The Sensitive Issue of Circumcision

[ponderingturtle]

LOL!

So yeah, if the patients are mentally retarded before they have half their brain disconnected, their IQ's don't change much after if they have it done when they're a kid.

For one many of them where quite old from the stand point of biological flexibility in their brain.

And with it being a treatment for seizures that cause massive brain dammage.

Results: The mean age at onset of seizures was 4 months, and the median age at surgery was 1.2 years. Children had failed to respond to 3.7 anticonvulsants prior to surgery and averaged 387 seizures/month. Forty-seven percent had complications (e.g., hemorrhage and hypertension) in the perioperative period; however, 81% are currently seizure-free, with 53% off anticonvulsants. Hemispherectomy type (anatomic versus functional versus hemidecortication) did not influence outcome. Age at onset of seizures did not predict seizure freedom; however, an older age at hemispherectomy was positively correlated. Postoperative hemiparesis was not more severe than before surgery. Cognitive outcome was not related to the age at operation, side of operation, or seizure freedom.

Conclusions: Children undergoing hemispherectomy presented at a young age and had frequent seizures for approximately 1 year but are now mostly seizure-free. Age at surgery did not have an adverse effect on either seizure or cognitive outcomes.

link

You can cut away half the brain of an infant with little effect on them long term. You can't do that with older children because they loose brain plasticity.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Except, of course, that Creationists want to teach Creationism to your kids. They want to make their point of view standard policy and impose it upon all children.

I, as I have explained, am not suggesting that anyone circumcise their child, that circumcisions be mandatory or even (how about this) that Jewish people should be required to circumcise their children. I don't actually want anybody to do anything they don't want to do for their children (as regards circumcision).

So, whatever I am doing is hardly vague and certainly not a tactic.

Because you do not agree with their largely emotional arguements against it.

I would say that the most ardent against it are being unskeptical because they use mostly emotional arugments not ones supported by any real data.

 

[volatile]

Because you do not agree with their largely emotional arguements against it.

I would say that the most ardent against it are being unskeptical because they use mostly emotional arugments not ones supported by any real data.

Sorry, Pon. If you read this thread, you'll see links to medical, controlled studies showing definite physical and possible emotional harm. You'll see discussions of functional anatomy, of complication rates and all kinds of things. There have also been clearly laid out philosophical and ethical objections, as well as some logical cases against circumcision in light of the evidence presented. In short, far more than "appeals to emotion".

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

You can cut away half the brain of an infant with little effect on them long term.

<snip>

Is it just me, or is this one of the most preposterous assertions ever written?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Is it just me, or is this one of the most preposterous assertions ever written?

It seems to be factual though

SciAm Article on Hemispherectomies

 

[ponderingturtle]

Sorry, Pon. If you read this thread, you'll see links to medical, controlled studies showing definite physical and possible emotional harm.

Along with roughly comparable medical benefits.

Also blatant lies about circumcised men needing lubricant to masterbate.

You'll see discussions of functional anatomy, of complication rates and all kinds of things. There have also been clearly laid out philosophical and ethical objections, as well as some logical cases against circumcision in light of the evidence presented. In short, far more than "appeals to emotion".

Largely no, as those depend on you accepting the philosophical postions of the posters, and philosophical positions are about what is appealing to an individual, that is entirely emotional.

 

[volatile]

Along with roughly comparable medical benefits.

Also blatant lies about circumcised men needing lubricant to masterbate.

For the record, I do need lube... lots of spit, usually. TMI? Well, you did ask.

Largely no, as those depend on you accepting the philosophical postions of the posters, and philosophical positions are about what is appealing to an individual, that is entirely emotional.

Not at all. I think a cogent ethical case can be made (on foundations of, say, utilitarianism or on the Hippocratic oath or on liberalism or even humanism) that circumcising an infant is objectionable. No need for "emotion"; it simply follows from a number of what seem to me to be widely-held and generally quite sensible ethical principles.

