported sexual dysfunction rates of 27% to 38% secondary to male circumcision.
Doctors have legal and ethical duties to their child patients to render competent medical care based on what the patient needs, not what someone else expresses. The majority of parents and doctors work with the best interests of their children at heart however many parents and doctors have been sadly misinformed.
Nick Malone of the Sexual Problems Clinic in Edinburgh Royal Infirmary has said
“If the good doctors brushed up on their science a little, we could bypass these tiresome refutations and focus on more pertinent issues of legality, human rights and consent.”
It may be argued, with some degree of persuasiveness, that religious circumcision must be made available through doctors to minimise the harm. The high rates of complications for circumcisions in NHS hosptals and the later high rate of sexual dysfunction remind us that male circumcision is a traditional practice prejudicial to the health of children.
Parents asserting their right to circumcise their children assert that their right to manifest one's religious beliefs is guaranteed by article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). That article of the ECHR however includes a permission to restrict that right where necessary to protect the rights and freedoms of others. Such a restriction is appropriate to protect children from the harm inherent in non-therapeutic circumcision.
The question for this exercise asks "Is male circumcision ever justified?". My answer to this is yes, it may be justified if - and only if - it has the informed personal consent of the person being circumcised.
Circumcision, of male or female children is only ever justified if the patient's life is at risk if it is not performed - for example if there is a tumour or a gangrenous infection and if the patient is a sexually active and psychologically sound adult, and provides proper consent after being fully informed of all the conflicting evidence.
This is an issue of our own rights to make informed decisions about our own bodies this is a choice we must all be allowed to make for ourselves as adults.
- Nocirc of Northern Ireland
October 17, 2008 2:55AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: No
13
8
8
9
11
2
1
2
7
4
4
3
5
4
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
The Public Should See Through This Nonsense
- From NOCIRC
By National Organization of Circumcision Information - Making a Safer World for Children
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.