NHS and the denial of circumcision.

[Tungookska]

It shouldn't be encouraged or discouraged, It really doesn't matter.

It costs money. Therefor it matters.

Is it something he parents should pay, e.g. because it is mostly a cosmetic procedure that does not influence the health of the child - or is it something the national health service (i.e. the taxpayer) should pay for ? And if so - why ?

it mutilates a part of someones body without their consent, therefore it matters

[DaWoad]

It shouldn't be encouraged or discouraged, It really doesn't matter.

It costs money. Therefor it matters.

Is it something he parents should pay, e.g. because it is mostly a cosmetic procedure that does not influence the health of the child - or is it something the national health service (i.e. the taxpayer) should pay for ? And if so - why ?

it mutilates a part of someones body without their consent, therefore it matters

I'm . . . a little uncomfortable with that argument. Occasionally surgery is required when a patient is unconscious or comatose, which is why most people have a designated medical proxy and which is why the law designates a default medical proxy for those who don't so , in practical terms, a parent's consent at that age is a child's consent.

[The blessed Chris]

It shouldn't be encouraged or discouraged, It really doesn't matter.

It costs money. Therefor it matters.

Is it something he parents should pay, e.g. because it is mostly a cosmetic procedure that does not influence the health of the child - or is it something the national health service (i.e. the taxpayer) should pay for ? And if so - why ?

it mutilates a part of someones body without their consent, therefore it matters

I'm . . . a little uncomfortable with that argument. Occasionally surgery is required when a patient is unconscious or comatose, which is why most people have a designated medical proxy and which is why the law designates a default medical proxy for those who don't so , in practical terms, a parent's consent at that age is a child's consent.

The difference, however, is that generally an adult nominates, whether directly or indirectly by life choices, their legal proxy, whereas a new born baby has no such option.

[Xeevok]

Actually, the intent often is to appease a deity. Clearly showing that the parent considers the free will of its offspring to be less important than their own religious beliefs

Yup, that's why my parents did it to me. Stupid religion.

[Tungookska]

It shouldn't be encouraged or discouraged, It really doesn't matter.

It costs money. Therefor it matters.

Is it something he parents should pay, e.g. because it is mostly a cosmetic procedure that does not influence the health of the child - or is it something the national health service (i.e. the taxpayer) should pay for ? And if so - why ?

it mutilates a part of someones body without their consent, therefore it matters

I'm . . . a little uncomfortable with that argument. Occasionally surgery is required when a patient is unconscious or comatose, which is why most people have a designated medical proxy and which is why the law designates a default medical proxy for those who don't so , in practical terms, a parent's consent at that age is a child's consent.

yes, only when surgery is necessary

[Fartsniffage]

I'm . . . a little uncomfortable with that argument. Occasionally surgery is required when a patient is unconscious or comatose, which is why most people have a designated medical proxy and which is why the law designates a default medical proxy for those who don't so , in practical terms, a parent's consent at that age is a child's consent.

Yet surgery on a comatose patient is usually conducted with the aim of preserving their life.

A circumcision is not a life saving procedure.

[DaWoad]

I'm . . . a little uncomfortable with that argument. Occasionally surgery is required when a patient is unconscious or comatose, which is why most people have a designated medical proxy and which is why the law designates a default medical proxy for those who don't so , in practical terms, a parent's consent at that age is a child's consent.

Yet surgery on a comatose patient is usually conducted with the aim of preserving their life.

A circumcision is not a life saving procedure.

Yah that is very true and I'm not trying to claim that in this case it's wrong, it's just the section about "without their consent" that gets a little tricky due to the fact that someone who was, say religiously opposed to to any surgery and had not designated a medical proxy could claim to have been operated on "without his consent" if his wife had agreed to lifesaving surgery. (insert any pronoun/reason you want)

[Dakini]

No. You are mutilating the baby boy's genitals, just like Female Circumcision (correctly Female Genital Mutilation) mutilates the female genital. I despise this asymmetrical sexism against men. The term should be Male Genital Mutilation, but unfortunately it is not.

Meh, I personally hear alot of people calling it female circumcision.

Mutilation is a bit of a dodgy word.

