Reply With Quote
what does a vagina doctor know about ? sorry brah, some obscure vagina college isn't a standard setting medical organization.
you also shot yourself in the ass but elnono already pointed that out.
Although health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine cir cision for all male newborns, the benefits of cir cision are sufficient to justify access to this procedure for families choosing it and to warrant third-party payment for cir cision of male newborns. It is important that clinicians routinely inform parents of the health benefits and risks of male newborn cir cision in an unbiased and accurate manner
you also shot yourself in the ass but elnono already pointed that out.
Just don't let that quack, who claims to be my surgeon do any of these procedures. He is not my surgeon!
More than you'll ever know I'm sure. Even without that organization, how many of the 60,000 members of the AAP should have their license revoked? All of them?
How's that? Because I posted something that isn't "IT'S VIOLATING HUMAN RIGHTS!!! ARRGGGH I WANNA HANG METAL ON MY SKIN!" or "IT'S COMPLETELY NORMAL AND HEALTHY!!!"you also shot yourself in the ass but elnono already pointed that out.
.
No, it's because the link You posted explicitly stated that the "benefits" are not great enough to recommend cir cision. Elnono highlighted it for you.
my father is a surgeon. I am not cir cised because he knows it is not a necessity.
the benefits of cir cision are sufficient to justify access to this procedure for families choosing it
"Although health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine cir cision for all male newborns"
Lmao yeah that's what I've been noticing, plenty of doctors who are quick to cir cise other people's kids know better than the actually cir cise their own. Most sons of physicians aren't cir cised.
That would still be violating, at least according to you and Skin International, their hippocratic oath to "first do no harm". If they knowingly perform a procedure and think it's detrimental to the person, that is breaking the oath. Comprehend?"Although health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine cir cision for all male newborns"
how many have you talked to?ask a european doctor about cir cision.
Again, a violation of their oath.medical profession here is very profit driven, they treat things not necessarily in the interest of the patient but in the way that is most profitable.
It's what you have been noticing?
Do you hang out with a lot of doctors? You peek under their son's shorts to see if they're cir cised?
shasta, you actually believe doctors nowadays strictly abide to the Hippocratic oath (of which you stated)?
yeah, that's crazy putting stock on an oath... what's even funnier is that the oath has changed over time. I do think American doctors are afraid insurance co's might stop paying for the procedure if deemed unnecessary. Doctors here already fight enough with insurance to give them a reason not to cover another procedure.
All that said, and as I said earlier, parents should be able to decide if they want their kids to have the procedure done, and if the kids grows up to hate it, they can sue the parents.
Agree with the first part, but disagree with this part here. Suing takes time and money, and even then you're not likely to get much in the end. There is no true res ution for something that should have NEVER even happened in the first place. Ask any guy who's had a botched cir cision and their life ruined if they would rather have the 20,000 or a functioning . It's a no brainer.
Imagine dude...from birth you never had any self confidence because your parents ruined your for absolutely no good reason. When you're growing up and all your friends are chasing girls...you can't. You become socially awkward and never get to grow up and get married or raise a family. All for no good reason. It's really sad and devastating for some guys.
Parents don't have the right to irreversibly modify their childrens bodies like branding cattle, they are not property. This is like the only weird cosmetic procedure people look the other way on, it's not like if parents were cutting off limbs or doing that old school with the rings that elongates your neck people would allow it. So why allow cir cision? We now know that it's sexually harmful. The foreskin is a primary erogenous zone, necessary for BOTH partners to get the full sexual experience.
Last edited by mavs>spurs; 08-29-2012 at 09:32 PM.
And lol at the thought doctors aren't out to make a buck. Those guys are only trained in one tiny fragment of the entire spectrum of medicine. They know how to treat only with pharmaceuticals and surgeries..in most cases I'd prefer a holistic doctor. Statistics show that you're more likely to be killed by your doctor than most other ways including dying by a mass shooter, but people still freak out about guns but yet TRUST their doctor it's irrational.
Well, stuff like this happens all the time though. Some people making decisions and other people ending up maimed, or worse, dead. Even though people sometimes think there might not be enough money to make amends, courts still award what's considered fair. This wouldn't be any different.
Well, I hate to generalize though. There's a lot of doctors that don't care, but here and there you'll actually find good doctors that do care. We've been fortunate enough to find one or two of those with the wife, and obviously we're sticking with them. But yeah, for the most part, $$$ rules.
The reason why cir cisions prevent more STD is because the foreskin allows easier transmission of bodily fluids due to broken skin and more blood vessels. However, most STDs can be prevented with condoms except for herpes and human papilloma virus which both easily penetrate through condoms.
The first cir cision video shown by M>S had to have hurt the baby. The doctor didn't inject the penis to numb it. If injected correctly, babies shouldn't feel any pain during the procedure.
, CNN ran an article as recently as 1997 saying that 96% of cir cisions were performed without anesthetic. So I know mine didnt use anything. And not every doctor even does today, not even close. The medical establishment gets 2 middle fingers from me. I don't go to a doctor unless I absolutely have to.
Lol accidentally logged into rogues account and posted that but yeah
1997 isn't that recent, but that is an alarming stat. Not using anesthetic is unacceptable. Its so easy to numb it. Takes less than 30 seconds and the effects last way more than the procedure.
That said, it is an elective procedure. Should never be recommended. That's why its a cash procedure. Insurances don't cover it for a reason. Not sure why anyone would recommend it.
To be fair, I don't use accountants for my taxes.
Crazy putting stock in an oath??? If the higher ups ever found out that a doctor or doctors were performing a procedure they KNEW was detrimental to a patient, yet continued to do it anyway, that doctor(s) would lose their license or at the very least have it suspended.
Just because an oath seems silly doesn't mean it's ignored. And if Skin International is right about cir cision, then all those doctors would be under review.
But, personally, I'm not arguing cir cision is detrimental to a patient. I'm simply arguing that it's not a procedure whose benefits are necessarily clear cut (and thus their own recognition that it shouldn't necessarily be done to all newborns).
The oath is a different thing all together. If the oath alone would keep doctors in check, we wouldn't need malpractice laws.
Half of doctors in the UK don't take any oaths during graduation. Even in the US, 98% of doctors take the oath, which means there's a 2% whose degree and ability to practice isn't any different from the other 98%, yet under your claim, they would need to be under investigation. There's no such thing. If they up, they're going to get their ass sued, and the claim will likely have nothing to do with breaking the 'oath'.
I agree that cir cision is largely unnecessary and should not be done without the affected person's consent, but the last two sentences are very misleading. Some cir cisions are sexually harmful, but most are not. If you had a harmful cir cision, of course you will likely not be able to have a full sexual experience. But to imply that a foreskin is necessary for both partners to have a full sexual experience is very disingenuous.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions