Circumcision ques

[ladyluck08]

I understand circumcision is a religion based issue in Islam , jews. What other ethical issues are involved in this procedure if Ontario Health care plan no longer pays for circumcision.

 

THanks

[Ninjaface]

-Making an irreversible change to someone's body without their consent.

-Some say it causes psychological trauma and disrupts the bonding process, or something along those lines.

-Slippery slope - why fund it for males when near no-one would want female genital circumcision to even be legal

 

There's others I think too, I just can't remember them. The book "The Ethical Canary", by Margaret Somerville (sp?), an ethicist at U of C, has a good section on this topic.

[NewfieMike]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

[Jochi1543]

Natural is way more fun, anyway.

[Ninjaface]

Natural is way more fun, anyway.

 

If by 'fun' you mean 'funny looking'.

 

[A-Stark]

-Making an irreversible change to someone's body without their consent.

-Some say it causes psychological trauma and disrupts the bonding process, or something along those lines.

-Slippery slope - why fund it for males when near no-one would want female genital circumcision to even be legal

 

There's others I think too, I just can't remember them. The book "The Ethical Canary", by Margaret Somerville (sp?), an ethicist at U of C, has a good section on this topic.

 

1) Consent is not, frankly, that relevant for babies, who certainly cannot and need not give consent to anything else that gets done to them.

2) This is BS.

3) Male circumcision != female circumcision. Just because both are called "circumcision" and involves an -ectomy on the genitalia does not in any way make them equivalent.

4) Margaret Somerville also hems and haws to come up with weak arguments against, for example, same-sex marriage.

5) Ethics is basically made up. Something does not become unethical when a convoluted argument can be constructed to support that position.

[RandomGuy]

If by 'fun' you mean 'funny looking'.

 

 

You wouldn't think that if you grew up anywhere that doesn't pratice routine circumcision (i.e. the majority of the world).

 

I think this issue is really interesting, because it shows how we can be culturally "brainwashed" to think that a certain way of doing things is valid - because... because... that's the way... everyone else does it! The science supporting routine circumcision is often bad as well, as it begins with the specific aim of finding some evidence to support the practice (reverse logic?). I'm sure we could find some sort of benefit to all sorts of ridiculous surgeries if we ignored any negative consequences and searched hard enough.

[RandomGuy]

1) Consent is not, frankly, that relevant for babies, who certainly cannot and need not give consent to anything else that gets done to them.

2) This is BS.

...

 

See my previous post. You're only defending this practice because it is common around you, therefore "acceptable". Chopping off pieces of a baby's body without cause would never fly if it wasn't for that precedent.

 

To say that the baby's consent is not required is absurd. If the "anything else" you are referring to includes things like immunizations, etc. these are clearly preventative, whereas pediatric associations agree that routine circumcision does not offer sufficient preventative advantages. If the case of phimosis or other medically necessary conditions, the situation is completely different. But what routine circumcision often amounts to is no more than irreversible cosmetic surgery performed without consent.

[Ninjaface]

1) Consent is not, frankly, that relevant for babies, who certainly cannot and need not give consent to anything else that gets done to them.

2) This is BS.

3) Male circumcision != female circumcision. Just because both are called "circumcision" and involves an -ectomy on the genitalia does not in any way make them equivalent.

4) Margaret Somerville also hems and haws to come up with weak arguments against, for example, same-sex marriage.

5) Ethics is basically made up. Something does not become unethical when a convoluted argument can be constructed to support that position.

 

I didn't say these were my views on the matter, I just supplied the "ethical issues" I was aware of, and a reference to where I got them from. In writing the post I was just trying to recall what I read, not what I thought about the matter, as that wasn't the question in the OP. I do think your first comment there though is a bit of 'BS'. You think giving a baby a tattoo or making them a eunuch is all good? I don't think these are equivalent to circumcision, BTW, but you said, well, what you said. Which was a pretty strong statement and, IMO, wrong.

[Ninjaface]

You wouldn't think that if you grew up anywhere that doesn't pratice routine circumcision (i.e. the majority of the world).

 

Yes I would. I think all penises are pretty funny looking. I was more posting for the joke. If Joch had made the post about cut ones I would have made the exact same post. I'm an equal opportunity penis mocker.

[Jochi1543]

Yes I would. I think all penises are pretty funny looking.

 

Been looking at penises a lot, I see?

[ma_ta]

You're only defending this practice because it is common around you, therefore "acceptable". Chopping off pieces of a baby's body without cause would never fly if it wasn't for that precedent

 

I personally think you're comment is ignorant. Sure you believe that the procedure serves no purpose and is only cosmetic but that does not give you the right to dismiss other people's belief.