The thing cuts out the woman's cliterous so she can't get sexual pleasure. That's pretty much mutilation. The UN's WHO backs the term and even has a global awareness day about the subject to boot. Circumcision is nothing close to it, but it's certainly comparable, in the intent being the attempt to reduce the individual's ability to feel or experience sexual pleasure normally.

There's a bit more to FGM than the removal of the clitoris.

But there's also female circumcision which is almost exactly analogous to male circumcision (or sometimes less than that even). It involves the removal of all or part of the clitoral hood (sometimes it's a small cut put in it). It's different from FGM and even practiced in a different part of the world.

[Glorious Homeland]

To my understanding, that practice is still considered mutilation by the WHO.

[Dempublicents1]

As for reading your posts better, you mis-read mine, called me a liar for it, and dismiss my startlingly on-topic post as "irrelevant." Why should I read your posts at all? How about instead I put your infantile trolling on ignore. Remove some irrelevant, lying bullshit from my screen. Yes, I think that's a good idea.

Someone: It would suck to have to actually clean my penis, so I'm glad I'm circumcised.
EDM: Funny, plenty of uncircumcised males have no problem with cleaning themselves.
GP: Yeah? Well plenty of circumcised males have no problem with the fact that they are circumcised, so there! Why do you hate circumcised men? Huh? Huh?

Yeah, "startlingly on topic", alright. Never mind that it had nothing to do with the line of conversation you jumped into.

I'm . . . a little uncomfortable with that argument. Occasionally surgery is required when a patient is unconscious or comatose, which is why most people have a designated medical proxy and which is why the law designates a default medical proxy for those who don't so , in practical terms, a parent's consent at that age is a child's consent.

Most people wouldn't be ok with having non-medically necessary surgery performed on them while unconscious just because their medical proxy thought it would look better or had religious beliefs that said it should be done. That's not the kind of thing a medical proxy is designated for.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

No explanation, I see. No answer. Simple question, but oh how uncomfortable it has made you.

Good I was getting tired of your bullshit.

[Edo-Tokyo]

Newborns:
Care of the
Uncircumcised Penis

Guidelines for Parents

American Academy
of Pediatrics

At birth, the penis consists of a cylindrical shaft with a rounded end called the glans. The shaft and glans are separated by a groove called the sulcus. The entire penis - shaft and glans - is covered by a continuous layer of skin. The section of the penile skin that covers the glans is called the foreskin or prepuce. The foreskin consists of two layers, the outer foreskin and an inner lining similar to a mucous membrane.

Before birth, the foreskin and glans develop as one tissue. The foreskin is firmly attached - really fused - to the glans. Over time, this fusion of the inner surface of the prepuce with the glans skin begins to separate by shedding the cells from the surface of each layer. Epithelial layers of the glans and the inner foreskin lining are regularly replaced, not only in infancy but throughout life. The discarded cells accumulate as whitish, cheesy ``pearls'' which gradually work their way out via the tip of the foreskin.

Eventually, sometimes as long as 5, 10, or more years after birth, full separation occurs and the foreskin may then be pushed back away from the glans toward the abdomen. This is called foreskin retraction. The foreskin may retract spontaneously with erections which occur normally from birth on and even occur in fetal life. Also, all children ``discover'' their genitals as they become more aware of their bodies and may retract the foreskin themselves. If the foreskin does not seem to retract easily early in life, it is important to realize that this is not abnormal and that it should eventually do so.

[The Function of the Foreskin: The glans at birth is delicate and easily irritated by urine and feces. The foreskin shields the glans; with circumcision this protection is lost. In such cases, the glans and especially the urinary opening (meatus) may become irritated or infected, causing ulcers, meatitis (inflammation of the meatus), and meatal stenosis (a narrowing of the urinary opening). Such problems virtually never occur in uncircumcised penises. The foreskin protects the glans throughout life.]

Infant Smegma: Skin cells from the glans of the penis and the inner foreskin are shed throughout life. This is especially true in childhood; natural skin shedding serves to separate the foreskin from the glans. Since this shedding takes place in a relatively closed space - with the foreskin covering the glans - the shed skin cells cannot escape in the usual manner. They escape by working their way to the tip of the foreskin. These escaping discarded skin cells constitute infant smegma, which may appear as white ``pearls'' under the skin.

