VentMedic Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 (edited) It was a joke. Apologies. Those of us who were around at the beginning of HIV as it became known in the U.S. and who helped gather data for many studies throughout the years, rarely joke about it. Edited March 28, 2009 by VentMedic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mateo_1387 Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 I've heard plastic surgeons can do creative things either way. LOL. I am sure they can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dustdevil Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 It's interesting that the suggestion that everyone have their appendix and tonsils removed prophylactically in childhood would never be accepted by the medical community, yet circumcision is almost unanimously accepted. It seems as if these studies keep popping up simply as attempts to justify the continuation of the practice. I'm betting a lot more cases of appendicitis (potentially lethal) would be prevented by the former than cases of STDs being prevented by the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mateo_1387 Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 Circumcision, on the other hand, if we're talking quality of life via decreased chance for disease transmission, is not a behaviorally based intervention and therefore much less likely to fail. Only yesterday I read a lengthy article on MSNBC about how educated women end up pregnant even after having been educated on birth control and being economically capable of using birth control... yet not following birth control regimens appropriately and surprise! Baby's on the way. I think we should be thinking about the children ! Lets start sterilizing all confirmed HIV patients and patients with high potential to contract the disease. Male circumcision has been shown to reduce risks for certain cancers. It's also a cultural practice that does not hinder a man's sexual pleasure or performance in any way, making it much less of an issue than say, female circumcision. I'd put male circumcision along the lines of infantile ear-piercing; causes minor temporary pain and is at the discretion of the parents. Easy to say when it is not your penis. I'd also beg to differ about sensitivity. Although performance and pleasure are still achievable, it is still going to be different. When we have the Pope perpetuating the idea that condoms lead to promiscuity, leading to higher chances for HIV infection in countries like Africa, we need every tool we've got at our disposal if it means less people will suffer from HIV and less children will be orphaned and subjected to the horrors of exploitation, starvation, and prostitution. Fine and dandy, but it still needs to be the decision of the adult male. A half centimeter of flesh to reduce the risk of a life of horror? More than a half-centimeter. If they can prove that the disease transmission reduction is VERY significant, I'm all for it. Me too, if the consenting adults wants it. What if they decided that removing the appendix at birth eliminated the possibility for colorectal cancer (give me this one, it's just an analogy)... would you be as up in arms about performing surgery to eliminate the risk of cancer? Sounds good, let the decision be up to the adult in question. The reason people react strongly to this particular procedure is because it's something that most men are highly innately protective of... their penises. Damn Skippy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mateo_1387 Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 However, the penis itself is not being removed, nor is its functionality or sensitivity being damaged. If it were, this would be another discussion entirely. Sure the whole penis is not being removed, but part of it is. Sensitivity and functionality are affected also. Here in America and in Western cultures it's all well and good to sit there and say "condoms are effective, so there's no need to perform this procedure on babies" but in Africa or poverty stricken areas of Asia, where condoms may not be available (or in good quality or subject to severe cultural tabu that prevents their use to the point where it's useless) it's a different discussion. Again, condoms were just an example. I also do not think poverty status is a good indication for circumcision. It's all a matter of proportion. Haha. Funny. Wendy CO EMT-B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireMedic65 Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 Apologies. Those of us who were around at the beginning of HIV as it became known in the U.S. and who helped gather data for many studies throughout the years, rarely joke about it. I was referring to the part of doing the nasty... not getting the STD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
