German court bans circumcision of young boys

brazenlilraisin said:
What a hero you are. If not for you millions of children would have no idea they had been so harmed nor would they know who to blame for the harm. I'm just sorry for all the many generations of boys who went through their entire life never knowing they had been so harmed. I guess I'll light a candle for them...or something.
Click to expand...
Except for the studies that indicate they were experiencing psychological and physical problems due to their circumcision.

brazenlilraisin said:
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Click to expand...
No, you don't.
 
Dave Rogers said:
In any case, general anaesthesia has its own mortality rate. Wikipedia suggests that a minimal estimate is about 1 in 200,000, which is enough to be seriously concerned about on its own for a procedure with no adequate medical justification.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure local anaesthesia is used for circumcision, so mortality rates for general anaesthesia are irrelevant.
 
catsmate1 said:
Except for the studies that indicate they were experiencing psychological and physical problems due to their circumcision.
Click to expand...
What studies are these? I haven't experienced any physical problems at all, and the only psychological problem I'm aware of was a bit of heat under the collar (get it?) at having a bunch of goobers on this forum claim I'd been mutilated.
 
zeggman said:
Okay, but here in the United States we also have doctor-patient privilege. If it isn't an outright ban, I don't see how you're going to prevent people from saying that there is therapeutic justification when in fact it's the same cosmetic, cultural preference, or religious reason that exists today. So in practice, I don't see anti-circumcision activists really being satisfied with a legal ban on only non-therapeutic circumcisions.
Click to expand...

You are probably right, it might never get completely snuffed out but similar situations exist. For example, prescription drug abuse and prescription drug doctor shopping. Doctor-patient privilege doesn't stop us from preventing that, a doctor may get away with a scam for some time sooner or later though a pattern might emerge that is obvious. The same with medical insurance fraud, if there are too many circumcision claims (grossly more than might be expected) well there might be something to look at there. Plus hopefully peer presure would prevent most of it.

zeggman said:
We don't have to go through hoops to get ANY tooth pulled.
Click to expand...

I disagree, if I brought my minor child to the dentist and asked him (for no reason in particular) to pull a tooth or two I suspect there would be some serious questions asked.

zeggman said:
Now that I think about it, in addition to having my wisdom teeth pulled, I had four other teeth pulled, for purely cosmetic reasons. Just counted - 12 top, 12 bottom. The "medical justification" was that I had too many damn teeth for my mouth, so to give the orthodontist room to work, I had four perfectly healthy teeth extracted.

There oughta be a law.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you had an unusually crowed mouth which could be a justification for orthodontics, though I admit it's an over used service in the US. In what way was your penis abnormal that circumcision was a necessary consideration?
 
zeggman said:
Okay, but here in the United States we also have doctor-patient privilege. If it isn't an outright ban, I don't see how you're going to prevent people from saying that there is therapeutic justification when in fact it's the same cosmetic, cultural preference, or religious reason that exists today. So in practice, I don't see anti-circumcision activists really being satisfied with a legal ban on only non-therapeutic circumcisions.
Click to expand...
Because doctors don't like to lose their licence? :rolleyes: I'm pretty sure the insurance company asks them on one of the many forms whether the circumcision was medically indicated or for cultural preference.

zeggman said:
We don't have to go through hoops to get ANY tooth pulled. Now that I think about it, in addition to having my wisdom teeth pulled, I had four other teeth pulled, for purely cosmetic reasons. Just counted - 12 top, 12 bottom. The "medical justification" was that I had too many damn teeth for my mouth, so to give the orthodontist room to work, I had four perfectly healthy teeth extracted.

My god, there was just no sating my parents' compulsion to remove healthy parts from my perfect little body!

I remember I cried when they pulled those teeth. Now, instead of being a bucktoothed big mouth, I have to flash "straight" teeth every time I smile.

The nerve of those bastards not letting me go through high school looking like Bugs Bunny. I could always have decided to have my teeth straightened when I became an adult.
Click to expand...
You're sure you're not leaving something out there? I had two premolars pulled too, because of a large overbite. I much prefer this to regular bleeding of the palate, to be honest, and I don't have to hesitate a second to call this a medical necessity.
 
jdp said:
I disagree, if I brought my minor child to the dentist and asked him (for no reason in particular) to pull a tooth or two I suspect there would be some serious questions asked.
Click to expand...
By the dentist, not by the local constable.

jdp said:
In what way was your penis abnormal that circumcision was a necessary consideration?
Click to expand...
None that I'm aware of. I think they did it just because it was fashionable.
 
I do love this debate but it usually comes to to this:

pro circ people - Well I was circumcised and my sex life is great! Nothing wrong with me boy, nope, nosireebob, nothing to see here. All my junk is perfect and I wasn't harmed at all.. whistles while walking away.

and

anti-circle people - HOLY **** THEY CUT OFF PART OF YOUR DING-DONG!!! WHOA DUDE that's INSANE! If someone goes near my junk I gonna blow their head off!!!

I'm definitely in the anti-circ group ;) I've come to the conclusion ration discussion on this topic is going to require a few hundred more years of evolution, if ever.
 
zeggman said:
By the dentist, not by the local constable.
Click to expand...