Adult Smegma: Specialized sebaceous glands - Tyson's Glands - which are located on the glans under the foreskin, are largely inactive in childhood. At puberty, Tyson's Glands produce an oily substance, which, when mixed with shed skin cells, constitute adult smegma. Adult smegma serves a protective, lubricating function for the glans.

Foreskin Hygiene: The foreskin is easy to care for. The infant should be bathed or sponged frequently, and all parts should be washed including the genitals. The uncircumcised penis is easy to keep clean. No special care is required! No attempt should be made to forcibly retract the foreskin. No manipulation is necessary. There is no need for special cleansing with Q-tips, irrigation, or antiseptics; soap and water externally will suffice

Foreskin Retraction: As noted, the foreskin and glans develop as one tissue. Separation will evolve over time. It should not be forced. When will separation occur? Each child is different. Separation may occur before birth; this is rare. It may take a few days, weeks, months, or even years. This is normal. Although many foreskins will retract by age 5, there is no need for concern even after a longer period. [1984 version only: No harm will come in leaving the foreskin alone.] Some boys do not attain full retractability of the foreskin until adolescence.

Hygiene of the Fully Retracted Foreskin: For the first few years, an occasional retraction with cleansing beneath is sufficient.

Penile hygiene will later become a part of a child's total body hygiene, including hair shampooing, cleansing the folds of the ear, and brushing teeth. At puberty, the male should be taught the importance of retracting the foreskin and cleaning beneath during his daily bath.

Summary: Care of the uncircumcised boy is quite easy. ``Leave it alone'' is good advice. External washing and rinsing on a daily basis is all that is required. Do not retract the foreskin in an infant, as it is almost always attached to the glans. Forcing the foreskin back may harm the penis, causing pain, bleeding, and possibly adhesions. The natural separation of the foreskin from the glans may take many years. After puberty, the adult male learns to retract the foreskin and cleanse under it on a daily basis.

Copyright © 1984, 1990. American Academy of Pediatrics

http://www.cirp.org/library/normal/aap//

[Dakini]

To my understanding, that practice is still considered mutilation by the WHO.

I'm not sure if I agree entirely with the WHO definition of FGM. It includes piercing as mutilation. There's a world of difference between clitoridectomy and getting pierced.

[Trippoli]

I'm left-wing but I don't really see myself as a Liberal.

That's rather....out of the blue. Did you mean to post it in another thread?

Hm.. I think so...

[Trippoli]

And I still want to know why you have such a big problem with Circumcision anyway.

It wastes public money.
I'm also looking at this from own point of view.
As I think my penis is pretty much perfect and its really not my parents choice to cut of a piece of my penis.
Its should me my choice alone, unless its for a medical reason.

It doesn't cost alot, sometimes free if you get the procedure at birth.
So you think you dick is the dominant dick of the world?
Does it really fucking matter? Honestly its just a bunch of skin.

Yes, it really fucking matters.

It doesn't for me.... I was circumcised. If you were not, I don't see why you should care.

So... if, for example, you weren't tortured... you shouldn't care about other people being tortured?

Or, if you weren't beaten, you shouldn't care about other people being beaten?

or are we just arguing special exception for genital mutilation?

Uh, no.

Torture shouldn't be compared to something like Circumcision.

I wasn't beaten, I wasn't tortured, I was circumcised. It isn't even all that bad, it's cutting off extra skin, not ripping your dick off and dissecting it.

[The Alma Mater]

Actually, the intent often is to appease a deity. Clearly showing that the parent considers the free will of its offspring to be less important than their own religious beliefs

Yup, that's why my parents did it to me. Stupid religion.

Well -no. Parents that did not respect your personal free will is closer to the truth.
But, on the upside, they probably loved you. Not as much as they love God, obviously, but they might have cared.

They just did not see you as a person.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

And I still want to know why you have such a big problem with Circumcision anyway.

It wastes public money.
I'm also looking at this from own point of view.
As I think my penis is pretty much perfect and its really not my parents choice to cut of a piece of my penis.
Its should me my choice alone, unless its for a medical reason.

It doesn't cost alot, sometimes free if you get the procedure at birth.
So you think you dick is the dominant dick of the world?
Does it really fucking matter? Honestly its just a bunch of skin.

Yes, it really fucking matters.

