German court prohibits cir cisions

[mavs>spurs]

lmao lmao classic pussy ass submissive mentality " nobody in a position of authority could ever do any wrong, they're the gods "

you may be the most naive inbred i've ever run across on the internet. ever heard of a malpractice lawsuit? Did you know that doctors are one of the leading causes of death? Sounds like you need to get smacked in the face by the cir cised of reality brah.

[TE]

lmao lmao classic pussy ass submissive mentality " nobody in a position of authority could ever do any wrong, they're the gods "

you may be the most naive inbred i've ever run across on the internet. ever heard of a malpractice lawsuit? Did you know that doctors are one of the leading causes of death? Sounds like you need to get smacked in the face by the cir cised of reality brah.

[mavs>spurs]

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.

last post was to shasta, now to address this.

among women who have had unprotected sex with both, they overwhelmingly prefer intact. the foreskin allows for easier entry, less painful sex, and creates its own lubrication to prevent dryness and chafing. the gliding "rolling" motion of the foreskin is pleasurable to the female as well and some say that it better stimulates the gspot.

I've seen surveys where they ask all sorts of questions, and intact men are less likely to report sexual frustration and their women are less likely to report not being satisfied. The foreskin is very nerve dense with specialized nerve endings different than those in the regular shaft skin. the ringed band and frenelum are akin to the clit in terms of sensitivity. there have been some studies showing that it increases ED, but this is not yet conclusive. all i can say is that the US and israel combine to form the vast majority of Viagra's market share. that's all i can really tell you.

[leemajors]

No foreskin, more foreplay then. Problem solved.

[mavs>spurs]

yeah but it's kind of lame to not be able to please your woman quite as good as you otherwise could when ing her had your doctor just stayed the away from your when you were too young to stop him. so you have to resort to fingers, tongues, and other tactics. that's exactly why america has a fixation on oral sex and sex stores with all sorts of dildos and vibrators and . the men here are sexually broken and can't get the ing job done between cir cision and beetus. if you're intact (or cir cised but overly large) then your is all you need except this is unlikely as america has one of the smallest sizes by country due to the fact that most of the men have been robbed of skin to grow into and DHT receptors, so they're 1 inch smaller on average.

[Shastafarian]

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).

So we're arguing basically the same thing

The oath is a different thing all together. If the oath alone would keep doctors in check, we wouldn't need malpractice laws.

No doubt. But if cir cision was as bad as *some* people claim, then the doctors would all know they're doing harm.

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'.

Not at all. My claim is that the assertation that cir cision is a rights violation or severely detrimental is bull . If doctors knowingly (according to Skin International PR Rep) do this procedure, they are knowingly violating their oath (Where did you get the 98% btw?).

[Shastafarian]

lmao lmao classic pussy ass submissive mentality " nobody in a position of authority could ever do any wrong, they're the gods "

60,000 doctors all knowingly do this.

you may be the most naive inbred i've ever run across on the internet. ever heard of a malpractice lawsuit? Did you know that doctors are one of the leading causes of death? Sounds like you need to get smacked in the face by the cir cised of reality brah.

Oh doctors are one of the leading causes of death? Show me stats please.

[mavs>spurs]

i had an argument the other day with a med student who is also anti cir cision. he's done a fair amount of research with his access to scholarly databases for school and he found that cir cised men are almost an inch smaller on average. he kept saying that causation doesn't necessarily mean correlation and I see his point, but what i kept saying is my gut feeling is that in this case, cir cision is the cause. i mean it makes perfect sense from the point of view of someone with a brain, and i got a big beef with that. who the gave society the right to decide that i was too dangerous, too masculine left intact so they had to "tone me down" a bit with cir cision? if you learn about the history and psychology behind cir cision, it's always been about a form of control and a societal urge to deter sex. read what the ancient jewish scholar moses maimonides had to say about cir cision. he believed that it's purpose was to "weaken the organ, but yet not render childbearing impossible" so that people still had kids and furthered the race but anything deemed too much or extra was curbed.


i got a major ing problem with that. i will be bringing my case against the bas soon but you'd better believe that if i lose the court case it doesn't end there.

[leemajors]

yeah but it's kind of lame to not be able to please your woman quite as good as you otherwise could when ing her had your doctor just stayed the away from your when you were too young to stop him. so you have to resort to fingers, tongues, and other tactics. that's exactly why america has a fixation on oral sex and sex stores with all sorts of dildos and vibrators and . the men here are sexually broken and can't get the ing job done between cir cision and beetus. if you're intact (or cir cised but overly large) then your is all you need except this is unlikely as america has one of the smallest sizes by country due to the fact that most of the men have been robbed of skin to grow into and DHT receptors, so they're 1 inch smaller on average.

i would imagine most women prefer a little foreplay, regardless of whether you are cir cised or not. everyone loves oral sex because it's awesome tbh.