 

An important part of being a doctor is not dismissing other people's cultural or religious beliefs. In fact, many Jews and Muslims routinely practice circumcision, not just because their ancestors have been doing so, but because they truly believe the procedure has medical benefits. So they are not merely chopping off a baby's body part.

 

In fact, there has been research to prove that circumcision serves protection against local infections in the penis, infections of the urethra, protection against cancer of the penis, sexually transmitted diseases, and cervical cancer in women.

 

Dr. Muhammad 'Ali al-Baar (a member of the Royal College of Surgeons in the UK and a consultant to the Islamic Medicine department of the King Fahd Centre for Medical Research in the King Abdul Aziz University in Jeddah) says in his book al-Khitaan (Circumcision):

 

"Circumcision of newborn boys (I.e., within the first month of life) brings numerous health benefits, including:

 

1 – Protection against local infection in the penis, which may result from the presence of the foreskin, causing tightening of the foreskin, which may lead to retention of urine or infections of the glans (tip) of the penis – which require circumcision in order to treat these problems. In chronic cases, the child may be exposed to numerous diseases in the future, the most serious of which is cancer of the penis.

 

2 – Infections of the urethra. Many studies have proven that uncircumcised boys are more exposed to infection of the urethra. In some studies the rate was 39 times more among uncircumcised boys. In other studies the rate was ten times more. Other studies showed that 95% of children who suffered from infections of the urethra were uncircumcised, whereas the rate among circumcised children did not exceed 5%.

 

In children, infection of the urethra is serious in some cases. In the study by Wisewell on 88 children who suffered infections of the urethra, in 36 % of them, the same bacteria was found in the blood also. Three of them contracted meningitis, and two suffered renal failure. Two others died as a result of the spread of the micro-organisms throughout the body.

 

3 – Protection against cancer of the penis: the studies agree that cancer of the penis is almost non-existent among circumcised men, whereas the rate among uncircumcised men is not insignificant. In the US the rate of penile cancer among circumcised men is zero, whilst among uncircumcised men it is 2.2 in every 100,000 of the uncircumcised population. As most of the inhabitants of the US are circumcised, the cases of this cancer there are between 750 and 1000 per year. If the population were not circumcised, the number of cases would reach 3000. In countries where boys are not circumcised, such as China, Uganda and Puerto Rico, penile cancer represents between 12-22 % of all cancers found in men; this is a very high percentage.

 

4 – Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Researchers found that the STDs which are transmitted via sexual contact (usually because of fornication/adultery and homosexuality) spread more among those who are not circumcised, especially herpes, soft chancres, syphilis, candida, gonorrhea and genital warts.

 

There are numerous modern studies which confirm that circumcision reduces the possibility of contracting AIDS when compared to their uncircumcised counterparts. But that does not rule out the possibility of a circumcised man contracting AIDS as the result of sexual contact with a person who has AIDS. Circumcision is not a protection against it, and there is no real way of protecting oneself against the many sexually transmitted diseases apart from avoiding fornication/adultery, promiscuity, homosexuality and other repugnant practices. (From this we can see the wisdom of Islamic sharee'ah in forbidding fornication/adultery and homosexuality).

 

5 – Protection of wives against cervical cancer. Researchers have noted that the wives of circumcised men have less risk of getting cervical cancer than the wives of uncircumcised men.

 

Thus, male circumcision has the potential to provide benefits. And for some religions and cultures, it may me be just as important or even more important than a vaccine.

 

So, I don't think that there is reason to deny circumcision to parents who want to have the procedure done on their sons, especially if the reason is religious.

 

Parents have the right to make decisions regarding their children unless there is significant proof that the decisions they are making will have a direct negative impact on the health of the child.

[Ninjaface]

Circumcision is not a protection against it, and there is no real way of protecting oneself against the many sexually transmitted diseases apart from avoiding fornication/adultery, promiscuity, homosexuality and other repugnant practices. (From this we can see the wisdom of Islamic sharee'ah in forbidding fornication/adultery and homosexuality).

 

This statement makes me question the Dr.'s objectivity as it pertains to this matter...

[ma_ta]

I was merely quoting for the purposes of revealing possible evidence for the procedure. I know the viewpoints regarding certain sexual practices is quite negative and even unacceptable in some cases (i.e. homosexuality) but the point is that certain people believe that there is solid evidence supporting the procedure. I think these studies are also cited elsewhere as they are not directly conducted by the author.

