“Unconscionable” San Francisco archbishop rejects circumcision ban

[Corki]

What you need to do for me is tell me ANY single other scenario in which a parent has the authority to give proxy consent to a physician to perform a medically unnecessary, non-therapeutic surgery on a healthy, normal child, as I’ve asked before and yet NOONE can answer! Where else can a parent have a body part amputated from their child that is not abnormal, diseased, or in any way unhealthy?

The fact that this is the one exception to our normative medical ethics standards should alert us to a problem! It ought to be a big red flag to us.

You don’t seem to be open to any real debate but here’s some examples.

Yes, one son had heathy teeth removed to prevent possible future alignment problems - so did I FWIW (I was 9).

I used to work in a hospital on a peds ward. One of the surgeries there was a child who had a toe amputated. There was nothing wrong with the toe but the parents and doctors decided that removing it would give the child the best chance of walking. The toe was “not abnormal, diseased or in any way unhealthy.” So no, this circumcision is not the only exception. The toe surgery was an unusual and experimental case but you said you only needed a single example.

But now that I think about it, what about parents who consent to donate one of their child’s kidneys to someone who needs it? The kidney is “amputated” and it is “not abnormal, diseased or in any way unhealthy” either. There are surgical risks and future heath risks that are very real. It’s the parents and doctors who decide.

I believe someone pointed out earlier that parents get their kids tatoos and pierce their ears. I have more ethical problems with ear piercing babies than with circumcision frankly.

But what gives voters the right to decide this? (other than a quirk in CA law) A tiny fraction of the people who vote on this are going to do so in any kind of rational, informed manner. They are not, for the most part, medical professionals or even medically literate. Some may vote due to religious convictions or due to anti-semitism. They may not even be parents. Parents and their medical advisors should be the ones making this decision.

 

[Blacksword]

You don’t seem to be open to any real debate but here’s some examples.

Yes, one son had heathy teeth removed to prevent possible future alignment problems - so did I FWIW (I was 9).

I used to work in a hospital on a peds ward. One of the surgeries there was a child who had a toe amputated. There was nothing wrong with the toe but the parents and doctors decided that removing it would give the child the best chance of walking. The toe was “not abnormal, diseased or in any way unhealthy.” So no, this circumcision is not the only exception. The toe surgery was an unusual and experimental case but you said you only needed a single example.

But now that I think about it, what about parents who consent to donate one of their child’s kidneys to someone who needs it? The kidney is “amputated” and it is “not abnormal, diseased or in any way unhealthy” either. There are surgical risks and future heath risks that are very real. It’s the parents and doctors who decide.

I believe someone pointed out earlier that parents get their kids tatoos and pierce their ears. I have more ethical problems with ear piercing babies than with circumcision frankly.

But what gives voters the right to decide this? (other than a quirk in CA law) A tiny fraction of the people who vote on this are going to do so in any kind of rational, informed manner. They are not, for the most part, medical professionals or even medically literate. Some may vote due to religious convictions or due to anti-semitism. They may not even be parents. Parents and their medical advisors should be the ones making this decision.

The dentist had doubtless MUCH better evidence to see future alignment problems than cutting a baby’s genitals is based on.

And removing a toe so a child could walk? What was wrong with him? Why couldn’t he walk with the toe? This sounds really dubious, and sorry, is not similar at all. The kid couldn’t WALK with the toe…what debilitating effects does a normal penis have?

 

[Blacksword]

So, because there is one link to a circumcision fetish discussion group on yahoo, that makes all the other scientific studies and information posted on his site worthless? Prove that Dr. Morris advocates female genital cutting. And concerning smell and ickiness, circumcision does make cleaning easier. Your calling me intellectually dishonest is not appreciated.

Don't declare victory so soon.  One of the links you cited stated clearly several medical benefits to neonatal circumcision.  And you have yet to comment on the benefits mentioned by Dr. David Hawker above.  

Groups like the AMA and AAP don't recommend it, but neither do they call for neonatal circumcision to be banned.  Both groups call for parents to make an informed decision based on the potential risks and benefits.




