Nordic countries may finally ban circumcision.

[The Big Dog]

Severe phimosis when multiple other treatments failed?

No. this was in fact part of the early counseling sessions before the kid was born. Hell, before we knew if it was a boy or girl.

 

[mijopaalmc]

This one:

"And there you have it, there's an actual medically justifiable benefit from such procedures, unlike circumcision."

It's almost as if circumcision opponents are unaware of the meta-analytic data that documents the non-HIV-releated medical benefits of circumcision across the basic research, or, if they are aware of it, they are making a judgement call that they don't consider the benefits to outweigh the risks and want the government to make the same call mandatory for everyone living in the their country.

 

[gumboot]

In my country, the vast majority of orthodontic procedures carried out on children are not at all medically necessary and are done strictly for cosmetic reasons. Orthodontic braces are painful to install and make the teeth much more difficult to clean properly.

So should we pass laws against doing elective orthodontic procedures on children?

I can't speak for your country, but in my country it's illegal to carry out unnecessary medical procedures on children without the child's permission.

Since braces are only installed once the child has adult teeth, the child is old enough to consent.

 

[gumboot]

It's almost as if circumcision opponents are unaware of the meta-analytic data that documents the non-HIV-releated medical benefits of circumcision across the basic research.

The studies that have found there to be a medical benefit to circumcision have been deeply flawed. There is no statistically significant benefit at all.

 

[colander]

Again, is circumcision carried out for cosmetic reasons, or is that why it is defended so strongly?

I'm not sure I understand your question. The vast majority of elective circumcisions in my country are not done for religious reasons.

Cosmetic surgical procedures are in any case valid medical activities in very many cases.

And which cases might those be?

 

[The Big Dog]

The studies that have found there to be a medical benefit to circumcision have been deeply flawed. There is no statistically significant benefit at all.

I'll make sure I mention that to the Ob/Gyn/Pediatric group that recommended it to us.

 

[colander]

I can't speak for your country, but in my country it's illegal to carry out unnecessary medical procedures on children without the child's permission.

Since braces are only installed once the child has adult teeth, the child is old enough to consent.

Quite the contrary: many small children are outfitted with braces, as they alter the shape of the mouth and may help prevent the need for unsightly tooth extractions in later life. The American Association of Orthodontics recommends that all children be evaluated for braces by age seven.

 

[ehcks]

In my country, the vast majority of orthodontic procedures carried out on children are not at all medically necessary and are done strictly for cosmetic reasons. Orthodontic braces are painful to install and make the teeth much more difficult to clean properly.

So should we pass laws against doing elective orthodontic procedures on children?

How many times does an 8 day old baby get braces?

I was more than old enough to understand the orthodontist telling me why all the different orthodontic equipment I went through were important.

 

[mijopaalmc]

The studies that have found there to be a medical benefit to circumcision have been deeply flawed. There is no statistically significant benefit at all.

How convenient for you the numerous studies and meta-analyses that contradict your position are all "deeply flawed"!

How about you actually offer your own critique of the studies' methodologies instead of merely asserting that they are?

You could start with these thirteen meta-analyses on the non-HIV-related benefits of circumcision. Maybe you could get Jenny McCarthy to help you.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Quite the contrary: many small children are outfitted with braces, as they alter the shape of the mouth and may help prevent the need for unsightly tooth extractions in later life. The American Association of Orthodontics recommends that all children be evaluated for braces by age seven.

Not to mention the fact that merely having the physical and cognitive ability to say "No!" means that the individual automatically has expressed a legally recognized lack of consent.

I'm sure the European League of Two Year Olds would be very interested in this fact.

 

[mijopaalmc]

How many times does an 8 day old baby get braces?

I was more than old enough to understand the orthodontist telling me why all the different orthodontic equipment I went through were important.

That doesn't your refusal to have them installed constituted legally recognized lack of consent, nor does that mean that they could have been installed without your parents' consent, even if you had offered your verbal assent.

Who signed your consent forms for your vaccination when you were a child?

 

[ABC10]

The studies that have found there to be a medical benefit to circumcision have been deeply flawed. There is no statistically significant benefit at all.

