The child’s actual experience was - basically nothing. The procedure is performed with anaesthetic and for all I could tell, the kid’s main objection to it was being taken away from comforting arms and laid on a cold table under a bright light for the couple of minutes it took.
At least, that’s what I saw.
Considering that the baby had just undergone what I must imagine is the worst possble trauma (i.e. being ripped from a comfortable womb and out into the cold air, breathing for the first time, etc.) it is hard to believe that the two minutes or so of being laid on a table is going to be horribly traumatic.
Maybe that is because it is already an accepted procedure over there, so the “pro” people have no reason to engage as they support the status quo, except when people like me show up with accusations of atrocities ;). I don’t know. Since the debate is non-existent here I haven’t come across any of the kinds.
And what if you read a paper as already referenced with opposing views? What makes the “pro” argument so much more believable and well supported? I repeat: I can’t make this evaluation myself, but I think there’s a possibility that you can’t either.
I wasn’t all that serious about that part, hence the smiley and all that, but I do wonder why you by default assume the correctness of the “pro” arguments, and not the “anti” arguments, which on the surface seem to show contradictory results, and have a zillion cites. I sort of have nature on my side there, as it should be a good solution as long as the rest are highly disputed. See my approach?
Are there any studies that show benefits from circumcision for people who use condoms?
What about for people who use condoms for casual encounters and don’t use them in long-term relationships?
Also, are there any socioeconomic class based results? That is, is it possible that the hygiene benefits are different for the lower classes than for the upper classes?
Basically, the very cursory reading of the health benefit arguments I’ve seen does not make any fine distinctions. (To use a broad brush) They are lumping “trailer trash” and “Park avenue” people together, even though the condom-using habits and the hygiene habits of these two groups are very different.
Maybe the benefits are higher for, say, whites than for blacks
If there are more fine-grained studies, maybe the conclusion as to whether or not to cicumcise will be different for different groups.
I’m as Canadian as possible, under the circumstances.
Well, in part it is by association. The “anti” websites appear to engage in all sorts of questionable tactics such as attempting to mislead by using faulty statistics. I believe I mentioned the example of seemingly inflating the rate of complications. Plus using rather emotive techniques such as the use of “scare” stories and pics. The “pro” side appears, on the contrary, to be citing recent scientific studies. I am more likely to believe that someone who is lying or exaggerating in some respects, appears to be appealing more to emotion than to reason, etc. is mistaken in those areas in which I’m not an expert.
I don’t assume the correctness of either side. When the issue came up (that is, when I learned my wife was carrying a boy) together with my wife I researched as best I could the various options in many different respects to maximize the kid’s chances for having a happy and healthy life; circumcision was just one (a very minor one) of many such decisions - for example, choosing the right physician, deciding to do the “chord blood banking” thing, etc.
As part of that process I researched the issue of benefits and drawbacks. My research convinced both of us that there were benefits, albeit minor, which outweighed the drawbacks. I may of course have been wrong, and I accept that; but more recent research appears to be supporting this POV.
Arguments from inherent nature do not sway me. It is “natural” for a high percentage of women and children to die in childbirth (and indeed were it not for the “unnatural” availability of C-section surgery my wife and my kid would both have most probably died, rendering the circumcision debate somewhat moot )
I count myself as lucky that our one-and-only is female, so I didn’t have to make this decision. As I said before, I have a strong, emotional reaction of “don’t hurt the baby!” that I recognize could lead me to not make the most rational decision (or even know what the most rational decision is). However, reading the points made here and especially hearing about real parents’ and babies’ experiences has eased my emotional reactions when I hear the word “circumcize”.
Not really, no. The penis functions as normal for both urination and sexual functions. Medical studies have shown no real evidence of a difference in sexual function (although some some surveys have actually claimed that men who were circumcised later in life enjoyed sex more after the procedure). The penis, for all practical purposes, continues to look like a penis. If I were to show you photos of a penis in both states, I don’t doubt that you’d be able to identify what you were looking at.
Now compare that to the state of the breast following a mastectomy. Kind of different, huh?
Not remotely. Circumcision is so many leagues less invasive and life altering than a mastectomy that there’s no rational reason to try to compare the two. Plenty of emotional reasons, but nothing that makes sense from a rational point of view.
That misrepresents my current position quite a lot, and I think you know that. I have no objections against treating medical necessities such as that, which I mentioned already. The principle is much more sound when you are confronted with the choice of either going through a medical procedure or not, and the operation has no proven advantages (I know we disagree on this point). In such a situation, I think not performing the operation is the rational choice.
