Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Muslim and Jewish groups denounce German circumcision ruling


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
259 replies to this topic

#241 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 14 July 2012 - 12:14 PM

Except that it says the circumcized boys will need to be admitted to the hospital. It also uses the modification "before the age of 1". What about over the entire lifetime? What about the other benefits of being circumcizes. Lower cancer rates? Lower HIV and STI rates? Why is infection before the age of 1 the only stat looked at?

The 20-30 boys with complications, however, will usually just have some bleeding, which can be treated at home. Here's the paper they lifted and twisted those facts from:

http://www.cirp.org/...ements/ama2000/



Basically the AMA does not promote or call for a ban on circumcision. If it was as dangerous as you say, they'd be calling for a ban on it.



The AMA is behind the rest of the industrialized countries in this area.


Over the past several decades, the American Academy of Pediatrics has published several policy statements on neonatal circumcision of the male infant.1–3 Beginning in its 1971 manual,Standards and Recommendations of Hospital Care of Newborn Infants, and reiterated in the 1975 and 1983 revisions, the Academy concluded that there was no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision.

In 1989, because of new research on circumcision status and urinary tract infection (UTI) and sexually transmitted disease (STD)/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, the Academy concluded that newborn male circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks.4 This statement also recommended that when circumcision is considered, the benefits and risks should be explained to the parents and informed consent obtained. Subsequently, a number of medical societies in the developed world have published statements that do not recommend routine circumcision of male newborns.5–7

http://pediatrics.aa.../686.full#ref-5


Many of those medical 'benefits' from 1989, have since been debunked as myths. I have listed a wide ranging myths + realities around circumcision previously in the thread.


As far as banning is concerned...there is at at least a real movement out there to do so.


U.S.

Efforts to Ban Circumcision Gain Traction in California


http://www.nytimes.c...ision.html?_r=1


Australia:

CIRCUMCISION will be banned in the state's public hospitals unless it is for medical reasons.

http://www.news.com....r-1111114853797


Norway:

In 2012, the Senterpartiet proposed a ban on circumcision on males under eighteen

http://www.dagbladet.no/2012/06/19/kultur/debatt/omskjering/helse_bergen/bar_overkropp/22180612/

(Will need to use a translator app)

South Africa:

In October 2009, the Eastern Cape High Court at Bhisho (sitting as an Equality Court) clarified that circumcision is unlawful unless done with the full consent of the initiate.

http://www.legalbrie...091014084902414


Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#242 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 14 July 2012 - 12:30 PM

I'm just talking about the argument not the act.

The act is what it is. I'm all toque'd and happy with that; I stay warmer in the winter. There are medical reasons as to why to get it cut off...there's religious and cultural reason as well. There's also the same for not cutting it off. At the end of the day though...it just doesn't matter.


The medical reasons that you are referring to for cutting it off, aren't actually reasons that any medical professional would say are necessary. The only real medical necessity, i suppose, is when there is a pressing medical necessity to remove the foreskin....but then again, gangrene is also a pressing medical necessity to remove a limb as well....however, we don't go around suggesting that the benefits/reasons/advantages of removing our limbs is so we don't get gangrene.

At the end of the day, and what the majority of people are trying to avoid, is this is a religious/cultural/cosmetic issue. But, they seem to not want to get into that area, because it would mean that they don't have a medical leg to stand on...which they in fact don't in order to argue that circumcisions should be done, primarily, for medical reasonings. That, as i've shown, is not a medically necessary or supported argument.

The sooner people start talking about this in terms of trying to rationalize this through their religious colored glasses, the sooner we can debate the issues surrounding religious freedom versus the right of self-determination, and the right of individual informed consent and choice...which I think is the more interesting conversation.

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#243 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 14 July 2012 - 12:48 PM

Wasn't this you earlier in the thread?

The parents are given the medical benefits and pros and cons by the doctor before the procedure. Then they decide. There are medical benefits to the procedure that have nothing to do with religion and the doctors consider it a normal and safe procedure.

If you think the doctors are ignorant (they are the ones giving the choice to the parents ) then by all means take it up with them.

You should retract this statement .


Yep, that was me and I stand by it and I won't retract it.