[RandomGuy]

I personally think you're comment is ignorant. Sure you believe that the procedure serves no purpose and is only cosmetic but that does not give you the right to dismiss other people's belief.

 

...

 

I didn't claim that circumcision is only cosmetic. I said that it many cases circumcision is performed for cosmetic reasons (only), and I believe that cosmetic surgery without consent of the individual it is being performed on is wholly unethical.

 

Religious rituals are a different matter.

 

Your source is biased, and represents a small slice of the research in the area. Clearly, our pediatric association (and the American Pediatric Association, and others around the world) do not support routine circumcision based on the preponderance of evidence. You have your work cut out for you if you hope to be more convincing than these groups of professionals from your armchair.

 

There may be cases where circumcision is necessary, but the CPA is clearly telling us that it is not necessary in every newborn male.

[RandomGuy]

I was merely quoting for the purposes of revealing possible evidence for the procedure. I know the viewpoints regarding certain sexual practices is quite negative and even unacceptable in some cases (i.e. homosexuality) but the point is that certain people believe that there is solid evidence supporting the procedure. I think these studies are also cited elsewhere as they are not directly conducted by the author.

 

What consenting adults choose to do with their own penis is very different than what parents choose to do with their unconsenting child's penis.

[ma_ta]

According to the policy statement that was published in Pediatrics, the journal of the AAP:

 

“Circumcision is not essential to a child's well-being at birth, even though it does have some potential medical benefits. These benefits are not compelling enough to warrant the AAP to recommend routine newborn circumcision. Instead, we encourage parents to discuss the benefits and risks of circumcision with their pediatrician, and then make an informed decision about what is in the best interest of their child,” says Carole Lannon, M.D., MPH, FAAP, chair of the AAP's Task Force on Circumcision.

 

"The policy concluded, however, that it is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious and ethnic traditions, in addition to medical factors, when making this decision. It states that to make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision with their pediatrician."

[sailor_d198]

Guidelines for physicians regarding the circumcision sent out by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan:

 

http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/sask2002/

[A-Stark]

See my previous post. You're only defending this practice because it is common around you, therefore "acceptable". Chopping off pieces of a baby's body without cause would never fly if it wasn't for that precedent.

 

To say that the baby's consent is not required is absurd. If the "anything else" you are referring to includes things like immunizations, etc. these are clearly preventative, whereas pediatric associations agree that routine circumcision does not offer sufficient preventative advantages. If the case of phimosis or other medically necessary conditions, the situation is completely different. But what routine circumcision often amounts to is no more than irreversible cosmetic surgery performed without consent.

 

A baby's consent is not required because a baby is not capable of giving consent to ANY procedure one way or another. Immunizations, injections, or necessary surgeries are all performed on infants and children without any requirement of consent, informed or otherwise. These are justified on entirely valid but purely utilitarian grounds - since they have clear demonstrable benefits, no one complains that the lack of consent from patients is particularly relevant. Correspondingly, though, parents or guardians must give consent to such procedures as they have legal standing to make decisions for their children. It is their consent that matters, not the infant's.

 

Now, whether routine circumcision should be practised is certainly controversial. As it is cosmetic with relatively small positive health effects, it must be weighed against possible adverse effects. Since these are fairly insignificant (anecdotal complications aside), it should be up to the parents in consultation with their baby's physician. Consent of the infant, however, does not enter into this debate at all. How could it?

[Wolvenstar]

-The Canadian Pediatric Society's official stance is that they do not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys.

 

-The Royal Australasian College of Physicians' official stance is that there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision

 

-The American Cancer Society does not consider routine circumcision to be a valid or effective measure to prevent cancers

 

-The Canadian Children Right's

-complication rates recorded are between 1%-5% of all circumcisions, however these rates only include complications found immediately preceding operation.

 

-The children's hospital of philadelphia reported that they have two cases per month where a infant boy has to be brought in to correct implications of circumcision operations

 

 

-While circumcision can provide a measure of protection against UTI's in men, it would take 195circumcisions to prevent one UTI (although I have no statistics, Studies show that breastfeeding is a much more effective way at preventing UTIs that circumcision)

 

 

 

-Among intact men, the rate of penile cancer is 1 in every 100,000. Circumcision can protect against penile cancer but look compare that to rates of prostate cancer and testicular cancers

Prostate: 1 in 11 males

Testicular: 1 in 300 males

 

-There was a study done in Africa which suggested that circumcision can help prevent the spread of AIDs, however this study since comming out, has been pretty much shredded to pieces by the scientific community. If nothing else they fact that 340 men who were circumsized dropped out of the trials should show how the statistics could be skewed.

