Weren’t the STD findings from a study on ADULT circumcision in the first place (one that was stopped partway through so the researchers could get their control group circumcised too)? I thought it was the penile cancer findings that were magically tied to infant circumcision without any clear mechanism or explaination.
Regardless of all this, the core issue in my mind is still consent. If you are not circumcised as an infant, you can have the procedure performed later in life at a time when you can consent. Even waiting until the child is five you’ve still got far more meaningful consent for the procedure than you can have when you’re dealing with a preverbal infant (though even those infants seem to be quite capable of demonstrating a lack of consent what with the crying and screaming and all).
Also, while it is somewhat beside the point, I need to correct one point that I saw raised a bit back. Someone mentioned that the infant was under anastetic, but you can’t safely anesthesise infants like you can adults and older children. The best you can safely manage is a topical anasthetic on the level of orajell. Not exactly sufficient when you consider that you’re getting part of the most sensitive area on your body cut off.
Once again, though, even without the issue of anasthetic, the one and only issue in my mind remains consent. Most of the procedures we allow parents to perform without their children’s consent are the ones that have some medical urgency. There is no urgency with routine infant circumcision.
If a child is worried about being teased, or if a man’s marriage is in imminent danger of crumbling because his wife can’t stand the look of his uncircumcised member, he can agree to have the procedure done then. There is no option to change things in the other direction, so it is most reasonable to take the path that leaves the child the most options open.
Also, regarding the “but wouldn’t condoms be even better at reducing risk” argument, this doesn’t sway me. It’s basically the same argument that the anti-HPV vaccine people make (“But they shouldn’t be having pre-marital sex anyway!”) If something has health benefits, it should not matter whether behaving more correctly in passionate situations also reduces risk. Yeah, everyone should wear condoms every time they have sex. It isn’t going to happen every time with every person, and even in a committed relationship where other birth control is being used, you can’t control your partner. Studies seem to show a reduced risk of various STDs for the female partners of circumcised men. That matters even if the risk of problems would be further reduced with condom use.
But if circumcision is much less effective then, it should be done earlier or not at all. Also, since when are parents not allowed to consent to medical decisions on behalf of their children?
Considering that the procedure’s beneficial effects (all of them) are clearly so small that it is disputed whether they exist at all (as evidenced by the vast numbers of conflicting studies and no clear medical concensus), any loss of benefit would have to come from that already miniscule ammount, so it can’t possibly be significant. Certainly not more significant than other medical procedures which it is illegal to perform on children.
I’m not denying that parents have power over their children. Hell, until very recently, it was legal in California for parents to rape their children (California Statute - PC 1203_066). Doesn’t mean either of those legal rights translate into moral rights.
I’d seriously question whether a 5-year-old is able to understand and evaluate the pros and cons of circumcision. I’m virtually certain that my 5-year-old self would have said “If it involves a visit to the doctor’s office, then Hell No!”
In almost all societies, essentially all significant medical decisions for children that age are entirely left up to the parents.
A 5 year old is infinitely more capable of evaluating the pros and cons than a newborn. You can explain the situation to a five year old.
And even if the answer is still “NO!” (which I should think we want them to be able to feel free saying when the subject is a stranger fooling around with their genetals), they sill have the option of having it done at a later date.
But once again, just because they are young does not mean that you really have any moral right to ignore a “NO!” about something like this.
Just because something is a common practice does not make it morally correct.
I googled the statute, and I guess they already took out the “it’s okey-dokey to pokey” your own kids or however it might have been worded. Do you have a cite for this? Or, can you at least tell me how it was worded?
Well I was going to type “What the fuck are you talking about :dubious:?”, but after a few google atemps (try just “PC 1203 066”) I found the statute. That’s a truly foul, digusting, and unconscionable law. :eek: Letting DAs charge child molesters with “incest” instead of “child sexual abuse” as long as they’re related to the victim (or live in the same house) so they get probation intead of prison? Who the hell thought that would be a good idea? Talk about the road to Hell being paved with good intentions.
Parents not infrequently should and do overrule the judgment of children. A parent who isn’t dramatically better than a 5-year-old at evaluating the wisdom of a medical procedure is probably unfit for the job.
Nor morally wrong.
Morals to a considerable extent align with accepted practice. If you find something well accepted in essentially all human societies from the dawn of history to be morally repugnant, it behooves you to explain in detail what leads you to such a conclusion.
I actually have a rather large number of exerpts from the testimony that took place during the debate. The principle lobby group that was pushing for this exeption was called Parents United.
