NHS and the denial of circumcision.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

I was searching up on the world wide webs and found this page explaining why the NHS denies circumcision.
I was actually a bit shocked as I thought you would be allowed to have it done on your child for religious reasons.
The cost of circumcision privately various from £300-£1500. So most children don't get circumcision.

My question main question is: "Do you think a national health services should provide circumcision for non-medical reasons?".

Personally my opinion is that they shouldn't as in developed countries there is simply no need for circumcision.
One reason I'm normally given is because of religious reason, I certainly don't agree with that as I don't think you should be allowed to force your religious views on a child.
Hygienic reasons are just as absurd as if men can clean themselves daily normally don't need to about the build up of smegma.
Aesthetic reasons are also inane as you shouldn't be able to force your child to look the "same as daddy" for the rest of its life.

Circumcision can also can be very distressful and painful for your newborn.

What's your opinion NSG?

[SD_Film Artists]

A case could be given on religious grounds, but otherwise it doesn't belong on the NHS.

Though having said that, I'm not so sure if being a Rasta means that you can get medical cannabis...if medical cannabis is even given.

[Hydesland]

Well it's a good way to cut costs I suppose.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

Well it's a good way to cut costs I suppose.

Do you don't want to chop them to much or people could lose jobs.

[North Suran]

Well it's a good way to cut costs I suppose.

Do you don't want to chop them to much or people could lose jobs.

Who cares? They're all a bunch of dicks.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

A case could be given on religious grounds, but otherwise it doesn't belong on the NHS.

So you would also agree that female circumcision should be allowed on religious ground?

Though having said that, I'm not so sure if being a Rasta means that you can get medical cannabis...if medical cannabis is even given.

No medical cannabis isn't given here.

[Greed and Death]

As common as a practice as it is, I think it should be covered, but I am American so that's like most men here have it done.

There are health issue beyond simply scrubbing.
http://www.circinfo.net/cervical_cancer ... d_men.html
Females with uncircumcised partners are more likely to get cervix cancer.
And HIV transmission is greater to men who are uncircumcised.
Why I most certainly would not mandate the procedure state funding seems reasonable to promote the general well being of the people.

[Georgism]

Moving away from the terrible puns for a second, I feel this decision is correct. Pushing your religious views on your children shouldn't be paid for by the state, although regrowing your foreskin is possible.

[Lackadaisical2]

I was searching up on the world wide webs and found this page explaining why the NHS denies circumcision.
I was actually a bit shocked as I thought you would be allowed to have it done on your child for religious reasons.
The cost of circumcision privately various from £300-£1500. So most children don't get circumcision.

My question main question is: "Do you think a national health services should provide circumcision for non-medical reasons?".

Personally my opinion is that they shouldn't as in developed countries there is simply no need for circumcision.
One reason I'm normally given is because of religious reason, I certainly don't agree with that as I don't think you should be allowed to force your religious views on a child.
Hygienic reasons are just as absurd as if men can clean themselves daily normally don't need to about the build up of smegma.
Aesthetic reasons are also inane as you shouldn't be able to force your child to look the "same as daddy" for the rest of its life.

Circumcision can also can be very distressful and painful for your newborn.

What's your opinion NSG?

I agree with you completely, its just too bad they haven't gone the whole 9-yards and outlawed it except in the case of medical necessity.

[Lackadaisical2]

Moving away from the terrible puns for a second, I feel this decision is correct. Pushing your religious views on your children shouldn't be paid for by the state, although regrowing your foreskin is possible.

Not exactly, you can have the skin stretched to cover the head of the penis like a foreskin would, but its hardly the same thing.

[North Suran]

I agree with you completely, its just too bad they haven't gone the whole 9-yards and outlawed it except in the case of medical necessity.

Why?

Circumcision is, by far, a better alternative to leaving the foreskin intact - in every single way.

[The Alma Mater]

If it is done for non-medical reasons... why should the NHS pay for it ?
Does it pay for other types of cosmetic surgery ?

[The Alma Mater]

I agree with you completely, its just too bad they haven't gone the whole 9-yards and outlawed it except in the case of medical necessity.

Why?

Circumcision is, by far, a better alternative to leaving the foreskin intact - in every single way.

