8 replies to this topic

[SteveT]

http://www.liberalam...hase-hironimus/

 

 

I'd just like to point out that this whole thing is bullshit.  Routine circumcision is bullshit.  Cosmetic surgery on a four year old is bullshit.  Court-ordered surgeries are bullshit.

 

Come on, America.  You're better than this.

[wisp]

I know that circumcision is one of those topics that's generally dangerous to discuss, but it really makes me angry that so many people make that decision for their babies/children.  Removing part of someone's body unnecessarily is a decision that should be left to that person, and I really find it shocking that a court would order a parent to chop off their healthy baby's foreskin.

[SteveT]

That's basically how I feel about it.  Having had a son recently, I spent quite some time looking into the topic and it really struck me how desperate the pro-infant-circumcision arguments seem.  Prevention of rare medical problems and minor protection against STDs don't really raise it above the level of cosmetic surgery to me.  The APA report really exaggerated the benefits while shamelessly downplaying/ignoring the risks.  And that was my impression before I read the refutation by Canadian and European pediatricians.

 

Anyhow, independent of whether you think routine infant circumcision is good or bad, this case is just insane.  The kid is four years old.  The surgery is much more harmful and dangerous at this age, because he's past the super-fast baby healing phase, is old enough to remember it, is old enough to understand what's happening to him, and will have to go under general anesthesia. And apparently the only reason the father is so intent on doing this to his son is some combination of spite and medical ignorance, considering he thinks that a four year old has phimosis because his foreskin won't retract (which is totally normal at that age).  It pisses me off that the boy's father, the legal system, medical ethics, and American culture are all working against his well-being.

 

Anyhow, the latest I read is that the hospital issued a statement that Chase was NOT circumcised as scheduled.  They were having a PR disaster that threatened to turn into a legal disaster, so it seems that they backed out at the last second.

Edited by SteveT, 14 June 2015 - 11:19 PM.

[Oberon Storm]

I need to see if I can find more on that agreement between the parents. I want to know what exactly was in that agreement that made the courts decide the procedure could be compelled.

 

I also need to look for information on the differences between male and female circumcision. I have only been told that it is far more dangerous for girls than boys. I never actually seen any info on it myself. Without knowing that all I can say is that I was cut. I do not see it as any big deal. I do not feel my rights were in any way violated. I feel no anger towards my parents about it. If you don't want to circumcise your own son then that is your choice.

[Delphi]

Without wading into the landmine ridden topic of male circumcision, I have heard some details on the story.

From what I understand when the parents wrote up their joint custody agreement the dad wanted to get him circumcised and the mom didn't really care.

Fast forward a few years and the kid is now four. The dad never got the kid circumcised. He notified the kid is peeing down his leg and gets him checked out. First doc says it's something, I think it was something different from phimosis but I'm not sure, and recommends circumcision.

In the intervening years the mom discovered the intactivists movement and became somewhat active. She asks for a second opinion because she doesn't want to get him circumcised.

They get the second opinion, the second doc says it's not a clear cut case of a pathological process but the kid would still probably benefit from a circumcision. Mom says no, dad waves court papers in her face that she signed, she gets Intact America involved and then takes off with the kid and hides in a domestic violence shelter. Dad keeps pressing the issue, internet of course gets involved because the mom invoked the intactivists, and now poor Chase's genitals are in the news and he'll likely have to deal with it the rest of it life. But she signed a contract and the dad took it to court to enforce the contract instead of trying less invasive treatments first for a really iffy case.

Basically, I think both the parents are asshats and using their child to cause each other grief. Circumcision just happeneds to be an extremely charged issue right now and both used that to their advantage.

What I'm wondering is why the judge, after seeing how the parents are just using their kid against each other didn't assign the kid like an advocate or something. Because either way the kid isn't going to look at his parents or even himself the same again. If he does get circumcised he'll grow up knowing his mom considers him to be mutilated and that's gotta be all sorts of great for a child's psyche. If he's not circumcised I'm sure the dad will be upset and will find some way to try to punish the mom using Chase as the medium. Also not great for me two health.

I don't think routine circumcision should be a thing but I don't think it should be banned either. A lot of people of Jewish descent consider it as part of their identity just as the Kayan women consider the brass neck rings they wear to be part of theirs. Both are body modifications done before the age of consent but are also a big cultural thing so then it gets muddy and I instinctively back away. What I do know is that in the past, outlawing circumcision was a common way to slight Jewish people or to charge them with crimes when they did it anyways. Also after the Soviet Union fell, a lot of Soviet men of Jewish descent underwent circumcision as adults to have that part of their identity back. So yeah... Not for routine circumcision but also not for outlawing it.

