NHS and the denial of circumcision.

[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.

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 :\)

To my way of thinking, there's no point in apologising for confusion - since the attempt to unravel confusion must lead to better explanations and understanding.



You're right. It is the 'nature' of circumcision that makes it a hot-button issue. Very few objections tend to be made to medically necessary treatments (although, of course, there are some) being decided by parents and guardians. Where this steps out of convention, is that medical advice is something of a default, and parents sometimes opt-out of following medical advice. In the case of circumcision, that's reversed - the default is medically-unnecessary surgery.

[DaWoad]

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 ?

I think that would be the wrong way to tackle it (and wayyyy to indepth for this thread)

Instead I'd say that given the current medical consensus, the danger implicit in any surgery and the societal pressures involved, this surgery should not be performed electively until the patient wishing to receive the surgery has reached his age of majority and has indicated that he wants the surgery to be performed (at which point, to my mind, it becomes similar to many other elective surgeries).

[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 :\)

To my way of thinking, there's no point in apologising for confusion - since the attempt to unravel confusion must lead to better explanations and understanding.



You're right. It is the 'nature' of circumcision that makes it a hot-button issue. Very few objections tend to be made to medically necessary treatments (although, of course, there are some) being decided by parents and guardians. Where this steps out of convention, is that medical advice is something of a default, and parents sometimes opt-out of following medical advice. In the case of circumcision, that's reversed - the default is medically-unnecessary surgery.

agreed, and worse, the disclaimers that are meant to protect a parent or guardian against unknown risk (such as the mandatory explain the risks involved) are muted by the general acceptance and/or religious motivation of the surgery.

[Dempublicents1]

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

I'm not DaWoad, but I would say that the limits on the consents parents can give on behalf of their children in something like this should be the same as that they could give as the custodian for a mentally incompetent adult. So, if it would not be acceptable for a woman to have the foreskin removed from her father with Alzheimer's for cosmetic or religious purposes, it would be equally unacceptable for her to have it done to her infant son for those reasons.

[Nimzonia]

And HIV transmission is greater to men who are uncircumcised.

Being uncircumcised doesn't seem all that much of a risk compared to, for example, fucking someone who is HIV positive.

[The Alma Mater]

And HIV transmission is greater to men who are uncircumcised.

Being uncircumcised doesn't seem all that much of a risk compared to, for example, fucking someone who is HIV positive.

Yesyes.
But IF you someday decide to fuck an HIV postive person
And IF you for some reason decide to do so without a condom
THEN you have a slightly lower chance of ruining your life if circumcised.

Or to rephrase: if you wanna be an imbecile, there is a slightly bigger chance you'll get away with it.

Obviously, we must encourage people to be imbeciles

[Allbeama]

Isn't that something that Rabbi's are authorized to do by the rules of Judaism?

[The Alma Mater]

Isn't that something that Rabbi's are authorized to do by the rules of Judaism?

A Mohel, yes. Who traditionally sucks the blood of the penis with his mouth - giving the lucky boy his first blowjob

[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.

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

To me - that seems like quite big separation.

But surely medical necessity is not intrinsically superior to spiritual necessity?

[South East Europe]

male circumcision is almost always done for medical reasons.

[Person012345]

male circumcision is almost always done for medical reasons.

Wrong?

It's usually done for religious or cosmetic reasons.

[The Alma Mater]

But surely medical necessity is not intrinsically superior to spiritual necessity?

It is a medical necessity for the child.
It is a spiritual necessity for the childs parents.

So I fear that, in this case, one can argue it is when the body of the child is concerned.

[The blessed Chris]

But surely medical necessity is not intrinsically superior to spiritual necessity?

It is a medical necessity for the child.
It is a spiritual necessity for the childs parents.

So I fear that, in this case, one can argue it is when the body of the child is concerned.

But from a religious perspective, it is a spiritual necessity, and it is a moral arrogance and presumption to assume that the NHS should start from a default position of atheism.

[Person012345]

But surely medical necessity is not intrinsically superior to spiritual necessity?

It is a medical necessity for the child.
It is a spiritual necessity for the childs parents.

So I fear that, in this case, one can argue it is when the body of the child is concerned.

But from a religious perspective, it is a spiritual necessity, and it is a moral arrogance and presumption to assume that the NHS should start from a default position of atheism.

No it isn't. The NHS is a medical organisation concerned with health. If they want to start a NSHO then they are free to try (though it probably wouldn't go down that well if it was funded by tax).

[The Alma Mater]

But surely medical necessity is not intrinsically superior to spiritual necessity?

It is a medical necessity for the child.
It is a spiritual necessity for the childs parents.

So I fear that, in this case, one can argue it is when the body of the child is concerned.

