But it also says the son begged the mother for help after suffering five infections.
Circumcision would have helped the situation, but the judge ruled that the kid can’t make the decision for himself until he’s 18.
Do you think it’s fair that the kid doesn’t have the right to make the decision for himself until he’s an adult? I think the parents should let him make the decision now. What do you think?
Gotta love it when parents use their children as thrown weapons, is what I think.
Can we move it to the Pit, please, please, please? This is one of the polite boards and my opinion on that dad is about as polite as… as he is being to his son!
Wanting to rock the ant eater or not is no big deal, but if the child is suffering infections then it’s simply cruel. It may be your principle, but it’s his infected wang.
Also, the thread title made me think of a dad diving over the table, action movie style to block the scalpel just before incision.
The trial would have had medical experts there to discuss the problem. One proper remedy may have been teaching the kid to pull the foreskin back and wash underneith, and then make sure it was dry. Like shit, infections don’t just happen.
Maybe dad should be charged with abuse for refusing to allow the child a surgery that would eliminate his child’s pain. If we were talking about a dog or a cat, and it’s owner was refusing it pain-saving medical treatment, the owner would be charged with cruelty and punished.
Well, sometimes, infections do just happen, regardless of cleanliness; it may be that in this case, the child is just unusually prone to infection for some reason, or is just unlucky.
I am certainly not a supporter of circumcision-by-default (but I don’t wish to revisit those arguments again). In this case, however, it sounds like circumcision (or surgery of some kind might be exactly the right thing to do.
Which implies there’s a reason for the problem, and it is not obvious that the mother’s attorney would have not had medical evidence to show that this is indeed the case.
The assumption in this thread appears to be that the father & the judge don’t give a rip about the kid, apparently because they’re men.
Every once in a while, the local Islam in Focus column in the paper has a letter from someone who has reverted to Islam asking, ‘Huh, do I really need to get circumcised?’
So, to cure an infection, you give the kid an open wound, all the way around his poor little pecker? :eek: Call in the bloodletters! Flog the child to force the demons out! Hollow out a potato, and make him wear it overnight on his penis!
Seriously, folks, amputating infected body parts just isn’t done in this century, unless gangrene has set in.
No, you treat the infection with medicine before surgery.
Surgery to prevent repeated infection at the same site is actually rather common. Apart from other cases of circumcision, an example that springs to mind is surgical removal of sebaceous cysts.
As I said, I am absolutely not a champion of the pro-circumcision argument, but to deny that there are ever cases where it is medically appropriate is just idiocy.
Wow, I’d hardly call circumcision amputation. Clearly there’s a hygene issue which could possibly be helped by a minor, routine, surgery that’s been performed on millions of males around the world.
A close family member of mine had a problem with recurrent childhood urinary infections to the point where it was causing narrowing of the urethra. He was circumcised because of it and hasn’t had a problem since. I don’t know where you’re getting this attitude that circumcision is a wierd and medieval solution to the problem. Some boys are just prone to infections and when all else fails circumcision can help.
In case you weren’t aware, calling in the bloodletters and flogging out demons and the like would do little to help the child’s problem of recurring infections. However, circumcision (which you arbitrarily lump into the same category as the aforementioned quackery) would remedy the problem rather than simply causing undue harm (as is the case of bloodletting and flogging.)
I am against routine infant circumcision. Only because if there is no necessary reason for it, it should be up to the individual if they want to have it done. That said, I no problem with the surgery for religious reasons, necessary medical reasons, or if it is the individual’s decision for whatever reason.
In this case we have very little infomation about the case itself. We don’t know if other treatments were tried and failed or what the other options might be for the boy. If the options are either circumcision or recurring infections, I think the decision is obvious. I feel badly for that kid if that is the case. That is child abuse.
I am glad I was not circumcised and I did not have any problems with it. At all. It works just fine. Although I have been pondering getting circumcised as an adult. That would be my own decision for my own reasons. At least I have the option and the decision to make myself.
Many of the replies in this thread remind me of Frist diagnosing Terri Schiavo from the Senate Floor.
In this case there was more than one opinion about how to treat a medical problem. Two astranged adults couldn’t agree on a solution so the courts got involved and affirmed the legal guardian’s right to make a medical decision.
None of us have any idea as to what the best treatment option is for this boy because we just don’t know beans about the individual case.
For my own opinion on the general question, removing bady parts should be a last resort in any situation. Even minor surgery has its risks. In cases like this perhaps worse risks than doing nothing.
