Okay, since I don't want to be a complete dick, I'll answer this post in a manner that isn't 'terribly clever'
Swank said:
Wow, forgot about this for a while. First, in response to the institutional demand for profit keeping circumcisions prominent, this is the best explanation I've heard yet, but hardly comprehensive.
Thanks! Oh, um, shucks.
Swank said:
I don't know if you perhaps worked on the adminstrative side of things at all in your career...
Nope.
Swank said:
...but could you really imagine there being a particular budget break-down that included circumcisions?
Yep, because we had charge codes for every item and procedure that we used/conducted in my field.
Swank said:
Granted a hospital or health care group might have some idea about how much revenue it generates, but I think the point is that we either believe hospitals are pushing the operation in an unethical fashion...
Not at all. There is no conspiracy, just complacency...
Swank said:
...or we believe that it's just an available service for parents.
...because of this.
Swank said:
I believe it is just that, as nearly half of new parents still wish to circumcise, and I'd bet a good number of them would still go for it even if they were informed that there are no tangible medical benefits. It is my understanding that it is now the trend for insurance companies to regard the procedure the as cosmetic and hence not pay for it, and it I was also told by a physician that doctors have regarded it as cosmetic action for quite a long time. The fact is, many hospitals would essentialy, as you may have already reasoned, lose business to others by not offering the procedure. So is this unethical on the part of hospitals and doctors? Absolutely not...
Absolutely not? Even when the U.N. condemns RIC? Even when concerned physicians have formed Doctors Opposed to Circumcision? Even when the American Academy of Pediatrics has revoked support for RIC? Seems the ethics of RIC and those who perform and facilitate it are just a
wee bit questionable.
Swank said:
...as they consider it an extremely low-risk procedure (and it is)...
Yeah, ha, ha, tell that to the parents of the baby boys who've died as a direct result of circumcision.
Swank said:
...and something done for cosmetic reasons. The overwhelming sentiment that I heard when discussing it was that medical staff that ever really deal with it simply don't give it much consideration and conform to the parent's wishes.
Father: "Say, doc, while you're down there, will you perform a vasectomy on the little guy?"
Doctor: "What? That would be unethical! Only he should be allowed to decide something that serious."
Father: "Wha...? It's only a little bit of tissue."
Swank said:
I understand the need for any business entity to maximize revenue, but I'm more than pleased to accept this point as I don't think it essentially changes anything. And besides, we've gone from regarding doctors and the medical industry as an evil, scheming, monolithic machine hell bent on sexually crippling men for a few pennies a year, to suggesting that the medical indsutry doesn't ban circumcision outright because it's mostly harmless and hospitals would lose business by not providing it.
Hmm, I don't regard circumcision as "mostly harmless", just business-as-usual for the medical establisHydromaxent (it's not an industry).
Swank said:
I think the bottom line with this issue is that the whole anti-circ thing is an emotional argument and movement, and like most of these types of things it needs something of a narrative structure, including a villian.
Are you serious? This isn't a course in creative writting; we don't need props to see the hypocracy of RIC.
Swank said:
So, the ominous medical industry is quickly demonized as the propigators of all these horrible mutilations and the outrage targeted their way. It fits better with the story than suggesting that most people never are bothered by circumcision and happily choose it for children, who in turn aren't bothered by it. Much more exciting is the idea that the masses just haven't been clued in on this anti-circ knowledge...
Welcome to the Matrix, eh?
Swank said:
...and that those speading the gospel are fighting a an inhumane corporate machine and are privy to the real truth about male sexuality and such.
Now, so far as the circumcison could possibly cause a man to rape, become homosexual, manically depressed, ect. - I won't and will never say that is even possible. The only way I can see it affecting a person's behavior in such an extreme degree is if they were exposed to too much extremist internet propaganda that lead them to believe they were sexually crippled, mentally affected, and should be displaying these types of symptoms.
You are refering to a minority opinion in the restoration community. I don't agree with that PTSD hoo doo, but I won't condemn the people who do since I don't live in their heads... and neither do you.
Swank said:
There is absolutely no physiological explanation that I can think of...
Are you a psychologist or a psychiatrist? If not, then STFU
Swank said:
...for the removal of a foreskin causing such a wide array of different and abnormal behaviors. Can anybody make a reasonable argument to me substantiating that circumcision can have these effects on a person?
Excuse me! Is there a Doctor of Psychology in the house?
Swank said:
I'll be frank, it's really just some bullshit cooked up by extremist activitst groups that is designed to freak people out and recruit them into the fold. That seems fairly obvious to me.
Thank you, Doctor Swank, for you're informed assessment.
Swank said:
The suggestions of increased masturbation, impotence, propensity for rape, and homosexuality are taken from anti-circ literature, not any type of medical or psychological source. I think it's irresponsible, unprovable, and derogitory (the gay thing? think about it . . .).
Really? Not
any type of medical or psychological source? Can you prove that?
Swank said:
Also, I believe that I have read that the peak of anti-circ activism was probably in the alte 70s and early 80s, when it was briefly a national news topic and the letter writing campaigns and newly formed organizations were very active. I often get the sense that many men are excited by the topic because they think they're on the cutting edge of something just beginning to gain speed, but the realative merits, or rather lack of merits, of circumcision has been debated and publicized quite heavily.
This is what I mean by revisionist history. The U.S. health statistics just do not support such a simplistic view of circumcision rates. As for activism: they don't appear to be very quiet these days, but then you heavily qualified your assertions, so your argument isn't very compelling to begin with.
Swank said:
The pamphlet thing - I would ask the hosptial what their policy is before just leaving them around and then crying wolf if they disappear immediately.
Always a good idea.
Swank said:
They may have a general rule against outside groups or individuals just distributing unreviewed literature around the hospital regardless of content.
Probably not. The Jehovah's Witnesses leave stuff all the time and it never gets tossed.
Swank said:
And, to be clear here, would the staff then want to whisk the pamphlets away as quickly as possible, as they fear losing their jobs if a few less circumcisions are performed that year?
Probably not. They're much to busy doing their jobs to worry about pamphlets in the waiting areas. This whole paragraph is where I dinged you for talking out of ignorance; if you've never worked in a hospital....
Swank said:
Institutional pressure is real, individual efforts to keep circumcisions happening are not. Think about it a bit . . .
I'd really rather not, thanks.
Cheers!
Pri