Debate circumcision ethics call

  • Thread starter Thread starter LemonAndLime
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LemonAndLime

Guest
A group of circumcised men is calling on British doctors to debate the ethics of the procedure at the British Medical Association conference this week.

NORM-UK is a support group for men who say they have been harmed.

It has held its first public demonstration in the UK, lobbying delegates in Cardiff.

It wants British doctors to recognise circumcision as major, irreversible surgery that should not be carried out on new-born babies.

There are no accurate figures, but an estimated 30,000 boys are circumcised in the UK every year. The majority of them as a result of their parents’ religious faith.

Islamic, Jewish and some Christian communities circumcise male children as a matter of course.

bbc.co.uk/news/health-13932711
 
Good. I wish I had been given the choice to keep my foreskin. Some believe lacking it results in less sexual stimulation. Sadly I will never know. If I have sons I will not subject them to this.
 
freethinker83 said:
Good. I wish I had been given the choice to keep my foreskin. Some believe lacking it results in less sexual stimulation. Sadly I will never know. If I have sons I will not subject them to this.
Click to expand...
In the article is an account from a man who had one on the advise of a doctor when he was older, and he believed it has left him with less sensation.

I’m against it, theres no reason for me as a Catholic to circumcise any sons I have anyway. And I do think its major surgery and I do wonder that its allowed in the UK, where all medical treatment is meant to be based on evidence of benefit.
 
I wish I could bring myself to sympathize, but this is just one more play of victim-politics, and has often been the most viciously, openly anti-Semitic movement since Louis Farrakhan.

Really people? Schmuck-envy? Oi weh.
 
irishpatrick said:
It is a decision that should be made by the parents.
Click to expand...
It’s a permenant medical procedure carried out for religious reasons. NHS doctors are not meant to carry out procedures based purely on religion, which is one reason I’m against it.

I’m also against it because I think it is a kind of mutilation.
 
LemonAndLime said:
It’s a permenant medical procedure carried out for religious reasons. NHS doctors are not meant to carry out procedures based purely on religion, which is one reason I’m against it.

I’m also against it because I think it is a kind of mutilation.
Click to expand...
Well, even though many people in the medical community have changed their mind about the health benefits, there still remains no small number who feel it is a healthier choice. Couple that with religious choices (no small thing), and I just do not think it is something the state should have any say in.
 
irishpatrick said:
Well, even though many people in the medical community have changed their mind about the health benefits, there still remains no small number who feel it is a healthier choice. Couple that with religious choices (no small thing), and I just do not think it is something the state should have any say in.
Click to expand...
The state is providing the healthcare, so yes, it should have a say in it.

The NHS is also meant to be based on evidence. So, it looks at whether the risks and cost outweigh the benefits. I don’t think the benefits are greater in this case.

Also, the NHS is not there to carry out religious practices. Whether private doctors carry it out or not is up to themselves individually, and professional regulation.
 
LemonAndLime said:
It’s a permenant medical procedure carried out for religious reasons. NHS doctors are not meant to carry out procedures based purely on religion, which is one reason I’m against it.

I’m also against it because I think it is a kind of mutilation.
Click to expand...
Uh, can you actually not know that Jewish circumcision is performed by specially trained rabbis, called mohels, not NHS doctors? Or that virtually all Christians who circumcise do so for reasons other than religion?

Then again, knowing the Londonistan SSR’s way of doing things, they might very well have made it illegal for mohels who are not also NHS doctors to perform brisim (I think that’s the plural), which is an interesting Catch-22: “We throw you in jail if you perform this procedure without being one of our doctors, but our doctors aren’t allowed to perform this procedure.”

Ah, the rhythmic tromp of the jackboot. Does my musical intuition deceive me when it says they’re building to the tinkle of broken synagogue glass?
 
LemonAndLime said:
The state is providing the healthcare, so yes, it should have a say in it.

The NHS is also meant to be based on evidence. So, it looks at whether the risks and cost outweigh the benefits. I don’t think the benefits are greater in this case.

