Joseph4gi: blame game

(Side note: I never realized we are the same age. It’s cool)

http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-circumcision-blame-game.html?m=1

click the link for the entire article and diagrams

For what other medical treatment or procedure are parents in a position of entitlement to “decide” at whim, without any kind of clinical indication or medical diagnosis? For what other surgery are surgeons slaves to demanding parents? Do parents actually wield so much power?

Aren’t parents usually given the power to choose a method of treatment for their children AFTER a doctor has determined that there is some kind of clinical or medical necessity?

For these reasons and more, I believe Jonathon’s image is a false paradigm. This delusion of “parental choice” is a false paradigm invented by doctors, the trade unions they belong to, and it is perpetuated by the media.

In the special case of circumcision, however, physicians get away with profiting from this non-medical procedure on healthy, non-consenting individuals, by pawning off their responsibility on parents. Doctors push the paradigm of “the great parental decision” forward, and the media helps perpetuate it.

In their latest statement, the American Academy of Pediatrics came very close to, but stopped short of recommending infant circumcision for all infants (contrary to popular belief). Despite touting over and over again that “the benefits out weigh the risks,” they must still admit that the “benefits are not enough to recommend the procedure,” concluding that “the final decision should be made by parents.” (This was their exact position in their last statement in 1999.)

The result is a spineless, non-committal statement that sounds like an endorsement, if not outright recommendation, but is actually nothing more than self-absolution of professional responsibility, and the undue placement of an onus on parents.

Advertisements

Beyond the bris: post by young Jewish man

Very interesting read: from perspective of a circumcised Jewish young adult male.
http://www.beyondthebris.com/2012/03/me-but-not-my-son-young-jewish-man.html?spref=fb&m=1

Excerpts: please click the above link for full article.

By AL RUBENSTEIN

I am 21 years old, Jewish, and opposed to circumcision. I attend college in Indiana. I grew up in a small Southern town where my family was one of a handful of Jews. My parents were born and raised Jewish. I was circumcised when I was eight days old by a mohel at a brit milah.

My Jewish identity was always very important to me growing up. I went to synagogue a lot, spent my summers at a Jewish summer camp, had a bar mitzvah, and in high school was part of NFTY (North American Federation of Temple Youth). I went to Israel for a semester in high school. When I was a child and teenager, I was always proud to be Jewish, to be a part of G-d’s chosen people, to be in a culture that valued life and not death. I’m also a person who finds the idea of permanent body modification disturbing. I feel G-d made us the way we are for a reason. Every organ has a purpose. Even our imperfections are a sign of our individuality. When I found out I was circumcised, I was horrified.

………

It was difficult to talk to anyone about my feelings. When I did, I never got the support I was looking for. I had spoken to my parents about my own circumcision when I was 16. They didn’t take me seriously. My mom talked only of how difficult it was to get a mohel for me in our location. My dad laughed at my feebly spoken facts. In the end, they told me not to worry about it because it would be a long time before I had children. I felt defeated by that conversation. They made me feel I was wrong—that what I’d learned about circumcision and about the purpose and function of foreskin wasn’t true.

All I wanted from my parents was for them to say it was okay. That perhaps I had a point. I understood why my parents did this to me. I just needed some support. The conversation I had with my parents made everything worse. I still felt in my heart that what had been done to me was wrong, and that circumcision was a terrible thing, but I also felt I needed to accept the fact that I was circumcised and that one day, when I had sons, they would be too.

I finally broke out of the trap last summer when I realized two things. First, that people won’t care whether or not I circumcise my sons! Second, that it’s possible to undo some of the damage done by circumcision through a process called foreskin restoration.

…………..

No matter what, I can’t cut my kids. I will never know the advantages of being intact—how much difference this really makes—but I do know skinning a baby’s penis is wrong. I will give my sons the choice I never had. My boys will feel proud of what they are—Jewish and intact!

I also realized I had to do something about my penis. In the end, this is a very personal issue for me and waiting to make my stand when I have my first son isn’t enough. A lot of my feelings about circumcision come from feeling mutilated and less than human as a consequence of this procedure. So, I began restoring. Through consistent stretching of the remaining skin on the shaft of the penis, it’s possible over time to regain some of what I’ve lost. It can’t bring back everything—it cannot regrow nerves—but it does give me control over the issue. It’s making it so that when I look down there, I’m not focusing on what I’ve lost, but instead I’m fascinated by what I am gaining. It has allowed me to move on with my life, taking comfort in my own restoration.

……………..

Here are a few thoughts for dads and moms about talking to their circumcised sons. If your son ever comes and tells you he is angry or depressed because he was circumcised, be there for him. I think having someone to talk to, and who understands, would make all the difference in the world. Tell him about foreskin restoration and if he decides to do it, you support him. Even if he is worrying about having to circumcise kids he won’t have for another twenty years, these issues are very real to him, don’t dismiss them. Make sure he knows that if his circumcision is ever bothering him, he come to you and talk about it. I don’t feel like I got this support from my parents, but I hope you can give it to your son, if he goes through what I went through.

