Why?
You are fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of a “paternal” relationship.
In our society, the power of consent (to ether a personal or financial decision) vests in the individual of full capacity. Where that person lacks full capacity, our society vests that power in a hierarchy or persons who are presumed to be acting in the individual’s best interests: closeness of the relationship is the basis of the presumption (which is of course rebuttable). Thus, for a child we look to parents, where parents are absent, themselves incapable, or have demonstrated unfitness, we look to relations … and ultimately some government official such as a Public Trustee.
When someone takes on that power when they should not, we say they are acting in a “paternalistic” manner, investing that word with negative connotarions. A doctor making medical decisions in a non-emergency situation without obtaining the proper consent is acting “paternalistically”. His or her acts may even constitute battery.
However, a parent making medical decisions without the consent of an infant isn’t acting “paternalistically” in a negative manner, but perfectly properly; assuming they are themselves of capacity and have not demonstrated unfitness, they are presumed to be acting in the best interests of the child.
Admittedly this picture gets more complex as the child gets older; at a certain point their wishes must be consulted as well, as there is an inbetween state between being an infant and lacking all capacity and being of full capacity: the so called “mature minor” rule.
However a newborn has no capacity and so that issue does not arise.
To ethically override a parent’s own wishes, one would have to demonstrate that the parent was not in fact acting in the best interests of the child. This means that you must be able to substitute your decision for that of the parent; you are in effect saying that what you want for the child is clearly better for that child than what they want - so much so that their role as parent ought in this case to be set aside and you substituted in their place.
This is a very heavy burden to meet. I submit that there is no way on earth it is met in this case.
This seems obviously wrong in cases where the patient is capable of understanding the true implications of the doctor’s medical advice (i.e. most cases).
So you think it is morally wrong for parent to subject their children to treatment for conditions such as cleft palate?
Of course - though none impose the sort of limits you’re suggesting.
I suppose that depends on what you mean. If your only criteria for sexual function is that you are still able to ejaculate, than you are correct, but I pity you for your sex life if that is really your criteria.
But if we are talking about sensation, then pretty much any male can prove this as obviously incorrect with a simple experiment - if you are cut, use one of the various methods out there for keeping your skin stretched over the head over your penis for a week. You will being to feel a large difference in how your penis feel, for the better. If you are uncut, arrange it so that your foreskin is always pulled back for a week and see what happens.
Again, if your criteria for genital normality is merely that it can still be identified :o
Would you approve the infant mastectomy if the breast still developed and could breast feed, but the nipples were gone?
It’s less life altering but hardly less invasive especially at that stage. It’s also “so many leagues” less medically needed or helpful. And “so many leagues” more with nearly 100% effective alternatives.
How is medically unnecessary and negligibly even helpful amputation at all rational?
I would say that anyone circumcising their kids for the medical benefits isn’t dramatically better than a 5 year old at evaluating medical procedures.
Morals with the basis of merely ‘accepted practice’ are pretty easily dismissed by any modern moralist. The only morals worth considering are those based on some kind of consistent reasoning, philosophical structure, or set of principles.
Slavery, racism (or xenophobia of various kinds), and war have been “well accepted in essentially all human societies from the dawn of history” for example but we recognize them as repugnant today.
That said, circumcision is a relatively new phenomenon historically, and up until very recently was only a religious rite, and since then the benefits have been revealed as either bunk or negligible and completely unnecessary with serious side effects and moral questions.
This sort of thing really isn’t helpful to your side of the debate.
I don’t see how this contradicts what I wrote there.
I said myself that it was a side-note, and tangental to my actual argument.
Are you under the impression that I approve of orthodontic procedures done against the child’s consent? The principle difference is that the child in a position to have an orthodontic treatment is capable of giving consent. That is simply impossible for an infant, thus you wait.
There are plenty of states between infant and adult wherein a human being is capable of saying “yes” and “no”. Do your studies show what age this magical effect (which is the only mechanism so far proposed for this odd phenomenon) cuts off at? Or is it just “sometime between birth and 18 years”?
No, I understand it perfectly. I just don’t agree with it.
So your argument is not that people ought to be in control of their bodies, but that doctors aren’t in the chain of command?
Considering the nature of the procedure under discussion, the lack of evidence for medical benefit or urgency, and the fact that when the child grows up, only one option will leave the child the ability to chose the other, it would seem that they are demonstrating unfitness by making the other choice.
How far do you want to extend this? Do I get to do whatever I want to a child until they learn to talk? Even if it permanently alters their bodies in ways they can never recover from?
Let’s take removing the ears, for example, since it has many of the same elements as circumcision. I’m not talking about the inner structures, just the outer folds of skin and cartlidge that serve as an amplifier. The child loses some sensation, but they aren’t completely deafened. And in exchange an area of the body that it is notoriously difficult to get children to clean is now rendered virtually maintenence free. Would you say that this is justified?