Still, I think I’ve unintentionally derailed the topic. It might be wise to take this to a new thread?
Our entire medical system is based on the concept that people who have less knowledge and ability to evaluate the medical costs and benefits ought to be the ones in charge of making the decision. In every medical case, the doctor is, by definition, more qualified to make a judgement about what is the better course of action. Yet we not only allow, we demand, that people be allowed to control their own medical decisions.
This knowing full well that each and every person who makes such a decision is less qualified to do so than the specialist or physician who might otherwise be called upon to make the decision. Do you want to go through chemotherapy or not? Do you want to undergo surgery? These are not formalities. They are genuine questions asked by someone who is imminently more qualified than the person who they are asking to decide if they are a good idea.
If you believe that the decision to make one’s own medical decisions should be taken out of a person’s own hands and placed in the hands of someone more qualified, why limit that to children? Why not put people through chemotherapy against their consent if that’s what their doctors reccomend?
Oh, you have testimony from every human society from the dawn of time? I’d be most interested in hearing from them. I’m surprised that you seem to think that every human society on earth since the dawn of time supports your stance on routine genital cutting of unconsenting infants, and I look forward to reading that citation, even if it is an appeal to majority/authority fallacy.
The fact of the matter is that you and I will never agree on a moral standard. There is no citation avalible to either of us for what is right and what is wrong. I personally believe that violating a child’s inherent right to bodily domain for no medically urgent reason is wrong. For essentially the same reason I believe that raping a child is wrong. My reasons will not convince you, and your reasons, whatever they may be, will not convince me.
No - we allow people to be involved in decisions about the medical care they - or their children - receive. Doctors are expected to explain proposed treatments, possible consequences, alternatives, etc. and ensure that what’s done is acceptable to the patient. A patient certainly can’t control his medical treatment to the extent of requiring a doctor to perform a procedure the doctor feels is uncalled for.
And your attempt to draw an analogy between the doctor-patient the parent-child relationships is silly - they are not at all the same.
No, no, no. My position is that essentially all human societies have accepted that parents should make important decisions for their young children.
On the bolded. You are correct that this is what we expect of a doctor. The patient is not the parent. The patient is the child. Since it is not acceptable to the patient, it is the doctor’s responsibility to not perform the surgery.
The only time it is acceptable to perform a medical procedure without consent is if consent is not possible for the patient for whatever reason (including being too young) AND if there is medical urgency, that is, patient will not become able to consent to the procedure.
In the case of infant circumcision, you have the first criteria, but you lack the second.
The reasoning, however, is the same.
Seems to me that many of those (and I imagine all of them that we might possibly agree were moral) also put limits on what decisions parents were allowed to make.
I have two boys, and didn’t circ either. Ultimately, I felt that the people in favor of removing a part of my child’s anatomy had a very heavy burden of proof. Those tiny numbers, which seem to change and fluctuate all the time, didn’t meet that burden of proof. I would have been happy to circ if my boys’ overall statistical chances of penile cancer were more than effectively nil, but they are not.
We’ll be having serious talks about condom usage and hygiene when those conversations become appropriate, and I am confident that my children will be fine regardless. I feel that this is honestly a question that every parent needs to answer for themselves, as most circed children seem to turn out just fine as well.
I’ve read, and I’m searching for cites, that the 50% HIV reduction and many of the other STD-related reductions given as a reason behind this push for usurping infant males’ bodily autonomy do not, in fact, apply at all if said infant grows up to be a man who has sex with other men. That gives me great pause about the methodology of these studies. Big time.
And because I felt it needed to be countered…
None of those products are about genital maintenance. My genitals and those of every other woman on earth will be maintained just fine if none of us ever use another one of those products or anything like them. Their purpose is clothing and furniture protection, they don’t do anything special to the genitals. (Except maybe irritate them.)
To correct the correction: I have no idea what product was used; it certainly was not a general anaesthetic, as the kid was fully concious throughout. However, i saw with my own eyes that the procedure itself wasn’t a big deal for the kid. This argument or consideration is a pure red herring, IMO.
You are ignoring the one I mentioned: teeth straightening. Why does everyone seem to care about the “ethics” of circumcison, while spending nary a thought on the “ethics” of teeth modification, that in the case of no medical indication has no health implications whatsoever?
Also I disagree on the “no urgency” argument, since from what I’ve read the heath benefits are not the same if the procedure is performed as an adult.