What about circumcision and pain relief for baby

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 11:57:39 -0800, amcom
wrote:

But the child in this case could get circed as an adult and by their own free choice..

Oh, I agree. However, I was pointing out where a mother's feelings
about her son's penis could affect the child.

I am due in a few weeks with my son. I will not be having him
circ'ed. The main reason is because I read about what is involved
with the procedure. When I related it to my husband, he flinched.
That was enough for me to say no.

--
Daye
Momma to Jayan
"Boy" EDD 11 Jan 2004
See Jayan: http://jayan.topcities.com/

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 07:28:27 GMT, "Slave"
wrote:

Ok PF Riley,

"First do no harm" is the doctors creedo.

No, it isn't. It is an unfortunate bit of folklore that this phrase is
contained within the Hippocratic Oath. It is not. Instead, "First, do
no harm" is a ridiculous attempt to simplify the enormously complex
topic of medical ethics. It fails to account for the fact that harm
may occur by both errors of omission (not doing something) and errors
of commission (doing something).

Removing an appendix would be an emergency!

Indeed. Such a clear-cut case is a no-brainer. Most(*) would argue
that it would cause MORE harm to do nothing and let the patient die of
ruptured appendicitis and sepsis than to put the patient asleep, cram
a tube in his lungs and hook him up to a ventilator, snow his brain
with anesthetic gases, then slice him open with a knife through all
the layers of the abdominal wall, cauterizing blood vessels as you go,
removing an organ that may serve some purpose (remember, someone on
this thread believes all of our body parts have a function), and
running IV antibiotics in his veins afterwards, giving him diarrhea,
and wiping out healthy bacteria in the gut. Has the surgeon really
lived up to his mythical oath to "do NO harm?"

Circumcisions are not an emergency merely a cosmetic
afterthought. It means exactly what is says, FIRST do no harm. Why harm an
innocent child when not necesary? Your answer to that was plain dumb.

I have always believed that the word "first" was an admonition to "do
no harm" above all. Are you saying that the "creedo" says "first" do
no harm to instruct doctors only to do "harmful" things AFTER problems
arise? Should we then say, "First, do no harm, unless there's an
EMERGENCY?" Should we throw out all of preventive medicine, then? I'm
harming a child when I have him get blood drawn to screen for anemia.
Should I FIRST do no harm, and simply wait until he arrives pale and
tachycardic? Is it "better" to give up all vaccines (they hurt!) and
simply treat kids for pertussis and Haemophilus meningitis after the
fact, and deal with the brain damage later?

CBI gave a very good response to you as well that shows he does, in
fact, understand the complexities of medical ethics. Consideration for
a procedure not only includes the "scientific" aspects (e.g., risk of
harm from the procedure, risk of medical conditions possibly lessened
by performing it, etc.) but also the immeasurable psychosocial
effects. This comes into play when smoking and obesity are studied, as
well. Why do we physicians think it is our duty to get everyone to
stop smoking and slim down? It is pure arrogance to think we know that
it is BETTER for everyone to live as long as they can and gradually
whither away from a chronic, degenerative disease. Couldn't some
people prefer to enjoy cigarettes and double bacon cheeseburgers, live
a happy, loving, and meaningful life, and drop dead of a heart attack
at 65, and not be considered crazy?

Sorry to be rude but your comments to my post and others was pretty rude.
Don't need to cuss either. They do strap a child in a circumstraint,
obviously you didn't look and the website link. Betcha if they didn't that
baby would jump out of its skin and the doctor would end up cutting the
whole thing off.

The fact that a child is appropriately restrained for a procedure does
not mean the procedure should be abandoned.

PF

(*) I can imagine that there may be some, guided by religious beliefs,
who would argue that, indeed, altering "God's plan" by attempting
surgery to cure a natural disease is unethical and that one SHOULD
allow the patient to die!

On 11 Dec 2003 20:13:35 GMT, Richard wrote:

In misc.kids.pregnancy Kereru wrote:
: [ . . . ]
: Judy Mum to two boys with untouched penises


No, never mind. I won't go there.

LOL!


--
Daye
Momma to Jayan
"Boy" EDD 11 Jan 2004
See Jayan: http://jayan.topcities.com/

"Richard" wrote in message
...
In misc.kids.pregnancy Kereru wrote:
: [ . . . ]
: Judy Mum to two boys with untouched penises


No, never mind. I won't go there.

Woops that was asking for it wasn't it :-)


Richard
Micaela's dad

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:05:25 -0800, "Circe" wrote:

Frankly, I'm stunned that elective male circumcision is still permitted in a
country which outlaws female circumcision outright despite the fact that
doing so abridges the freedom of religious practice of some communities in
direct contradiction of the First Amendment. This is one arena in which US
law definitely discriminates against males.

Or not, as the case may be. Given that the vast majority of those
eligible to legislate a ban on male circumcision are not only males,
but circumcised males. They must not feel that male circumcision is
nearly as horrific and traumatic as female circumcision. I can't help
feeling that way myself. After all, I know lots of circ'd men, all of
whom not only don't feel traumatized, but are glad to have been
circ'd. I don't know of a single woman advocate of the same.