 

[Loss Leader]

I think a cogent ethical case can be made (on foundations of, say, utilitarianism or on the Hippocratic oath or on liberalism or even humanism) that circumcising an infant is objectionable. No need for "emotion"; it simply follows from a number of what seem to me to be widely-held and generally quite sensible ethical principles.

So long as you ignore or pervert those principles that do not support your position.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Not at all. I think a cogent ethical case can be made (on foundations of, say, utilitarianism or on the Hippocratic oath or on liberalism or even humanism) that circumcising an infant is objectionable. No need for "emotion"; it simply follows from a number of what seem to me to be widely-held and generally quite sensible ethical principles.

And why are those ethical principles held?

I am not sure that I readily accept the massive focus on action vs inaction that I do not agree with as strongly as most people seem to focus on.

If you reversed the benefits and problems with which is associated with action vs inaction you would end up in the same situation.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

It seems to be factual though

SciAm Article on Hemispherectomies

From the SciAm link:

The operation known as hemispherectomy—where half the brain is removed—sounds too radical to ever consider, much less perform. In the last century, however, surgeons have performed it hundreds of times for disorders uncontrollable in any other way. Unbelievably, the surgery has no apparent effect on personality or memory.

How the heck do you determine that for an infant?

Of course, the operation has its downside: "You can walk, run—some dance or skip—but you lose use of the hand opposite of the hemisphere that was removed. You have little function in that arm and vision on that side is lost," Freeman says.

Remarkably, few other impacts are seen. If the left side of the brain is taken out, "most people have problems with their speech, but it used to be thought that if you took that side out after age two, you'd never talk again, and we've proven that untrue," Freeman says. "The younger a person is when they undergo hemispherectomy, the less disability you have in talking. Where on the right side of the brain speech is transferred to and what it displaces is something nobody has really worked out."

So apart from the procedure having major effects on vision, speech and muscle coordination, you'd never notice the difference.

But the main problem you've got trying to back up your claim is that unless you have a baseline it is impossible to say what has and has not been affected. In the case of an infant there is no baseline. For all we know the procedure turns a potential Mozart or Einstein into average Joe.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

Largely no, as those depend on you accepting the philosophical postions of the posters, and philosophical positions are about what is appealing to an individual, that is entirely emotional.

Yes, I've found the vast majority of people have an emotional reaction when I try to chop a bit of flesh off them. Obviously this reaction is an evolutionary flaw which needs to be fixed. Perhaps if we removed half their brains...

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

If you reversed the benefits and problems with which is associated with action vs inaction you would end up in the same situation.

If there was a 99% chance of an infant getting a UTI if left uncircumcised and a 1% chance if circumcised, you think the situation would be unchanged?

 

[Nursefoxfire]

I have to admit that I'm as utterly floored by the response this thread has received as I am by the emotionally charged, and unsolicited, advice we've gotten on this subject in real life. People feel very strongly about a topic I've hardly given any thought to. I kinda feel like I blundered into the wrong bar and in inadvertently started a brawl.

I'd just like to thank everyone again for their input. As I said pages and pages ago, we'll listen to what the doctor says, but unless she has some super compelling reasons to do so, we are not going to have the kid circumcised.

Congratulations on the baby boy!

As for circ vs. un-circ, my husband and I had our first child, a boy, last summer. My husband's from England, and no one that he knows is circumcised, so he was horrified at the idea that anyone would wield a scalpel anywhere near his offspring's man-bits.

I took the stance that 1) I'm American, so I've seen more circumcised penii than not, and 2) I'm a female and I have no idea how it would feel (physically, initially or with added emotionalism somewhere down the road). So I opted for your wife's point-of-view: I left it up to my husband to decide.

Naturally, he decided to NOT circumcise our son, and the pediatrician told us that more and more newborn boys are remaining un-cut, so it's pretty common now (he bandied around the 50%-of-the-male-population-is-now uncircumcised-in-the-US figure).