celticcare Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 Circumcision, on the other hand, if we're talking quality of life via decreased chance for disease transmission, is not a behaviorally based intervention and therefore much less likely to fail. Only yesterday I read a lengthy article on MSNBC about how educated women end up pregnant even after having been educated on birth control and being economically capable of using birth control... yet not following birth control regimens appropriately and surprise! Baby's on the way. *cough* ECP When we have the Pope perpetuating the idea that condoms lead to promiscuity, leading to higher chances for HIV infection in countries like Africa, we need every tool we've got at our disposal if it means less people will suffer from HIV and less children will be orphaned and subjected to the horrors of exploitation, starvation, and prostitution. *Cough* Prodisentasm A half centimeter of flesh to reduce the risk of a life of horror? *cough* Eye dawn got ripped off by Mr Eyedawn The reason people react strongly to this particular procedure is because it's something that most men are highly innately protective of... their penises. *cough* It's my preeeeescious It's all a matter of proportion. *cough* would you like fries with that Scotty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itku2er Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 That may be. Condoms were just a suggestion to prevent an invasive procedure. I still say circumcision needs to be the decision of the adult male. It is not right to force that decision on a male when he will have to live with it for the rest of his life. Personally for me I had both my boys circumcised when they were babies. I made that choice based on things I had read about the pros and cons of circumision and the complications and problems that may occur in later life. Off handed thought can kids sue their parnets for circumcising them when they are born? This might be a new topic to explore. (sorry spen I am not really hijacking your thread ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dustdevil Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 (edited) Off handed thought can kids sue their parnets for circumcising them when they are born? This might be a new topic to explore. Why sue the parents when you can sue the doctor with deep pockets? http://www.cirp.org/news/mndnewswire04-29-03/ Doctor and Hospital Settle Circumcision Lawsuit Stage Set for Men to Sue for Being Circumcised as Infants SUFFOLK COUNTY, New York – After a two-and-a-half year legal battle with Plaintiff William G. Stowell, the doctor and hospital have settled the landmark circumcision case brought against them. The terms of the settlements have not been publicly disclosed. Twenty-one-year old Stowell filed suit December 19, 2000, in the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, against the hospital where he was circumcised and the physician who circumcised him as a newborn. Stowell, born on December 22, 1981, in West Islip, NY, was circumcised the following day by his mother's obstetrician. This case presented the issue of the legal validity of consent for circumcision obtained by a nurse from a mother who was debilitated by the effects of a Caesarian section and painkillers. It also questioned whether a physician could legally and ethically remove healthy, normal tissue from a non-consenting minor for non-therapeutic reasons. David J. Llewellyn, one of Plaintiff Stowell's attorneys, said, "William and I are very happy that we were able to resolve this case with both the hospital and the doctor. While a settlement is never an admission of liability, I believe it shows that our allegations were taken seriously. Never again can someone say that a young man who is dissatisfied with his circumcision as an infant is being frivolous when he objects to his mutilation and brings suit to obtain justice. This case should send a message to doctors that they run the risk of a lawsuit each time they circumcise an infant for non-therapeutic reasons, particularly when they rely on the hospital to obtain consent the day after birth. Social or cosmetic concerns provide no justification for harmful surgery. I would expect that this is just the first of many cases that will be brought by angry circumcised young men against their circumcisers." The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) first acknowledged that there was no medical justification for routine circumcision in 1971. In 1999, the AAP reaffirmed that it does not recommend routine circumcision. The American Medical Association concurred in 2000, calling routine circumcision "non-therapeutic." No national or international medical organization recommends routine circumcision. Edited March 28, 2009 by Dustdevil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eydawn Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 Scotty, thanks for adding virtually nothing to the conversation. ECP =? Prodisentasm = NOT A WORD. Did you mean Protestantism? Nobody has any right to comment on my sex life. Nothing wrong in this arena, and FYI, yes Mr. Eydawn is circumcised and sees no problem with circumcision. A half centimeter of foreskin (ok, maybe even a centimeter, depending on who's doing the circumcising) in exchange for reduced risk for AIDS (and therefore reduced risk of passing it to one's partners or their future children) seems logical in this losing battle against HIV. Especially when South Africa just joined the farking rest of the world admitting HIV-->AIDS! And WTF was the "would you like fries with that" quip about? Wanders away from the post disgustedly... Wendy CO EMT-B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts