- Joined
- Mar 27, 2013
- Messages
- 22,537
- Reaction score
- 14,953
Ok... It's morning here now... I've had time to rest, and collect more of my thoughts.
Again to the numbers thing... What is the proper number of deaths, and injuries, that should be allowed for a procedure that removes a normal, healthy, and uninjured portion of another human being's anatomy, without their informed consent?
What other procedure is done to remove a portion of another person's normal, healthy, and uninjured body? If there is such a procedure... How is this ethical? How does it not violate a patient's rights, nor violate the Hippocratic Oath:
What can be more harmful and unjust than the procedure that removes a part of the most innocent and vulnerable of people? A person who is incapable of defending himself from harm? If it doesn't do harm, and isn't painful, why must the infant be strapped down? If it doesn't hurt, why does he scream until he has no voice?
I wonder what the rate of circumcision would be if parents were REQUIRED to be present while the procedure is being done. To witness what is happening to their child. I'm not talking about the traditional bris that is done, I'm talking about being in a surgical room, masks, gloves, the whole kit.
The modern procedure is nothing like the procedure done (for religious reasons) at the beginning of the common era. Back then, it would be difficult to recognize who had been circumcised, and who had not. Do you think that Michelangelo didn't know that David would have been circumcised? Do you think that had a circumcised male looked like what they do now, that David's penis would look like it does in that sculpture?
Perhaps someone with a medical degree would like to describe the procedure. I say medical degree, so that way they can't be dismissed as a "what do you know about it? You, for skin crackpot".
Perhaps if more physicians who don't believe it is beneficial were to stand up for their belief and refuse to do the procedure without a medical need we wouldn't be having this discussion. Oh, yeah, I forgot... It's a paycheck.
Again to the numbers thing... What is the proper number of deaths, and injuries, that should be allowed for a procedure that removes a normal, healthy, and uninjured portion of another human being's anatomy, without their informed consent?
What other procedure is done to remove a portion of another person's normal, healthy, and uninjured body? If there is such a procedure... How is this ethical? How does it not violate a patient's rights, nor violate the Hippocratic Oath:
I will keep them from harm and injustice.
What can be more harmful and unjust than the procedure that removes a part of the most innocent and vulnerable of people? A person who is incapable of defending himself from harm? If it doesn't do harm, and isn't painful, why must the infant be strapped down? If it doesn't hurt, why does he scream until he has no voice?
I wonder what the rate of circumcision would be if parents were REQUIRED to be present while the procedure is being done. To witness what is happening to their child. I'm not talking about the traditional bris that is done, I'm talking about being in a surgical room, masks, gloves, the whole kit.
The modern procedure is nothing like the procedure done (for religious reasons) at the beginning of the common era. Back then, it would be difficult to recognize who had been circumcised, and who had not. Do you think that Michelangelo didn't know that David would have been circumcised? Do you think that had a circumcised male looked like what they do now, that David's penis would look like it does in that sculpture?
Perhaps someone with a medical degree would like to describe the procedure. I say medical degree, so that way they can't be dismissed as a "what do you know about it? You, for skin crackpot".
Perhaps if more physicians who don't believe it is beneficial were to stand up for their belief and refuse to do the procedure without a medical need we wouldn't be having this discussion. Oh, yeah, I forgot... It's a paycheck.
Last edited:
