Circumcision

[possibletarian]

The skin is an important organ, I agree. But circumcision only trims a little part of it, and there are a number of health benefits. Females are born without any excess skin, and do just fine.

Excess skin ? The Foreskin is a natural part of the penis.

Even if the health benefits are not convincing, how is it different from lasering off a birth-mark, or removing the nail quick to prevent it catching and worsening a wound?

Taking away something that is not normally there is not comparable, and birthmarks are normally done for cosmetic reasons, to prevent teasing or problems in real life, I have a birthmark, so does my daughter, both in areas people do not normally see, and even if seen it's tiny. In other words neither is done as a matter of course.

Why does it have almost universal support from men and women, doctors, paediatricians, nurses, health organisations etc. if it is so harmful?

In the US and other highly religious nations. or where it can make a lot of money it may have support, but not so round Europe where in some countries only a tiny part of the males are circumcised and almost always for religious reasons alone.

 

[Joshua_5]

Excess skin ? The Foreskin is a natural part of the penis.

Its excess skin covering the head of the male organ. Circumcision is considered natural by many.

Taking away something that is not normally there is not comparable, and birthmarks are normally done for cosmetic reasons, to prevent teasing or problems in real life, I have a birthmark, so does my daughter, both in areas people do not normally see, and even if seen it's tiny. In other words neither is done as a matter of course.

Some people remove birthmarks for cosmetic reasons, others choose not to. Neither choice seems wrong, but if the birthmark can lead to other health issues, it makes for a stronger case for its removal.

In the US and other highly religious nations. or where it can make a lot of money it may have support, but not so round Europe where in some countries only a tiny part of the males are circumcised and almost always for religious reasons alone.

So you believe the studies supporting the benefits of circumcision came to their conclusions based on profit? I'm not sure there's all that much money in the practice, given its a once in a lifetime treatment only, and for only a few hundred dollars.

 

[Nithavela]

Its excess skin covering the head of the male organ. Circumcision is considered natural by many.

Earlobes are excess skin hanging from the ear. Distending the earlobes with rings is considered natural by many.

So you believe the studies supporting the benefits of circumcision came to their conclusions based on profit? I'm not sure there's all that much money in the practice, given its a once in a lifetime treatment only, and for only a few hundred dollars.

Since this operation is done routinely to a large number of infants and only requires a few minutes and minimal equipment (which is of course payed for by the parents, anyway), it is highly profitable for the medical community. And the baby foreskin is then used profitably, for example for skin grafts and cosmestics.

Yes, cosmetics. You babies' foreskin is likely to be used to end up (in one form another) on the face of an old woman or man.

The Guggie Daily: The Cost of Circumcision

3 Surprising Uses For Infant Foreskins

Infant circumcision is less of a medical procedure and more of an organ donation, only that the parents foot the bill for the donation and noone would suggest that an infant should donate anything else from its body.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

Earlobes are excess skin hanging from the ear. Distending the earlobes with rings is considered natural by many.

Since this operation is done routinely to a large number of infants and only requires a few minutes and minimal equipment (which is of course payed for by the parents, anyway), it is highly profitable for the medical community. And the baby foreskin is then used profitably, for example for skin grafts and cosmestics.

Yes, cosmetics. You babies' foreskin is likely to be used to end up (in one form another) on the face of an old woman or man.

The Guggie Daily: The Cost of Circumcision

3 Surprising Uses For Infant Foreskins

Infant circumcision is less of a medical procedure and more of an organ donation, only that the parents foot the bill for the donation and noone would suggest that an infant should donate anything else from its body.

If your son's foreskin is going for face cream or medical research, it is being done only with your consent. Unless you sign a form saying otherwise, the only place that tissue goes is the garbage or the pathology lab (for diagnostic, not research or industry purposes).

 

[Nithavela]

If your son's foreskin is going for face cream or medical research, it is being done only with your consent. Unless you sign a form saying otherwise, the only place that tissue goes is the garbage or the pathology lab (for diagnostic, not research or industry purposes).

My post was not about the consent, it was about how lucrative the buisiness of infant circumcision is. From one foreskin, 4 acres of skin grafts can be grown, with each square foot worth 3000 dollars.