Actually, the big study and the smaller ones were flawless.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Actually, the big study and the smaller ones were flawless.

Is that some kind of coded joke?

 

[ABC10]

Genesis 1:5 So 24 hours, but starting at sunset, not like us at midnight. But 24 hours. That's how long G-d considers a d-y.

We have absolutely no idea how long G-d's day was - could be a billion years.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Finding (disparate, random, after the fact desperate reaching) medical benefits and something being medically justifiable are two different things.

The primary ethical issue for circumcision is that routine circumcision in babies defies standard principles of surgery, as there is no absolute medical indication.16 The most fundamental principle of surgery is that no operation should be done if there is no disease, as it cannot be justified if the risk of the procedure is not balanced by the risk of a disease. Even when patients have significant disease, potentially dangerous operations can hardly be justified if their risks are much greater than the disease itself. The problem for routine circumcision is that since there is no disease, no complication whatsoever can be tolerated, since the risks of the procedure are not being balanced against the risks of any present disease. This cost benefit analysis approach exposes routine circumcision as an unnecessary social operation, rather than one justified by medical indications.16 Since no disease is present in the neonate, perhaps circumcision could be justified by the possible risks to the patient in the future. This is analogous to the circumstance occurring with immunisation of the population against infectious diseases. The risks of immunisation are justified by the fact that the individual risk to the patient is extremely small, however serious, but the benefits are great, since the incidence of the disease in unimmunised populations may be very high, and may even be a majority of the population. By contrast, the diseases which circumcision is able to prevent are uncommon or even rare, and may be 20–70 years into the future. Furthermore, the potential risk for such diseases as HIV/AIDS may not exist when a population of boys circumcised in 2002 reach adult life. We are not certain at present whether AIDS is going to be an even more widespread disease in the future or whether it will be abolished by some new treatment. Therefore, it would be hard to justify mass circumcision with such a small potential gain. Furthermore, the studies in Denmark suggest indirectly that good hygiene with regular washing may be just as effective at preventing the diseases treated by circumcision. The use of potential diseases in the future as an argument in favour of circumcision can be illustrated by urinary infection in the neonatal period. In the USA, the risk of infection (seven per 1000) is used as an indication for circumcision. In our own practice in Australia, however, this is used to offer circumcision to a very small population of boys with known urinary tract anomalies. Since only one per cent of boys suffer a urinary tract infection in the first year of life, most Australian surgeons find it difficult to justify circumcising 100% of the male population when only one per cent will benefit by reduction in urinary tract infection risk. By contrast, selecting those children at most risk of developing a serious urinary infection for circumcision, takes advantage of the potential benefits but without putting the majority of the population at risk.

http://jme.bmj.com/content/30/3/238.full

 

[gumboot]

Quite the contrary: many small children are outfitted with braces, as they alter the shape of the mouth and may help prevent the need for unsightly tooth extractions in later life. The American Association of Orthodontics recommends that all children be evaluated for braces by age seven.

The reason they advise that is because issues with the structure of the mouth that have a negative effect on health and well-being are sometimes more easily treated early, while the mouth is still growing.

Do you have any evidence that the American Association of Orthodontics promotes the non-medical use of orthodontic modification in young children?

 

[gumboot]

That doesn't your refusal to have them installed constituted legally recognized lack of consent, nor does that mean that they could have been installed without your parents' consent, even if you had offered your verbal assent.

Who signed your consent forms for your vaccination when you were a child?

Which country are you talking about? In New Zealand a parent can force their child to undergo a medical procedure that is necessary for their well-being (in fact the state can enforce it if the parent refuses).

A parent cannot enforce a child to undergo elective medical procedures without the child's consent. The single exception is circumcision, because this hasn't been challenged in court that I'm aware of.

 

[ehcks]

We have absolutely no idea how long G-d's day was - could be a billion years.

It could also be a femtosecond. Making things up about something made up doesn't get us anywhere.

 

[ABC10]

It could also be a femtosecond. Making things up about something made up doesn't get us anywhere.

We have no idea. G-d has not told us yet how long is his/her day. It's a mystery.

 

[ABC10]

Is that some kind of coded joke?

Nope. "The facts Ma'am. Just the facts." Joe Friday