If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#241
|
|||
|
|||
What about circumcision and pain relief for baby
In X61Eb.29635$BQ5.8145@fed1read03,
Circe wrote: *"Hillary Israeli" wrote in message ... * In , * Chotii wrote: * * *Please don't say "circumcision", it's a euphemism, a neat, tidy way of * *saying something that's awful to talk about straight out. Please say *"They * *are going to amputate my son's foreskin tomorrow". That's the honest *truth. * * But why? * I would say "I'm going to have a mastectomy," not "I'm going to have a * breast amputation." I would say "I'm going to have a cholecystectomy," not * "they are going to amputate my gall bladder tomorrow." I don't really get * the difference here. * *Not to agree or disagree, exactly, but the "ectomy" part of the names of *those surgeries *means* to cut off, remove, or amputate. I can't find the *Latin for "foreskin" (the Romans seem to have thought of it as *indistinguishable from the rest of the penis and therefore didn't have a *separate word for it), but the parallel name for circumcision would be *"foreskin-ectomy". I guess that would be the combined posthe and acroposthion (those words are of Greek derivation, but anyway...) making the surgery an "acroposthion-posthetctomy" or something like that. That's certainly a mouthful. But my point was just that one will generally speaking use the common name for a procedure just because it is the common name for the procedure. I don't go around talking to my clients about doing an onchyectomy - I talk about "declawing" their cats. I do explain that when a declaw is done, the distal toes are amputated, but I don't say "so, if you're still interested despite my recommendation against the procedure, you can call and schedule your toe amputation at your convenience, Dr B will do it." I say "if you're still interested...you can call and schedule a declaw with Dr. B..." YKWIM? -- hillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net "uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est." not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large |
#242
|
|||
|
|||
What about circumcision and pain relief for baby
Hillary Israeli wrote:
onchyectomy - I talk about "declawing" their cats. I do explain that when a declaw is done, the distal toes are amputated, but I don't say "so, if you're still interested despite my recommendation against the procedure, you can call and schedule your toe amputation at your convenience, Dr B will do it." I say "if you're still interested...you can call and schedule a declaw with Dr. B..." YKWIM? I would call it toe amputation. Declawing is awful. *shudder* |
#243
|
|||
|
|||
What about circumcision and pain relief for baby
In OZ6Eb.584857$Fm2.541892@attbi_s04,
Shena Delian O'Brien wrote: *Hillary Israeli wrote: * * onchyectomy - I talk about "declawing" their cats. I do explain that when * a declaw is done, the distal toes are amputated, but I don't say "so, if * you're still interested despite my recommendation against the procedure, * you can call and schedule your toe amputation at your convenience, Dr B * will do it." I say "if you're still interested...you can call and schedule * a declaw with Dr. B..." YKWIM? * *I would call it toe amputation. Declawing is awful. *shudder* I'm not a fan of it either, but I don't see the point in being the only person calling it "toe amputation." The accepted name of the procedure is "declaw" or "onychectomy" (I see I spelled it wrong above, whoops). As long as I explain what it is before it's done, I don't see the big deal really. Disclaimer: I have never done and probably will never do a declaw, unless one of my feline patients develops an immune mediated or other disease requiring it. -- hillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net "uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est." not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large |
#244
|
|||
|
|||
What about circumcision and pain relief for baby
Hillary Israeli wrote:
I'm not a fan of it either, but I don't see the point in being the only person calling it "toe amputation." The accepted name of the procedure is "declaw" or "onychectomy" (I see I spelled it wrong above, whoops). As long as I explain what it is before it's done, I don't see the big deal really. I think my objection to the term is that it is kind of a misnomer. It should be called "detoe" or something ... "declaw" makes people think you are only removing the cat's "fingernails" which sorta takes away the full impact of the actual surgery. |
#245
|
|||
|
|||
What about circumcision and pain relief for baby
In _e7Eb.573709$HS4.4314332@attbi_s01,
Shena Delian O'Brien wrote: *Hillary Israeli wrote: * * I'm not a fan of it either, but I don't see the point in being the only * person calling it "toe amputation." The accepted name of the procedure is * "declaw" or "onychectomy" (I see I spelled it wrong above, whoops). As * long as I explain what it is before it's done, I don't see the big deal * really. * *I think my objection to the term is that it is kind of a misnomer. It *should be called "detoe" or something ... "declaw" makes people think *you are only removing the cat's "fingernails" which sorta takes away the *full impact of the actual surgery. Well, I agree, I think it should be called toe removal also - but it IS NOT called that, is my point - so you know, who am I to decide for the world that it should be called something else? Similarly with circumcision - it's called what it's called. As long as we understand what it IS (removal of the foreskin), who cares what we call it (as long as we don't call it late for dinner)? -- hillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net "uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est." not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large |
