Tuesday, April 17, 2007 | Reason : Religion as Child Abuse | print version

Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

by John V. Geisheker

Reposted from:
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/appeal.html

AN URGENT APPEAL FOR YOUR HELP TO PROTECT A 12 YEAR-OLD BOY

Those of you who are serious about protecting children from non-therapeutic circumcision have a unique opportunity to assist with a legal case in Oregon. An Oregon father, (an attorney), claims to be in the process of converting to Judaism and wants his now 12-year-old son, 'Misha', of whom he has custody, circumcised against both the child's and the natural mother's express wishes.

Sadly, a physician, a fellow congregant of the father, has already been found willing to ignore the child's wishes. The father claims a rabbi has insisted on the child's circumcision. The father's motives might even be sheer spite toward Misha's mother; we can't know.

An attorney working pro bono publico has donated more than $20,000 of his time to assisting the mother by attempting to block the circumcision in the courts. The case is now on its way to the Oregon Supreme Court after losses at both the trial level and an intermediate appellate court. Judges have affirmed without opinion or testimony that a non-medical circumcision of a 12-year-old is 'within the discretion of a custodial parent.' There is no medical necessity alleged at all by anyone. The circumcision would be purely cultural, even merely spiteful.

If you could possibly assist; I urge you to make a tax-deductible donation to Doctors Opposing Circumcision, in Misha's name, to be used only for his legal fees and costs. I will supply you with much more detail by pdf if you have a sincere wish to help. Even small sums, the cost of a restaurant meal, $25, $50, will help if enough people chip in, but if you can afford more, that would be deeply appreciated by the boy and his mother who cannot afford to oppose the attorney-father.

This is the clearest case of a parent's claimed religious beliefs trumping a child's right to an intact body that I have seen in 26 years of practicing law. It fairly screams out for justice, but justice costs, even when most of the legal help has so far been provided pro bono. (Those of you with an interest in reading how the US Supreme Court balances children's bodily rights vs. a parent's rights to the free practice of religion might considering reading Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 US Sup Ct 158: "Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free to make martyrs of their children.")

PLEASE feel free to re-post this at websites and bulletin boards where concerned and sympathetic souls browse.

And please note that my bona fides, and that of the attorney in Oregon, Clay Patrick, are both verifiable at the Oregon and Washington state websites authenticating licensed attorneys. The progress of the case is easily verified at the Oregon Courts website, though as a family law case, the file may be partially sealed for the child's protection:

"In re the Marriage of James Boldt and Lia Boldt, Jackson County (Oregon) Case No. 98-2318D3, Appellate Court Case No. A126175." (Affirmed 12/27/2006) Verifiable at:

http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/appeals.htm#2006ops

.John V Geisheker, JD, LL.M., Admitted to the Washington State Bar Association, #32033
Verifiable at: http://www.wsba.org/public/default.htm
by entering attorney license: #32033

Clay Patrick, Esq., Admitted to the Oregon Bar Association, #77298
Verifiable at http://www.osbar.org/members/start.asp
by entering Attorney license #77298

PLEASE HELP MISHA WITH AN EARMARKED DONATION TO D.O.C., AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ANYTHING YOU CAN DO.

John V. Geisheker, JD, LL.M.
Attorney-at-Law,
Executive Director,
Doctors Opposing Circumcision
Suite 42
2442 NW Market Street
Seattle, WA 98107-4137
USA

Cell +1. 206. 465. 6636

Click here for more information:
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/appeal.html

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 232 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #32375 by Spinoza on April 17, 2007 at 1:03 am

I have no problem with infant circumcision... not because it's medically beneficial (that is either not true, or not certain)... but because many women like it (and many other women are turned off by uncircumcised men)! :P, and the pain is probably (given various factors I don't need to delve into) not all that bad for an infant... and you don't remember it anyway.

To force a 12 year old child to maim himself is ridiculous... definitely child abuse. It should not be about "doctors opposing circumcision", but "doctors opposing religiously motivated child abuse".

... I just don't know about infant circumcision though... It's not clear that it's unethical...