It doesn't for me.... I was circumcised. If you were not, I don't see why you should care.

So... if, for example, you weren't tortured... you shouldn't care about other people being tortured?

Or, if you weren't beaten, you shouldn't care about other people being beaten?

or are we just arguing special exception for genital mutilation?

Uh, no.

Torture shouldn't be compared to something like Circumcision.

I wasn't beaten, I wasn't tortured, I was circumcised. It isn't even all that bad, it's cutting off extra skin, not ripping your dick off and dissecting it.

He wasn't comparing circumcision and torture.
He was comparing the principle, there's a difference.
Why do you not understand this?

[DaWoad]

And I still want to know why you have such a big problem with Circumcision anyway.

It wastes public money.
I'm also looking at this from own point of view.
As I think my penis is pretty much perfect and its really not my parents choice to cut of a piece of my penis.
Its should me my choice alone, unless its for a medical reason.

It doesn't cost alot, sometimes free if you get the procedure at birth.
So you think you dick is the dominant dick of the world?
Does it really fucking matter? Honestly its just a bunch of skin.

Yes, it really fucking matters.

It doesn't for me.... I was circumcised. If you were not, I don't see why you should care.

So... if, for example, you weren't tortured... you shouldn't care about other people being tortured?

Or, if you weren't beaten, you shouldn't care about other people being beaten?

or are we just arguing special exception for genital mutilation?

Uh, no.

Torture shouldn't be compared to something like Circumcision.

I wasn't beaten, I wasn't tortured, I was circumcised. It isn't even all that bad, it's cutting off extra skin, not ripping your dick off and dissecting it.

He wasn't comparing circumcision and torture.
He was comparing the principle, there's a difference.
Why do you not understand this?

a mixture of willful ignorance and defending his "manhood" at a guess.

[Dempublicents1]

He wasn't comparing circumcision and torture.
He was comparing the principle, there's a difference.
Why do you not understand this?

Because then he might have to actually answer the point, instead of whining about how circumcision isn't as bad as those other things, and thus can't possibly come up in the same discussion?

[Grave_n_idle]

It shouldn't be encouraged or discouraged, It really doesn't matter.

It costs money. Therefor it matters.

Is it something he parents should pay, e.g. because it is mostly a cosmetic procedure that does not influence the health of the child - or is it something the national health service (i.e. the taxpayer) should pay for ? And if so - why ?

it mutilates a part of someones body without their consent, therefore it matters

I'm . . . a little uncomfortable with that argument. Occasionally surgery is required when a patient is unconscious or comatose, which is why most people have a designated medical proxy and which is why the law designates a default medical proxy for those who don't so , in practical terms, a parent's consent at that age is a child's consent.

Is there, then, no difference between necessary surgery and arbitrary surgery?

To me - that seems like quite big separation.

[Grave_n_idle]

And I still want to know why you have such a big problem with Circumcision anyway.

It wastes public money.
I'm also looking at this from own point of view.
As I think my penis is pretty much perfect and its really not my parents choice to cut of a piece of my penis.
Its should me my choice alone, unless its for a medical reason.

It doesn't cost alot, sometimes free if you get the procedure at birth.
So you think you dick is the dominant dick of the world?
Does it really fucking matter? Honestly its just a bunch of skin.

Yes, it really fucking matters.

It doesn't for me.... I was circumcised. If you were not, I don't see why you should care.

So... if, for example, you weren't tortured... you shouldn't care about other people being tortured?

Or, if you weren't beaten, you shouldn't care about other people being beaten?

or are we just arguing special exception for genital mutilation?

Uh, no.

Torture shouldn't be compared to something like Circumcision.

I wasn't beaten, I wasn't tortured, I was circumcised. It isn't even all that bad, it's cutting off extra skin, not ripping your dick off and dissecting it.

Not sure if you're deliberately missing the point. I'll assume not, and give you the benefit of the doubt.

If your argument is 'if it didn't happen to you, why should you care?' then it seems only logical that you'd apply that argument with some attempt at being universal... because otherwise it's just a hypocritical plea for special exception - which makes it an intrinsically poor logical argument.

However, judging by your response - you DO want to plead special exception. Which is a shame. I was hoping you'd just failed to think it through.

