Guest NACHO174 Posted February 16, 2006 Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 Was reading about this a while ago... Concerning genital mutilation, why is it socially and medically acceptable for males (given the term circumscision) and not for females (given the term mutilation). Why is it alright for a physician to perform circumscisions? has consent been given? Just curious what you guys think, i can post the case studies if you want. Nacho, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest happy2bme Posted February 16, 2006 Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 well for one, circumscision does not impede sexual enjoyment whereas that is the sole purpose (my impression anyways) for genital mutilation in females ( to prevent the man's "property" from straying). Females involve much more vascular tissue and therefore healing problems and infections are much more common. And it is performed much later in life than most males circumscisions. For non-jewish supporters of circumscision I suppose it is an elective cosmetic procedure as removal of foreskin is no longer regarded as infection preventative. Although I believe I did read somewhere?? that uncircumscised males transmit more yeast infections to their partners than circumscised... I'm pretty sure that no babies have ever given consent for circumscision, but all parents are told the risks of the procedure. So informed consent is given. I know alberta no longers pays for elective circumscisions, but you can pay out of pocket and still have it done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NACHO174 Posted February 16, 2006 Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 The issue is more about making bodily changes that are unnecessary (no scientific or medically based reasoning)...that is, forcing changes on another human being (a baby) that does in no manner in a normal scenario require it and this is highly unethical, however it is still practiced...here is an excerpt from a case study: "In 1888, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, a well respected physician and founder of the Kellogg cereal company, spoke for mainstream Victorian medicine when he wrote: "A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment." Whatever the current rationales for circumcision, the procedure outlined by Kellogg in 1888 is essentially how MGM (male genital mutilation) is practiced today: without anesthesia, without patient consent, without the presence of disease or the statistical likelihood of future disease, and without regard for the human rights of an innocent boy or the man he will become.... Informed consent for such a procedure cannot be obtained (for a baby)...this is why (in one way) it is unethical...it is analogous to the type of procedures forced on infants who have ambiguous genitalia etc, that is, are they male or female...the parents make the choice for the infant and the surgeon cuts away at the bits the parents dont want....in essence choosing the infants sex... The issue is not tactile or erogenous reception (of which a large percentage is lost in males) but rather it is an issue of humanity....we learn the medically based stuff later that are involved in consent. My discussion was more circumcision oriented as it is involved in medicine, female mutilation is not practiced in medicine....as far as i know! Nacho, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.