Afterward, I took an unofficial poll of all the males I know (friends, relatives, co-workers; probably 30 in all). There was ONE guy who was glad he was circumcised, but other than him, EVERY other guy was either non-circumcised and happy about it, or circumcised and wished he wasn't. In fact, two of the guys had had nerve damage where the flap of skin would otherwise have protected them.

So I'm glad you made the choice you did. It seems based on sound rational thought. And I'm leaning even more strongly into the camp of those who say that unless it's to correct a current medical condition, it's better not to cut.

 

[Olowkow]

I'm an engineer and using Firefox, so I'm going with Ivor (the engineer) and Nurse(foxfire).

 

[Lonewulf]

Because you do not agree with their largely emotional arguements against it.

I would say that the most ardent against it are being unskeptical because they use mostly emotional arugments not ones supported by any real data.

Yes, because saying, paraphrased "The majority agrees with me, too bad, so sad!" as an actual argument is entirely mature, skeptical, and/or non-emotional.

Nice to know that I'm being grouped up with a bunch of other guys with a rather generic "their", though. Because, naturally, you can tell the emotional output of a person by simply what side he falls on in a debate. Good one, ponderingturtle.

Of course, I guess you could call any ethical argument a largely emotional argument. After all, when someone is declaring what they feel is "right" and/or "wrong", then it is usually backed up by an innate emotional response. Remove any and all human emotions, and I think you'd see our ethical system change.

Regardless, you say that the data doesn't support anyone on the side of non-circumcision here. However, what data would they need to actually support themselves? If there is no net benefit for an action, can it not be argued that it is immoral to force it upon another for life, in a barely-reversible operation?

 

[Lonewulf]

So long as you ignore or pervert those principles that do not support your position.

Please explain in detail what principles are being "ignored" or "perverted".

 

[Loss Leader]

However, what data would they need to actually support themselves?

One (just one) properly conducted study showing that infant circucision leads to sexual disfunction or a loss of pleasure as an adult.

If there is no net benefit for an action,

Your question assumes that there is no net benefit to circumcision. Perhaps there is no net medical benefit, however that does not mean that there is no benefit. All that it means is that you place zero value on the benefits that I have previously named. While this is your right when it comes to your own choices, you should be aware that it is an entirely subjective view. It is not necessarily true. Others may assign higher values to benefits such as:

Obeying the revealed word of God;

Family membership in a close-knit ethnic group;

Traditions and ceremonies that increase family and community bonding;

Honoring the sacrifices of one's ancestors (as recently as one's parents) who were persecuted for their beliefs;

Traditions and ceremonies that increase one's bonding with one's own history;

Carying out obligations so as to minimize family friction and receive economic and non-economic benefits from such family members;

and lots more that I can't think of right now.

can it not be argued that it is immoral to force it upon another for life, in a barely-reversible operation?

It cannot. Whether you like it or not, parents make irreversible decisions for their children every single day. The status of parent, in fact, creates a moral obligation on a person to substitute his judgment for his child. That's the exact oposite of what you said.

Please explain in detail what principles are being "ignored" or "perverted".

Answered, I believe, in sufficient detail above.

 

[I Ratant]

:Obeying the revealed word of God;

.
This all by itself disqualifies circumcision as a normal thing to do.
The "revealed word of God" has been thru the tortured intellects of disturbed people with serious problems in relating to reality.
The disfigurements they "reveal" have no basis in anything normal or natural.

 

[Loss Leader]

.
This all by itself disqualifies circumcision as a normal thing to do.
The "revealed word of God" has been thru the tortured intellects of disturbed people with serious problems in relating to reality.
The disfigurements they "reveal" have no basis in anything normal or natural.

Unless the Bible is actually the word of God, in which case you're wrong.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not according to skeptigirl et al.. So long as a circumcised man still enjoys sex, that's all that matters. That he may have enjoyed it significantly more had he not been circumcised is not important. Individual choice isn't important either. Not when there's a small risk of a treatable condition in his first year of life. No, what matters to skeptigirl et al. is parental power choice.