[DaWoad]

It shouldn't be encouraged or discouraged, It really doesn't matter.

It costs money. Therefor it matters.

Is it something he parents should pay, e.g. because it is mostly a cosmetic procedure that does not influence the health of the child - or is it something the national health service (i.e. the taxpayer) should pay for ? And if so - why ?

it mutilates a part of someones body without their consent, therefore it matters

I'm . . . a little uncomfortable with that argument. Occasionally surgery is required when a patient is unconscious or comatose, which is why most people have a designated medical proxy and which is why the law designates a default medical proxy for those who don't so , in practical terms, a parent's consent at that age is a child's consent.

Is there, then, no difference between necessary surgery and arbitrary surgery?

To me - that seems like quite big separation.

oh no there definitely is and I fully support an argument based on that, that elective surgery should not be offered to people incapable of making the decision for themselves but just the "it mutilates a part of someones body without their consent" is a weak one IMO.

[Grave_n_idle]

It shouldn't be encouraged or discouraged, It really doesn't matter.

It costs money. Therefor it matters.

Is it something he parents should pay, e.g. because it is mostly a cosmetic procedure that does not influence the health of the child - or is it something the national health service (i.e. the taxpayer) should pay for ? And if so - why ?

it mutilates a part of someones body without their consent, therefore it matters

I'm . . . a little uncomfortable with that argument. Occasionally surgery is required when a patient is unconscious or comatose, which is why most people have a designated medical proxy and which is why the law designates a default medical proxy for those who don't so , in practical terms, a parent's consent at that age is a child's consent.

Is there, then, no difference between necessary surgery and arbitrary surgery?

To me - that seems like quite big separation.

oh no there definitely is and I fully support an argument based on that, that elective surgery should not be offered to people incapable of making the decision for themselves but just the "it mutilates a part of someones body without their consent" is a weak one IMO.

I don't see how that's weak. If it was arbitrary, but made no cosmetic or functional difference, it wouldn't be as much of an issue, I suspect. The fact that infant circumcision is (almost always) unnecessary, arbitrary, AND makes a noticeable cosmetic and functional alteration - is what makes this a serious issue.

We might disagree on whether it should be called 'mutilation'. But that's us arguing over the words - over opinion. We should be agreeing over the facts.

[DaWoad]

It shouldn't be encouraged or discouraged, It really doesn't matter.

It costs money. Therefor it matters.

Is it something he parents should pay, e.g. because it is mostly a cosmetic procedure that does not influence the health of the child - or is it something the national health service (i.e. the taxpayer) should pay for ? And if so - why ?

it mutilates a part of someones body without their consent, therefore it matters

I'm . . . a little uncomfortable with that argument. Occasionally surgery is required when a patient is unconscious or comatose, which is why most people have a designated medical proxy and which is why the law designates a default medical proxy for those who don't so , in practical terms, a parent's consent at that age is a child's consent.

Is there, then, no difference between necessary surgery and arbitrary surgery?

To me - that seems like quite big separation.

oh no there definitely is and I fully support an argument based on that, that elective surgery should not be offered to people incapable of making the decision for themselves but just the "it mutilates a part of someones body without their consent" is a weak one IMO.

I don't see how that's weak. If it was arbitrary, but made no cosmetic or functional difference, it wouldn't be as much of an issue, I suspect. The fact that infant circumcision is (almost always) unnecessary, arbitrary, AND makes a noticeable cosmetic and functional alteration - is what makes this a serious issue.

We might disagree on whether it should be called 'mutilation'. But that's us arguing over the words - over opinion. We should be agreeing over the facts.

Nope we agree on mutilation also, I mean just the without consent bit. Given that consent must often be given for operations by people acting on the behalf of patients, it is the nature of this operation (unnecessary, mutilation and dangerous to an extent) rather than the consent itself which I believe to be the issue. (sorry lotta confusion there :\)

[The Alma Mater]

Nope we agree on mutilation also, I mean just the without consent bit. Given that consent must often be given for operations by people acting on the behalf of patients, it is the nature of this operation (unnecessary, mutilation and dangerous to an extent) rather than the consent itself which I believe to be the issue. (sorry lotta confusion there :\)

What do you believe should the limits of the consent parents can give on behalf of their children be ?