Also do you have any source for your claim that parents have to give consent and that they are routinely informed about the potential use as cosmetics? I couldn't find any with a quick google, and it is your claim.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

My post was not about the consent, it was about how lucrative the buisiness of infant circumcision is. From one foreskin, 4 acres of skin grafts can be grown, with each square foot worth 3000 dollars.

Also do you have any source for your claim that parents have to give consent and that they are routinely informed about the potential use as cosmetics? I couldn't find any with a quick google, and it is your claim.

My claim is as a physician. Medical ethics. Laws regarding consent.

 

[Nithavela]

My claim is as a physician. Medical ethics. Laws regarding consent.

That's cool, but my authority as a space cadet demands some kind of source. The only form of circumcision consent I could dredge up is the following, and it says nothing about the use of the foreskin:
http://gentlecirc.ca/consent.pdf

 

[EpiscipalMe]

That's cool, but my authority as a space cadet demands some kind of source.

Okay, don't believe me. I'm still right.

 

[Nithavela]

Okay, don't believe me. I'm still right.

Surely you see why your argument isn't very convincing?

If you haven't realised it yet, you are in the "debate and discussion" part of the board. "Take a hike" usually doesn't cut it around these parts if you're below 1 million posts.

 

[possibletarian]

Its excess skin covering the head of the male organ. Circumcision is considered natural by many.

Natural in what way ?

Some people remove birthmarks for cosmetic reasons, others choose not to. Neither choice seems wrong, but if the birthmark can lead to other health issues, it makes for a stronger case for its removal.

Birthmarks, and especially ugly ones are not the way the skin is meant to be, in other words it is an abnormality, foreskin is not.

So you believe the studies supporting the benefits of circumcision came to their conclusions based on profit?

Not entirely no, but aside of the debates here I've never heard of complications in leaving the foreskin where your god put it (supposedly) on the penis. In fact here in Europe it is quickly becoming an issue of abuse.

I'm not sure there's all that much money in the practice, given its a once in a lifetime treatment only, and for only a few hundred dollars.

Yes but so are lots of things like baby showers, burials of course they make money, you make it sound like they are running a charity.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

Surely you see why your argument isn't very convincing?

If you haven't realised it yet, you are in the "debate and discussion" part of the board. "Take a hike" usually doesn't cut it around these parts if you're below 1 million posts.

It isn't an argument, it's a statement of fact. In the US, there are numerous laws governing what can and cannot be done with human tissue with or without specific consent. Since I don't have US federal or local legal codes in front of me, I can't link them. I also don't have the time at the moment to go looking them up.

The controversy is "should circumcision be done to infants." What happens to the foreskin is a matter of law.

Edit: Had a few minutes. So, you can chew on this:
https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/decision-charts/index.html

 

[Nithavela]

It isn't an argument, it's a statement of fact. In the US, there are numerous laws governing what can and cannot be done with human tissue with or without specific consent. Since I don't have US federal or local legal codes in front of me, I can't link them. I also don't have the time at the moment to go looking them up.

The controversy is "should circumcision be done to infants." What happens to the foreskin is a matter of law.

Edit: Had a few minutes. So, you can chew on this:
https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/decision-charts/index.html

There's nothing to chew on, mate. I already told you that my post was making a completely different argument than what your post is concerned with. You can leave that poor strawman in peace, now.

 

[blackribbon]

Earlobes are excess skin hanging from the ear. Distending the earlobes with rings is considered natural by many.

Since this operation is done routinely to a large number of infants and only requires a few minutes and minimal equipment (which is of course payed for by the parents, anyway), it is highly profitable for the medical community. And the baby foreskin is then used profitably, for example for skin grafts and cosmestics.

Yes, cosmetics. You babies' foreskin is likely to be used to end up (in one form another) on the face of an old woman or man.

The Guggie Daily: The Cost of Circumcision

3 Surprising Uses For Infant Foreskins

Infant circumcision is less of a medical procedure and more of an organ donation, only that the parents foot the bill for the donation and noone would suggest that an infant should donate anything else from its body.