Seems to me that if we’ve already met it with regards to cutting up the genitals of baby girls, it’s trivial to apply the same arguments to baby boys.
No matter how well or poorly the baby understands the doctor’s advice, the infant boy is still the patient, not his parent.
I work very hard to maintain internal consistency with my viewpoints. If there is no medical urgency, you wait until the child can agree or disagree. If there is medical urgency you are justified in making a decision on their behalf. It’s really that simple.
Though I love how you compare a healthy, intact penis to a physical deformity.
Of course - I don’t really care how many immoral cultures there are out there in the first place, since their numbers or power does not actually give them more moral authority than they would otherwise deserve as a result of their practices. Not that I actually accept your unproven claims to majority, but seeing as appealing to majority is a fallacy anyway, I see no cause to pursue this line of reasoning further.
Then why on earth are you raising it?
No young child is ever going to “consent” to any medical procedure. Very young children are simply incapable of weighing costs and benefits in a mature manner. That’s why they are “children”.
I have no idea what point you are attempting to make. Yes, certainly there is an inbetween state; the legal term (not I assure you “magic”) for this state is “mature minor”. Has nothing of course to do with infants.
http://www.cqcapd.state.ny.us/newsletter/74cclong.htm
Then you “disagree” with both the law and every reputable medical ethicist. Congratulations.
No, my argument is that people ought to be 'in control of their medical treatment" when they are competent to do so, i.e., when they have the mental ability to determine and weigh costs versus benefits. When they are not, someone else must do this; who that person is will vary with circumstances; with children, it is presumptively the parents.
So, your opinion is that parents who decide, based on the evidence, that circumcision has medical benefits are unfit?
It is because of absurd blow-hard rhetoric like this that this debate is, in general, unreasonably acrimonious. Can you not accept that a reasonable person looking at the data may, just may, come to a different conclusion than yourself?
There are loads of scientific studies referenced above that demonstrate health benefits. The OP indicates that major medical associations have come to accept this. Yet you presume to sit in judgment over concerned parents and hand-wave all that away.
The test is “what would a parent do that would justify the state intervening to prevent them from doing it, and substituting some official’s judgment for that of the parent as to the best interests of the child”.
The fact is that the analogies you are attempting - cutting off ears, female “circumcision” - are in no way analogous. Doesn’t that tell you anything about the strength of your argument?
Bolding mine.
:eek:
:dubious: What the hell are you on about??
I’m sorry, my penis does not work the way you think it works.
I could do it since I still have enough foreskin left, but most circ’d guys probably couldn’t. Not that I have any interest in the experiment.
Wait… would I be okay with it if the breasts developed normally, functioned properly, had standard sexual response and the only real difference was the nipple being different (being gone would make breastfeeding impossible)? And this would eliminate any chance of the girl getting breast cancer?
Absolutely.
I would be in favor of a brain removal so long as the brain still functioned as normal and was there but couldn’t get brain cancer.
I think some people shouldn’t be allowed to make analogies. It’s like when a sheep’s rollerskates are the wrong color for the Christmas turkey.
For guys that are cut, there is no skin over the head of the penis, and usually the skin along the base is taut when erect. However, when it gets soft, the penis shrinks and the formerly taut skin become loose and slack.If you pinch a bit of the loose skin you can pull it over the head.
Your own analogy was much worse than mine, so put yourself on that list. Since the brain is not an external area of sexual sensation nor applicable to concerns about visual deformities.
The nipple would be completely gone (breastfeeding would still be possible for some reason). But I assume your answer is the same.
Wow. I find your answer horrifying, but at least it’s consistent.
What would be your answer if the chance of breast cancer were merely reduced by the same amount as the supposed benefits of circumcision?
Ok, here’s one:
If there were a rationale for circumcision that were so convincing that you would agree with it, would you agree with it?
For a WEEK!? I’m cut and there’s NO WAY IN HELL I’m going to try that.
Well anyway, thank you, Dr Mengele, for your explanation. 
Now if I can just find some brain bleach, I’ll be fine.
No, not that head.
Oh, so this is magical breastfeeding. Erm… okay then?
Look, if you’re going to come up with some hypothetical to be “horrified” by, could you at least be consistant or logical about it?
Erm… approximately 100% protection against cancer?
Yeah. That doesn’t change my answer anyway.
So a doctor would be justified in dealing with the child alone? No need to consult parents?
You are thus saying you feel it is immoral for parents to subject their infants to an operation for cleft palate. An interesting position to take.
That’s flawed reasoning.
CIRP hasn’t published the studies, they are merely referencing studies published for example in medical journals. You can’t associate your assumed “bias” of the site with the authors of all the studies at various universities around the world. You can’t disregard findings because they don’t match your preconceptions. That said, I am not saying that there are no faults, because I don’t know. It has certainly not been made “obvious” in this thread, other than “they disagree with what I believe, therefore they are obviously biased”.
