If it used to be accepted though, how did it ever change, because I thought the status quo is 'it's normal NOW, therefore I just accept it'? Lol. Enjoy your day.
yes, i do admit you make a good point there. it's something to think about.
yes, good day... i don't want to talk about penises any longer. haha.
i was more referring to now, i know that in the past alot of questionable things went on... they used to drill into people's skulls when people had mental health issues and kinds of stuff like that, burning people, torture, etc
so it wouldn't suprise me if it happened at some point.
i'm more of a "now" kind of person, and i've never heard of female mutilation (as it's known now) being accepted in any way, shape or form.
that's basically what i meant, if it ever was i haven't a clue.
i'm certainly no scholor on the subject of circumcision that's for sure.
it was an interesting conversation, but i've had my fill of penis and circumcision talk for a long time.
There's the 'genital mutilation' angle over here. But if it's healthier, maybe it should be commonplace here as well.
I'm not sure that I'm convinced by the evidence that it's healthier, and there's plenty that it isn't. You can only go with what you know at any given time, and weigh up the evidence as you have it. That is why I didn't have my sons circumcised - it was the cultural norm in my family (father, brothers), but I didn't see any case for doing it when I had my own sons.
[/QUOTE just had my gall bladder removed in August after very painful bouts of pain.. and thankful its gone now.. and was told by two surgeons that its not required..we can live without one , same with tonsils..
Glad you're feeling better, but the gall bladder does have the function described earlier. You can live without it, but hopefully your doctors will have filled you in on how you might need to compensate for it a bit.
Glad you're feeling better, but the gall bladder does have the function described earlier. You can live without it, but hopefully your doctors will have filled you in on how you might need to compensate for it a bit.
nope Ive been told nothing , maybe I should seek some info...thanks for that
.[/QUOTE just had my gall bladder removed in August after very painful bouts of pain.. and thankful its gone now.. and was told by two surgeons that its not required..we can live without one , same with tonsils..[/QUOTE]
You can live without it, but in healthy individuals it serves a useful function. That's all I meant.
Well, if we are talking about excess skin removal for hygiene reasons (because people don't know how to wash under a flap of skin?) then I know lots of saggy titted ladies that could do with the chop!
I appreciate that their is a serious side to this subject but I found watching this hysterical. Their comments and Nicola genuinely curling up laughing was gold. One of my highlights of the series. And, Michaels "what a question" it was so funny coming out of the blue like that.
Circumcision and the Code of Ethics
George C. Denniston MD, MPH
...
Violation of Ethical Principles
First, circumcision violates the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If the doctor were intact, it may be fairly assumed that he would not want anyone to remove his foreskin without his permission.
Secondly, it violates a major tenet of medical practice: First do no harm.
Last, but not least, circumcision violates all seven Principles of Medical Ethics. Let us look at each principle in turn (AMA 1992).
"Principle I. A physician shall be dedicated to providing competent medical service with compassion and respect for human dignity."
"Competent medical service" implies that each procedure is medically indicated, and is done only with fully informed consent. Since 1971, both the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (1975) have stated: "There are no medical indications for routine neonatal circumcision,"3 In addition, informed consent is never obtained from these young patients, and fully informed consent rarely, if ever, from the parents.
Circumcision causes severe pain.1 Does a doctor who unnecessarily causes severe pain practice with compassion?" Doctors may use a local anesthetic; this does nothing for pain and suffering during the healing process. Also, does a doctor who removes a normal part of another person's body without his consent "respect human dignity?" Every individual is entitled to an intact body and to fully informed consent before any part of his body is removed. These principles apply even more strongly to a healthy normal body part.
"Principle II. A physician shall deal honestly with patients and colleagues, and strive to expose those physicians deficient in character or competence, or who engage in fraud or deception."
Physicians do not "deal honestly" with patients if they fail to provide fully informed consent. For example, some doctors use the threat of penile cancer and urinary tract infection to promote circumcision and thus misinform the public. Penile cancer is so rare that one cannot possible justify a routine surgical procedure as a preventative measure. Urinary tract infections, also quite rare, are treated with antibiotics, not by operation.1
"Principle III. A physician shall respect the law and also recognize a responsibility to seek changes in those requirements which are contrary to the best interests of the patient."
The law permits a doctor to operate on another human being, but only if it is in the best interest of that individual. Many men who now speak out against the circumcision that was imposed on them claim that it was not in their best interests.
"Principle IV. A physician shall respect the rights of patients, of colleagues, and of other health professionals, and shall safeguard patient confidences within the constraints of the law."
A patient has the right to an intact body, and has the right (and duty) to refuse to have a normal, valuable part of his penis removed unnecessarily.
"Principle V. A physician shall continue to study, apply and advance scientific knowledge, make relevant information available to patients, colleagues, and the public, obtain consultation, and use the talents of other health professionals when indicated."
Telling the patient that circumcision is in any way useful constitutes a failure to make "relevant scientific information available to that patient." However, even if we could show that some disease is more likely to occur in the intact male, it does not follow that it is ethical to use this risk as a reason to circumcise. In all studies to date, the risks of circumcision have always exceeded any alleged benefits, a fact that is often not made clear to parents.
"Principle VI. A physician shall, in the provision of appropriate patient care, except in emergencies, be free to choose whom to serve, with whom to associate, and the environment in which to provide medical services."
A physician is free to choose not remove part of the penis of a male infant, especially if it is inappropriate patient care," even if the parents "demand" it. Modern medical ethics state that parents may make medical decisions for their child, but their actions must be in his best interest. Maimonides, the great Jewish sage, said, "Circumcision should never be done except for reasons of pure faith." In the absence of religious reasons' no such claims can be proved. How can physicians continue to claim that they must carry out the wishes of the infants' parents?
"Principle VII. A physician shall recognize a responsibility to participate in activities contributing to an improved community."
The United States is the only country in the world that removes part of the penis from a majority of its males for non-religious reasons. Thus stopping a procedure that many consider profoundly harmful and sexually debilitating will contribute to an improved community.
Well, if we are talking about excess skin removal for hygiene reasons (because people don't know how to wash under a flap of skin?) then I know lots of saggy titted ladies that could do with the chop!
a little bit of advice if youre a mother or father to pass down to your son... don't ever tell a bird who is just in from work and is pretty sticky "do me a favour, can you have a bath or wash under yer tits" especially one that works as an air hostess and was not long off a long flight.
Comments
yes, i do admit you make a good point there. it's something to think about.
yes, good day... i don't want to talk about penises any longer. haha.
I'm not sure that I'm convinced by the evidence that it's healthier, and there's plenty that it isn't. You can only go with what you know at any given time, and weigh up the evidence as you have it. That is why I didn't have my sons circumcised - it was the cultural norm in my family (father, brothers), but I didn't see any case for doing it when I had my own sons.
I thankyou.
You can live without it, but in healthy individuals it serves a useful function. That's all I meant.
http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/denniston/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxUlCmnntPQ
Maybe you should clean it properly then
a little bit of advice if youre a mother or father to pass down to your son... don't ever tell a bird who is just in from work and is pretty sticky "do me a favour, can you have a bath or wash under yer tits" especially one that works as an air hostess and was not long off a long flight.
I pay to have someone clean mine.
You don't get a say.
Says who?
Nature.