Other Comments by Spinoza

2. Comment #32376 by gcdavis on April 17, 2007 at 1:06 am

At the risk of appearing flippant with a very serious issue, this is a letter I sent to Tony Blair last year. It seemed appropriate.

Application to establish a new religion

Dear Mr Blair

I know that you are a deeply religious man so I hope you will look favourably at my application to start a new religion. I am sure you will be pleased to hear that like all religions mine has a deity, a prophet, a holy book and a set of guiding principles; they are:

• The right to distribute a deadly disease by denial of the use of contraceptive devices
• The right to mutilate the genitalia of all male offspring
• The right to kill animals for food by letting them bleed to death
• The right to deny our wives and daughters the opportunity to take part in any activities that we deem improper
• The right for us to deal sympathetically with our shamans that have been involved in sexual activities with children
• The right to advance the truth revealed in the holy book that our deity made the earth in a few days and that any so called science that refutes this is blasphemous and cannot be tolerated.
• The right to severely discipline our own believers if they contradict the teaching of our prophet
• The right to encourage the terminally ill and severely disabled to visit any of our conveniently situated shrines in order that they may be miraculously cured. And that our success rates will not need to be published in our annual accounts as this could produce a misleading impression.
• The right to wear our traditional costume even when it contravenes regulations that non-believers are required to obey

Once my application has been approved I understand that my new religion will receive the following advantages:

• The right to nominate our top shamans for automatic entry to the legislative chamber known as the House of Lords, so we may influence policies that may be in conflict with our own belief system.
• The right to exploit all the advantages received when the head of state also becomes head of our religion
• The right to receive tax breaks and charitable status.
• The right to insist on a daily act of worship in all state schools

I know that you will appreciate that if my new religion is ridiculed by non believers that grave offence will have been suffered and that this incitement to religious hatred will be subject to full rigor of the criminal law.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Graham Davis
May 2006

Other Comments by gcdavis

3. Comment #32379 by gcdavis on April 17, 2007 at 1:16 am

Spinoza

... I just don't know about infant circumcision though... It's not clear that it's unethical...

I am surprised you are not clear, if your parents had removed part of your ear when you were an infant would that be ethical? Of course not. The only ethical reason for circumcision is medical necessity. And as for the spurious argument that women prefer it; fine wait until you are a sexually active adult and make that decision for yourself...even if it hurts

Other Comments by gcdavis

4. Comment #32381 by Skep on April 17, 2007 at 1:21 am

Amazing. A father wants to mutilate his twelve-year-old son's penis and the courts think it is a fine idea. If the man wanted to cut off his son's pinky finger the courts would immediately find against him but genital mutilation, no problem.

This is another example of religion getting a special "rationality exemption". Were it not for religion, the idea that a father should be allowed to cut off part of his son's penis would be immediately dismissed as child abuse of the worst order, but sprinkle the magic elixir of religion over the issue and all things are permitted.

Truly despicable.

Other Comments by Skep

5. Comment #32384 by Hyrax on April 17, 2007 at 1:36 am

Like the letter to Tony Blair Graham.

This is outrageous, 12 years old? America - the land of the free - 2007 - a boy of 12 who can read, write, and talk about his feelings perfectly articulately and at that age is undoubtedly very aware of his body is being forced into a non medical operation which will change him irreversibly against his will.

Child abuse indeed

Other Comments by Hyrax

6. Comment #32387 by AdrianB on April 17, 2007 at 1:38 am

Spinoza, when I read you have no problem with infant circumcision I assumed you were from the US where the majority of men are circumcised. I see you are from Canada, and I don't know what the babaric preferences are there!

You will gather that I cannot agree with infant circumcision in any way and I would suggest anyone thinking otherwise to watch the Penn&Teller:Bullshit episode on the subject.

Other Comments by AdrianB

7. Comment #32388 by Jonathan Dore on April 17, 2007 at 1:39 am

I have no problem with infant circumcision... not because it's medically beneficial (that is either not true, or not certain)... but because many women like it (and many other women are turned off by uncircumcised men ...