Morris is hardly my only source of information.  I am still waiting for you to discuss the benefits of neonatal circumcision mentioned at your third link:

source: cancer.org/cancer/penilecancer/detailedguide/penile-cancer-risk-factors

Nice try. There isn’t one link to a fetishist site on his page, but rather EIGHT! And the emails of his in the link i gave indicate hisnawareness of the fact that some studies have shown similar reduction potential in STD and HIV infection in female genital cutting, but he laments the “political correctness” on that issue!

As for the cancer society quote, yes I’m aware of it. Correlation is not causation, and risk factors can be listed even when very slight. It is telling that, again, Knowing this to be the case, the ACS STILL states and holds that circumcision is NOT an effective treatment to prevent cancer. If it was, I’m sure they would say so. Their position has not changed from their letter to the AAP on the topic in 1996. Sorry, but that’s the fact of the matter.

 

[Corki]

The dentist had doubtless MUCH better evidence to see future alignment problems than cutting a baby’s genitals is based on.

And removing a toe so a child could walk? What was wrong with him? Why couldn’t he walk with the toe? This sounds really dubious, and sorry, is not similar at all. The kid couldn’t WALK with the toe…what debilitating effects does a normal penis have?

The last question would only make sense if we were talking about amputating a penis.

As for the toe, it was some kind of muculo-skeletal disease. It doesn’t matter. I was just answering your challenge.

What you need to do for me is tell me ANY single other scenario in which a parent has the authority to give proxy consent to a physician to perform a medically unnecessary, non-therapeutic surgery on a healthy, normal child, as I’ve asked before and yet NOONE can answer! Where else can a parent have a body part amputated from their child that is not abnormal, diseased, or in any way unhealthy?

So, now you can’t say that noone answered you.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

What is the “function” of the foreskin? If God saw fit to have the Israelites remove it, it couldn’t have been that essential?

No it’s not. baptism doesn’t cut off healthy functioning body parts on helpless infants.

 

[meltzerboy]

Sigh…none of those things are similar in any way. Let me ask you: did you have healthy, normal, non-problem-causing teeth pulled? Would a dentist agree to yank out say, half your child’s teeth even thogh they were perfectly fine, because you asked him to? What if you told the dentist “well, teeth usually go bad eventually, so why not”? Did you have cosmetic surgery done on your child? Could I, for instance, have breast implants put in my two year old daughter? What surgeon would agree to such an operation? How about I asked to have her breast buds removed now, since she MIGHT get breast cancer later in life? And yet that’s FAR more likely than penile cancer or ANY other possible issue stemming from a normal foreskin!

Vaccines are thoroughly, overwhelmingly supported by medical evidence as being efficacious, likely life-saving for many, and essentially harmless.

What you need to do for me is tell me ANY single other scenario in which a parent has the authority to give proxy consent to a physician to perform a medically unnecessary, non-therapeutic surgery on a healthy, normal child, as I’ve asked before and yet NOONE can answer! Where else can a parent have a body part amputated from their child that is not abnormal, diseased, or in any way unhealthy?

The fact that this is the one exception to our normative medical ethics standards should alert us to a problem! It ought to be a big red flag to us.

I shouldn’t do this, but I’ll give you an example favoring your side of the argument (I think): the decline of tonsillectomies, which used to be a routine surgical procedure because it was thought, erroneously, that the tonsils (and adenoids) were focal points of infection that could spread throughout the body.

 

[Blacksword]

The last question would only make sense if we were talking about amputating a penis.

As for the toe, it was some kind of muculo-skeletal disease. It doesn’t matter. I was just answering your challenge.

So, now you can’t say that noone answered you.

Sigh…except that you haven’t. The kid had a musculoskeletal-skeletal disease, his toe evidently prevented him from walking in the doctor’s estimation. Sorry, next?

