Circumcision Info Net/95.02.25 
Author Message
 Circumcision Info Net/95.02.25


>> >>>No, it's *not* that simple. With any medical procedure, one balances
>> >>>mortality/morbidity due to the procedure, versus mortality/morbidity
>> >>>which the procedure prevents, and compares the result to the presumed
>> >>>opportunity cost of the procedure (the same money/time, used elsewhere,
>> >>>could...). One may also throw in a certain consideration for intangibles,
>> >>>such as tradition, culture, etc.

>> >>>I'll post the abstracts of the two studies that I saw that did this.
>> >>>The studies appeared to be objective and well-reasoned. Their con-
>> >>>clusions supported neither extreme of this argument.

>> >>Great, but so what? What do you tell the dead, and their parents about
>> >>how "on average" circumcision or any other death-dealing technology
>> >>might on the "averages" have helped them?

>> >Conversely, what do you tell the parents of children who die or are
>> >sickened by urinary infections?

>> You tell them a germ killed them.

>> >What do you tell the parents of children who die from vaccines?

>> You tell them the vaccine killed them.

>> And if circumcision kills them you tell them that THEIR DECISION
>> and the DOCTOR killed them.

>> >What do you tell the parents of children who died due to lack of
>> >medical care that was instead used for other, less urgent or
>> >preventable problems.

>> You mean like the $ we spend circumcising lots of kids instead of
>> doing things of value for them? The 3 nations with the greatest
>> male longevity are Iceland, Sweden and Japan - none of whom
>> circumcise, and I suspect all of them have lower medical costs.
>> I suggest that before we try to "improve" our lives by mutilating
>> children we do what those nations do. That would at least get
>> us ahead of where we are.

>> >Medical decisions are quite complex, and always involve tradeoffs
>> >of mortality, morbidity, and cost. Any attempt to oversimplify this
>> >into, "never take actions which cause harm" results
>> >in a pathological philosophy and a m{*filter*}paralysis which I reject,
>> >whether it be in the form of pacifism or inability to compare risks
>> >in medical care or general living.

>> I take great exception to this paragraph. I denotes m{*filter*}relativism
>> of a disgusting nature as well as a profound disrespect for human
>> beings as anything more than meat. At the bottom if it is the notion
>> that it is OK to kill some to save others. That sir, is playing god.
>> And that is what happens with circumcisions. Some are killed who
>> would not have died, and perhaps others are saved who might have died.
>> When man does this, rather than God, man is playing at being god.
>> The {*filter*} problem is the dead - and on whose shoulders to place the
>> blame. Nobody is blamed for acts of God, but we damn well can and
>> should blame human beings who kill in the name of "statistics".

>> "Primum non nocere" means just what it says, but is has been corrupted
>> of late to be understood as "on average, do no harm". It is my point
>> that statistics do not relieve anyone from the m{*filter*}responsibility
>> for their actions - which is what I think Hippocrates was aiming at.

>> Here is a hypothetical for you. Suppose a doc kills somebody, then he
>> is so grief stricken that he gives up the profession and never saves
>> anyone. His ledger on death shows: Dead=1, Saved=0. Which direction do
>> you think St. Peter will point him in?

>> >>Because if you think it is a good idea to remove healthy tissue from
>> >>males to prevent certain diseases then you must accept that the same
>> >>medical policies should apply to females, n'est-ce pas? Mammary excision
>> >>could save about 1/6 from cancer, while circumcision saves < 1:100000
>> >>from penile cancer.

>> >Invalid analogy. If you actually have cost/benefit studies that show
>> >a net benefit to such surgery, please cite them.  

>> Give me a break. I got you and now you're trying to hide. You know as
>> well as I do that {*filter*} cancer hits about 1/6. The cost-efficiency
>> is totally obvious and you know as well as I do that a formal study
>> would only confirm it. You simply seek to not think for yourself but
>> rather look in a book for such an answer. But just suppose I am
>> right - would it be OK to whack off their mammaries? I mean is any
>> part of the human body fair game for surgeons if some study says
>> that it might reduce disease. Somebody once said that - if anything is
>> sacred it is the human body. You appear not to agree - and that is part
>> of the profound disrespect I accuse you of. The other part of the
>> disrespect, which is implicit in your writings, is the notion that
>> the consent of minors is irrelevant, and that they as minors have
>> no right of self-determination over their bodies.

>> >>Go ahead and publish your fine studies that show the benefits of
>> >>involuntary surgery, and I'll ask you if those subjects should be
>> >>happy or angry. Because you see without a diagnosis there is NO
>> >>reason to be happy about having lost part of your body. If you think
>> >>there is then I have a great psychologist that I can recommend to
>> >>you.

>> >Please clean the froth from your mouth, sir. There, that's better.

>> Again you evaded the question. You continue to demonstrate disrespect
>> for people as human beings with feelings. I asked if people should be
>> happy with this involuntary surgery but you won't answer me because you
>> don't want to think about those people as having an opinion about
>> it. I was mutilated by a guy like that - he just cut me without the
>> consent of me or my parents. And then I come along and demonstrate
>> anger and unhappiness. How uppity of me to think that MY body parts
>> might be MINE. How ungrateful I must seem to not apprecciate that a
>> healthy, useful and sensitive part of my body was destroyed needlessly.
>> How disrespectful of ME to question HIS right to cut off part of my body.

>> Maybe you get the point. Thousands of men have joined NORM to undo
>> the damage to their bodies (as far as possible). Many people are
>> unhappy about their circumcisions. I simply ask you to let us all
>> know why we don't have the right to be angry and unhappy. Prove
>> to us how our suffering has been for the greater good or something.

> It has been pointed out to you in the past that *you* choose to be
> angry and unhappy rather than getting on with your life. I suspect
> that being angry and unhappy is what really makes you happy.
> Some people enjoy being the victim, and it is obvious that you are
> a prime example.

> --
> Jeff

The facts are these:

1.  Circumcising babies is a power issue for the parents; i.e., "He's my kid
and I'll do with him as I like."

2.  Circumcising babies is a monetary issue for doctors and insurance
companies; the more surgeries the better (and the more $$$ in these folk's

3.  Folks in favor of such {*filter*} {*filter*} are essentially neopagans, who
are in direct opposition to the New Testament (Galatians 5, Romans 4).  The New
Testament invalidates the Old (Romans 7).

4.  These same people would howl in rage if puppies and kittens were so
treated; thus they are animists, valuing brute beasts over human life.

A few more elections like last November, and America will be back on track.

Thu, 18 Sep 1997 04:00:00 GMT
 [ 1 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. Circumcision Info Net/95.02.25

2. Circumcision Info Net/95.02.25

3. World Pharma News Digest - 25.02.2008

4. County [Crow Wing, Minnesota] called hot spot for Lyme disease, Brainerd Daily Dispatch, 25 Jun 02

5. World Pharma News Digest - 25.02.2008

6. Rhemium + Posting of Tad Jefferies 25.03.02

7. INFO: Day 1 Report AASLD Nov 2-5/02

8. Macular Degeneration, Procyanidin-95 (PC-95) from France.

9. Macular Degeneration, Procyanidin-95 (PC-95) from France.

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software