Spinoza -- I've enjoyed your posts, but I can hardly believe I'm reading this. Mutilation of the most sensitive part of the body "because women like it"? I understand that exactly the same argument applies in East Africa to justify clitorodectomies: men like it, and are "turned off" by women with intact clitorises. Not really much of a justification, is it?

Women in the US may have become accustomed to seeing uncircumcised men because infant circumcision is practised so widely there (not just among Jews and Muslims), supposedly on health grounds. It's just what women there have got used to. In most of Europe the practice is still largely restricted to religious groups, so women there are not frightened of foreskins.

As for the supposed health benefits of circumcision, reduced susceptibility to disease etc, the answer is simple: if not having foreskins provided any sort of survival advantage, human males would have evolved without one.

Other Comments by Jonathan Dore

8. Comment #32394 by alfonso on April 17, 2007 at 2:01 am

Spinoza:

Your logic is flawed (I felt a bit Vulcan).

The only reason why this mutilation is even considered to be a matter of parent's choice is because it is religiously induced. Otherwise this whole argument would indicate the father as unable to act as a guardian.

Ludicrous. Poor kid. And I say poor kid not because I believe that circumcision is *that terrible*, but because he himself does, his own wishes ignored by one who claims to love him, and apparently in the name of some imaginary friend that claims loves everyone.

I hope that this kid becomes at a later age a raging atheist, and sues his father.

Other Comments by alfonso

9. Comment #32395 by solidsquires on April 17, 2007 at 2:03 am

Its only in America that parents would sue each other over who has the right to do what they want to a 12-year-old boys own appendage.

Other Comments by solidsquires

10. Comment #32397 by Shuggy on April 17, 2007 at 2:06 am

Spinoza:

and the pain is probably (given various factors I don't need to delve into) not all that bad for an infant... and you don't remember it anyway.

On the contrary, all the evidence is that it is excruciating (it makes a measurable difference to his reaction to vaccination pain, months later), and since the baby has no idea what is happening, he can't even brace himself against it as an adult can.

And pain you can't remember is OK? Now let's apply that to drug-rape.

Oh and "cuts off the most sensitive part of the penis" is not hyperbole, it's just been demonstrated.
See http://www.circumstitions.com/Sexuality.html#sorrells".

Other Comments by Shuggy

11. Comment #32399 by davyB on April 17, 2007 at 2:14 am

The worst thing about infant circumcision is not that it hurts like hell. That's reason enough to outlaw it. But the worst thing is that the child and then adult is mutilated for life. People try to reverse the effects, but there's really no way.

Other Comments by davyB

12. Comment #32402 by davyB on April 17, 2007 at 2:22 am

So what happens if the father wins the suit? Is he allowed to assault the child, tie him up, and haul him in for the ritual cutting despite his kicking and screaming? I know if I had been fortunate enough to live until twelve without suffering circumcision, I sure as hell would not have gone without a vicious fight.

Other Comments by davyB

13. Comment #32407 by Skywatcher on April 17, 2007 at 2:46 am

... I just don't know about infant circumcision though... It's not clear that it's unethical...

Under what circumstances would you consider physical mutilation to be unethical?

Other Comments by Skywatcher

14. Comment #32410 by bitbutter on April 17, 2007 at 2:59 am

How does one go about donating? (a DOC paypal account would be handy).

Other Comments by bitbutter

15. Comment #32411 by Logicel on April 17, 2007 at 3:07 am

bitbutter, click on the home icon at the bottom of the link page. They accept paypal. The paypal icon is in the middle of the below link page:

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/

Other Comments by Logicel

16. Comment #32412 by MihaiC on April 17, 2007 at 3:10 am

I wonder if any circumcised male has ever sued their parents over that... Since the father is a lawyer he should probably consider it as well.

Yeah, I know suing their own parents may sound immoral to some, citing family values - but where the hell were family values when the circumcision was performed?!

Other Comments by MihaiC

17. Comment #32414 by keith on April 17, 2007 at 3:11 am

Whether right or wrong, I can't help but think that donations of $25 or $50 would be better spent in saving children's lives in Africa. Although I can see why the mother and boy might consider his foreskin worth the $20,000+ it has apparently already cost in legal fees and hence the same amount of money that could save hundreds of children's lives in undeveloped countries, I can't understand why they think we would make the same calculations and have the same priorities.