Before getting into the medically nonsensical debate, of which i've supported my assertion and understanding/education that there is not a medically necessary reason to routinely circumcise male infants, the point of the thread, was the backlash of the German ruling from the religious sector of society, that this was an affront to their religious freedoms. That is the real issue presented in this thread originally...but people such as yourself wanted to turn it into a medical discussion...which is fine by me. Now that you have the medical recommendations of the most competent authorities in every industrialized country essentially all saying that there it is not medically necessary, what does your argument have to fall back on??

Ah yes, the medical benefits you keep touting....please list them, so I can go through them one by one and rebut them with any number of sources showing the advantages to be exagerrated, slight, or insignificant in comparison to alternate prevention techniques, or statistics....because you know i will.

People circumcise their kids nowadays for social and religious reasons. The medical ones aren't the primary ones. In fact, the U.S. rate of circumcision has fallen drastically as well, because people are becoming more and more educated.

Those that continue to do it are either ignorant of the education available, and choose to do so, or they are ignorant or willfully ignorant of the recommendations of their countries medical authorities....or they continue to follow their religions...which are the last great bastions of ignorance in this world....outside of the totalitarian regime of North Korea.

You should retract your request for retraction, hopefully after you've utilized whatever ability of critical though is at your disposal. As a word of caution though, it may require some reading and thinking.

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#244 The Ghost of Tom Joad

The Ghost of Tom Joad

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 727 posts
  • Joined: 10-April 04

Posted 14 July 2012 - 01:54 PM

There is nothing here that I can add that has not already been beautifully articulated-- and scientifically supported-- by Sharpshooter and Scorpio Ego, but I just wanted to say, you guys are my ???? heroes.

I cannot imagine why any free-thinking, intelligent person would be pro-circumcision.

#245 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,394 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 14 July 2012 - 02:19 PM

The medical reasons that you are referring to for cutting it off, aren't actually reasons that any medical professional would say are necessary. The only real medical necessity, i suppose, is when there is a pressing medical necessity to remove the foreskin....but then again, gangrene is also a pressing medical necessity to remove a limb as well....however, we don't go around suggesting that the benefits/reasons/advantages of removing our limbs is so we don't get gangrene.

At the end of the day, and what the majority of people are trying to avoid, is this is a religious/cultural/cosmetic issue. But, they seem to not want to get into that area, because it would mean that they don't have a medical leg to stand on...which they in fact don't in order to argue that circumcisions should be done, primarily, for medical reasonings. That, as i've shown, is not a medically necessary or supported argument.

The sooner people start talking about this in terms of trying to rationalize this through their religious colored glasses, the sooner we can debate the issues surrounding religious freedom versus the right of self-determination, and the right of individual informed consent and choice...which I think is the more interesting conversation.

No that's not really what I was talking about. I was more talking about that there are medical reasons for it to come off. I don't think that means it should come off as a preventative measure but I also don't think it's a big deal if it is.

I'm also against ear piercing until a certain age but I also don't think it's that big of a deal either.

Edited by EmployeeoftheMonth, 14 July 2012 - 02:19 PM.

Posted Image
Posted Image

#246 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 14 July 2012 - 02:52 PM

No that's not really what I was talking about. I was more talking about that there are medical reasons for it to come off. I don't think that means it should come off as a preventative measure but I also don't think it's a big deal if it is.

I'm also against ear piercing until a certain age but I also don't think it's that big of a deal either.


Ok, maybe I misunderstood what you were talking about then. I agree there are circumstances, as with other appendages, there arises a moment of medical necessity, even in infancy and beyond, where the removal of the foreskin can be classified justly as a necessary medical procedure. No argument there from me my friend. :)

I think the big deal for many is that they no longer have the ability to make that choice. Again, the issue between self-determination over one's own anatomy or external determinations about your anatomy that have life-long ramifications. The difference with ear piercing, and i'm with you on your thoughts, is that a one time piercing from the piercing itself isn't permanent, unless you keep that area filled with an object for a very long time(iirc), whereas a one time snip job and you're done for life. So I agree that ear piercings aren't that big of a deal, relatively speaking.... although I'm sure they're less of 'not a big deal' relative to a circumcision, because of the differences in permanency.