[Shastafarian]

i had an argument the other day with a med student who is also anti cir cision.

a battle of wits I'm sure

he's done a fair amount of research with his access to scholarly databases for school and he found that cir cised men are almost an inch smaller on average.

Either you're lying, you're the most gullible person alive, or he's full of . Ya know, I bet it's all 3. There are SCHOLARLY studies that keep track of length? I gotta see these. What journals were they published in? American Journal of Wiener Sizes?

he kept saying that causation doesn't necessarily mean correlation and I see his point, but what i kept saying is my gut feeling is that in this case, cir cision is the cause. i mean it makes perfect sense from the point of view of someone with a brain,

Oh it makes sense? Please go over the development of the male urogenital tract and why it makes sense. Thanks.

and i got a big beef with that. who the gave society the right to decide that i was too dangerous, too masculine left intact so they had to "tone me down" a bit with cir cision? if you learn about the history and psychology behind cir cision, it's always been about a form of control and a societal urge to deter sex. read what the ancient jewish scholar moses maimonides had to say about cir cision. he believed that it's purpose was to "weaken the organ, but yet not render childbearing impossible" so that people still had kids and furthered the race but anything deemed too much or extra was curbed.

Sure. I mean I'm sure people who lived thousands of years ago knew more about it than we do.

i got a major ing problem with that. i will be bringing my case against the bas soon but you'd better believe that if i lose the court case it doesn't end there.

Amazing. A life spent suing people because he's unhappy with his penis.

[Shastafarian]

Still waiting on those doctors killing people stats

[ElNono]

Not at all. My claim is that the assertation that cir cision is a rights violation or severely detrimental is bull . If doctors knowingly (according to Skin International PR Rep) do this procedure, they are knowingly violating their oath (Where did you get the 98% btw?).

Doctors would be in much deeper due to mounting lawsuits.

Here's the info about the oath rate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocr..._and_relevance

[boutons_deux]

3 years ago:

Still waiting on those doctors killing people stats

Deaths from avoidable medical error more than double in past decade, investigation shows

http://www.scientificamerican.com/bl...ror-2009-08-10




Prescription Drug Deaths Skyrocket

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/1...ths-skyrocket/




Hospital Acquired Infections Costly, Preventable

http://www.medpagetoday.com/Hospital...nControl/28185

[mavs>spurs]

a battle of wits I'm sure

lol like your pussy re ed ass could ever make it through med school

Still waiting on those doctors killing people stats

3 years ago:



Deaths from avoidable medical error more than double in past decade, investigation shows

http://www.scientificamerican.com/bl...ror-2009-08-10




Prescription Drug Deaths Skyrocket

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/1...ths-skyrocket/




Hospital Acquired Infections Costly, Preventable

http://www.medpagetoday.com/Hospital...nControl/28185

owned

[TE]

[Shastafarian]

lol like your pussy re ed ass could ever make it through med school

We'll know for sure in 21 months. I have a feeling I will though.

owned

Is that you describing your general feelings on life?

[Shastafarian]

3 years ago:


Deaths from avoidable medical error more than double in past decade, investigation shows

http://www.scientificamerican.com/bl...ror-2009-08-10

Original findings no longer available through that link and "avoidable medical error" is never defined. Also doesn't take into account absolute population/surgery differences between years.

Prescription Drug Deaths Skyrocket

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/1...ths-skyrocket/

People misusing their prescriptions is the doctor's fault?

Hospital Acquired Infections Costly, Preventable

http://www.medpagetoday.com/Hospital...nControl/28185

Also not necessarily a doctor's fault that nosocomial infections have increased. It's the environment coupled with the patient's immune system.

A valiant effort at proving doctors are "one of the leading causes of death". But a failed attempt nonetheless.

[Shastafarian]

Doctors would be in much deeper due to mounting lawsuits.

Here's the info about the oath rate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocr..._and_relevance

I'm not sure I follow. People sue doctors all the time, usually for malpractice based on some mistake they made or some detail they overlooked. Skin International is claiming that the doctors KNOWINGLY harm their patients, all for money.

