The Big C: Circumcision

Its quite interesting to see where this discussion goes. (I was circumcised myself, am most likely still alive, and don't feel violated - but I accept thats neither here nor there). I do wonder about this though:

quote:

---

We don't let "culture" determine when to perform surgery.

---

Apologies if you think I've taken out of context, but I think this is a matter of degree rather than an absolute. For instance, if there was a young child who'd suffered horrific burns, could they not expect to receive some treatment which was cosmetic (and not medically "necessary") - if the child was young enough, it would have to be sanctioned by the parents. And wouldn't this cosmetic surgery to prevent the child from being stigmatised in later life by society (or culture).It reminds me of a v. funny British film called "East is East" about a British Pakistani family growing up in England. The youngest son hasn't been circumcised and is teased about it at school by his Pakistani peers who stand in awe to watch him pee.I'm ot saying that male circumcision is justified here btw, as I'd rather stand back and watch this one pan out. I would say that there are several shades of grey in determining whether culture should determine medical treatment.PE

quote:

---

Do I have to remind every single person that there is a difference between necessary and unnecessary surgery? If your child needs medical treatment or face death, then we would find the parents negligent if they were to refuse

---

Think you've misunderstood my example, or I didn't made it sufficiently clear to begin with. The child will live, but will be horibbly disfigured unless she has cosmetic reconstructive surgery. She is too young to speak let alone make the decision to surgery herself.q1. should she have the surgery?
q2. is this surgery not being done for cosmetic (to tenuously lead on to cultural) reasons?Everything else you wrote I don't find objectionable.PE

quote:

---

PrimordialEgg, this is not a sound analogy. A child who has received burns has been disfigured from the "natural" state. A child with a foreskin is not disfigured - he is already in the natural state.

---

I wasn't using the analogy in the context of whther or not circumcision was a "valid" operation, rather to argue (nitpick, really) against the blanket statement that we do not allow culture to tell us when to perform surgery. I still think its sound in that respect.PE

Rrhain,As mentioned in my post to greyline - I'm not arguing in favour of circumcision. Indeed, you've posted some very powerful arguments against it and I tend to agree with you.I am arguing that just because any operation is performed purely for cultural reasons, or to avoid social stigma, does not automatically make it undesirable. Each case should be argued on its own merits.With your argument comes an implicit idea of reverting to the norm, which is fair enough, really - although, in the case of circumcision, you've restricted the norm to be that which the boy in question was born with. And in situations where circumcision is the norm in society, you've previously argued along the lines that the child should have the -ahem- cajones to avoid teasing by declaring his penis a non-topic for conversation. Now its a matter of degree really, social stigma caused by growing up with an outward appearance that differs from the norm and the attendant mental anguish / suffering that this causes - but I certainly wouldn't put it so bluntly as to say that the prevailing culture was irrelevant to the decision to operate in all cases.As with all these things, the decision needs to be made in light of what is best for the child, and not simply because it may be a backward practice. You've done a pretty good job so far of arguing that circumcision is rarely very good for the child.PE