#246
|
|||
|
|||
What about circumcision and pain relief for baby
"Circe" wrote in message news:X61Eb.29635$BQ5.8145@fed1read03... "Hillary Israeli" wrote in message ... In , Chotii wrote: *Please don't say "circumcision", it's a euphemism, a neat, tidy way of *saying something that's awful to talk about straight out. Please say "They *are going to amputate my son's foreskin tomorrow". That's the honest truth. But why? I would say "I'm going to have a mastectomy," not "I'm going to have a breast amputation." I would say "I'm going to have a cholecystectomy," not "they are going to amputate my gall bladder tomorrow." I don't really get the difference here. Not to agree or disagree, exactly, but the "ectomy" part of the names of those surgeries *means* to cut off, remove, or amputate. I can't find the Latin for "foreskin" (the Romans seem to have thought of it as indistinguishable from the rest of the penis and therefore didn't have a separate word for it), but the parallel name for circumcision would be "foreskin-ectomy". Actually the word circumcision implies "cutting around" or a circular cut (or split). It seems the name is apt and descriptive. -- CBI, MD |
#247
|
|||
|
|||
What about circumcision and pain relief for baby
"Hillary Israeli" wrote in message ... In _e7Eb.573709$HS4.4314332@attbi_s01, Shena Delian O'Brien wrote: *Hillary Israeli wrote: * * I'm not a fan of it either, but I don't see the point in being the only * person calling it "toe amputation." The accepted name of the procedure is * "declaw" or "onychectomy" (I see I spelled it wrong above, whoops). As * long as I explain what it is before it's done, I don't see the big deal * really. * *I think my objection to the term is that it is kind of a misnomer. It *should be called "detoe" or something ... "declaw" makes people think *you are only removing the cat's "fingernails" which sorta takes away the *full impact of the actual surgery. Well, I agree, I think it should be called toe removal also - But the whole toe is not removed. -- CBI |
#248
|
|||
|
|||
What about circumcision and pain relief for baby
"Hillary Israeli" wrote in message ... In _e7Eb.573709$HS4.4314332@attbi_s01, Shena Delian O'Brien wrote: *Hillary Israeli wrote: * * I'm not a fan of it either, but I don't see the point in being the only * person calling it "toe amputation." The accepted name of the procedure is * "declaw" or "onychectomy" (I see I spelled it wrong above, whoops). As * long as I explain what it is before it's done, I don't see the big deal * really. * *I think my objection to the term is that it is kind of a misnomer. It *should be called "detoe" or something ... "declaw" makes people think *you are only removing the cat's "fingernails" which sorta takes away the *full impact of the actual surgery. Well, I agree, I think it should be called toe removal also - but it IS NOT called that, is my point - so you know, who am I to decide for the world that it should be called something else? Similarly with circumcision - it's called what it's called. As long as we understand what it IS (removal of the foreskin), who cares what we call it (as long as we don't call it late for dinner)? The problem is, I think most people really *don't* understand what it IS. Most people have no idea what the foreskin *is*, what its function is, and why its removal creates an unnatural situation. Virtually no one understands that the human penis is functionally an internal organ, intended to be covered with protective skin right up to its tip, except when "in use"; nor do they understand that the glans is a mucous membrane, meant to be lubricated at all times, *not* dry. If people understood this, would as many choose the removal of "extra skin"? Even calling it "extra" implies "and therefore unnecessary and undesirable". With infants, you can't even say 'removal of loose skin' because that skin is naturally attached, and not loose. It's not "extra". Except that people are told it is. And then, well, who *wouldn't* want it removed, like an extra toe? We talk a lot over in misc.kids.breastfeeding about language being everything - if you talk about formula as the norm, then breastfeeding becomes something that's maybe a little better maybe, but it hardly matters. If you talk about the circed penis as normal, then one left natural is somehow...abnormal. There's no doubt that the vast majority of men who have been cut as infants continue to function sexually: they can orgasm, they can father children. The few who cannot orgasm, or who are damaged so badly during the procedure that they are reassigned to the female gender are not statistically relevant. However, there's simply no way to quantify the degree of damage done. The ability to orgasm does not tell us anything