Initially, what if you were either: particularly persistant about it or the dentist found out later you had it done anyway?

zeggman said:
None that I'm aware of. I think they did it just because it was fashionable.
Click to expand...

And that's the problem, not a shred or even a pretext of need. Being born male is not a diagnosis.
 
zeggman said:
What studies are these? I haven't experienced any physical problems at all, and the only psychological problem I'm aware of was a bit of heat under the collar (get it?) at having a bunch of goobers on this forum claim I'd been mutilated.
Click to expand...

You don't have to keep telling us how great your junk is, you know. Look, pretending for the moment that nobody really would even want a foreskin... Isn't it a fairly simple concept that if for example* 10% of people experience poor outcomes that the other 90% experience decent outcomes? Hooray, you are in the majority! You have no problems! But when we're talking about something that is not necessary, what reason is there to screw up 10% of the peeners?

*ie not a real statistic but you get the point
 
ddt said:
Because doctors don't like to lose their licence? :rolleyes: I'm pretty sure the insurance company asks them on one of the many forms whether the circumcision was medically indicated or for cultural preference.
Click to expand...
This assumes there's a need to involve the insurance company. I don't know how much doctors charge for circumcision, but since it's an outpatient procedure I imagine many parents could cover the cost out of pocket if they wanted to.

Do mohels charge at all? Or is it considered a service of the tribe?

jdp said:
And that's the problem, not a shred or even a pretext of need. Being born male is not a diagnosis.
Click to expand...
Suppose someone was waving this article around? Wouldn't that be all the "pretext of need" a local practitioner would typically require? I have to admit, while I had a lot of ear infections when I was a tyke, I don't recall any urinary tract infections.
 
zeggman said:
Suppose someone was waving this article around? Wouldn't that be all the "pretext of need" a local practitioner would typically require? I have to admit, while I had a lot of ear infections when I was a tyke, I don't recall any urinary tract infections.
Click to expand...

Not really because the incidence of UTI is very small to begin with and can be easily treated with less invasive means, antibiotics. Now on the otherhand, if an individual child has additional factors, such as some congenital anomily with the urinary tract, that raises his individual risk then it might become reasonable at that point to consider circumcision. That is where doctor-patient (parent) discussion would properly come in on this matter.

ETA: Heck the prescription could be as simple as changing his diet:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...20120709_1_utis-cranberry-juice-urinary-tract
 
Last edited:
Alt+F4 said:
There are so many more important things in the world to worry about other then this. War, cancer, being forced to go to a Bruno Mars concert.
Click to expand...

That's a really weak hand-waving attempt. I've heard it about same sex marriage, sexist media, animal welfare, etc.

Those opposed to circumcision, well don't circumcise your sons.
Click to expand...

Right, this issue has nothing to do with the rights of the child or medical problems. It is just one parental preference versus another, just like FGM.

As for those who were circumcised as babies against their will, well deal with it. It ain't growing back.
Click to expand...

So what should children be forced to deal with before Alt+F4 thinks there is a legitimate reason for society to step in?

Hate your parents, go to grief counseling for your foreskin but please stop with the whining...what's done is done.
Click to expand...

Wow, way to poison the well with mockery of those who disagree with you. Yes, this is all a self-focused vendetta :rolleyes: .
 
zeggman said:
The fact is, anaesthesia can make the procedure painless, so that isn't why it bothers you.
Click to expand...

True; in such cases the baby only screams when his penis is jabbed with a needle.

Still left with a bloody wound, though. Still a baby inflicted with physical trauma on a whim.
 
Alt+F4 said:
There are so many more important things in the world to worry about other then this. War, cancer, being forced to go to a Bruno Mars concert.
Click to expand...

Do not worry, there are threads about all those things too; so we're okay to talk about this.
 
zeggman said:
This assumes there's a need to involve the insurance company. I don't know how much doctors charge for circumcision, but since it's an outpatient procedure I imagine many parents could cover the cost out of pocket if they wanted to.
Click to expand...
Of course that depends on the health insurance system implemented. And having to actually pay for it discourages the parents too if they're not too sound of conviction on the matter. In the UK, the number of circumcisions dropped like a brick when the NHS stopped reimbursing them for non-medical reasons.

zeggman said:
Do mohels charge at all? Or is it considered a service of the tribe?
Click to expand...
No idea, but couldn't they simply be charged with practicing medicine without a licence?
 
ddt said:
No idea, but couldn't they simply be charged with practicing medicine without a licence?
Click to expand...

but they aren't practising medicine any more than a tattoo artist is practising medicine.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Are you seriously suggesting that a newspaper article is sufficient evidence for a medical professional to carry out an operation?
Click to expand...
I'm suggesting that the medical reality behind this article and others like it is that there are both pros and cons. Doctors and parents should be able to discuss these in light of their specific circumstances when deciding whether or not to circumcise a child, just as they can when deciding wither or not to extract "unnecessary" teeth.

We should make sure that everyone has the best information available, trust that both doctors and parents want what's best for the child, and let them make an informed decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom