Nordic countries may finally ban circumcision.

[jdp]

You might have to when anti-biotic resistant uti take over.

Oh it's easily treatable.

That would be a b**ch but the door swings both ways, MRSA is just as big a concern.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17385145

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

You might have to when anti-biotic resistant uti take over.

Oh it's easily treatable.

*Whoosh*

 

[The Big Dog]

*Whoosh*

*whoosh*!

Lolz

 

[Ryokan]

Lolz, just a few more words and you would have gotten to private and family life

Right to family life.... Odd that you missed those pertinent words.

lolzorroflbbqwhatever - That right doesn't give you the right to do whatever you want to your children. You can't use the right of privacy and private family life to infringe on other rights, like the human rights. Your children are not your property. You are their caretaker, within the law.

ETA: Is it your contention, 16.5, that any sort of governmental child protective service is authoritarian and should let people treat their kids however they want as is their due according to the right of a private family life? There are no limits what can be done to kids, whether it be medical or not?

Whatever, we're discussing in circles. It's been 25 pages, and it's obvious some people are not here for a debate, but use the shotgun approach as a defense for the practice, or throwing spagetthi on the wall to see what sticks.

 

[The Big Dog]

lolzorroflbbqwhatever - That right doesn't give you the right to do whatever you want to your children. You can't use the right of privacy and private family life to infringe on other rights, like the human rights. Your children are not your property. You are their caretaker, within the law.

ETA: Is it your contention, 16.5, that any sort of governmental child protective service is authoritarian and should let people treat their kids however they want as is their due according to the right of a private family life? There are no limits what can be done to kids, whether it be medical or not?

Whatever, we're discussing in circles. It's been 25 pages, and it's obvious some people are not here for a debate, but use the shotgun approach as a defense for the practice, or throwing spagetthi on the wall to see what sticks.

I'm confused isn't article 8 of the human rights convention a human right? Which one predominates?

Curious though that you missed the reference to family there though.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I'm confused isn't article 8 of the human rights convention a human right? Which one predominates?

Curious though that you missed the reference to family there though.

Yeah, seeing as you think Europeans are fascism fetishists, I am going to have to be skeptical of your scholarship on that Article/Convention/continent.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

"and lowers the risk of urinary tract infections in the first year of life"

That's from the study which has been shown to be extremely methodically flawed. And even the study you prefers says that the risk of complications is twice as high as the protection. You need better evidence, I'm afraid.

Evasion on my other question noted.

 

[Darat]

yes, i agree with this:

"The AAP believes the health benefits are great enough that infant male circumcision should be covered by insurance, which would increase access to the procedure for families who choose it."

That is not the complete recommendation.

 

[Wildy]

And it's these others, specifically the Nordic countries of Europe, who find that there is no medical reason to offer neonatal circumcision routinely and more over absent therapeutic need, it should be banned. So the relavent medical association in the specific coutnry has come to a conclusion and based on that conclusion made a policy recommmendation. What exactly is the problem?

His problem, assuming he's not a successful troll, is that the recommendation of the relevant medical association does not agree with his own personal opinions. Therefore it's wrong and "authoritarian".

I'm confused isn't article 8 of the human rights convention a human right? Which one predominates?

Curious though that you missed the reference to family there though.

The sarcastic response:

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law. I don't see a reference to family there?

The more serious response:

Perhaps you should actually read what the EU Human Rights Convention actually says. I understand that you seem to think that you can just ignore the parts of documents that inconvenience you but in this case you really shouldn't, because otherwise you'd be saying a whole load of dodgy cultural practices and even things that aren't cultural but society looks down upon should be permissible because of a "right to family life".

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Specifically, article 8 states that the "right to respect of private and family life" is superseded by "the protection of the rights and freedoms of others".

 

[Ryokan]

I'm confused isn't article 8 of the human rights convention a human right? Which one predominates?

Curious though that you missed the reference to family there though.

I'll admit that my mind doesn't work this way, that when I read a convention saying we have a right to privacy, that I didn't immediately think of the right to privately treat my kids as properties, commodities and pets. This right doesn't work the way you think it does. You can't do whatever you want with your kids, even in the privacy of your own home, medical or not. It doesn't work like that in my country, in your country, or in any other country at the time. There's always a limit, even in the worst human rights offending nations on Earth.

I think you're the only person I've ever met, on the internet and in real life, who seems to hold the position that you can do whatever you want with your kids. I don't say you do hold this position, only that it seems so - because that's the way you argue and you've, as far as I know, not once acknowledged that there should be some sort of limit to what you can do to your children.

 

[The Big Dog]

That is not the complete recommendation.

Yes, they made two recommendations, both of which are reflected in that quote.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Yes, they made two recommendations, both of which are reflected in that quote.

Apologies, this doesn't follow on directly from your quote but it was the easiest way to direct it at you...

If I understand your position correctly (apologies if not) then you are pro-circumcision because your family doctor recommended it for medical reasons (eg your oft-quoted reduction in UTIs).

If your doctor retired and the new family doctor said that was a rubbish reason for circumcision because the risk of complications from circumcision (2%) outweighed the risk of UTI (1%) and the latter was easily treatable anyway (let's ignore the completely different worry about antibiotics becoming less effective because that's more to do with over prescription) would you change your stance?

If not, why not?

 

[jdp]

The problem is that some people would prefer keeping the government out of their Doctors' office.

"Why is their evaluation of the evidence less acceptable than the AAP's which you keep producing?" The REAL point of the matter is that you are legislating away anyone's right to choose, which is more "acceptable" and which works best for their family.

If the relavent medical organizations such as the KNGM comes to the objective conclusion that a procedure is more harmful than not in the routine case and that a policy of deterance with the eventual goal of prohibition is important for society, why should the legislature not work to implement that policy? Again we've done that for FGM.

By the way, as we have discussed earlier, the fact that the Government is going to ban them is not going to stop them from happening, particularly among religious minorities.

That doesn't stop us for doing it for (and I am sorry for belaboring the point) FGM.

Still waiting for an answer.

 

[luchog]

FACEPALM.

The American Academy of Pediatrics is an organization of 60,000 primary care pediatricians, pediatric medical subspecialists and pediatric surgical specialists dedicated to the health, safety and well-being of infants, children, adolescents and young adults.
.

And the link you provided from the AAP said exactly the opposite of what you claimed it did. Did you bother to read it?

 

[The Big Dog]

And the link you provided from the AAP said exactly the opposite of what you claimed it did. Did you bother to read it?

Considering all I did was quote and link the report:

I completely disagree.

MY POST: "That would not seem to remotely justify banning a parents' right to choose circumcision in connection with their medical doctor's advice."

THE AAP Policy Statement ABSTRACT:

"Male circumcision is a common procedure, generally performed during the newborn period in the United States. In 2007, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) formed a multidisciplinary task force of AAP members and other stakeholders to evaluate the recent evidence on male circumcision and update the Academy’s 1999 recommendations in this area. Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and that the procedure’s benefits justify access to this procedure for families who choose it. Specific benefits identified included prevention of urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has endorsed this statement."

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Considering all I did was quote and link the report:

I completely disagree.

MY POST: "That would not seem to remotely justify banning a parents' right to choose circumcision in connection with their medical doctor's advice."

THE AAP Policy Statement ABSTRACT:

"Male circumcision is a common procedure, generally performed during the newborn period in the United States. In 2007, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) formed a multidisciplinary task force of AAP members and other stakeholders to evaluate the recent evidence on male circumcision and update the Academy’s 1999 recommendations in this area. Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and that the procedure’s benefits justify access to this procedure for families who choose it. Specific benefits identified included prevention of urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has endorsed this statement."

Perhaps the AAP needs to employ some statisticians who can explain to them that 1% (chance of UTI) < 2% (Chance of complication from circumcision).

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

It would also be interesting to know what the AAP would think of circumcision if it wasn't a valuable income stream...

 

[The Big Dog]

Perhaps the AAP needs to employ some statisticians who can explain to them that 1% (chance of UTI) < 2% (Chance of complication from circumcision).

"According to a systematic and critical review of the scientific literature, the health benefits of circumcision include lower risks of acquiring HIV, genital herpes, human papilloma virus and syphilis. Circumcision also lowers the risk of penile cancer over a lifetime; reduces the risk of cervical cancer in sexual partners, and lowers the risk of urinary tract infections in the first year of life."

 

[jdp]

Perhaps the AAP needs to employ some statisticians who can explain to them that 1% (chance of UTI) < 2% (Chance of complication from circumcision).

Actually, what they say in their technical report is more interesting than that,

The true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision is unknown, in part due to differing definitions of “complication” and differing standards for determining the timing of when a complication has occurred (ie, early or late). Adding to the confusion is the comingling of “early” complications, such as bleeding or infection, with “late” complications such as adhesions and meatal stenosis.