[ElNono]

I'm not sure I follow. People sue doctors all the time, usually for malpractice based on some mistake they made or some detail they overlooked.

Willful or not, it's still covered under malpractice laws and regulations.

My point is that the oath carries no weight because there's no legal implications for breaking it. A doctor could order a few extra unnecessary tests in order to bill for them, which effectively breaks the 'oath', but it would be near damn impossible to sue him under malpractice in that case.

[Pelicans78]

Willful or not, it's still covered under malpractice laws and regulations.

My point is that the oath carries no weight because there's no legal implications for breaking it. A doctor could order a few extra unnecessary tests in order to bill for them, which effectively breaks the 'oath', but it would be near damn impossible to sue him under malpractice in that case.

To be honest, alot of doctors order extra tests so they don't get sued. Plus, not all doctors get paid for the tests they order. Actually most don't.

[ElNono]

To be honest, alot of doctors order extra tests so they don't get sued. Plus, not all doctors get paid for the tests they order. Actually most don't.

Well, you're talking about another issue, which is what insurance companies require from the doctors in order to cover a claim. I work with doctors, and I know that if they don't check your blood pressure, your temperature, weight, etc when you walk in (regardless of what you're there for), and fill up the basic chart, insurance might not want to pay the 'office visit' charge.

As far as getting paid for the tests they themselves complete (for example, electrocardiograms are normally conducted by doctors in their offices these days. Or specialists like eye doctors will do OCT scanning in the premises), they normally do get paid for them.

[Shastafarian]

Willful or not, it's still covered under malpractice laws and regulations.

Again, I tend to believe a doctor wouldn't willfully do something like that just because it's covered on his/her malpractice insurance.

My point is that the oath carries no weight because there's no legal implications for breaking it. A doctor could order a few extra unnecessary tests in order to bill for them, which effectively breaks the 'oath', but it would be near damn impossible to sue him under malpractice in that case.

It seems people have no faith in their doctors. If a board of review found out a doctor ordered unnecessary tests for monetary gain (and they would know, being comprised of people smarter than Skin International), that doctor would definitely be penalized. Performing a procedure that supposedly mutilates and forever damages a patient's body would surely get their license revoked.

Let's forget oaths. If doctors TRULY believed cir cision was a scourge on male genitalia, as Skin International says, the majority wouldn't perform it. If someone can find me stats on doctors refusing to perform cir cision vs. doctors that perform it I'll be glad to take a look. Then again a wise man once said, "Statistics cannot PROVE anything".

[Pelicans78]

Well, you're talking about another issue, which is what insurance companies require from the doctors in order to cover a claim. I work with doctors, and I know that if they don't check your blood pressure and you temperature when you walk in (regardless of what you're there for), and fill up the basic chart, insurance might not want to pay the 'office visit' charge.

As far as getting paid for the tests they themselves complete (for example, electrocardiograms are normally conducted by doctors in their offices these days. Or specialists like eye doctors will do OCT scanning in the premises), they normally do get paid for them.

That is true. But a lot of doctors are employees now so even if they order those tests, the charges go to whoever runs the clinic whether its a hospital or medical group.

Also, alot of doctors order tests just to cover their asses so they don't miss something.

[ElNono]

Again, I tend to believe a doctor wouldn't willfully do something like that just because it's covered on his/her malpractice insurance.

I agree with that. I'm just saying that the oath is probably the least of his concerns.

It seems people have no faith in their doctors. If a board of review found out a doctor ordered unnecessary tests for monetary gain (and they would know, being comprised of people smarter than Skin International), that doctor would definitely be penalized. Performing a procedure that supposedly mutilates and forever damages a patient's body would surely get their license revoked.

I guess people have different experiences. We write medical software and you see all kind of doctors and practices. The ones that move bulk patients like cattle, and the guy that takes his time with them. On a personal experience level, I've had doctors that listened and helped tremendously when my wife lost her insurance and we had to pay out of pocket, and other doctors that wouldn't refill a prescription if you didn't show up and pay for an office visit. So YMMV.

[ElNono]

That is true. But a lot of doctors are employees now so even if they order those tests, the charges go to whoever runs the clinic whether its a hospital or medical group.

Also, alot of doctors order tests just to cover their asses so they don't miss something.

There's a lot of characters out there. That's why I said earlier, if you find a doctor you feel comfortable with, stick with him. We have a bunch of guys now that remember who we are every time we walk in and what not. That's not always the norm. We've also run across guys that made us wait 3+ hours, the PA did most of the work and they only show up for 3 mins to sign off the charts.