And the question about a normal penis absolutely makes sense. A normal penis HAS a FORESKIN. That is how virtually every man, and indeed, every male mammal, is born. It is ABNORMAL not to have one. The fact that this has become a societal preference in America over the last 80 years or so does not alter this basic fact. And thankfully, the rate of circumcision is down to about 30% now in the US according to the latest reports I’ve been seeing, so soon it will be the norm socially here too AGAIN. (you do realize that none of the founing fathers were cut, nor was Lincoln, or anyone except Jews for religious reasons, in the US until the 20th Century, right?)

 

[meltzerboy]

Yeah, except those women are making a health decision for THEMSELVES…if a guy wants to be cut, sure, let him get it. Just like ANY other cosmetic modification.

I realize the woman is making a decision for herself. I was referring to the similarity between the mixed findings of research studies concerning benefits and risks, which relate to both estrogen replacement therapy and circumcision. As stated, in the case of children, it is up to the parents (and doctor) to make the decision, as they so often do in their role of caregivers.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

In the Old Testament, it was the pagans who were the abnormal ones, foreskins and all!

Sigh…except that you haven’t. The kid had a musculoskeletal-skeletal disease, his toe evidently prevented him from walking in the doctor’s estimation. Sorry, next?

And the question about a normal penis absolutely makes sense. A normal penis HAS a FORESKIN. That is how virtually every man, and indeed, every male mammal, is born. It is ABNORMAL not to have one. The fact that this has become a societal preference in America over the last 80 years or so does not alter this basic fact. And thankfully, the rate of circumcision is down to about 30% now in the US according to the latest reports I’ve been seeing, so soon it will be the norm socially here too AGAIN. (you do realize that none of the founing fathers were cut, nor was Lincoln, or anyone except Jews for religious reasons, in the US until the 20th Century, right?)

 

[Blacksword]

What is the “function” of the foreskin? If God saw fit to have the Israelites remove it, it couldn’t have been that essential?

This is annoying, please read the thread, another poster already addressed many of them.

But asked and answered:

nocirc.org/symposia/second/denniston2.html

And I wish if we are going to talk about the medical aspects of the modern American surgery we could leave the ancient Abrahamic covenant out of it. I don’t want to see charges of anti-semitism flying again. Suffice to say though that the Abrahamic covenant is NOT the same pricdure as performed in hospitals today, and was not a removal of the entire foreskin until some 2,000 years of Jewish history, including the Destruction of the Temple and Roman conquest, had already passed.

I have to ask, at least from here on: please do not post until one has actually READ the thread and is familiar with the history of the discussion. These sort of drive-by postings are distracting, and cover ground that has already been discussed extensively.

 

[Blacksword]

In the Old Testament, it was the pagans who were the abnormal ones, foreskins and all!

I’m talking about BIOLOGY…you do know that all male mammals, including humans, are normally born with a foreskin, right?

 

[Blacksword]

I shouldn’t do this, but I’ll give you an example favoring your side of the argument (I think): the decline of tonsillectomies, which used to be a routine surgical procedure because it was thought, erroneously, that the tonsils (and adenoids) were focal points of infection that could spread throughout the body.

This is true, and highlights the medical ethics issue I’ve been getting at all along. It shows how vast the difference is between this one situation and the guiding principles of all the rest of medicine. It is an accepted principle that physicians do not perform surgeries or cut people unless medically required to do so…and not without consent. Consent allowing the plastic surgery exception to the rule. Physicians are supposed to treat using the LEAST invasive means to address a medical problem.

I had my tonsils removed, but not until they had become diseased and could NOT be cured any other way. Doctors are supposed to treat the sick, and leave the well alone.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Please don’t refer to my post as a drive-by post. And because I do have a life and only so much time, I am not going to read every single solitary post. I read the bulk of them. Just because you don’t want to mention the Abrahamic Covenent doesn’t mean others don’t. Please stop speaking for the entire thread. Thanks

This is annoying, please read the thread, another poster already addressed many of them.