Other Comments by keith

18. Comment #32416 by Steve19 on April 17, 2007 at 3:14 am

I used to live in Oregon when I was very young before moving back to Australia, and it's disappointing that this is even happening in probably the second least religious state (behind Washington).

It's also surprising how many people can't understand that by circumcising anyone, infant or otherwise, you are denying them a choice with regard to their own body. No one is prevented from getting a circumcision voluntarily when they're older, so why not wait and let the child make up his own mind? My girlfriend, who is a non-practicing Jew and generally a bleeding-heart liberal still spouts the whole 'Tradition' line, even though she is vehemently opposed to female circumcision. Yeah male circumcision isn't as bad, but really what else is the difference?

Other Comments by Steve19

19. Comment #32417 by Logicel on April 17, 2007 at 3:15 am

keith, Most of us have limited pockets, so we need to decide how we want to donate money. Regardless, the connection of the donation appeal to this site, is that a successful court case will weaken the religious stanglehold over stupidity.

Other Comments by Logicel

20. Comment #32418 by cagliost on April 17, 2007 at 3:15 am

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/humphrey/amnesty.html
http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/dwyer/
http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/dwyer2/

Other Comments by cagliost

21. Comment #32424 by Veronique on April 17, 2007 at 3:25 am

You poor male babies. It is an horrific multilation. I understand that the excuse in later years had to do with the gunk that could be collected under the foreskin, especially in the mercantile and navy professions (this discounts the religious imperative from the Jews who made it into a rite of passage).

I personally have never f****d any man who wasn't circumcised. By my time it had become a medical procedure that (supposedly) kept men 'clean' of the gunk. This has been spread throughout the 20th and, now, the 21st century. I have no way of knowing how valid these hygenic claims are.

I am a woman - how would I know what you blokes are told, and/or believe? I thought that sexual excitation was more sensitive for men having been circumcised which meant the glans was more excitable. I don't know that to be true. And how would my partners have known it to be true either? They were all circumcised.

I was young enough at the birth of both my sons to allow circumcision because it was 'the thing to do'. I don't even recall questioning this act.
Who has seduced whom with this act? Tell me, please.

V

Other Comments by Veronique

22. Comment #32427 by NJS on April 17, 2007 at 3:44 am

For Veronique:

You have it the wrong way around I believe - being uncurmcised means the glans is protected from day-to-day wear and tear which means once it exposed its more sensitive.

The "gunk" you mentioned isn't a problem - uncircumcised men soon learn that cleaning is required - can you imagine many men being "shy" about experimenting with the apparatus :)

I would also assume that masturbation is easier with the use of the forsesking than without - but of course thats a sin :)

On a serious note I find it abhorrent that any kind of mutilation is excused on religios grounds. As someone else said imagine other body parts being shed - I think just because male cirmcusion "seems" to be harmless shouldn't excuse the principle. The other danger is that acceptance of the male version discourages criticism of the infinitely more abhorrent female version.

This goes back to Dawkins views on any kind of religious influence on children - at a basic level its simply wrong.

Other Comments by NJS

23. Comment #32428 by gcdavis on April 17, 2007 at 3:45 am

"I was young enough at the birth of both my sons to allow circumcision because it was 'the thing to do'. I don't even recall questioning this act".

You don't appear to question it now Veronique, maybe you should. If you don't have the experience of uncircumcised men yourself what is the origin of your prejudice? You seem to confuse morality with convenience.

Other Comments by gcdavis

24. Comment #32433 by Mikado on April 17, 2007 at 3:55 am

Comment #32424 by Veronique

Whats done is done. However "(this discounts the religious imperative from the Jews who made it into a rite of passage)." - could sand have anything to with it?

I find Circumcision of children unacceptable for any reason.