But from a religious perspective, it is a spiritual necessity,

For the parents. The child does not care at that time.
As such, the necessity that actually matters to the child at that time trumps any potential necessity the child may never have despite the wishes of his parents.

and it is a moral arrogance and presumption to assume that the NHS should start from a default position of atheism.

From which position should it start then ?

[Dempublicents1]

But surely medical necessity is not intrinsically superior to spiritual necessity?

It is a medical necessity for the child.
It is a spiritual necessity for the childs parents.

So I fear that, in this case, one can argue it is when the body of the child is concerned.

Precisely. If I tried to argue that, because my religious beliefs say that men should be circumcised, I should be able to have the foreskin removed from the guy down the street, I'd be laughed at. I don't see why that should change for a child.

[Dempublicents1]

But surely medical necessity is not intrinsically superior to spiritual necessity?

It is a medical necessity for the child.
It is a spiritual necessity for the childs parents.

So I fear that, in this case, one can argue it is when the body of the child is concerned.

But from a religious perspective, it is a spiritual necessity, and it is a moral arrogance and presumption to assume that the NHS should start from a default position of atheism.

It has nothing to do with atheism. The NHS is not in place as a spiritual institution. It is in place as a medical institution. As such, it should only cover medical costs. From what I can tell, regardless of whether or not it should be, paying out of pocket to have your son circumcised is still legal in the UK.

Should the NHS also cover the cost of a bar mitzvah? What about Catechism?

[Nimzonia]

But surely medical necessity is not intrinsically superior to spiritual necessity?

It is a medical necessity for the child.
It is a spiritual necessity for the childs parents.

So I fear that, in this case, one can argue it is when the body of the child is concerned.

But from a religious perspective, it is a spiritual necessity, and it is a moral arrogance and presumption to assume that the NHS should start from a default position of atheism.

Medical necessity can be proven. Spiritual necessity cannot. And frankly, I don't see it as any kind of arrogance, moral or otherwise, to assume that the NHS should start from a default position of secularism.

[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.

But surely medical necessity is not intrinsically superior to spiritual necessity?

Sure.

If we're talking about praying, or wearing the right head-covering.

On the other hand, if we're talking about medical surgery, then medical necessity is the more important of the two.

[Grave_n_idle]

But surely medical necessity is not intrinsically superior to spiritual necessity?

It is a medical necessity for the child.
It is a spiritual necessity for the childs parents.

So I fear that, in this case, one can argue it is when the body of the child is concerned.

But from a religious perspective, it is a spiritual necessity, and it is a moral arrogance and presumption to assume that the NHS should start from a default position of atheism.

It's always sad when someone doesn't understand the difference between 'atheism' and secular.

[Grave_n_idle]

male circumcision is almost always done for medical reasons.

Horseshit.

[DaWoad]

male circumcision is almost always done for medical reasons.

Horseshit.

yep pretty much.

[DaWoad]

But surely medical necessity is not intrinsically superior to spiritual necessity?

It is a medical necessity for the child.
It is a spiritual necessity for the childs parents.

So I fear that, in this case, one can argue it is when the body of the child is concerned.

But from a religious perspective, it is a spiritual necessity, and it is a moral arrogance and presumption to assume that the NHS should start from a default position of atheism.

Is Britain a secular state? I do believe it is.
Therefore government organizations must start from the default position of atheism.
(More importantly yes medical concerns are intrinsically superior to spiritual ones)

[EvilDarkMagicians]

But surely medical necessity is not intrinsically superior to spiritual necessity?

It is a medical necessity for the child.
It is a spiritual necessity for the childs parents.

So I fear that, in this case, one can argue it is when the body of the child is concerned.

But from a religious perspective, it is a spiritual necessity, and it is a moral arrogance and presumption to assume that the NHS should start from a default position of atheism.

Is Britain a secular state? I do believe it is.
Therefore government organizations must start from the default position of atheism.
(More importantly yes medical concerns are intrinsically superior to spiritual ones)

No we have a state religion. Yeah I know, it's really draconian.

[DaWoad]

But surely medical necessity is not intrinsically superior to spiritual necessity?

It is a medical necessity for the child.
It is a spiritual necessity for the childs parents.

So I fear that, in this case, one can argue it is when the body of the child is concerned.

But from a religious perspective, it is a spiritual necessity, and it is a moral arrogance and presumption to assume that the NHS should start from a default position of atheism.

Is Britain a secular state? I do believe it is.
Therefore government organizations must start from the default position of atheism.
(More importantly yes medical concerns are intrinsically superior to spiritual ones)

No we have a state religion. Yeah I know, it's really draconian.

Yes . . .yes you do . .. welp withdraw that argument then.