Future parents—if you aren’t sure about cutting your kids, please consider my experience. You don’t have to do it. I am not saying your child will feel like I do, but he might. I promise you he will be happy if you leave him be. He will be able to live life to its fullest because he will have every part he had coming out of the womb. He only gets one life on this planet. Give him the chance to experience it the way he is meant to.

…………….
A Comment on that article

(name removed)
And an intact Jewish male can always opt for brit milah at any time in later life. To choose milah for oneself after 21 years of age, believing that it is a mitzvah, and out of loyalty to the Jewish people and to millenia of Jewish tradition, carries a great deal of existential meaning. To cut a screaming newborn boy who cannot comprehend at all what he is experiencing, carries no meaning except cruelty to an infant.

Intactivism is NOT about abolishing Jewish circumcision. It is NOT about “forcing” spouses to experience marital intimacy with an unkosher penis. It is ONLY about delaying brit milah until it becomes an informed adult choice. Here’s hoping that Reform and Conservatice synagogues will accept without reservation congregants who had chosen to remain intact.

20120326-175743.jpg

20120326-175746.jpg

Powerful equal rights for both sexes picture

I am prolife. I believe that from conception there is a human child in the making. I hate abortion….
However, I recognize I cannot make a choice for another person’s body…
I can talk all I want but the choice is ultimately only that persons.
I don’t believe in male or female circumcision unless that person is an adult and chooses to undergo circumcision due to their personal, religious and/or cultural beliefs.

female circumcision fact sheet:http://www.womenshealth.gov/publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/female-genital-cutting.cfm

US fgm law: http://mgmbill.org/usfgmlaw.htm

complications of male circumcision: http://newborns.stanford.edu/CircComplications.html

the equal rights amendment: http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/faq.htm

equal protection under 14th amendment: since women are protected from any form of genital cutting, men should be protected as well. : http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

SECTION 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

20120205-095615.jpg

20120205-095619.jpg

Australian study of RIC

My link was taken from the whole network but the link to the original article is also Included.
I did not in anyway write this, only copy/paste

http://www.thewholenetwork.org/14/post/2011/10/new-study-australia-rejects-circumcision-as-a-preventative-for-hiv.html

Excerpt:

“Below is a recent study, published on October 4, 2011, by the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health. You can find the original paper here.

Objective: To conduct a critical review of recent proposals that widespread circumcision of male infants be introduced in Australia as a means of combating heterosexually transmitted HIV infection.

Approach: These arguments are evaluated in terms of their logic, coherence and fidelity to the principles of evidence-based medicine; the extent to which they take account of the evidence for circumcision having a protective effect against HIV and the practicality of circumcision as an HIV control strategy; the extent of its applicability to the specifics of Australia’s HIV epidemic; the benefits, harms and risks of circumcision; and the associated human rights, bioethical and legal issues.

Conclusion: Our conclusion is that such proposals ignore doubts about the robustness of the evidence from the African random-controlled trials as to the protective effect of circumcision and the practical value of circumcision as a means of HIV control; misrepresent the nature of Australia’s HIV epidemic and exaggerate the relevance of the African random-controlled trials findings to it; underestimate the risks and harm of circumcision; and ignore questions of medical ethics and human rights. The notion of circumcision as a ‘surgical vaccine’ is criticised as polemical and unscientific.

Implications: Circumcision of infants or other minors has no place among HIV control measures in the Australian and New Zealand context; proposals such as these should be rejected.”
———-
“Medical ethics and human rights
Even if the circumcision proposal were relevant to the Australian situation, to be ethically acceptable a medical intervention must pass the five tests proposed by Beauchamp and Childress:


Beneficence – does the proposed procedure provide a net therapeutic benefit to the patient, considering the risk, pain, and loss of normal function?

Non-maleficence – does the procedure avoid permanently diminishing the patient in any way that could be avoided?

Proportionality – will the final result provide a significant net benefit to the patient in proportion to the risk undertaken and the losses sustained?

Justice – will the patient be treated as fairly as we would all wish to be treated?

Autonomy – lacking life-threatening urgency, will the procedure honour the patient’s right to his or her own likely choice? Could it wait for the patient’s assent?77
Cooper et al. ignore ethical and human rights issues, but their proposal would not be acceptable unless it was established that non-therapeutic circumcision of non-consenting minors was permissible within the above guidelines. It has been argued that in the absence of a life-threatening disorder, surrogate consent for non-therapeutic surgery of this type is ethically problematic and may not be legally valid.78–80 When there is no urgency to intervene, it is best to wait until the child can provide his own informed consent.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1753-6405.2011.00761.x/full