Circumcision scar?
- Thread starter B_Marius567
- Start date
Dr Rock said:
no its quite common in one of the largest burn units in the country tho where i'm actively involved with patients sometimes.....its not about being weird but i want you to go to one of the 10 year old boys or girls in that ward that got 2nd, 3rd, and 4th degree burns on greater than 60% of their body including their face that they will never be beautiful and anyone who thinks they are has a "deeply unhealthy mind".....its not about being weird, its about being responsible for your words.....someone makes a gay joke and 10,000 people yell and scream and 25 organizations go crazy but you make a comment about aesthetic appreciation of an injury being a sign of an unhealthy mind and no one should bring up a point like that? sorry but it works both ways
baseball99, are you more visually sexually attracted to a person who has third degree burns covering their body, or someone without? Do you find the effects of third degree burns to be aesthetically pleasing? I hope you say yes, otherwise I think you may have misinterpretted what Dr. Rock was saying.
IntactMale said:
personally no, but i dont think someone who does is screwed up in the head.....
so you don't think that someone who gets off on scar tissue, amputation and other post-injury effects is sick in the head? are you seriously suggesting that there are parents out there who'd rather have their kid suffer 3rd-degree burns and full-depth scarring than not? or are you just an imbecile who can't comprehend basic written english? either way, you got a big problem.baseball99 said:
That's not what he said -- and it's also not the logical conclusion of what he said. I'm not taking sides in this spat, but it's ridiculous to say that Baseball hasn't represented the science fairly here, or that he is stating something contrary to what nearly every medical professional I know would say.
Lighten up, folks.
Lighten up, folks.
Hung Muscle said:
well thank you there hung muscle.....btw we got these new stickers in the hospital that we put on the charts of baby boys.....they are little red stickers that say either circumcised or uncircumcised.....so for fun today i stuck a circumcised sticker under my name on my badge today and every single parent, patient (that could understand the joke), doctor, resident and med student i saw today on the floors and in lectures laughed.....it was funny when one of the other residents walked out, grabbed an uncircumcised sticker and put it on his badge......our attendings definitely thought it was funny
Hung Muscle said:
Yes, it's pretty clear that he has cherry picked his data to conform with his beliefs. If you take a look at worldwide medical attitudes towards circumcision, it's not hard to see that most doctors are opposed to it. If he's going to quote data then he needs to make sure that he states "American" beforehand. RIC is a barbaric practice that has no place in modern medicine.
chico8 said:
you misread what he wrote.....he said i do not hold beliefs any different from what most doctors he knows
next of all, i have not cherry picked data.....how many times do i need to state (the average person only needs to hear something 2-3 times to learn it, so i'll state it one more time).....my personal opinion DOES NOT MATTER.....the american academy of pediatricians does NOT RECOMMEND CIRCUMCISION NOR DOES IT DISSUADE THOSE WHO WANT IT.....and please oh please provide your data where "most doctors are opposed to it".....please oh please im so interested in reading that article
.....most doctors i know where it has come up in conversation dont give a rats ass whether you get circumcised or not
Baseball99 I have posted plenty of cited webpages in the Cut vs. Uncut thread that explain this. The average person may take 2-3 times to learn something, but I think I've told you about that at least 10 times.
He didn't say anything about beliefs.
He didn't say anything about beliefs.
IntactMale said:
in the scientific world websites are considered the childrens books.....a cited source is not even deemed believable unless published in a peer reviewed journal.....if you ever cited a website for a scientific presentation they wouldnt even let you finish your topic because you would have no backing
Look at the websites again, they have been published in journals. I agree that there is alot of bullshit on the internet, but if you can find valid citations you can usually trust it. There is plenty of backing with some websites, and I have just graduated college with a degree in the sciences, and I have often used websites as references. I had a professor just this semester who advocated the use of websites that are properly cited, mainly because it is so much faster and accessible. Anyone invloved with the sciences who ignores the internet is a walking oxymoron.
IntactMale said:
youre right, there are times when websites are appropriate. generally tho proving a website to be valid takes longer than obtaining the primary research. in college i used websites a lot for lab reports and crap but in publishing world, primary research is the only respectable source.....in fact its an honor to have your paper cited.....websites are generally good for obtaining lots of background info quick.....you're right tho, the internet is a necessary evil
But I'm saying that just because something is on the internet, it doesn't mean that it hasn't been published. If you want to get technical about it though, anything put on the internet is classified as published information.
It really isn't that hard to check the validity of websites. I live about 10 minutes from the largest library in my county, and it would still take longer to get there and find the physical copy of a reference than it would to check the validity of a website.
If you want to tell people not to debate your medical opinion, then you probably should do the same for my opinion in this area.
It really isn't that hard to check the validity of websites. I live about 10 minutes from the largest library in my county, and it would still take longer to get there and find the physical copy of a reference than it would to check the validity of a website.