But asked and answered:

nocirc.org/symposia/second/denniston2.html

And I wish if we are going to talk about the medical aspects of the modern American surgery we could leave the ancient Abrahamic covenant out of it. I don’t want to see charges of anti-semitism flying again. Suffice to say though that the Abrahamic covenant is NOT the same pricdure as performed in hospitals today, and was not a removal of the entire foreskin until some 2,000 years of Jewish history, including the Destruction of the Temple and Roman conquest, had already passed.

I have to ask, at least from here on: please do not post until one has actually READ the thread and is familiar with the history of the discussion. These sort of drive-by postings are distracting, and cover ground that has already been discussed extensively.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I figured you were, black. Last time I checked the foreskin was pretty much a part of biology but thanks for clarifying that…

I’m talking about BIOLOGY…you do know that all male mammals, including humans, are normally born with a foreskin, right?

 

[Corki]

Sigh…except that you haven’t. The kid had a musculoskeletal-skeletal disease, his toe evidently prevented him from walking in the doctor’s estimation. Sorry, next?

No. The toe did not prevent him from walking. The disease did. The surgery was an experimental attempt to offset one problem with anther (fewer toes). The details don’t matter as much as whether you got what you asked for.

But if you don’t like that one (the kid was sick, even if his toe was healthy) use the kidney transplant example.

What you need to do for me is tell me ANY single other scenario.

check

in which a parent has the authority to give proxy consent to a physician to perform a medically unnecessary, non-therapeutic surgery on a healthy, normal child

,

check

as I’ve asked before and yet NOONE can answer!

Now we have. check.

Where else can a parent have a body part amputated from their child that is not abnormal, diseased, or in any way unhealthy?

answered.

The fact that this is the one exception to our normative medical ethics standards should alert us to a problem! It ought to be a big red flag to us.

Now that you know it is not the only exceptions, you can take the flag down.

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR NOTICE

This thread has wondered far afield from the original post. Please return to the topic of the original post. Which is about faith and the practice of religion

from the original post

“The proposed ban on circumcision represents an unconscionable violation of the sanctuaries of faith and family by the government of San Francisco,” wrote Archbishop Niederauer in a letter to the editor published May 25 in the San Francisco Chronicle. “Although the issue does not concern Christians directly, as a religious leader I can only view with alarm the prospect that this misguided initiative would make it illegal for Jews and Muslims who practice their religion to live in San Francisco – for that is what the passage of such a law would mean.”

 

[Blacksword]

I realize the woman is making a decision for herself. I was referring to the similarity between the mixed findings of research studies concerning benefits and risks, which relate to both estrogen replacement therapy and circumcision. As stated, in the case of children, it is up to the parents (and doctor) to make the decision, as they so often do in their role of caregivers.

Whose body is it? Whose rights are most affected? Whose interests are most intimate to the question? When it comes to medicine, doctors and parents do not have the right to make this decision for a child. They do not OWN the penis in question. If the man that that child will become is VERY unhappy that he had a permanent scar put on his penis (and it leaves a permanent scar ring around the organ), and unhappy that he lost 15-20 square inches of functional, healthy, normal tissue, there is no remedy for him. If I were a Jew, I would gladly accept my loss as the price of my being brought into my covenant and community of faith. I am not, however, and having a piece of me permanently taken without my permission and without any real purpose or likely derived medical benefit is an injustice.

Here’s the crux of the issue: if an American man, non-Jew or Muslim, is circumcised and happy about it, great for him. But what if your son is not? What if he grows upmto be quite hurt by this loss, in fact? What does this parent say to him? Tough? Pike off? We thought it was good for your health? When the dubious benefits are made known to him, that’s going to seem pretty poor a reason, especially in the age of the Internet, where it’s easy to see that there is sketchy support for such assertions at best. Will you say, in fact, as most fathers REALLY do it for this reason, that you did it because you were cut too and it made you feel better about it? That says to him you were real bothered by the thought of him having what you didn’t, it says your feelings really mattered, not his. That’s NOT a pleasant conversation to have.

