« BACK TO FORUM
 Author |
 Post
|
 |
|
Saint
Joined: Jul 15, 2003
Posts: 1 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male & 28
Country: Nigeria
Province/State: Plateau
City: Jos
|
is circumsion ethical?
August 8, 2003 - 12:02 PM
|
|
Circumcision is a surgical procedure that removes the foreskin (the loose tissue) covering the glans of the penis. This may be done using surgical clamp techniques or a special disposable plastic device called a Plastibell. The results are equally good. Circumcision is generally a safe surgical procedure if the following conditions are met: If it is done with care and is performed by a trained, experienced practitioner; If it is done using strict aseptic (sterile) technique and It’s done only on a healthy, stable infant.
Physicians began circumcising male children - and adults when they could - in England in the mid-1800s, after two Frenchmen introduced their “Degenerative Theory of Disease,” which claimed that everyone is born with a finite amount of energy. Over-expenditure of that energy, they said, leads to debility and susceptibility to disease. This idea dovetailed with the strictness of behavior and the gravity of “spilling the seed” in puritanical Victorian England. Soon after England began circumcising male minors, the US followed its lead. Near the turn of the century, the Germ Theory of Disease was introduced, and suddenly the already maligned foreskin was further demonized as harboring germs. Hygiene became the new pretext for excising foreskins. From then on, medical pretexts for circumcision corresponded to the dreaded diseases of the time: the penile cancer scare of the ’30s, the cervical cancer scare of the ’50s, and the sexually transmitted diseases that came with the sexual revolution in the ’60s. By the end of World War II, most babies were born in hospitals, and the pretexts to circumcise - coupled with insurance coverage - made the intact penis a rarity among American males. Other pretexts for circumcision emerged: “He won’t look like his father,” “He’ll look different from the other boys,” “He’ll feel different in the locker room.” These arguments were never used, of course, when circumcision was adopted and circumcised babies had intact fathers and grandfathers. During the 1980s, a new pretext for circumcision was found: prevention of urinary tract infections, perpetrators argued that without circumcision, increasing numbers of males would end up on dialysis machines from kidney failure. They ignored the fact that 85% of the males in the world are not circumcised and are not on dialysis machines. Sexually transmitted diseases again became a pretext for circumcision during the 1990s, and perpetrators now added the most dreaded disease of all: AIDS. Perhaps no pretext for routine circumcision reveals the irrationality of the circumcision mindset more than the claim that circumcision confers protection against AIDS. The US has one of the highest male circumcision rates and one of the highest HIV infection rates in the world.
The practice of the painful mutilation of the foreskins of infant males in America rests upon biblical and religious traditions plus spurious medical fiction (prevention of penile infection, penile cancer, cervical cancer in partners of uncircumcised males). Until recently in the societies in which it is practiced, circumcision has been regarded as a necessary condition of life. "It is the custom of our people." Many would claim. Especially Africans and Americans. Reasons for deeply rooted traditions are often difficult to articulate, and therefore are easily discounted. Judaism views circumcision as both a covenant rite and a religious ceremony, rather than just as surgery. American beliefs about circumcision are: Males are inherently pathological, requiring correction at birth. Male genitalia are not worthy of preservation. Natural male genitalia are a health hazard. Natural male genitalia are inherently unclean. Males do not experience pain; they require no anesthesia. It is better to cut away part of a boy's penis than to give a parent the task of cleaning it. A male's body does not belong to him, but to some social group (religion or medicine), which acts "for his own good." Restraining a male and cutting his genitals is good for him.
Circumcision is considered advantageous because: the foreskin increases the risk of male and female infections. ‘Current new-born circumcision is considered a preventative health measure analogous to immunization in that side effects and complications are immediate and usually minor, but benefits accrue for a lifetime’. Circumcision reduces the risk of vaginal infections. The proponents of not circumcising stress that lifelong penile hygiene is required. The bacteria start multiplying immediately after washing and contribute, along with skin secretions, to the whitish film, termed ‘smegma’, that is formed under the foreskin. ‘What man after a night of passion is going to perform penile hygiene before rolling over and snoring the night away whilst organisms are multiplying in the warm moist environment under the prepuce?’ When physical problems are encountered like. Phimosis (inability to retract the foreskin) is normal in very young boys, if still present after age 6 it is regarded as a problem. Paraphimosis (where the retracted foreskin cannot be brought back again over the glans) is a very painful problem, relieved by circumcision or slitting the dorsal surface of the foreskin. To pediatric surgeons, the most obvious medical reasons for circumcision are balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and posthitis (inflammation of the foreskin), which are very painful conditions virtually limited to uncircumcised males. The need for an appliance for urinary drainage in quadriplegics and in senile men is facilitated if they are circumcised. Boys and men who are not circumcised can be a source of irritation if they do not retract the foreskin when they urinate, as ‘splatter’ will occur. Foreskin problems also mean intercourse is painful. Another condition, Frenular chordee, results from an unusually thick and often tight frenulum and prevents the foreskin from fully retracting. The frenulum then tears during intercourse or masturbation. Excising the frenulum during a circumcision can solve this problem. Frenoplasty (removing just the tight frenulum) is also possible. Being uncircumcised you have a higher risk contracting syphilis and gonorrhea. Cancer of the penis is almost completely confined to uncircumcised men and, less commonly, in those circumcised after the newborn period. Coming to Emotional Advantages, Circumcised men are much more content with the appearance of their genitals. In many cultures being circumcised is a rite of passage with many psycho-social meanings attached to the procedure. For many, circumcision is a method of displaying kinship and a common identity amongst others. Sexually Woman generally prefer to have sex with circumcised men and find the exposed glans much more arousing. No risk of offensive odors spoiling the moment when impromptu sexual activity occurs. With the glans permanently exposed to greater friction, orgasms are reported to be much more intense. When performing oral sex most partners prefer their lover to be circumcised. Most teenagers/adult who have had themselves circumcised report an improvement in their sexual functioning.
