Circumcision ban getting people snippy.

[pearljammer]

steverhcp02 said:
Well, being a nurse and witnessing dozens of circumcisions i can tell you a couple of things. Babies often times sleep through them. I understand it helps all the people saying this is inhumane to use words like mutilation and deform, but the fact of the matter if a baby IS crying its generally because we are restraining their legs and the confinement in a non "warm" way, like when we wrap in a blanket is what causes outbursts.

How do we solve these outbursts? A simple glucose and water solution on a pacifier puts the babies at ease, yes even with the "mutilation" in progress.

I have a question if you don't mind answering: At your workplace what is done for the child to deal with the pain? I searched a bit and had noticed that anesthetic hadn't ever been used universally only until recently, only I'm not too sure about the reliability of the source.

Using scary words like mutilation and disfigurement is easy and fun to sensationalize a very safe, very practical procedure.

While the word mutilation has negative connotations, it's quite apt in its use here. However, the use of the word alone cannot determine one's motives. Granted, it is likely that it is more often then not used as a sensationalist hook.

EDIT: After searching in a medical dictionary, the word mutilate is dependent on the body part being essential. That would categorize circumcision as not being mutilation. However, it would also mean that having the earlobe of a baby removed at birth would not be considered as mutilation either. Curious.

To people saying "pulling back skin and washing is easy" It is, the same way as drinking 8 glasses of water a day, breathing deeply upright in bed is but people still get pneumonia and people still dont do these things every day because while its easy its not always done because as a society we pay attention to extremely apparent physical things which under your foreskin is not.

I can appreciate this, but I wouldn't think a non-essential operation necessary where proper parenting and/or education could substitute.

So yes, parents make an executive decision based on the information we give them of pros and cons. Cons being possible stimulation. Cons can include a possible mistake, just as any medical procedure. We are honest and as a medical profession who cares for countless readmmision of people not doing "easy" things, im completely in favor of a parent making an informed decision for their newborn BEFORE he can talk and rationalize or justify his choice which at that time would be traumatic to lose a part of your body, however small.

I hope all of you parents who want your kids to decide let them choose their meals, bedtimes and if they want to go to school. It must be very liberating for them to be in charge of such "serious" things at that age.

This is an unfair statement. Firstly, choosing between meals (as one example) and having a part of your body removed are of a completely different magnitude. Secondly, one choice is non-essential (you admitted yourself that there isn't conclusive evidence that there are significant advantages) while the other is essential for both proper physical and mental maturation.

steverhcp02 said:

And again, its a choice, not sure why people feel the need to force religious or social beliefs on people for no reason other than their egos

I'm unsure that I would categorize myself under either of those. Well, definitely not the first two, though I can't possibly rule out the last one - I suppose not many of us could. Anyhow, my sole reason for being against it is that it seems to be such an extreme decision made without any decisively beneficial factors. Now, if I ever had an opportunity to vote on the matter, I would most likely vote to leave the option in the parents' hands (largely because the risks associated are so low - 0.2% - 3% according to kidshealth.org and it is a non-essential body part) but on a personal level, it just seems wholly unnecessary and absurd that it's an option presented to me.