Do you really believe everything you read on the internet? The truth is that the foreskin is disposed of as medical waste...same other medical tissue. (and it is an extremely small piece of tissue). We have to get permission for the left over blood spots (hence wasted dried blood) used for the metabolic screening before they can be used to test other potential metabolic screenings because that "tissue" (the dried blood) is medical waste owned by the parents. Trust me, you would have to give permission and complete paperwork for a foreskin to be used as anything but medical waste. If the baby boy has a penile deformity, the baby will not get circumcised until he is older and they may use his own foreskin to make the repair. However, there is no huge market for infant foreskins.

And most of the surgical tools and supplies used for circumcisions are reusable...they get sterilized and used over and over. They are part of they cost...not extra. They are included in the cost of a circumcision...so they take away any little profit that their might be. Honestly, I suspect that there may be close to zero profit involved in an infant circumcision. And no, we don't line item bill for things like vasoline or gauze pads used to cover the circumcisions for the first 24 hours. I hand out Vaseline to any patient that requests it ... same as toothpaste or bath soap. If anything, it actually cost the hospital more to use it because you are charged the same whether you use it or not. It isn't a scanned product and doesn't requires a doctor's order (like chapstick does).

PS. The form to give permission to use the extra dried blood for the newborn screen is a document every parent has to sign. It is a huge explanation of what is being requested and comes with a brochure explaining it further. At the bottom is a place to check "yes" or "no"...and a parent has to sign. Think how much more paperwork would be required to use an actual piece of tissue removed from a body. This is simply blood dried on a piece of paper.

 

[blackribbon]

My post was not about the consent, it was about how lucrative the buisiness of infant circumcision is. From one foreskin, 4 acres of skin grafts can be grown, with each square foot worth 3000 dollars.

Also do you have any source for your claim that parents have to give consent and that they are routinely informed about the potential use as cosmetics? I couldn't find any with a quick google, and it is your claim.

His claim is correct. I work in a hospital and we are extremely regulated if we want to stay in business. I am even told where I can legally drink water and where I can't (not on the unit even though the patients drink water on the unit). Tissue belongs to the patient...even after it is removed. It is highly regulated. Because it is through tissue that diseases can be transmitted, if we can't return it to the patient or needs to send it to be checked for diseases like cancer, we have to guard it's privacy and destroy it properly. A nursing student was dismissed from nursing school for taking a picture of her holding a placenta that was about to be disposed of and posting it on facebook...this was a violation of HIPAA, patient's right to privacy. (The placenta has to be inspected to make sure it is complete before we can dispose of it). The actual tissue is even more regulated than a picture of it.

 

[Meowzltov]

Its excess skin covering the head of the male organ. Circumcision is considered natural by many.

LIke cutting hair or fingernails.

 

[Nithavela]

LIke cutting hair or fingernails.

Except that hair and fingernails grow back...

 

[Vyrzaharak]

What do you guys think?

I have no reason to suspect it's anything more than an act of aggression. If you want to be circumcised, great, but don't force that on your kids. (Same with child baptism.)

Except that hair and fingernails grow back...

Plus, it's more often than not done without choice.

 

[L a n a]

I don't plan on circumcising any sons I might have. They'll learn about proper hygiene and safe sex practices when they reach the appropriate age. If their genitalia isn't aesthetically appealing to their future partners/spouses, or if they personally want to go through this cosmetic procedure, then they will be free to do so when they are adults and can consent to it.

Having a foreskin is totally natural, no need to get rid of it if it aint causing any harm.

 

[Joshua_5]

Except that hair and fingernails grow back...

And if the excess skin did, you would simply use this as further justification that the simple preventative procedure was done for profit. Warts and birthmarks don't grow back, but so what?

 

[Joshua_5]

I don't plan on circumcising any sons I might have. They'll learn about proper hygiene and safe sex practices when they reach the appropriate age. If their genitalia isn't aesthetically appealing to their future partners/spouses, or if they personally want to go through this cosmetic procedure, then they will be free to do so when they are adults and can consent to it.

I think the problem is some people want to impose their view on what others can and can't do. There is no group trying to enact legislation to force you to circumcise your future sons. But some people are trying to ban others from circumcising their own children, when it has been done without issue for thousands of years.

While waiting until the sons are much older for them or their wives to decide is okay for some, some want or need to circumcise much earlier for religious or health reasons, and I don't see a problem with parents making such a decision, either.