Only if you plan to rape the kid whose foreskin you removed. Then it indeed is better.

[La Habana]

Circumcision can also can be very distressful and painful for your newborn.

What's your opinion NSG?

I was circumcised when I was young, but I can't remember it. That might punch a big hole in your argument a bit, i.e. what is the significance of pain if you can't remember it?

[Utvara]

No. Circumcision is entirely unnecessary, and there's no way it should be paid for by taxpayers.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

As common as a practice as it is, I think it should be covered, but I am American so that's like most men here have it done.

There are health issue beyond simply scrubbing.
http://www.circinfo.net/cervical_cancer ... d_men.html
Females with uncircumcised partners are more likely to get cervix cancer.
And HIV transmission is greater to men who are uncircumcised.
Why I most certainly would not mandate the procedure state funding seems reasonable to promote the general well being of the people.

Well most girls have to a cervical cancer jab here anyway, so that will decrease it even further, and it's quite low anyway.
Also I think more teenagers need to be educated on the brilliance of the condom which dramatically decreases HIV transmission as a lot of gay men still have sex without condoms.
I totally agree with you that the state can promote general well being, but I don't think that circumcision needs to be included in that.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

I agree with you completely, its just too bad they haven't gone the whole 9-yards and outlawed it except in the case of medical necessity.

Why?

Circumcision is, by far, a better alternative to leaving the foreskin intact - in every single way.

Well not sex-wise. Some of us prefer to have sex with someone with foreskin.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

If it is done for non-medical reasons... why should the NHS pay for it ?
Does it pay for other types of cosmetic surgery ?

I think they do in cases such as cleft lip.

[North Suran]

I agree with you completely, its just too bad they haven't gone the whole 9-yards and outlawed it except in the case of medical necessity.

Why?

Circumcision is, by far, a better alternative to leaving the foreskin intact - in every single way.

Only if you plan to rape the kid whose foreskin you removed. Then it indeed is better.

Not because of all those medical benefits, of course.

[North Suran]

I agree with you completely, its just too bad they haven't gone the whole 9-yards and outlawed it except in the case of medical necessity.

Why?

Circumcision is, by far, a better alternative to leaving the foreskin intact - in every single way.

Well not sex-wise. Some of us prefer to have sex with someone with foreskin.

No offence, but I'm pretty sure medical advantages trump sexual preferences.

[La Habana]

No. Circumcision is entirely unnecessary, and there's no way it should be paid for by taxpayers.

Entirely unnecessary? Are you sure? What about for medical reasons? You may want to revise your outlook on circumcision a bit..............

[SD_Film Artists]

I agree with you completely, its just too bad they haven't gone the whole 9-yards and outlawed it except in the case of medical necessity.

Why?

Circumcision is, by far, a better alternative to leaving the foreskin intact - in every single way.

Aaah...and I was thinking about the last 'cut vs uncut' thread yesterday. I must be psychic....

[EvilDarkMagicians]

Circumcision can also can be very distressful and painful for your newborn.

What's your opinion NSG?

I was circumcised when I was young, but I can't remember it. That might punch a big hole in your argument a bit, i.e. what is the significance of pain if you can't remember it?

So if I tortured a member of your family and then gave them a drug to make them forget you'd be ok with it?

[The Alma Mater]

If it is done for non-medical reasons... why should the NHS pay for it ?
Does it pay for other types of cosmetic surgery ?

I think they do in cases such as cleft lip.

Any other cases ? A complete list would be useful to see if snipsnip fits

I was circumcised when I was young, but I can't remember it. That might punch a big hole in your argument a bit, i.e. what is the significance of pain if you can't remember it?

Fair point.
Do you remember if it was done the traditional way - as in the Mohel sucking the blood of your infantpenis ?

[Lackadaisical2]

I agree with you completely, its just too bad they haven't gone the whole 9-yards and outlawed it except in the case of medical necessity.

Why?

Circumcision is, by far, a better alternative to leaving the foreskin intact - in every single way.

Well not sex-wise. Some of us prefer to have sex with someone with foreskin.

No offence, but I'm pretty sure medical advantages trump sexual preferences.

Even the sexual preferences of the person you're operating on?