The circumcision of a newborn violates maternal instinct and impairs infant bonding. Mother is disempowered, and baby is primarily wounded. Circumcision encodes the infant brain with pain associated with a part of the body meant to experience pleasure. The baby becomes both victim and potential victimizer, and the cycle of violence perpetuates itself from one generation to the next.
. Loss of the foreskin nerves. The inner foreskin possesses a greater density of nerve endings and is probably more erogenous than even the glans. This tremendous amount of sensitivity is lost completely when the foreskin is amputated. Also, the most sensitive part of the penis, the frenulum of the foreskin, is removed in most infant circumcisions. The frenulum is the continuation of the inner foreskin, which attaches to the underside of the glans. Thus, circumcision robs us of a large percentage, if not the majority, of erogenous nerve endings to the penis. Damage to the glans. The erogenous sensitivity that remains after circumcision is primarily in the glans. This is further reduced by the removal of the protective foreskin, which leaves the glans permanently exposed. The penis head developed over millions of years of evolution as an internal organ, meant to be safely enclosed by the prepuce. The skin covering of the glans is the foreskin. The glans becomes artificially keratinized (dry, hardened, discolored, and wrinkled) as a result of permanent exposure, and thus significantly less sensitive. Loss of skin mobility. The nerve endings in the glans are best stimulated by a rolling massage action. Direct friction tends to fire off pain receptors causing irritation and also causes further keratinization of the glans. With the skin system of the penis significantly reduced by circumcision, the mobility is essentially gone and now the penis is a static mass with no dynamic self-stimulation mechanism. Direct friction is now the primary form of stimulation. So circumcision further reduces erogenous sensitivity in the penis by reducing skin mobility and thus the ability to use the foreskin to massage the glans. It further promotes the problems of passing urine i.e. taking a long time to urinate, mostly, women with obstructions. It increases the pain of menstruation by making menstruation blood get stucked. Increases itching or burning or discharge from pelvic area. For sexually active women it increases the pain or difficulty of having sexual relationship.
Health centers can create or eliminate barriers for minority communities by choosing to address the issues their patients consider most important. Offer recommendations for working with African communities. Once clinicians establish trust and dialogue with communities, they may receive requests to perform genital surgeries on children. Clinicians have a duty to inform families who want to circumcise their children, or who are from an area with a high prevalence of circumcision, about the complications of these practices. The physician can explain that to perform these surgeries on minors is illegal in the United States, and is currently considered, by many, to be a form of child abuse ties. As with all behaviors health workers should try to discourage this practice, however, providers should support families, with sensitivity and without sensationalism, or risk a backlash of secrecy and mistrust. The strategy of medicalizing ritual genital surgery and then trying to eradicate it as if it were a disease, without recognizing the larger sociocultural context of which it is but one part, will be unsuccessful. It will continue until societies that practice it decide the practice is damaging to the welfare of their children. Only efforts to improve the social and economic status of men and women, and education from within communities, can alter this practice. In our clinical setting, once we gained the patients’ and community’s trust, women and men would solicit our opinion and advice about circumcising their boys and girls, and community members would occasionally inform us of persons hoping to circumcise their children, so we could intervene before this occurred. Organizations such as the Research, Action and Information Network for Bodily Integrity of Woman (RAINBO), and Equality Now should be in the forefront. Refugees may adhere to traditions to remain part of the culture and country to which they hope to return. This must be discouraged. Many women fear uncircumcised children will not be part of their cultural lineage, will have genitalia considered unclean or ugly, and will not be protected from external and internal pressures to be inappropriately sexually active, without a chastity belt of flesh?" Other women are eager to stop the practice. Both groups of women will need the support of community members and clinicians in initiating this cultural change. In conclusion, clinicians face a challenge when providing care to patients with beliefs and practices that differ from their own. The current Western view of female circumcision as barbaric and primitive has undoubtedly influenced clinicians’ attitudes toward circumcised women. These factors contribute to African women’s feelings of being misunderstood and sub optimally treated by American health care providers. Physicians should understand the medical complications and cultural context of circumcision, and clarify their own views about the practice and the patients if they are to offer quality care to circumcise children. Partnerships between clinicians and communities will promote communication and optimal care. Doctors, who refuse to stop circumcising, should be sued or shown the way out. Children genital mutilation has to be outlawed in the United States.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Elizabeth
Joined: Jul 1, 2003
Posts: 90 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Country: United States
Province/State: Massachusetts
|
Re: is circumsion ethical?