Not that I think circumcision is such a good thing. I've no idea why
anyone with no religious decree to do it would chose to circ infant
boys. However I disagree that US law should outlaw it, not only
because it is now an American cultural (as well as religious)
practice, but because I believe that to do so would be incredibly
hostile to extensive religious communities in the US. Not a handful of
immigrants from some 3rd world tribe, but upstanding Americans of
several generations. This is also why it isn't going to happen.

--Lisabell

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:17:39 GMT, "Chotii"
wrote:


"Carol Ann" wrote in message
link.net...

I find an uncircumcised penis quite unattractive.

I find penises in general unattractive. I think they look, if you'll pardon
my borrowing a phrase from 'Red Dwarf', like 'the last chicken in the shop'.

There goes your cultural bias

However, since I've learned what the extra skin on an intact/unaltered penis
*does*, I've begun seeing circ'ed penises as...mutilated. I don't think
that's attractive.

How about infant girls with pierced ears? Quite a few seem to think
that is attractive.

--Lisabell

"Carol Ann" wrote in message link.net...

I personally would circumcise my son (if I had one) AND I would ask for them
to lessen the pain during and after the procedure.

I find an uncircumcised penis quite unattractive.

I, too, find it unattractive, due to my not being used to it.

But why would you make a decision to alter your son's penis due to
attractiveness? You aren't going to be looking at it all that long.
And you won't be his sex partner, so why should you care?

This may sound ridiculous, but bear with me: Would you have a plastic
surgeon do a nose job on your newborn, because you don't like a
certain kind of nose? Or what if your son was born ugly (not deformed
and requiring reconstructive surgery) - would you have him altered to
making him prettier?

Though I disagree, doing it as a covenant with God, or because you
want to protect him from the very very very rare event of penile
cancer seems to be a better reason, than to do just because you don't
like how it looks.

Why not let a boy decide to have it done when he's old enough to make
that decision?

Cathy Weeks
Mommy to Kivi Alexis 12/01

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 23:16:16 +0200, LisaBell
wrote:

How about infant girls with pierced ears? Quite a few seem to think
that is attractive.

I know many mothers who have done it for the same reason that they
circ'ed their sons: They don't remember the pain.

Someone tried to convince me that my DD didn't remember the pain of
having her vaccinations. However, for months whenever we would go to
the doctor's, she would hold her hands over the upper part of her arm,
and she would cry whenever the doctor came near her. The appointment
didn't have to be for her. She remembered that the doctor poked her
with a needle. Now, finally at 2.5, she is relaxed with the doctor.
She doesn't hold her arms, and she doesn't cry anymore. She also
hasn't had an injection in months.

I am not convinced that infants don't remember pain.

--
Daye
Momma to Jayan
"Boy" EDD 11 Jan 2004
See Jayan: http://jayan.topcities.com/

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 06:15:35 +1100, Daye wrote:

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 07:28:27 GMT, "Slave"
wrote:

"First do no harm" is the doctors creedo. Removing an appendix would be an
emergency! Circumcisions are not an emergency merely a cosmetic
afterthought. It means exactly what is says, FIRST do no harm.

If you believe that all doctors follow that to the letter, I know of a
bridge I could sell you.

See my other post. The only way to "do no harm" is to never practice
medicine to begin with.

PF

"Circe" wrote in message news:pk2Cb.35$BQ5.18@fed1read03...
In my opinion none of this is of a magnitude or certainty high
enough to support a medical recommendation for the procedure but I can
see a reasonable person disagreeing.

The bottom line is that the increased risk for these complications in
uncircumcised boys is very small and it is *far* smaller than the likelihood
of complications from the circumcision itself (which is 1 in 500, right?).

Measuring complications is always hard because it depends greatly on
what you include as a complication. I think the rate of complications
that are of long term import is much much lower than 1:500.

How in the WORLD can anyone continue to justify surgically alteration of a
normal part of an infant's anatomy when the actual surgery carries greater
risks than the benefits it supposedly confers?

Like I said - the risk ratios are a bit fuzzy - partly because you are
dealing with very low numbers on both sides. However, as I have said a
few times now, there is not enough evidence of medical benefit to call
the procedure medically necessary in any way or to recommend it on
medical grounds (which is what the AAP etc say).

However, othe than the pain issues the complication rate is
suffiicently low that if one puts a high cultural signifiance on it
then the benefits night be seen to outweigh the risks.

Also - you can't just assume that all complications are equal and
measure raw complication rates. You must assign a value to how much
each is to be avoided and weigh the calculations accordingly. It is
possible for a person to value bleeding and scar tissue sufficiently
little and the fear of cancer etc sufficiently high to make the
caluculation favor the circ (but I'll bet not for many).

Sorry, but the medical
justifications for circumcision are simply so weak that they don't really
bear consideration.

I agree. That is why I consider it more of a social issue than a
medical one.



Frankly, I'm stunned that elective male circumcision is still permitted in a
country which outlaws female circumcision outright despite the fact that
doing so abridges the freedom of religious practice of some communities in
direct contradiction of the First Amendment. This is one arena in which US
law definitely discriminates against males.

Touche.

Frankly, I am stunned that the insurance industry hasn't tried to deny
payment for it on the grounds that it is cosmetic and not medically
necessary. That is why the rates plummetted in England. If the parents
have to shell out a few hundred bucks for it I think many more will
start to question exactly what it is and why it should be done (which
is probably more than half the battle for a meaningful rate
reduction).

--
CBI, MD