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#247 Scottish⑦Canuck

Scottish⑦Canuck

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,781 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 07

Posted 14 July 2012 - 03:30 PM

I'm against it unless it's a medical necessity. Which is uncommon but does happen.

Regarding religion, if someone wants a circumcision for religious reasons, then fair enough. Just wait until the kid is old enough to make a decision himself.

Pretty sure everything I posted has been covered already.
Posted ImagePosted Image

#248 Super19

Super19

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,438 posts
  • Joined: 04-January 10

Posted 14 July 2012 - 03:36 PM

I'm for it on the grounds of the Abrahamic tradition.
Posted Image

#249 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 14 July 2012 - 03:51 PM

I'm for it on the grounds of the Abrahamic tradition.


Are you for the subservience of women on the grounds of the Abrahamic traditions as well?

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#250 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 14 July 2012 - 09:59 PM

There is nothing here that I can add that has not already been beautifully articulated-- and scientifically supported-- by Sharpshooter and Scorpio Ego, but I just wanted to say, you guys are my ???? heroes.

I cannot imagine why any free-thinking, intelligent person would be pro-circumcision.


Like the doctors? They all will perform the procedure. I guess they are idiots? It doesn't make any common sense to me. And trust me, I am a 'free thinker' .

This is the thing. We who are sitting here typing are NOT the doctors, not the parents deciding, but we think we have this big say in it. We know better somehow.
Posted Image

#251 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 14 July 2012 - 10:02 PM

I'm against it unless it's a medical necessity. Which is uncommon but does happen.

Regarding religion, if someone wants a circumcision for religious reasons, then fair enough. Just wait until the kid is old enough to make a decision himself.

Pretty sure everything I posted has been covered already.


Good point. This is why I am actually against it on Religious grounds. My son would be 18 and decide for himself. After all I have been through no way I push religion on anyone else.

On medical grounds I might do it. Seems reasonable to me. The benefits far outweigh any pain at the time or small risk of infection.
Posted Image

#252 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 14 July 2012 - 10:58 PM

This topic focuses on the circumcision of newborns.


How will you know if circumcision is right for your son?




Circumcision is not usually medically needed. The Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) does not recommend circumcision as a routine procedure for newborn males. When making this policy, the CPS looked at the possible benefits, risks, and costs of the procedure.1


When you make this decision, it may help you to think about your personal and cultural preferences. For example, you may want to consider your religious and family traditions while you weigh the pros and cons of the surgery. It is your decision whether to keep your son's penis natural or have your son circumcised.


http://www.healthlin...l/hw142449.html



In BC the College of Physicians and Surgeons has formally advised doctors not to perform the operation.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia

September 2009



Circumcision (Infant Male)
RESOURCE MANUAL



Until recently, only public health and religious views were taken into consideration in the debate over infant male circumcision. However, our understanding of medical practice must change as research findings become available. The College is issuing this guide for physicians regarding routine infant male circumcision in light of evidence?based medicine and contemporary principles in ethics, law and human rights.

Infant male circumcision was once considered a preventive health measure and was therefore adopted extensively in Western counties. Current understanding of the benefits, risks and potential harm of this procedure, however, no longer supports this practice for prophylactic health benefit. Routine infant male circumcision performed on a healthy infant is now considered a non-therapeutic and medically unnecessary intervention. From a religious standpoint, infant male circumcision is acknowledged to be an important ritual and an integral part of Jewish and Islamic religions. Male circumcision is also practiced in other parts of the world as a rite of puberty.

A wider societal discussion on infant male circumcision is warranted based on a current understanding of bioethics that takes ito account the non-therapeutic nature of the procedure as well as the high importance it plays in religious and traditional customs. This paper provides a discussion on current medical perspectives as well as relevant legal, human rights, and ethical considerations. ...

(contact us)


... routine removal of normal tissue in a healthy infant, is not recommended.

... proxy consent by parents is now being questioned. Many believe it should be limited to consent for diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions, and that it is not relevant for non-therapeutic procedures.

... an infant has rights that include security of person, life, freedom and bodily integrity....

