To your previous post. Traumatically (and this is a whole new can of worms) losing a part of your body you have grown accustomed to, even as little as foreskin, even with your consent can have psychological effects. For example even when we have ostomies by election, we may consult psychology, for gastric bypass, which is far more common because it actually CURES diabetes 2 in some instances as well as hypertesnion and obstructive sleep apnea, we dont know why but it does cure diabetes in over 75% of cases, gastric bypass surgeries result in consults because mentally altering ones known body has effects on dopamine and seratonin secretions and their physical image of themselves. There is the issue of pain as you mentioned, but also vascularly it is more conducive to do it at birth because an infants blood flow and hemoglobin levels are obvious less than that of an adult.

I didnt mean to imply we use lidocaine as a standard practice to reduce pain in a painless procedure. What i meant was they are part of a set we call "circ sets" this is because, as i have stated many many times, there is not a standard practice for circumcision, thus it is elective and not mandatory because unlike congestive heart failure where we diagnose based on an ejection fraction of < 40% of the left ventricle and then MUST prescribe an ace inhibiotor (Lisinopril) and an ARB (Diovan or Atacand) because these are what we call "CORE MEASURES" Measures in which studies have proven prescribing these meds reduce discomfort and promote quality of life as scientific fact, circumcision is a toss up. We do it for the reasons iive stated more than i care to count in this thread.

By saying we offer lidocaine is because some physicians who practcie medicine at our hospital choose to error on the side of "why not" use the lidocaine, that in and of itself is dangerous as the lidocaine can penetrate tissue inappropriately but thats a whole new discussion. Our hospital uses PPO's (pre printed orders) this is to aleviate stress on our inpatient pharmacy and allow order sets to be enetred instantly which contain multuiple meds. Rather than leave lidocaine out we enetred it into the order set since some physicians elected to use it during their circs. Then if they chose not to they send the bottle to be credited from the patients bill to our pharmacy and since it has not been opened it goes back into circulation until its expiration date.

Hope that clears up the issue.

First off how can you miss something that is taken off many years before people even are able to remember it in later life? The earliest people remember anything conciously about their life is estimated at about three years old.     Also compare this to other forms of genital alteration in males like spitting the penis in half to make two heads, (wish I could post a pick) this type of alteration would actually cause severe pain to an infant if it was performed on them for cultural reasons. Circumsision seems no more traumatic than actual birth and the severing of the ambilical cord. And finally I am not advocating the practice. It is little more than a strange cultural norm in America. I just think that it is very strange that guys who have never had it done would think it causes anything more than a very brief moment of stress for a infant.

I should have been more clear. In the beginning of the post I was not arguing that circumcision itself is equivalent to the David Reimer case (hence why I said: Lacking a foreskin is small enough that it shouldn't matter much) except for the low number of cases where it is really botched but I was arguing against the general idea that because you never had something you don't miss it. It can be true (and I think it is the case for foreskin) but it is far from a universal truth as I am pretty sure that if somebody had to have an arm (or even a finger) amputated at birth that they wouldn't miss it and no real harm would be done. In other words I wasn't so much arguing against the specific case that you used in this thread as with the general idea itself.

I think people are going a bit overboard with the whole "parents have the final say" choice thing. Yes they do have a say, however circumcision isn't exactly easily reversible. It is still a mutilation (non-consensual removal of flesh) and it has some religious and other forms of implications. There is absolutely zero reason to let a parent decide whether their child should undergo this or not. When the kid is in their teens and make the choice themselves, they can go and get circumcised then, but not before.

For the lidocaine part, it does clear the issue, so thank you.

As for adult circumcision being potentially traumatic, like I said earlier, it is just part of the decision process of the person considering undergoing the procedure, and if a psych evaluation helps with the decision (either way) then why not.

I do however have a hard time believing that it would be that traumatizing for the vast majority of people (there are always people who are more fragile mentally, in which case the potential trauma would be a heavy cons against doing it) as not only do some people do it as adult, but a lot of people do similar or even more radical modifications to their bodies without traumatic effect. I am not talking about ostomies that add a new hole to your body and an external artificial appendage in exchange of clear and definite advantages but about tattoos, piercing and scarrification which I consider to be closer to circumcision as they modify the appearance of the body and can be more or less painful procedures to undertake. I am talking about comparing the level of trauma associated with it, not the medical advantages here, but I find them more comparable given the lack of clear and overwhelming advantage for circumcision.

So let's say that you could have a medical tattoo that had some potential health benefit. It would be more traumatic to get it when a teen/adult due to the pain (which can be mitigated with anaesthetic) and the change in body image that can be negative (though it can be positive too, if one prefer their look after the tattoo/circumcision procedure) but in my opinion, unless there is a clear advantage to doing it at birth, like if it was the best way to protect from a childhood disease, as opposed to doing it when the kid is old enough to at least participate in the decision (i.e. if he is a teen, it should be done with both his consent and his parent's consent; if he is adult then only with his consent) then the decision should rest with the person concerned.

Is there such an advantage to circumcision that cannot be had if done during teenagehood/young adulthood that overrides the right of somebody to their person? 

O_O

What are you smocking? You can't regrow a foreskin, just like you can't regrow your fingers if you chop them off.

FTR, I'm circumcised (was circumcised for nedical reasons). I do not think that circumcision should be done for non-medical reasons (and by this I mean actual medical problems, not all that preventing "cancer" nonsense). As for the people who have it done on their kids for religious reasons... though! Human sacrifices aren't allowed for religious reasons, and neither should the mutilation of a child's genitals be.

so you feel mutilated?

the foreskin can be restored and it is nothing like regrowing a finger.

I actually kinda regret not having a foreskin. But alas, it couldn't be pulled back properly and had to go. However I'm against the circumcision of for religious reasons. The cutting of a foreskin is permanent and only the owner of the penis should be able to decide what happens with his foreskin.