Monday, April 06, 2009

Parents cutting back on circumcision

It appears the credit crunch and recession are hitting the Abrahamic Covenant. The $300 average cost for circumcising a newborn is now considered too high for many, and there has been a fall of 24 per cent in those taking up the procedure. This is a distinct advantage for the Christians, for whom circumcision of the heart costs nothing (and yet everything).

23 Comments:

Blogger The Lakelander said...

"Cutting back"

Arf...........

6 April 2009 at 21:35  
Anonymous shut that door said...

I find everything is going up the same!

6 April 2009 at 22:05  
Anonymous shut that door said...

Its not just me either, everyone seems to be saying the same thing!

6 April 2009 at 22:09  
Anonymous the recusant said...

Its all bris to the mill

ouch

6 April 2009 at 22:43  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That $300 doesn't include tips.

6 April 2009 at 22:47  
Anonymous Anguished Soul said...

Excellent post Your Grace, if slightly sharp.

Brings tears to the eyes at the thought!

6 April 2009 at 22:49  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

recusant; you mean 'bris to the mohel'.

6 April 2009 at 22:54  
Blogger Frugal Dougal said...

A shame and short-sighted, as a mass circumcision campaign would reduce HPV far more than blanket-vaccination of girls - 90% of whom will clear the virus if exposed - with a substance which is increasingly causing concerns abroad and here.

6 April 2009 at 22:54  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is getting prepuce-terous.

How do circumcise a whale?

Send down four skindivers.

6 April 2009 at 22:56  
Anonymous skinhead said...

This will have repercussions, it reminds me of a case last year where Surgeons cut 16 washers from a man's penis. Apparently it was 'not clear how the situation arose'. For those who find it 'unsurmountable', might I suggest THIS.

6 April 2009 at 22:58  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Everything you need to know, and more at www.NOCIRC.org

6 April 2009 at 23:18  
Anonymous mckenzie said...

Its no skin off my nose what they do to the pricks in America.

6 April 2009 at 23:37  
Blogger Mark Lyndon said...

I'd have paid 100 times that for my son to be left alone. Cutting parts off babies' genitals is just wrong. If he wants to have it done when he's 18 (16 if he knows what he's doing), I'll pay for it then, and help him find a good surgeon. It's safer and less painful to wait, and the results are cosmetically better.

Canadian Paediatric Society
"Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed."

http://www.caringforkids.cps.ca/pregnancy&babies/circumcision.htm
"Circumcision is a 'non-therapeutic' procedure, which means it is not medically necessary."
"After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions.


RACP Policy Statement on Circumcision
"After extensive review of the literature the Royal Australasian College of Physicians reaffirms that there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision."
(those last nine words are in bold on their website, and almost all the men responsible for this statement will be circumcised themselves, as the male circumcision rate in Australia in 1950 was about 90%. "Routine" circumcision is now *banned* in public hospitals in Australia in all states except one.)

British Medical Association: The law and ethics of male circumcision - guidance for doctors
"to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate."

Drops in male circumcision:
USA: from 90% to 57%
Canada: from 47% to 9.2%
UK: from 35% to about 5% (less than 1% among non-Muslims)
Australia: 90% to 12.6% ("routine" circumcision has recently been *banned* in public hospitals in all states except one, so the rate will now be a lot lower)
New Zealand: 95% to below 3% (mostly Samoans and Tongans)
South America and Europe: never above 5%

It's worth remembering that we wouldn't even be having this discussion if it weren't for the fact that 19th century doctors thought that :
a) masturbation caused various physical and mental problems (including epilepsy, convulsions, paralysis, tuberculosis etc), and
b) circumcision stopped masturbation.

Both of those sound ridiculous today I know, but if you don't believe me, then check out this link:
A Short History of Circumcision in North America In the Physicians' Own Words

Over a hundred years later, circumcised men keep looking for new ways to defend the practice.

The record payout for a botched circumcision is $22.8 million. It was said at the time that the victim "will never be able to function sexually as a normal male and will require extensive reconstructive surgery and psychological counseling as well as lifelong urological care and treatment by infectious disease specialists."
Sure, cases like that are very rare, but why should they happen at all? If you look up the galleries of botched jobs, one thing that may surprise you is just how many jobs were botched cosmetically, rather than medically. Skin tags and skin bridges and hair growing half way up the shaft are not normal, but would not be counted as medical complications.

News just in last week: A jury in Atlanta has awarded $1.8 million to a boy whose penis was severed in a botched circumcision five years ago. The Fulton County jury also awarded the boy's mother another $500,000.

7 April 2009 at 00:11  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Strange that Christians should jeer at the holy commandment of circumcision, even though Jesus was circumcised and the anniversary of that happy event is commemorated in the Christian calendar.

7 April 2009 at 06:42  
Anonymous len said...

Circumcision is old covenant, we now have a better covenant.
The old covenant(Our performance based)was all the pressure on us to perform.
The new covenant total reliance( by faith) on what God has done for us.

7 April 2009 at 08:29  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Things have changed. God saw it necessary way back when they where in the desert. Conditions where different and God saw the drawbacks. But we should think long and hard about it these days.

7 April 2009 at 09:09  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Foreclosure on the foreskin? Maybe they could offer terms?

7 April 2009 at 09:25  
Anonymous Joshua said...

Everything seems pretty much sewn up these days. Which reminds me of a joke:

what have parliamentary rules and diamonds got in common?

They are both pretty much impossible to break!

7 April 2009 at 09:28  
Anonymous Jackoff Smith said...

Its supposed to curb prolific masturbation. Is it in the parliamentary allowance? Or maybe it would be good to include it as a free offer with every Sky subscription.

7 April 2009 at 09:41  
Blogger Mark Lyndon said...

Anonymous said...
Strange that Christians should jeer at the holy commandment of circumcision, even though Jesus was circumcised and the anniversary of that happy event is commemorated in the Christian calendar.


Funny how Christians didn't circumcise for the best part of two millennia, and yet because of some seriously bad *medical* opinions in the late 19th century, some Christians are looking for reasons to do it today.

95% of Christians worldwide do *not* circumcise, and the Catholic church has been opposed for centuries:
The Holy Roman Church "...commands all who glory in the name of Christian, at whatever time, before or after baptism, to cease entirely from circumcision, since, whether or not one places hope in it, it cannot be observed at all without the loss of eternal salvation."

From Cantate Domino, re-affirmed by Pope Pius XII in 1952

"From a moral point of view, circumcision is permissible if, in accordance with therapeutic principles, it prevents a disease that cannot be countered in any other way." Pope Pius XII in 1952

The form of circumcision undergone by Christ was nothing like a modern day circumcision anyway. He would have looked more like an intact man than like someone who has had a typical American circumcision. The most common form of circumcision today was only introduced by rabbis (not Christians) over a century after the crucifixion.

7 April 2009 at 12:37  
Blogger ZZMike said...

Mark Lyndon: "The Fulton County jury also awarded the boy's mother another $500,000."

American jurors are a silly lot. I wonder what the nature of the damages claimed by the mother were.

7 April 2009 at 20:51  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well .......in most of the world I suggest unless there is a medical reason for it circumcision is on a par (albeit not as potentially medically serious)with female genital mutilation (as per Ayan Hirsi Ali's comments on the subject).....however in Africa statistics appear to show that male circumcision is effective in preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS so maybe it is a case of horses for courses?

Joe

7 April 2009 at 22:47  
Blogger Mark Lyndon said...

ZZMike: The mother does NOT get anything for herself. She was awarded money to pay for his medical expenses and psychological counseling. The rest of the money goes into a trust account for him when he is an adult.

Anonymous: There are seven African countries where men are more likely to be HIV+ if they've been circumcised. Eg in Rwanda, 3.5% of circumcised men are HIV+, but only 2.1% of intact men. In Cameroon, 4.1% of circumcised men are HIV+, but only 1.1% of intact men. If male circumcision really was effective in preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS, this simply wouldn't happen.

8 April 2009 at 00:59  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older