Phimosis isn’t even a birth defect, it’s not supposed to be pulled back for an infant. There’s basically no medically justifiable reason, ever, to do this to a baby.
While I agree that most cases of phimosis would be better to wait until teenage/young adult years before intervention is considered, if it’s bad enough that their pee balloons under the foreskin, it requires surgery. However, that surgery does not require full circumcision either in babies or adolescents.
Ballooning can be harmless and doesn’t mean that there’s severe phimosis, much less severe enough to require surgery. The process of natural separation takes time.
Okay, I’m incredibly anti-circumcision, but you’re just being obtuse. The whole point of medical science is to prevent suffering. For example, we vaccinate babies to prevent harmful illnesses. They cannot speak for themselves so we have to make those decisions for them, but only in their best interests.
The standard of care should be too take the least invasive approach possible, especially when the more radical option has lifelong consequences. Not sure how that position is obtuse. And if a child is too young to speak, nobody should be recommending this operation because any diagnosis of ‘phimosis’ at that age is plain bullshit.
…because any diagnosis of ‘phimosis’ at that age is plain bullshit.
This is the position I believe is obtuse. Circumcision being abhorrent doesn’t mean that any medically necessary surgery in the area is “bullshit”. I’ll point out, again, that surgery for phimosis does not require circumcision, nor does it cause the same lifelong consequences. I’m not going to debate it with you further though.
Edit: Under your logic, we should just let a baby with a congenital heart defect die instead of operate on them, because they can’t speak for themselves.
Good thing that’s not at all my logic. A high risk heart condition and not being retractable at age three are not even slightly the same degree of compelling. Talk about being obtuse. You give an extremely common phenomenon that many boys grow out of and say that it necessitates surgery without any qualifiers. I say bullshit, that is basically the extent of it.
Even if there’s phimosis going straight to circumcision is not medically defensible, first there’s testosterone creme and mechanical stimulation. Don’t have statistics at hand but the number of cases where that’s not enough should be lower than that of intersex folks.
Phimosis in infants can lead to infections to the urinary tract, discomfort and/or pain and other related issues.
Phimosis is a medical condition and needs to be addressed as such, with parents/guardians taking well informed decisions backed with medical advice.
Addressing phimosis and other issues regarding the prepuce also does not require circumcision as other procedures can be done to rectify issues.
The removal of the prepuce for non medical reasons is an unnecessary, unjustifiable, unreasonable act, already considered to some degree as genital mutilation, as it has been shown it deprives feeling from the area and thus inhibits the sexual development and enjoyment.
Phimosis isn’t even a birth defect, it’s not supposed to be pulled back for an infant. There’s basically no medically justifiable reason, ever, to do this to a baby.
While I agree that most cases of phimosis would be better to wait until teenage/young adult years before intervention is considered, if it’s bad enough that their pee balloons under the foreskin, it requires surgery. However, that surgery does not require full circumcision either in babies or adolescents.
Ballooning can be harmless and doesn’t mean that there’s severe phimosis, much less severe enough to require surgery. The process of natural separation takes time.
Okay, I’m incredibly anti-circumcision, but you’re just being obtuse. The whole point of medical science is to prevent suffering. For example, we vaccinate babies to prevent harmful illnesses. They cannot speak for themselves so we have to make those decisions for them, but only in their best interests.
The standard of care should be too take the least invasive approach possible, especially when the more radical option has lifelong consequences. Not sure how that position is obtuse. And if a child is too young to speak, nobody should be recommending this operation because any diagnosis of ‘phimosis’ at that age is plain bullshit.
This is the position I believe is obtuse. Circumcision being abhorrent doesn’t mean that any medically necessary surgery in the area is “bullshit”. I’ll point out, again, that surgery for phimosis does not require circumcision, nor does it cause the same lifelong consequences. I’m not going to debate it with you further though.
Edit: Under your logic, we should just let a baby with a congenital heart defect die instead of operate on them, because they can’t speak for themselves.
Good thing that’s not at all my logic. A high risk heart condition and not being retractable at age three are not even slightly the same degree of compelling. Talk about being obtuse. You give an extremely common phenomenon that many boys grow out of and say that it necessitates surgery without any qualifiers. I say bullshit, that is basically the extent of it.
Not just boys grow out of it. Hi, from a girl with a penis. Can you leave me alone now?
Even if there’s phimosis going straight to circumcision is not medically defensible, first there’s testosterone creme and mechanical stimulation. Don’t have statistics at hand but the number of cases where that’s not enough should be lower than that of intersex folks.
Phimosis in infants can lead to infections to the urinary tract, discomfort and/or pain and other related issues.
Phimosis is a medical condition and needs to be addressed as such, with parents/guardians taking well informed decisions backed with medical advice.
Addressing phimosis and other issues regarding the prepuce also does not require circumcision as other procedures can be done to rectify issues.
The removal of the prepuce for non medical reasons is an unnecessary, unjustifiable, unreasonable act, already considered to some degree as genital mutilation, as it has been shown it deprives feeling from the area and thus inhibits the sexual development and enjoyment.