Other Comments by Mikado

25. Comment #32437 by Logicel on April 17, 2007 at 4:17 am

Could one obstacle to ending the prevalent and supposedly medical-based male circumcision is that circumcised adult males shy away from admitting they are essentially walking proof of irreversible sexual mutilation?

What percentage of male doctors who perform these medical based circumcisions are circumcised themselves? Is this similar to the female 'circumcision' situation where females play an active role in perpetrating the atrocity on other females?

Other Comments by Logicel

26. Comment #32439 by MartinSGill on April 17, 2007 at 4:40 am

Circumcision for anything other than medical necessity is also known as genital mutilation.

When it's done to women we are outraged, when its done to men no one seems to think it matters.

Child abuse, pure and simple.

Isn't there also a jewish practice (luckily rare) where priest is supposed to suck the foreskin off a child with his mouth?! Paedophilia codified as worship. I'm doing my best not to visualise that act as it will make me gag.

Other Comments by MartinSGill

27. Comment #32443 by Philip1978 on April 17, 2007 at 4:52 am

Veronique, I find what you say really interesting, I suppose now that I am a bit older its the thought of someone messing with the old chap in that way just seems soooooo painful! But then some men get Albert rings which I simply cannot comprehend, sounds ghastly to me but to some men its fine!
Never had a problem with the gunk, NJS put it brilliantly!
I guess its all down to choice and I would advocate letting the person whose old chap it is decide if that's the way they want to go. I am not a parent and never will be so I don't think I will ever truly understand, but like religion, this sort of thing really should be a personal choice when the kid is old enough and has all the evidence. I think I understand what you mean when you say "it was the thing to do" at the time and that you are used to your blokes like that. I can only say as a bloke who has one, the thought of even going running without one would cause untold pain and possibly embarrassment as well hehehe!

Other Comments by Philip1978

28. Comment #32444 by AdrianB on April 17, 2007 at 4:54 am

So Veronique has never ****** anyone that has not been circumcised, and my wife has never ****** anyone who has. This is simply an example of how this religious practice has become established that side of the Atlantic.

I really do recommend getting to see the "Bullshit" programme on the subject. It actually showed a baby being circumcised, and believe me the poor child was distressed.

Penn admitted that he was circumcised in accordance with tradition, but any genuine reasons were bullshit. The programme followed a young couple with their new baby, discussing whether to have him circumcised. The mother's main concern was causing unnecessary harm, and the father's main concern was the potential insults he would have to suffer later in life when in the showers alongside all his circumcised mates.

Of course there is no medical benefit whatsoever. For purely evolutionary reasons I would guess the opposite in fact. (I would do a google search to investigate, but probably wise not to at work.) I would guess that protecting the glands with a layer of skin, and rinsing it with sterile urine each time you take a piss are beneficial.

Of course in a country where 90% of males are circumcised any myth about "being unclean" is going to be popular. In the Penn & Teller programme they interviewed a number of young girls if they had sex with uncircumcised men and the responses were usually "err, how horrible, never"

Of course the long term effects of male circumcision over female circumcision is not as bad, but that is only because we are not comparing like with like. Cutting a baby's finger off would not be as bad as cutting a baby's hand off, but in both cases the baby would not remember the pain in years to come. What if a religion proposed cutting off the finger of each child?

Other Comments by AdrianB

29. Comment #32450 by Alexander1751 on April 17, 2007 at 5:27 am

Spinoza's premise that women like circumcision is false. A survey of women who have been with both circumcised and intact men found that the great majority prefer the intact male as a sexual partner. That study may be viewed at:

http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/

Any conclusion based on a false premise must also be false.

Alexander

Other Comments by Alexander1751

30. Comment #32457 by Veronique on April 17, 2007 at 5:47 am

23. Comment #32428 by gcdavis

Where is my prejudice? You are off the wall kiddo. I am asking a perfectly legitimate question. I come from a different generation from you. Please do not tar me with your brush. I never confuse morality with injustice. Go take a cold shower.

What the hell do you think my question was about? You certainly haven't bothered to answer it in any of the terms in which I asked the question.