  • Advise parents that the current medical consensus is that routine infant male circumcision is not a recommended procedure; it is non-therapeutic and has no medical prophylactic basis; it is a cosmetic surgical procedure; current evidence indicates that previously-thought prophylactic public health benefits do not outweigh the potential risks.
  • Provide objective medical information about the risk of complications and potential harm in infant male circumcision.
  • Discuss the new ethical considerations of infant's rights and proxy consent in a non-therapeutic procedure.

Edited by WHL rocks, 14 July 2012 - 11:02 PM.


#253 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 14 July 2012 - 11:23 PM

Good article. It says the health benefits are now 'insufficient evidence'


That piece is some good political theater. Its not a view that is shared outside of BC



http://en.wikipedia....ki/Circumcision


All the doctors perform the operation. None say its mandatory. They wouldnt perform it if they thought it was unsafe.


Im sure you can find an article in Finland next or some medical opinon from the most progressive hospital in San Francisco , but its not the general consensus.


The above is. Unless Wiki failed to update it in the last 30 days or whatever.


Posted Image

#254 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 14 July 2012 - 11:31 PM

Good article. It says the health benefits are now 'insufficient evidence'


That piece is some good political theater. Its not a view that is shared outside of BC



http://en.wikipedia....ki/Circumcision


All the doctors perform the operation. None say its mandatory. They wouldnt perform it if they thought it was unsafe.


Im sure you can find an article in Finland next or some medical opinon from the most progressive hospital in San Francisco , but its not the general consensus.


The above is. Unless Wiki failed to update it in the last 30 days or whatever.



This guy thinks Wikipedia is a more legitimate source than The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia.

:lol:

Classic.

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#255 canucks since 77

canucks since 77

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,646 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 11

Posted 15 July 2012 - 12:09 AM

If you want to know why so many doctors still do circumcisions, just look in their driveways.
Politeness is the first step to respect!

#256 JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo

JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,573 posts
  • Joined: 02-September 09

Posted 15 July 2012 - 12:14 AM

Like the doctors? They all will perform the procedure. I guess they are idiots? It doesn't make any common sense to me. And trust me, I am a 'free thinker' .

This is the thing. We who are sitting here typing are NOT the doctors, not the parents deciding, but we think we have this big say in it. We know better somehow.


Why would a doctor continue to perform a surgery that is considered medically unecessary? Hmm...that's a real head scratcher.

Edit:^ for the love of jebus! Why the hell does this always happen to me.

Edited by JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo, 15 July 2012 - 12:17 AM.

Posted Image

#257 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 15 July 2012 - 12:16 AM

If you want to know why so many doctors still do circumcisions, just look in their driveways.


clever dude.

+1

Ya im leaning now towards not doing the procedure anyways. I would have to have the doc give some pretty good medical reasons.
Posted Image

#258 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 15 July 2012 - 12:28 AM

Why would a doctor continue to perform a surgery that is considered medically unecessary? Hmm...that's a real head scratcher.

Edit:^ for the love of jebus! Why the hell does this always happen to me.



:lol:

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#259 Jägermeister

Jägermeister

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,575 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 12

Posted 15 July 2012 - 12:30 AM

clever dude.

+1

Ya im leaning now towards not doing the procedure anyways. I would have to have the doc give some pretty good medical reasons.


If he gives you any of those, you can bet he could also make a living as a used car salesman.
Posted Image

#260 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 15 July 2012 - 08:02 AM

If he gives you any of those, you can bet he could also make a living as a used car salesman.


Medical information does not bare that kind of logic out. At least we are getting somewhere with the fact the doctors are all willing to do the procedure. This was my point from the beginning of the thread.

Its the parents call, and the doctors are the ones endorsing it by offering to do it on the parents request.

It aint religion nor the parents. The DOCTORS are the ones doing to procedure. The rest is parsing words around 'not endorsing it' but yet DOING it.

lol. Its turned into a politicized circus. Like the medical community is bending around not to offend the secular shouting and at the same time make the other side happy as well.

Its like claiming up and down you hate second hand smoke, then go sell people cigarettes. Which one is true? Obviously the bottom line.
Posted Image




Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.