Nordic countries may finally ban circumcision.

[luchog]

I'm going to hazard a guess that the words "aberrant dentition" are the key words in this question.

And the fact that the health risks and benefits are well established.

That said, a surprisingly large amount of childhood orthodontic work in the US is purely cosmetic, not due to expected health risks of abnormal dentition (I believe a link to this info was posted earlier in the thread). Fortunately, uncomfortable as it is, orthodontic work does not carry the medical risks that childhood circumcision does. Doesn't stop it from being completely unnecessary in a lot of cases, however.

 

[Baylor]

I'm going to hazard a guess that the words "aberrant dentition" are the key words in this question.

lol. Not sure exactly when foreskin became "aberrant" but I think the porn industry had something to do with it.

 

[spin0]

So orthodontia should be delayed until aberrant dentition precipitates a medical emergency or, in the case where there is no immediate medical necessity, until the patient reaches the age of legal majority?

Done much orthodontia to infants lately? Thought so.

Man, these threads really are like watching Nascar.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I'm going to hazard a guess that the words "aberrant dentition" are the key words in this question.

I'm going to guess you completely ignored the phrase "medical emergency". The idea behind "aberrant dentiton" is that it could cause problems in the future; the practioner doesn't know for certain whether it will be problematic at the time at the time the intervention is perofrmed; and there is a calculated risk that the extant condition will get worse.

Similarly, having a foreskin predisposes one to certain emergency medical condintion (e.g., phimosis and paraphimosis), yet circumcision advocate who insist that, in the case of orthodontia, the mere existence of a risk justifies the intervention against the consent of the patient, assert that the emergency medical condition must exist in order of circumcision to be justified during the patient's legal minority.

How you cannot see this a special pleading against circumcision defies logic.

 

[mijopaalmc]

lol. Not sure exactly when foreskin became "aberrant" but I think the porn industry had something to do with it.

Not sure when teeth became aberrant either.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Done much orthodontia to infants lately? Thought so.

Man, these threads really are like watching Nascar.

What part of "the patient does not consent to orthodontia" don't you understand?

 

[Baylor]

Not sure when teeth became aberrant either.

When they grow aberrantly.

 

[Rat]

I'm going to guess you completely ignored the phrase "medical emergency". The idea behind "aberrant dentiton" is that it could cause problems in the future; the practioner doesn't know for certain whether it will be problematic at the time at the time the intervention is perofrmed; and there is a calculated risk that the extant condition will get worse.

Similarly, having a foreskin predisposes one to certain emergency medical condintion (e.g., phimosis and paraphimosis), yet circumcision advocate who insist that, in the case of orthodontia, the mere existence of a risk justifies the intervention against the consent of the patient, assert that the emergency medical condition must exist in order of circumcision to be justified during the patient's legal minority.

How you cannot see this a special pleading against circumcision defies logic.

The vast majority have dentition that fits a norm that does not, in itself, cause problems. Some have dentition that, in your own word, is aberrant. That aberration is known to cause problems that can easily be avoided.

Everybody has a foreskin at birth. It will, in the vast majority of cases, cause no problem. Some have an aberration in their foreskin that will require surgery.

That you can't tell the difference defies not only logic but credibility.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

What part of "the patient does not consent to orthodontia" don't you understand?

If I was circumcised at the age I had orthodontia performed, I would have objected quite vehemently. (and ran quite fast)

 

[TheGoldcountry]

In any case, if you think orthodontic work is widely performed for unnecessary reasons, you might be correct. It's a subject worth exploring.

It doesn't negate the issue of circumcision being performed for personal reasons, yet being justified by nebulous medical reasons after the fact.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

So orthodontia should be delayed until aberrant dentition precipitates a medical emergency or, in the case where there is no immediate medical necessity, until the patient reaches the age of legal majority?

Round and around we go...

 

[ddt]

I'm going to guess you completely ignored the phrase "medical emergency". The idea behind "aberrant dentiton" is that it could cause problems in the future; the practioner doesn't know for certain whether it will be problematic at the time at the time the intervention is perofrmed; and there is a calculated risk that the extant condition will get worse.

Similarly, having a foreskin predisposes one to certain emergency medical condintion (e.g., phimosis and paraphimosis), yet circumcision advocate who insist that, in the case of orthodontia, the mere existence of a risk justifies the intervention against the consent of the patient, assert that the emergency medical condition must exist in order of circumcision to be justified during the patient's legal minority.

How you cannot see this a special pleading against circumcision defies logic.

Childbirth can cause serious complications in the mother. Why don't why abort all foetuses?
Children may develop tonsilitis, so why don't we preventively remove their tonsils right away.
People may get ingrown toenails, so why don't we preventively remove the toenails.
Around half of the population of the western world develops cardiovascular problems, why don't we prescribe them statins from birth.
Many people get appendicitis, why don't we remove the appendix right away.
Etcetera etcetera.