I’m not blaming anyone, I’m pointing out truth. If you are a parent who cut your son because you really thought it was a health benefit, you can always apologize to him if he regrets it. You have a responsibility to your fellow man to learn the truth, however, and continuing to cling to myths to protect one’s feelings is wrong. We need to learn and do better.

Incidentally, I will also point out that the rest of the civilized world has looked on the US’ medicalized circumcision practice as barbaric and horrid. My wife is Japanese…she never had heard of such a thing before coming here, and was shocked and horrified when she did find out about this practice. That’s the reaction the rest of the advanced world has…and their men are all as healthy and normal as any cut man in the US.

 

[Blacksword]

No. The toe did not prevent him from walking. The disease did. The surgery was an experimental attempt to offset one problem with anther (fewer toes). The details don’t matter as much as whether you got what you asked for.

But if you don’t like that one (the kid was sick, even if his toe was healthy) use the kidney transplant example.

check

,

check

Now we have. check.

answered.

Now that you know it is not the only exceptions, you can take the flag down.

No, not similar. There is a presence of a disease or infirmity, and the removal of the toe is the specific medically indicated cure. Sorry, that doesn’t work. And neither does removals of the kidney, they aren’t removing it in this situation because of some personal whim or perceived, dubious, health benefit. Indeed, it’s a known harm to remove the kidney, but they are doing it to save another’s life. And I’d further venture to guess that a doctor would not perform the surgery without the child’s consent. I’ve never heard of a situation where a doctor would.

These are terrible comparisons, and highlight further that a good one does not exist. Sorry. And let’s leave it at that, since the mod has indicated now that this is too off-topic.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I have never in my life met anyone who regrets their parents circumcising them and had an angry talk wishing they had their foreskin back? Have you actually heard of people having this regret? I haven’t? Of course this is a priori but honestly I just don’t see the big deal. I don’t think most men spend a lot of time analyzing this body part’s asthetics and what could’ve been?

Whose body is it? Whose rights are most affected? Whose interests are most intimate to the question? When it comes to medicine, doctors and parents do not have the right to make this decision for a child. They do not OWN the penis in question. If the man that that child will become is VERY unhappy that he had a permanent scar put on his penis (and it leaves a permanent scar ring around the organ), and unhappy that he lost 15-20 square inches of functional, healthy, normal tissue, there is no remedy for him. If I were a Jew, I would gladly accept my loss as the price of my being brought into my covenant and community of faith. I am not, however, and having a piece of me permanently taken without my permission and without any real purpose or likely derived medical benefit is an injustice.

Here’s the crux of the issue: if an American man, non-Jew or Muslim, is circumcised and happy about it, great for him. But what if your son is not? What if he grows upmto be quite hurt by this loss, in fact? What does this parent say to him? Tough? Pike off? We thought it was good for your health? When the dubious benefits are made known to him, that’s going to seem pretty poor a reason, especially in the age of the Internet, where it’s easy to see that there is sketchy support for such assertions at best. Will you say, in fact, as most fathers REALLY do it for this reason, that you did it because you were cut too and it made you feel better about it? That says to him you were real bothered by the thought of him having what you didn’t, it says your feelings really mattered, not his. That’s NOT a pleasant conversation to have.

I’m not blaming anyone, I’m pointing out truth. If you are a parent who cut your son because you really thought it was a health benefit, you can always apologize to him if he regrets it. You have a responsibility to your fellow man to learn the truth, however, and continuing to cling to myths to protect one’s feelings is wrong. We need to learn and do better.

Incidentally, I will also point out that the rest of the civilized world has looked on the US’ medicalized circumcision practice as barbaric and horrid. My wife is Japanese…she never had heard of such a thing before coming here, and was shocked and horrified when she did find out about this practice. That’s the reaction the rest of the advanced world has…and their men are all as healthy and normal as any cut man in the US.

 

[Blacksword]

In the interests of returning to the topic then, I will again say for the record that I am not in favor of a government ban on circumcision that does not have a religious exemption. So in that respect I essentially agree with the Archbishop.