Get off your high horse and look at my post again. You think I'm unique? Grow up, you fool. Want to do a survey on how many men are circumcised? You would have to do proper surveys, with proper questions and proper statistical skewing of raw results with proper stats. And I know that people like me would have been seduced into circumcising our sons. I am no orphan mother. Go hang yourself our to dry and stop frothing. You are on the wrong tack.

24. Comment #32433 by Mikado

I find circumcision a very odd practice. Not that I have known 'normal' men. I have no idea how those men perceived their 'mutilation'. Most, within my life span, were severed in the first few days of their lives and, for all intents and purposes, have known no different.

In my sexual life, I have never known any of my lovers to have felt hampered by circumcision. They never knew any different after all. And they all orgasmed. Good luck for me!!!

It became a cultural norm. It seems to be abating now. I don't have a problem with that either. I squirm when I think of female genital mutilation, but, then I am a woman. Men also appear to squirm with regard to circumcism of males of any species. I guess that is normal as well.

I think I find it odd that we, as humans, are so hung up on sex, fidelity and virginity that we appear to have gone through an extraordinary social (with religious implications and justifications) sexual mutilation for both sexes, in order to submit to the most extraordinary religious beliefs.

Gunk? OK you guys, you are telling me that it is not an issue. OK I will accept that, In which case, it has to be ritualistic. That sucks.

I have to go to bed. This will not finish tonight. Bless you all. Please don't think that I marginalise males. I don't. Never have.

V

Other Comments by Veronique

31. Comment #32459 by Linda on April 17, 2007 at 5:50 am

Why on earth are people still turning a blind eye to the ritual genital mutilation of defenceless children? Consenting adults are free to opt for tattoos, piercings, circumcision or any other kinky forms of self-mutilation. It is however immoral and should be illegal for ignorant parents to offer their children as victims for creepy clerics to engage in blood letting rituals. Shades of the Inca!

A few years ago the Canadian Medical Association tried to outlaw circumcision but of course it was then the very vocal Jewish superstition peddlers that put a stop to that. Today rabbis would be joined by imams in the chorus celebrating ritual bloodletting when performed on victims who do not give consent.

Other Comments by Linda

32. Comment #32462 by L.Minnik on April 17, 2007 at 5:53 am

I see this case as the extent to which one person has a right over another. Children and infants are separate human beings who have rights of their own. Unfortunately in many cases laws still reflect the old notion that children are the property of parents, who can do as they see fit (as once upon a time people could be owned, as slaves, women, children).

If children and infants are granted full human rights, in no way does anyone have a right to impose medical procedures on them unless it is absolutely necessary.

If people from infancy until adulthood were granted a right to decide about their own bodies, not to mention the right to make other decisions in their lives, this case could not take place.

Imagine that the mother would also want the procedure to be carried out now, and the kid not having an extra $20,000 for lawyers. What would happen then?
A child is defenceless unless he or she has rights and a means of executing them.
In my opinion all children deserve to have rights and to be treated as separate human beings.

Other Comments by L.Minnik

33. Comment #32463 by Logicel on April 17, 2007 at 5:58 am

My tired and sweet Veronique, I am grateful to your fatigue for the following about which I am still laughing like a mad woman: "I have no idea how those men perceived their 'mutilation'. Most, within my life span, were severed in the first few days of their lives and, for all intents and purposes, have known no different. In my sexual life, I have never known any of my lovers to have felt hampered by circumcision."

Oh, my, severing of the penis does not hamper sexual intercourse?

Other Comments by Logicel

34. Comment #32466 by nancy2001 on April 17, 2007 at 6:01 am

A 12 year old boy who doesn't want to be circumcised shouldn't be circumcised. Period.

There are however a few medical benefits to the routine circumcision of an infant, and these need to be weighed against the risks. I'm a nursing student and would like to offer the following information from one of my textbooks.

"Occasionally, parents will ask you about whether or not to circumcise the male infant. Indications for circumcision include cultural reasons, the prevention of phimosis and inflammation of the glans penis and foreskin, decreasing the incidence of cancer of the penis, and slightly decreasing the incidence of urinary tract infections in infancy.