 

Also disputing this study is the statistics taken from other countries:

Tanzania: HIV rates: 9.5% in circumcised men and 9.7% in intact men

South Africa: KwaZulu-Natal province - 27% HIV prevelance in a populace of almost 100% intact men

Eastern Cape: almost 100% circumcised men with 23% HIV prevelance.

 

 

 

 

People need to understand that circumcision is a religious procedure. Many people have been incorrectly lead to believe that there is significant medical benefit to circumsising their son.

[Octavius]

4 – Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Researchers found that the STDs which are transmitted via sexual contact (usually because of fornication/adultery and homosexuality) spread more among those who are not circumcised, especially herpes, soft chancres, syphilis, candida, gonorrhea and genital warts.

 

There are numerous modern studies which confirm that circumcision reduces the possibility of contracting AIDS when compared to their uncircumcised counterparts. But that does not rule out the possibility of a circumcised man contracting AIDS as the result of sexual contact with a person who has AIDS. Circumcision is not a protection against it, and there is no real way of protecting oneself against the many sexually transmitted diseases apart from avoiding fornication/adultery, promiscuity, homosexuality and other repugnant practices. (From this we can see the wisdom of Islamic sharee'ah in forbidding fornication/adultery and homosexuality).

 

LOL What the ****? Man that took credibility down a notch. Normally I look beyond the ad hominems but this suggests a lack of impartiality.

[Wolvenstar]

LOL What the ****? Man that took credibility down a notch. Normally I look beyond the ad hominems but this suggests a lack of impartiality.

 

that quote just leads to a culture-coexistance question that I really don't want to be the one to put forward.

[Octavius]

Yeah I see what you mean. I just have trouble with homophobia and irrational conservatism (I'm pretty socially liberal and arguments like that bother me since there is no logical/objective basis for making it). It was a pretty compelling argument until I saw that thrown in, it was abrupt and un-necessary (wtf factor). I think as a doctor conducting research, you should be impartial and objective as possible, and those two paragraphs are anything but. I hate to see how he treats/judges patients that come in with STIs or are homosexuals.

[clive]

I personally think you're comment is ignorant. Sure you believe that the procedure serves no purpose and is only cosmetic but that does not give you the right to dismiss other people's belief.

 

An important part of being a doctor is not dismissing other people's cultural or religious beliefs. In fact, many Jews and Muslims routinely practice circumcision, not just because their ancestors have been doing so, but because they truly believe the procedure has medical benefits. So they are not merely chopping off a baby's body part.

 

So, I don't think that there is reason to deny circumcision to parents who want to have the procedure done on their sons, especially if the reason is religious.

 

 

"I pose a hypothetical question. As a man of some fifty seven years of age, I am discovered sucking the penis of a baby boy. I ask you to picture your own outrage and revulsion. Ah, but I have my explanation all ready. I am a mohel: an appointed circumciser and foreskin remover. My authority comes from an ancient text, which commands me to take a baby boy's penis in my hand, cut around the prepuce, and complete the action by taking his penis in my mouth, sucking off the foreskin, and spitting out the amputated flap along with a mouthful of blood and saliva.

 

This practice has been abandoned by most Jews, either because of its unhygienic nature or its disturbing associations, but it still persists among the sort of Hasidic fundamentalists who hope for the Second Temple to be rebuilt in Jerusalem. To them, the primitive rite of the peri'ah metsitsah is part of the original and unbreakable covenant with god. In New York City in the year 2005, the ritual, as performed by a fifty-seven-year-old mohel, was found to have given genital herpes to several small boys, and to have caused the deaths of at least two of them. In normal circumstances, the disclosure would have led the public health department to forbid the practice and the mayor to denounce it. But in the capital of the modern world, in the first decade of the twenty-first century, such was not the case. Instead, Mayor Bloomberg overrode the reports by distinguished Jewish physicians who had warned of the danger of the custom, and told his health care bureaucracy to postpone any verdict. The crucial thing, he said, was to be sure that the free exercise of religion was not being infringed. . . . It happened to be an election year in New York for the mayor, which often explains a lot. But this pattern recurs in other denominations and other states and cities, as well as in other countries."

[Wolvenstar]

personally I would like to know what the scientific and medical community have said about this research article. To be frank, I would rather listen to the medical bodies that I listed in an earlier post rather than a single professor, whose objectivity seems to be rather questionable.