Well, I’m simply somewhat allergic to the commonly and deeply held but IMO rather sloppy notion that because something is “natural” it is therefore presumed to be “good”.
It makes sense I suppose if one is religious, as in ‘not going against what God intended’. I’m not religious in that sense.
In terms of childbirth the comparison is not so inapt as all that, as there is a small but very vocal minority who is of the opinion that childbirth ought to be “natural”. Indeed, arguments from ‘nature’ abound in this area - look at lactivism.
I do agree with that too, but I think it is not what I am saying. At least not what I am trying to express. I’m not really the most eloquent person around. Maybe somebody understands my view and can help me out. In retrospect, using the word natural was a poor choice. I’ll give it another shot.
You have choices A and B. A is doing nothing, and B is a medical procedure that makes a modification to the body. If there are no known medical advantages to choice B, I do consider it to be the wrong thing to do. You might think it doesn’t matter what you do if it also shows no disadvantages. At that point I think consideration should be given to the child’s opinion and personal integrity. Since the child is too young to comprehend the situation, I think the default choice should be waiting until they can. I think the child deserves that integrity.
I think you haven’t answered your opinion on tattoo’s. They probably have similar risks, no advantages, but are less irreversible. Should parents be allowed to place tattoos on their baby’s body? Put little plates in their bottom lip? Bones through the noses? Rings around their necks?
What are the negatives of waiting, say 6-8 years before performing the operation (genuine question)?
The whole point, as far as I’m concerned, is that the procedure does have medical benefits - or at least, I am of the opinion that it does, and as far as I can see not unreasonably.
However, let us assume that the procedure is as you say purely aesthetic. In that case I would not have done it, but I still have no strong feelings against it.
Why compare it to such outre examples as bones through noses? There is another purely aesthetic procedure routinely inflicted on children against their consent, and one which, believe you me, I hated with the intensity of a thousand burning suns when I was a kid (whereas I gave circumcision nary a thought). Moreover, one which is probably just as popular in Europe as in North America.
I speak, of course, of cosmetic pediatric orthodontia. Often horribly painful for the kiddies. Inflicted in many cases not for “medical” reasons, but to make the teeth look nice. Should the default position be that parents should wait until the kids are adults and can give fully informed consent as the “default option” before visiting the orthodontist, assuming no procedure is medically indicated? Public health insurance does not, of course, cover the cost of this procedure in Ontario.
I have acknowledged this difference in opinion, and I honestly don’t have time to compare research papers to effectively counter that. That together with the fact that many seemingly legitimate studies, research and medical organizations have opposite conclusions and/or show no conclusive evidence either way, I thought it would be a reasonable point to concede as being irrelevant to the discussion for the time being. Somebody can bring the point up if they want to tackle the data.
Thanks.
Those examples were mostly hyperbole, I think the tattoo is less so under the given assumptions. What do you think?
Now there is a good argument that I’ll have to consider further. Hmm. I have some questions. That does raise the age level we are talking about considerably though. It takes quite some years for all baby teeth to be replaced. Is it difficult to get kids to agree to such procedures at the age when it becomes relevant? I had some corrections made myself, but never against my will. It possibly required some convincing arguments though (my mother is a dental nurse and had teeth horror stories :D). Would you force your child to do that if they really resist? How does that generally work over there?
Oh, and it’s covered here until age 20 I believe ;).
Some braces might be for aesthetic reasons, but I know that mine weren’t. I used to have such an overbite that my lower teeth were literally biting into the roof of my mouth (just back of the top teeth; that place where you always get burns from hot pizza sauce). A few years after I was done getting that corrected, some of my teeth started shifting around again to overlap in an awkward-looking way, and Mom took me back to the orthodontist, but he said that this new issue was purely cosmetic, and that he didn’t medically recommend straightening them. Now, I’m sure there are some parents out there who would insist on beautifying their children’s teeth, and orthodontists who would go along with or even encourage them, but there are other reasons for braces.
Here is a search on Science Daily, which I believe is unbiased. There are several studies there, all but one finding benefit. (The one that doesn’t relates only to gay men.)
I’d imagine someone with access to medical search engines could help here? I’m not really sure where else to look.
I do think whether or not there are real benefits to circumcision is the key, so we need to get some unbiased facts. Obviously CIRP is out. So, can someone on the anti side find some studies not published on biased websites that show no benefit to the procedure?