August 29, 2003 - 04:42 AM
|
|
I am impressed with all the research you have found about circumcisions, but it is a religious tradition and has been practiced for thousnads of year. More and more practices now a days are being stamped unafe and unethical. You can put that information out there, but your influence will only go so far with each individual. Also, traditions globaly are becoming more modern, so circumcisions may not take place in every traditional family.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Elizabeth
Joined: Jul 1, 2003
Posts: 90 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Country: United States
Province/State: Massachusetts
|
Re: is circumsion ethical?
August 29, 2003 - 04:55 AM
|
|
After reading it more closely I also see that there are positive and negative effects to performing the procedure and not performing the procedure. I t is a very hard decision to make and really can influence a boys childhood and adulthood.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
jesse adams
Joined: Dec 16, 2003
Posts: 73 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Country: United States
Province/State: Nevada
City: Reno
|
Re: is circumsion ethical?
January 2, 2004 - 01:52 AM
|
|
"A little bit off the top sir"
The arguments are well presented, I personaly disagree with circumsision (I am desperately holding back from saying I need all I can get). However, a great many cicumsiscions are performed due to religous criteria. These wil not be stopped, there are several organisations dedicated to stoopping this, there are even treatments to stretch the remaining skin to develop a forced foreskin. I have even heard of individuals suiing parents for assault.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Luke Lieberman
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 3007 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 33
Country: United States
Province/State: California
|
Re: is circumsion ethical?
January 2, 2004 - 02:29 AM
|
|
well to begin the practice goes much farther back than the 1800's - as in thousands of years.
I think basically every guy I know is circumsized - as in everyone - and none of them have had any problems. It is generally a matter of course for Americans. I think all this talk about mutilation etc. is a gross exaggeration - just have it done by someone trained properly to do it and you'll be fine.
In terms of the health reasons - I think it had more to do with infections created by bacteria getting under the extra layer of skin - but really it is just that the extra layer is just extra, useless skin that has no purpose - so why not remove it.
That and many will tell you that removing the extra foreskin leaves a more sensitive head which leads to a more pleasurable sexual experience ;-)
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
jesse adams
Joined: Dec 16, 2003
Posts: 73 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Country: United States
Province/State: Nevada
City: Reno
|
Re: is circumsion ethical?
January 2, 2004 - 03:16 AM
|
|
Beg to differ on the pleasurable sex thing. That is just a rumour put about by you round heads. I am very attached (in a spiritual,sexual and physical) way to my useless bit of skin (no matter how much I pull it it stay on). Seriously the sexual thing is a big argument I have heard several times, the skin has several nerve endings, and is pretty much retracted during the act anyway. I have also heard pluses and negatives relating to female pleassure for the hooded versus unhooded. I think that both are probably true - we should just learn to love our glans.
It remins me of the old joke about the head of the penis.
After several milion dollars an American University decided the head of the penis was to give the man more pleasure during sex.
A Canadian University spent several hundred thousand dollars and deducted that the head was to give the woman more pleasure during sex.
An Australian University bought a round of drinks in the pub and decided it was to stop your hand slipping of the end
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
melissa ortiz
Joined: Aug 1, 2004
Posts: 2 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female, 29
Country: United States
|
Re: is circumsion ethical?
August 1, 2004 - 06:01 AM
|
|
its seems to me ppl failed to mention that when you retract the foreskin, it pretty much looks the same as uncircumsised, which is how most men wear it. I HAVE HEARD plenty of stories about men who have had sex with the foreskin, then had it removed bekuz a woman wanted it, then not feeling much sensation at all. if you have always had sex with the skin you have, how do you know if having foreskin wouldn't have made it better? of course it feels good, you have never felt anything better!
My husband and i chose not to circumsize our son for many reasons, 1.the sensation 2.him going thru surgery, 3.his dad isn't and its fine with me,4.ITS HIS PENIS! if he wants to cut half of it off when he's older for "cosmetic" reasons then he can wait til he's 8 and do it then. Its not ours and we can't say what to do with it. 5.and God gave it to you for a reason. you don't take out your appendix at birth, why take off skin deemed as "useless"?
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
melissa ortiz
Joined: Aug 1, 2004
Posts: 2 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female, 29
Country: United States
|
Re: is circumsion ethical?
August 4, 2004 - 11:42 AM
|
|
18* when he's 18 not 8.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
|
Display posts from:
|
|
Home
Community