"However there is no difference in the risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases. Circumcision carries a very small but possible risk of complications, such as sepsis, amputation of the distal edge of the glans, removal of an excessive amount of foreskin, urethrocutaneous fistula, and significant pain, about which the parents should know."

Apparently, a reasonable case can be made either for or against the routine circumcision of male infants.

Other Comments by nancy2001

35. Comment #32467 by Logicel on April 17, 2007 at 6:02 am

L.Minnik, Parents are caretakers not owners of children. Many would disagree.

Other Comments by Logicel

36. Comment #32473 by Dr Benway on April 17, 2007 at 6:12 am

This is so weird it's difficult to believe.

Someone tell the boy to say this to the doctor: "I don't want this. If you do this to me, when I'm older, I will sue you. I'll take everything you own." The statute of limitations clock doesn't start ticking until 18. This doctor will have lots of years to fret.

The boy should also say, "I'm going to call the Board of Medicine and complain about you."

No doctor in his or her right mind would do a procedure with no medical benefit if told directly such forceful things by the patient.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

37. Comment #32478 by AdrianB on April 17, 2007 at 6:22 am

nancy2001 - your textbook should also mention that surgically removing your breasts will reduce the risk of breast cancer!

There is absolutely no justification for the widespread circumcision on an infants, medical or otherwise, end of story.

Other Comments by AdrianB

38. Comment #32479 by Yorker on April 17, 2007 at 6:32 am

1. Comment #32375 by Spinoza

"I have no problem with infant circumcision... not because it's medically beneficial (that is either not true, or not certain)... but because many women like it"

Holy shit! So that's what's been wrong all this time, I forgot a have a chunk of my cock cut off!

I noticed in the USA that most men are circumcised and are fixated on women with huge mammaries and shaven pubes, I even had a colleague that wanted to pay for his girlfriend's breast enlargement.

None of these things are to my taste, my personal preference is for a naturally titted woman with a healthy and preferably luxuriant, pubic pelt. Having sex with a shaven woman gives me an uneasy feeling, perhaps akin to what child molestation might be like.

Honestly, there's something wrong with you guys...

Other Comments by Yorker

39. Comment #32481 by nancy2001 on April 17, 2007 at 6:37 am

Adrian, if breast cancer runs in your family, prophylactic mastectomy can be a very prudent thing to do. Breast cancer runs in both sides of my family. I had the procedure twelve years ago, and am very glad I did. I reduced my expected lifetime risk from over 25% to less than 2%, more than a factor of ten. End of story.

Other Comments by nancy2001

40. Comment #32483 by Yorker on April 17, 2007 at 6:40 am

39. Comment #32481 by nancy2001

Are you saying you had this done to healthy breasts, just in case you got cancer?

Other Comments by Yorker

41. Comment #32485 by Yorker on April 17, 2007 at 6:44 am

36. Comment #32473 by Dr Benway

I agree, such insanity is hard to comprehend in a so-called civilised society.

Other Comments by Yorker

42. Comment #32487 by L.Minnik on April 17, 2007 at 6:45 am

Hi Logicel, yes, parents are caretakers of children by all means, but it is only relatively recently, in the past few decades, that children have acquired more and more rights.
Not that long ago parents had no limitations as to the punishments they could apply to their children. Even today not seldom do parents facing abuse chares claim in court that they can do what they want because the child is 'theirs'.

What I suggest is that children deserve to have still more rights than they do.
For example a right to their own bodies where medical procedures cannot be carried out unless it is necessary to do so for medical reasons.
Other decisions can be made by the child when he/she is old enough to decide him/herself.

I don't see any reason why children (or women in some soceties) could not be granted such a right.

Other Comments by L.Minnik

43. Comment #32491 by nancy2001 on April 17, 2007 at 6:54 am

Yorker, it's true I did not have cancer at that point in time, but I was in a high risk category. My mother and both grandmothers had all died from the disease. I was also over 40, the age at which my risk level would significantly increase. My health was more important to me than that particular body part. As far as I'm concerned it was a wise decision.