Emphasis mine. This is not my position and you have not presented any evidence of SIGNIFICANT decrease in sexual enjoyment. Nor is your characterization of my view on parental choice in this matter true. Once again, you are unable to provide convincing evidence supporting your views, so you result to distorting other people's positions and attempting to appeal to emotion.

Some people here have short memories and continue to ignore the actual EVIDENCE and exaggerate the harm as their reasons for opposing circumcision.

Here is what the EVIDENCE supports:

• There is evidence the foreskin has nerve endings that function in sexual stimulation.
• There is evidence that men have equally satisfying (or not) sex lives regardless of the status of circumcision.
• There is not evidence of 'significant' impact on sexual satisfaction from circumcision. The impact is low.
• There is evidence of fewer UTIs in circumcised male infants. The incidence of serious complications from UTIs in infants is low, but can be serious and includes death.
• There is evidence of fewer cases of penile cancer in circumcised infants. These cancers typically occur in adulthood. It is not clear at what age circumcision must be performed to lower the risk of these cancers but it may be reasonable to conclude the circumcision need not be done in infancy to gain the benefit. HPV is suspected as a possible agent in penile cancer and it is reasonable to expect the HPV vaccine to make the need for circumcision obsolete if it is being done solely to affect the cancer rate.
• The risk of complications from the circumcision are rare but not zero. However, the medical risks from infant UTIs in uncircumcised males is greater than the medical risk from circumcision.

In high HIV prevalence areas only:

• There is evidence circumcision prevents some cases of HIV in men.
• The evidence is lacking that removing the small area of skin over the clitoris (the equivalent to foreskin) would have a similar impact on decreasing HIV rates in women. And the mechanism of proposed action does not suggest the impact would be large given the small surface area involved compared to the male foreskin and given the additional mechanisms of transmission of HIV to women (large amount of body fluid, sperm, is transferred to the vagina which is open to the uterus, an organ with a rich blood supply close to the surface).
• The impact both male and female circumcision has on the transmission of HIV to women is not yet established.
• There is evidence of risk of HIV transmission during unsanitary circumcisions in both males and females.
• There is evidence the risk of HIV transmission during circumcision of males in unsanitary conditions still results in a net lower HIV incidence when the decreased risk of HIV from the circumcision is taken into account.
• HOWEVER, no circumcisions should be performed on males or females in unsanitary conditions with the goal of decreasing HIV rates due to the other hazards of such procedures.
• The case for male circumcision to prevent HIV is established.
• The case for female circumcision to prevent HIV is not established.
• Further research in all aspects of HIV transmission and both male and female circumcision is needed.

My position is that the parents make decisions for the infant and in this case such decisions do not usurp the infant's rights anymore than a parent deciding any other elective surgery for a child does. It is the parent's obligation to make such decisions. To claim this shows lack of respect for the child's rights is preposterous. This is based on the evidence regarding the outcome of circumcision, not on some determinate principle of parental control over their children.

My position is that depending on one's individual values and priorities, EITHER DECISION to circumcise or not to circumcise can be reasonable based on the EVIDENCE. I highlight this because this is the position most distorted by a number of people posting in this thread. Because I don't support the anti-circumcision position, insults fly that I recommend circumcising all infant boys. I support the parents' right to decide and I respect the parent's decisions in this case as valid either way.

My position is that there is not equal evidence at this time of any medical benefit outweighing the medical risks of female circumcision. I would support the research given the unanswered questions about best practices in high HIV prevalence areas.

I base my position on the evidence and as such find the arguments moot that if it is OK for boys, one is biased to not apply the same to girls. That would be caving to political correctness in spite of the evidence. Show me the evidence female circumcision prevents some deaths from HIV and I would base my opinion on that evidence.

Lastly, the evidence I refer to here consists of multiple studies with consistent results. Posting a link to any single study is not convincing evidence. Research results need to be repeatable. So again, claiming I am applying a gender bias because someone touts a single study outcome is not how one practices evidence based medicine.