Also, the NHS is not there to carry out religious practices. Whether private doctors carry it out or not is up to themselves individually, and professional regulation.
Click to expand...
The incidence of urinary tract infections in male infants appears to be lower when circumcision is done in the newborn period. It was first reported in 1982 that urinary tract infections (UTIs) are more common among infant males than they are in infant females (this switches later on in life). In this study, it was revealed that about 95% of the infected infant boys had not been circumcised. This risk is especially significant in infants less than 1 year of age. Many studies have shown that uncircumcised infants have a tenfold increased risk of developing a UTI than circumcised infants.*

*Circumcision prevents the growth of bacteria under the foreskin and this, in turn, protects male infants against urinary tract infection. The high incidence of urinary tract infections in uncircumcised boys has also been found to be accompanied by an increased incidence of other significant infections such as bacteremia (bacterial infection of the bloodstream) and meningitis (infection of the covering of the brain). The protective effect of circumcision may thus extend to a number of infectious diseases. *

medicinenet.com/circumcision_the_medical_pros_and_cons/page3.htm

Seems clear to me. Couple that with simple freedom and religious freedoms at that, and it seems the state should stay ouf of this.
 
irishpatrick said:
The incidence of urinary tract infections in male infants appears to be lower when circumcision is done in the newborn period. It was first reported in 1982 that urinary tract infections (UTIs) are more common among infant males than they are in infant females (this switches later on in life). In this study, it was revealed that about 95% of the infected infant boys had not been circumcised. This risk is especially significant in infants less than 1 year of age. Many studies have shown that uncircumcised infants have a tenfold increased risk of developing a UTI than circumcised infants.*

*Circumcision prevents the growth of bacteria under the foreskin and this, in turn, protects male infants against urinary tract infection. The high incidence of urinary tract infections in uncircumcised boys has also been found to be accompanied by an increased incidence of other significant infections such as bacteremia (bacterial infection of the bloodstream) and meningitis (infection of the covering of the brain). The protective effect of circumcision may thus extend to a number of infectious diseases. *

medicinenet.com/circumcision_the_medical_pros_and_cons/page3.htm

Seems clear to me. Couple that with simple freedom and religious freedoms at that, and it seems the state should stay ouf of this.
Click to expand...
The slight increased risk of UTIs can be avoided by keeping it clean and the child well-hydrated. UTIs are hardly life threatening either.

The NHS is not there to provide surgery which is not considered necessary on the basis of religion.
 
Circumcision is barbaric. Those who think it’s “good” for newborns to be circumcised have never heard the little one scream when he’s cut. I have and it’s a horrible, heartbreaking sound, and I wonder about the women who allow this atrocity to be committed on their own newborn sons.

Hyperbole aside, it’s a wretched thing to do to a baby. 😦
 
irishpatrick said:
It is a decision that should be made by the parents.
Click to expand...
👍 End of discussion as far as I am concerned. If the boys don’t like their skinless weinies, they should sue their parents. Then they would have to prove that they suffered loss and that the parents did it with willful intend to harm. In other words, nothing.

The evidence is still split on the health benefits of circumcision. I had my sons clipped. I get no complaints.
 
I do not get it except for the fact that is a pure anti-religious movement. This is the same garbage that is going on in San Francisco. Governments that do not have any problems with the killing of babies suddenly have concerns about a piece of foreskin? I do not see any justification to pass such a law.
 
LemonAndLime said:
The slight increased risk of UTIs can be avoided by keeping it clean and the child well-hydrated. UTIs are hardly life threatening either.

The NHS is not there to provide surgery which is not considered necessary on the basis of religion.
Click to expand...
Well, many children are not kept routinely clean–it is the fault of poor parenting–so what happens to those kids? Just kick those kids to the curb?

Religious choice matters, though I have no sound view of how it matters in the UK.
 
Isn’t this a banned topic? I thought that these circumcision threads fell under the umbrella of “medical advice” which is not allowed on CAF.
 
Cristiano said:
I do not get it except for the fact that is a pure anti-religious movement. This is the same garbage that is going on in San Francisco. Governments that do not have any problems with the killing of babies suddenly have concerns about a piece of foreskin? I do not see any justification to pass such a law.
Click to expand...
Ya, its not anti-religious at all.

Here is Foreskin Man (does he have cool theme music? Is there a movie coming?) getting ready to save that baby from the clutches of the evil Monster Mohel. I am on pins and needles…

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20110618/c...x=230&y=345&q=85&sig=drbKAZuidXcnw9jEPOWbhA--
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
👍 End of discussion as far as I am concerned. If the boys don’t like their skinless weinies, they should sue their parents. .
Click to expand...
Well I suppose then, if parental consent is the only thing needed and doctor’s opinions count for nothing, I could, as a parent, demand the right to cut off my child’s earlobes based on a religious belief I have just decided I have.

Is that ok too? I mean, I am the parent, and I have given my consent, and I say it is based on my religion.
 
irishpatrick said:
Well, many children are not kept routinely clean–it is the fault of poor parenting–so what happens to those kids? Just kick those kids to the curb?

Religious choice matters, though I have no sound view of how it matters in the UK.
Click to expand...
Huh? What are you suggesting in your first comment?

I have made it clear how religious choice stands in the UK, in relation to unnecessary medical procedures.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top