Other Comments by nancy2001

44. Comment #32493 by Linda on April 17, 2007 at 7:00 am

Here is a link to an ongoing discussion of the subject:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbreligion/F2213234?thread=3714127&skip=0&show=20

Nancy your case is rare. Surely you don't advocate carte blanche removal of the genitals of children simply to satisfy the creepy desire to act out religious bloodletting rituals on defenceless victims?

Other Comments by Linda

45. Comment #32494 by NJS on April 17, 2007 at 7:03 am

"While the removal of foreskin from the penis is painful - and I believe wrong - men can still achieve orgasm and enjoy penal stimulation. The whole point of FGM is to remove the opportunity for women to enjoy any sexual pleasure. Please - it is not female circumcision - let's not use that euphemism as it makes the practice seem much more benign."

Thats what I was alluding to above. When I first heard of "female circumcision" after an initial "Eh?" my first attempt at gaining knowledge suggested "only" the sewing up of the vagina which sounded bad enough but at the same time akin to the male vesrion which I always thought was stupid but not the end of the world.

When I later realised it meant clitoral amputation and the purpose behind this (subjugation) my absolute abhorrence was confirmed but it seems that this "lumping together" under the term circumcision suggests an acceptable practice.

I maintain that both are wrong but anyone who doesn't find the female version to be an abomination isn't worthy of the term human.

Other Comments by NJS

46. Comment #32495 by OlgaO on April 17, 2007 at 7:11 am

Five years ago my brother's family came to the U.S. from Eastern Europe. His son, then 12-year old, went through a routine medical check-up before a new school year. Apparently, the nurse pointed to his mother that her son is uncircumcised and that it's "dirty". Can you belive it? Yep, that's America for you, folks, when medical personnel says "dirty" in your face!

I found out about this from my sister-in-law a couple of months after the "check-up", and it seemed too late for me to go back to that clinic and make a big deal out it (at least, I wanted an apology from the nurse)

Well, my nephew is 17 now. I don't know if he had or will have similar incidents of being put down because of his intact foreskin. Perhaps, some American girls will be "turned off" by it? Their loss, as far as I am concerned.

Other Comments by OlgaO

47. Comment #32496 by AdrianB on April 17, 2007 at 7:12 am

nancy2001 - as I typed my comment I just KNEW you were going to come back at with me with that!

Of course it is reasonable course of action to do what you did in your particular case. Most of us will have no argument with that.

But you would not suggest routinely removing the breasts of all young women because it would reduce the overall incidences of breast cancer? Of course not.

I wasn't having a go at you nancy2001, only what you were quoting from a textbook. Apologies if you think I was.

However, I do maintain that the case for circumcision in not valid, end of story.

If I was to totally remove my son's penis at birth his chances of penile cancer would be nil, if I was to remove part of it his chances of penile cancer would be reduced. But that is irrelevant anyway since in 99.9% of cases parents are not having their infants circumcised for medical reasons.

Other Comments by AdrianB

48. Comment #32497 by MemeStorm on April 17, 2007 at 7:12 am

As I often find, I have been numbed by the seeming ubiquity of circumcision. Being circumcised myself, I never thought of it like this - as the unnecessary abuse that it is. Like all ethical scenarios, it's a little simplistic to say that circumcision should never occur, should never be foisted upon babes without consent, though in the 12 year old case it is quite clearly unethical.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Langerhans cells - which are to be found in the foreskin, and which appear to be more vulnerable to HIV infection. In fact, it appears the probability of getting AIDs is dramatically reduced if you are circumcised. Here's a brief description:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6176209.stm
So given this, is it ethical for doctors to circumcise babies in Africa for example.

Other Comments by MemeStorm

49. Comment #32500 by AdrianB on April 17, 2007 at 7:28 am

"So given this, is it ethical for doctors to circumcise babies in Africa for example"

No.

Other Comments by AdrianB

50. Comment #32501 by NJS on April 17, 2007 at 7:29 am

One aspect I would add is that the father is also just as guilty in my view of forcing his Judaism on his son as he is mutilating him - no lesser a crime.

Other Comments by NJS

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 3 4 5 | Next | Last