Your above argument is even lamer than your antisemitism allegations.

Apart from that, in most of the cases of phimosis, circumcision is not indicated. According to this recent article from Aart Klijn, paediatric urologist at the Dutch Wilhelmina Kinderziekenhuis (Children Hospital), only 2 of the last 100 patients they saw required circumcision. The others were served by a combination of corticosteroid creme and stretching (86 cases), or preputioplasty (12 cases).

 

[mijopaalmc]

In any case, if you think orthodontic work is widely performed for unnecessary reasons, you might be correct. It's a subject worth exploring.

It doesn't negate the issue of circumcision being performed for personal reasons, yet being justified by nebulous medical reasons after the fact.

Yeah because the many-fold reduction in UTI's observed in serval large-sample meta-analyses entails cicrumcision's "being justified by nebulous medical reasons after the fact".

Look, the problem with the legal proscription of circumcision is that, within the context of how it's portrayed in this thread, it constitutes circumcision opponent's determination that prophylactic circumcision during a patient's legal minority is not justified for them to have it performed on their children, so it is not justfied for anyone to have performed on their children...and they are willing to use governmental power to compel those with whom they disagree to adhere to their personal opinions.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Yeah because the many-fold reduction in UTI's observed in serval large-sample meta-analyses entails cicrumcision's "being justified by nebulous medical reasons after the fact".

Look, the problem with the legal proscription of circumcision is that, within the context of how it's portrayed in this thread, it constitutes circumcision opponent's determination that prophylactic circumcision during a patient's legal minority is not justified for them to have it performed on their children, so it is not justfied for anyone to have performed on their children...and they are willing to use governmental power to compel those with whom they disagree to adhere to their personal opinions.

Right, their personal national medical association's opinion on human rights. Why should a government look to that?

 

[ddt]

Yeah because the many-fold reduction in UTI's observed in serval large-sample meta-analyses entails cicrumcision's "being justified by nebulous medical reasons after the fact".

So is it UTIs or phimosis you're worried about? UTIs are in nearly all cases treatable with antibiotics. And why don't you advocate FGM? After all, UTIs are much more prevalent in girls than in boys.

Look, the problem with the legal proscription of circumcision is that, within the context of how it's portrayed in this thread, it constitutes circumcision opponent's determination that prophylactic circumcision

There's nothing prophylactic about it. You just use that as an excuse for Bronze Age superstition and a tradition caused by the confabulations of a breakfast cereal producer. You don't even try to identify an "at risk" group. We don't routinely snip tonsils anymore either with all children, do we?

during a patient's legal minority is not justified for them to have it performed on their children, so it is not justfied for anyone to have performed on their children...and they are willing to use governmental power to compel those with whom they disagree to adhere to their personal opinions.

Huh? Don't mess with someone else's body is a simple, universal legal principle. Or do you advocate to have two different sets of laws? It nearly seems so,

 

[The Big Dog]

Right, their personal national medical association's opinion on human rights. Why should a government look to that?

Their what? Personal national medical association's opinion on human rights?

Is that like a tiny jumbo shrimp with a hot frozen Popsicle?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Their what? Personal national medical association's opinion on human rights?

Is that like a tiny jumbo shrimp with a hot frozen Popsicle?

Exactly.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Their what? Personal national medical association's opinion on human rights?

Is that like a tiny jumbo shrimp with a hot frozen Popsicle?

Earlier you were advocating for individual doctors making a decision, but a nationwide consensus of medical professionals should be disregarded?

 

[One Tenth]

It's simpler than that, if your Johnson's been clipped you favor circumcision if not you don't.

Interestingly, this is the most reliable predictor on whether a male doctor will recommend circumcision or not.

However, there are many, many intactivists who have been circumcised. That there are a lot people who feel they were mutilated and actively oppose the practice is something to note for parents who believe they are doing it in the best interest of their child.

 

[Wildy]

I presume "FGM" is short for "female genital mutilation", then.

In which case I repeat the question: why is one okay, while the other is "mutilation"? What does clitoris foreskin have that its male counterpart doesn't? Again, I can find cherry-picked studies showing benefits of removing the clitoris foreskin, just as you can for the penis.

Well to be fair FGM has a bunch of different types ranging from "messing around with the clitoral area" to "cut pretty much everything". You can look at the fancy terms here.

However as I see it the answer to your question is "blatant hypocrisy". We live in a world where ritual nicking of the clitoris in a way that causes no permanent damage is considered more evil and mutilationy than cutting off the foreskin.