|
Aneirin -> RE: What is Lost Due to Circumcision? (5/22/2010 3:34:19 AM)
|
You know, it bothers me somewhat that humanity has got this far in it's existence and somehow has managed to do so, despite all these reasons to surgically alter the penis. Now all these conditions that doctors say warrant their intervention, in what is in effect a natural formation, the question just has to be asked why is it the male penis suffers so many maladies, what is incorrect about the nature of things, you know, as nature intended ? Is nature that wrong so as to warrant human intervention, or is there another reason for this messing about with the penis?
An interesting article by the BMJ;
Quote............Although the proportion of English boys circumcised for medical reasons fell from 35% in the early 1930s to 6.5% by the mid-1980s, even latterly it was argued that some two thirds underwent the procedure unnecessarily,1 a judgment consistent with practice in Scandinavia, where less than 2% of boys are circumcised.2 Has any further change occurred in English practice, and, if so, is this evidence based? We examined trends in the catchment population of a children's hospital, in its surrounding region, and in England as a whole..........
(http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7264/792)
I don't care what adults do, they have their own choices, and can live with whatever happens for right or wrong, it was their choice, hopefully an informed choice, but never the less, they said yes or no, but the circumcision of those who have no choice I do have a problem with, as is indicated in the article linked the suggestion that of the 6.5% of boys circumcised, maybe two thirds of that 6.5 % were unecessary and most likely due to misdiagnosis. Now that is a pretty major thing there something removed, cut off, taken away, thrown away because of misdiagnosis. One just has to ask in cases which might lead to a physician to consider circumcision, is that thought in their mind when they diagnose, or do they approach the situation with an open mind ? Could we have incapable physicians who believe circumcision will remove any consequence arising from a misdiagnosis, you know, cut it off and chuck it away, problem solved no comeback blame or questions asked when a patient apparently continues to suffer a problem reported, or indeed made worse by other treatments.
Also from the same article, and in fact a continuation of the introduction half posted above ;
Quote....... a judgment consistent with practice in Scandinavia, where less than 2% of boys are circumcised.2
In Scandinavia, less than 2% of boys are circumcised, I wonder at why such a low number, could it be they are healthier than us and so do not suffer the supposed problems we do, or is it they are a barbaric people who like to see children suffer and the instances of penile cancer and other problems associated with the foreskin is rife in that region. Or is there another reason perhaps, they know what they are doing quite unlike other countries that seem quite happy to mutilate children based upon outdated and a possibly pseudo historo-cultural mindset?
But from this article, it is plain to see the US has a very high instance of circumcision in new borns, why is that, agreed, it could be your culture thing, the dick comparison, the belief that sproglet will be happier if he looked like his dad, or is it you are well educated in cleanliness and other scare stories.
Now let me get this understood, you operate a healthcare system based upon you having insurance to pay your medical bills, could it be because physicians are paid, they in effect act like salespersons, they tell you your options and you pay for what you want, or can afford. If it is that salespersons of other products can't be trusted to give you the absolute truth, why is it physicians are trusted to give correct advice.
The question just has to be asked, what is the overriding factor with US healthcare, the health of the patient, or the money, would a US physician treat a customer for nothing if money was not available ?
The original article from the BMJ website that I linked has found there is a quite considerable money saving by not circumcising children, which is good for our NHS, and considerably better for the child concerned ;
Quote....Recent trends are therefore consistent in direction, but not in extent, with the evidence base. Strictly, only some 0.6% of boys with pathological phimosis need to be circumcised,4 although more relaxed criteria would allow for a similar proportion affected by recurrent balanoposthitis.5 None the less, the trend towards evidence based practice already pays dividends. Circumcision costs about £500 as a daycase procedure, and some 10 000 fewer circumcisions in 1997-8 than in 1992-3 release £5m for other purposes. A reduction in the proportion of English boys circumcised to an attainable target of 2% would make for about 6000 fewer circumcisions each year, with a corresponding saving of £3m.
Could it even be at the end of the day, if it is not an outdated cultural barbarism, it like everything else comes down to money, those that wish to make it, and those that wish to save it.
|
|
|
|