about the degree of pleasure felt (and I think most women could describe instances in which they themselves had an orgasm and got little pleasure from it - it happens). There's no way to compare one man's pleasure against another man's pleasure. All we can see is 'it still works, so clearly there's no harm done'. Therein lies the problem. We cannot quantify the damage, so we tell ourselves there *is* no damage. Particularly (I think) most men *must* believe there is no damage, because to admit they have a permanently less-than-what-they-were-born-to-have penis is basically beyond them. We joke about how men think with their little heads....what a blow to their egos if they came to believe their *manhoods* had been permanently diminished? Back to declawing - what percentage of people would persist in having their cats declawed if they were told bluntly that the cat would be detoed? How many would recoil in absolute horror and leave immediately? I believe firmly in "full disclosure" and "educated choice". My OB's office told me that they "answer the questions parents ask, and if parents don't ask, they assume the parents know everything they want to know". I told them that a great many people don't know the questions to ask, and in fact don't even know there *are* questions to ask. A lack of questions does not imply the making of an educated decision. (And I have faced this problem also in trying to get proper treatment for my daughter who was born with congenital defects. It's frustrating, trying to get information when you don't know what to ask.) Certainly *no* nurse or doctor *ever* said, when asking me if I wanted my future boy circ'd, "The foreskin of the newborn infant male is adhered to the glans like your fingernails are adhered to your fingers, naturally protecting the glans inside a diaper. As the boy grows up, it gradually becomes detached, and in the adult male it functions to protect the flaccid penis, to provide natural lubrication, and to allow for a rolling, gliding action during intercourse. If you remove it, these will not be present. However, you may consider it more visually appealing, and some people think hygiene is better with it gone. Do you wish to have this done?" In fact, I wasn't told anything. Just "If you have a boy, do you want him to be circumcised?" That's it. Yay full disclosure. Yay educated choice. (I said no. The nurse actually cheered.) Why aren't parents typically offered this information? Is it because their caregivers consider it irrelevant? Do they not tell, because they consider it irrelevant and beneath mention? Do they assume all parents know these things, and don't care? Or do they just not want to make people feel guilty, or something, since it's a cultural norm? --angela |
#249
|
|||
|
|||
What about circumcision and pain relief for baby
"Chotii" wrote in message ... The problem is, I think most people really *don't* understand what it IS. Most people have no idea what the foreskin *is*, what its function is, and why its removal creates an unnatural situation. I don't think anyone understands this. Virtually no one understands that the human penis is functionally an internal organ, intended to be covered with protective skin right up to its tip, except when "in use"; Evolution does not "intend" anything. Some things provide an advantage in propagation and some things just haven't been selected against. nor do they understand that the glans is a mucous membrane, meant to be lubricated at all times, *not* dry. That's not true. There's no doubt that the vast majority of men who have been cut as infants continue to function sexually: they can orgasm, they can father children. Exactly. The few who cannot orgasm, How would you ever know this is from the circ? Surely, there are "natural" men who also have problems. or who are damaged so badly during the procedure that they are reassigned to the female gender are not statistically relevant. That is exceedingly rare. I'll bet we would find more examples of men with damage from phimosis than this degree of damage fromt he circ. However, there's simply no way to quantify the degree of damage done. Exactly. This should have been the first and last sentence. I am not pro-circ. Quite the opposite - I think it is pretty pointless and did not have it done to my son. However, I would prefer that the discussion remain factually accurate. There are enough facts to support not doing it without having to embellish them. -- CBI, MD |
#250
|
|||
|
|||
What about circumcision and pain relief for baby
"CBI" wrote in message ink.net... "Chotii" wrote in message ... However, there's simply no way to quantify the degree of damage done. Exactly. This should have been the first and last sentence. As you wish. I merely think most people assume, since "Everybody does it" and "it doesn't matter if you do it" that no damage *is* done. The failure on the part of OBs and others to offer information unless specifically requested feeds into this. --angela |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What about circumcision and pain relief for baby | T | General | 278 | December 20th 03 07:06 PM |
Ex-medical student crime: MDs manipulate *baby's* spine when mother is suffering pain! | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | August 23rd 03 10:21 PM |