You’re right, of course, I’d just like to see a study or two that has been published on a site that does not have an agenda. So far, one has not been produced, though several have been that show what are, in my opinion, significant benefits to the procedure. If it was just penile cancer, I’d agree that it probably isn’t worth it since penile cancer is so rare anyway. If it was just HIV risk reduction…maybe the same. But those two in conjunction with the reduced risk of other STDs, and reduced risks for future female partners–right now it looks like it’s a worthwhile thing to do.
As for the medical urgency thing, I also lean towards doing it at birth. I realize my reasons for this aren’t particularly scientific, but here they are: If I was a boy, I’d much rather my parents have done this when I was too young to remember it. I’m sure babies feel pain, obviously they do, but they probably experience pain on a more animal level, without thought to future pain and all that. It just seems more humane to take care of it while they’re still babies. There are also several painful conditions that can develop as the kid grows that make circumcision medically necessary, none of which the child would have to go through if he was cut.
I didn’t come into this debate with much of an opinion on the subject, honestly. I’m not male, and I don’t have kids yet. But the anti-circ side seems to be engaging mostly in hyperbole where the pro-circ side seems to have reputable science behind it. And despite all the rhetoric about how much circumcised men are missing by not having their foreskins, most of the men I’ve been with have been cut, and none have had a problem with it. My husband definitely still gets a lot out of sex, and is glad his parents made the decision they did. Most guys are fine with it.
So if there is some good science out there that shows no benefit, lets see it. It can be posted on an anti-circ site, but it needs to also be published somewhere without an agenda.
Correcting misconceptions is its own reward.
Of course they can consent. Consent isn’t a binary proposition, not a true or a false. Consent comes in various levels, and what level of consent is required in a given situation will depend on the situation they’re consenting to.
You don’t understand. I was referring to the magical moment before which it’s possible to eliminate penile cancer risks through this particular amputation procedure.
I’m sure I’ll find a way to go on.
But those people who are in control of their medical treatment during that time have limitations on that power. Performing uneccessary, irreversible cosmetic surgery on someone without their consent when if you just waited a few years you could get their consent is an abuse of that power.
I don’t judge people who act in ignorance with genuinely good intentions too harsly. I reserve my judgement for the people who have access to the information and chose to remain ignorant and for those who, after being presented with the information (or lack thereof) decide “fuck it, it’s my kid, I can do whatever the hell I want with him”.
Performing irreversible cosmetic surgery on a child’s genitals happens to meet that standard. At least when we’re talking about girls…
How are either of those different in any meaningful way?
Standard sexual response is explicitly not going to be maintained, because circumcision interfears with standard sexual response. That was the whole point of the movement using it to attempt to curb masturbation. The fact that there is still sexual response doesn’t change the fact that sexual response is diminished by removing ennervated tissue and exposing the glans to keritanization.
Circumcision does not make someone immune to cancer. Where the hell did yo get that damn fool idea in your head?
Some studies (which no one has yet presented, I might add) apparently suggest that infant circumcision (and no other form strangely enough, probably relates to the same mechanics that make virgin sacrifices work) eliminates the risk of penile cancer. That particular form of cancer has a rate so low in the general population that the overall risk of cancer is virtually unchanged.
In many cases, yes. Perhaps you’ll recall that many states have that standard with regards to abortion, for example…
And? I still love how you’re comparing a healthy, intact organ to a physical deformity, though. Lot of penis hate going around.
STD benefits that are canceled out entirely when you wear a condom like you’re supposed to, and eliminating (magically) an already near zero percent chance of contracting penile cancer? Seems to me, you risk more from complications from the surgery than you could possibly gain from the procedure.
I am a male. My parents did decide to amputate a healthy part of my body without my consent. I do not preffer it that way. If I were to get my penis circumcised as an adult (or even agree to it as a child), I would be able to get anasthetic (which is too dangerous to use on an infant), and more importantly, it would be pain I would have agreed to suffer.
If you can justify inflicting pain on an infant because they don’t remember it, or because you can dehumanize them to the point that their pain doesn’t matter, why only apply it to this situation? I’ve got a good friend who was molested as a child when she was too young to remember. Does that make it okay?
You are treating circumcision as an inevidability. Why are you doing that?
And if you performed an infant mastectomy, a woman would never experience breast cancer. Doesn’t change the fact that doing so would be a gross violation of her body.
What hyperbole? What reputable science?
You’ve officially met someone who’s been cut and who has a problem with it.
I’m still waiting for the good science that shows a statistically significant benefit of any sort. Once we get that, we can start looking to see why it is magically impossible to derive these benefits from an adult circumcision (because I don’t know that many sexually active infants), and then we can decide if those benefits are enough to justify violating another human being’s bodily domain against their consent.
Considering the scientific journals most of the articles posted so far have been published in, what short list of sites are you going to accept as not having an agenda?