If you want to tell people not to debate your medical opinion, then you probably should do the same for my opinion in this area.
To come back to the original question (if I understood it correctly), I wonder if it is always possible to detect a circumcision scar.
As a teenager I had a big hang-up because I have a short foreskin, leaving at least half the cockhead exposed. Ever since I've looked for others with short foreskins and very often it''s simply not possible to tell the difference between a circumcision that leaves some skin and a naturally short foreskin. This doesn't seem to be the case of those circumcised at birth - most Americans seem to have a very visible scar some way up the shaft. Circumcised Europeans often seem to be cut much nearer the head, or with more skin left.
As a teenager I had a big hang-up because I have a short foreskin, leaving at least half the cockhead exposed. Ever since I've looked for others with short foreskins and very often it''s simply not possible to tell the difference between a circumcision that leaves some skin and a naturally short foreskin. This doesn't seem to be the case of those circumcised at birth - most Americans seem to have a very visible scar some way up the shaft. Circumcised Europeans often seem to be cut much nearer the head, or with more skin left.
Baseball: While you are correct about the AAP in the sense that it does not recommend circumcision in the absence of a medical indication, as in not leaning on the not to do it side. I have little doubt, and I doubt many others do here either, that they refrained from being more explicit in case of offending religious/cultural beliefs of certain people in the states, no need to name them..
Every other statement I have read, has far strong wording against it, including various laws enacted in certain countries to severely limit circumcision even in the religious sense, there are seens as prequels to an all out ban on the same lines as female circumcision.
Here are a few excerpts:
The Canadian Paediatric Society: The CPS recommends that "Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely (i.e.,in the absence of medical indication) performed." Since there are no medical indications for circumcision in the newborn period.
Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP), Paediatrics and Child Health Division: "There are no medical indications for routine male circumcision."
British Medical Association (BMA): "Circumcision of male babies and children at the request of their parents is an increasingly controversial area and strongly opposing views about circumcision are found within society and within the BMA's membership."
They also mention the moral problems with it and the right of doctors to refuse to do the operation despite parents requests.
South African Medical Assosciation (SAMA): "RESOLVED that there was no medical justification for routine circumcision in neonates and children."
Of course there are plenty others but the viewpoints are the same..
Basically it's as I said, don't try and use any medical arguments to justity the procedure as the big boys have already spoken on this one. Now you can only pretty much use the look like daddy and religious ones. Of course there is always the: "I just like have bits of my sons penis cut off one." But yeah..
Every other statement I have read, has far strong wording against it, including various laws enacted in certain countries to severely limit circumcision even in the religious sense, there are seens as prequels to an all out ban on the same lines as female circumcision.
Here are a few excerpts:
The Canadian Paediatric Society: The CPS recommends that "Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely (i.e.,in the absence of medical indication) performed." Since there are no medical indications for circumcision in the newborn period.
Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP), Paediatrics and Child Health Division: "There are no medical indications for routine male circumcision."
British Medical Association (BMA): "Circumcision of male babies and children at the request of their parents is an increasingly controversial area and strongly opposing views about circumcision are found within society and within the BMA's membership."
They also mention the moral problems with it and the right of doctors to refuse to do the operation despite parents requests.
South African Medical Assosciation (SAMA): "RESOLVED that there was no medical justification for routine circumcision in neonates and children."
Of course there are plenty others but the viewpoints are the same..
Basically it's as I said, don't try and use any medical arguments to justity the procedure as the big boys have already spoken on this one. Now you can only pretty much use the look like daddy and religious ones. Of course there is always the: "I just like have bits of my sons penis cut off one." But yeah..
robertomuro said:
I agree with you and i dont think anyone should recommend it or dissuade.....however, when it comes to policy making money is also a big deciding factor.....For example, there is a vaccine to give infants to prevent respiratory synctial virus. The virus kills around 4,000 healthy infants every year. We have the vaccine so why dont we vaccinate everyone? Well because the shot is not a true vaccine. Its only passive immunization, meaning its only preformed antibodies against the virus.....it has to be injected every 26-30 days during peak season.....it costs 1000 bucks per shot.....multiply that by number number of children within the age range.....and youre talking about 10s of billions of dollars each year.....so it is not cost effective.....now another example would be in the UK (maybe someone from UK can correct me, but this is what i was told in an ethics class) an 80 year old guy in the UK will not be allowed to undergo triple bypass surgery bc the 5 year survival rate is almost nothing.....but in the US they are a huge number of people getting the procedure.....most medicare dollars are spent in the last couple years of life.....its very hard to completely follow recommendations when you know money was an influential factor.....so again with the current research no one should persuade or dissuade the procedure.....maybe time will tell either way
oh by the way, many people with chronic ulcers on their legs due to venous stasis, pvd, pad, and sacral ulcers are very thankful for the circumcisions because the foreskin is used in the apligraft used after debriding the ulcer to cover it and stimulate new growth.....