Oberon: It depends on the type and severity of female circumcision. The one that's most similar to what male circumcision is, to my admittedly very limited understanding, is removal of the clitoral hood. Some women have this done as adults for cosmetic or pleasure reasons.

The most severe, the kind we usually hear about, is infibulation. In this case the glans of the clitoris is removed along with the inner lips of the labia and surrounding tissue. The outter labia are then sewn together leaving a small hole for urine and menstrual blood to escape. This is usually done outside sterile conditions without proper surgical tools. There's a wide variety between the two extremes even down to a ritual pin prick to the clitoris.

Finding out the actual numbers of each type of procedure is difficult as people with agendas on both sides of the issues keep trying to discredit the other side and claim their numbers are wrong. So it's a messy topic.

[Egann]

After some thought, I decided to remove my op-ed on what should happen in this case. That doesn't really matter.

 

 

Let me put the circumcision situation this way; how much intrusion in private life should a  democratically elected government have? Say we weren't talking circumcision, but a culturally significant tattoo? A branding? As far as I can tell, circumcision is quantitatively different from these, but not qualitatively. If it were a tattoo, no one would bat an eye, however. What makes circumcision--male or female--different?

 

You can also approach this in terms of who is responsible for care for children; parents or the state? Obviously neither will be able to care for all children everywhere, but does the state have the right to override the parents wishes to protect the children? Does that mean that, should public opinion sway drastically the other way, it should have the power to compel parents to circumcise their children? The one power does seem to imply the other.

 

I suppose I should put my thougths this way: what does anyone wish to accomplish by making a boy's genitals a public scandal? Whether the boy is circumcised or not doesn't really make much of a difference; it's more an excuse to discuss longstanding opinion than anything else. The involvement of public opinion in the issue, however...has some dangling implications.

[SteveT]

I suppose I should put my thougths this way: what does anyone wish to accomplish by making a boy's genitals a public scandal? Whether the boy is circumcised or not doesn't really make much of a difference; it's more an excuse to discuss longstanding opinion than anything else. The involvement of public opinion in the issue, however...has some dangling implications.

 

Well, there is certainly an element of intactivist grandstanding here.  That's undeniable.  But I'm more drawn to the bigger picture.  Two people drew up a contract that they would cut off a piece of a third person, and that contract held up in court.  Why doesn't he get a say?  How old do you have to be before you have the right to say no to an elective cosmetic surgery?  Why didn't the child have his own representation?  If it were an adult in question, it wouldn't be an enforceable contract and the parents would be arrested for drafting it.  If it were any other body part, it wouldn't be an enforceable contract and the parents would be arrested for drafting it.

 

I think this became a big one because it highlights the absurdity of infant circumcision.  You cut off a piece of a baby boy and it's normal.  Age him up a few years and it's a Kafkaesque saga of two asshat parents and a legal system that doesn't give two shits about the well-being of a child because his parents signed an agreement.  Why is cutting off a piece a thing to begin with?

[SteveT]

Let me put the circumcision situation this way; how much intrusion in private life should a  democratically elected government have? Say we weren't talking circumcision, but a culturally significant tattoo? A branding? As far as I can tell, circumcision is quantitatively different from these, but not qualitatively. If it were a tattoo, no one would bat an eye, however. What makes circumcision--male or female--different?

 

Wait, you don't think anyone would bat an eye at tattooing a small child, or a baby?  What about cutting off the left pinky toe?  I would be opposed to ANY non-consensual body modification to a minor unless there was a clear health benefit that vastly outweighed the risks of surgery.  If there was an organ that did nothing but cause cancer, and cutting it out of every baby would end cancer, then go ahead and do it.  But circumcision is either cosmetic or religious, and the religious aspect is the only reason we let it go on.

[Delphi]

I'm scratching my head here too because I can't figure out wtf the judge is thinking. Chase isn't an infant and general anesthesia is risky for anyone and from what I've heard they already know Chase has a know history of bad reactions to it. A father acting out of concern for his son I don't think would put him in that sort of danger. My dad has bad reactions to anesthesia and it isn't pretty. He goes into vomiting fits and psychosis. Doing something similar to a four year old? It better be for life saving surgery. Otherwise it's cruel.

So this really isn't in his best interest as similar issues to what he has is typically treated with steroid creams or other non-surgical techniques before going straight to cutting. Even American pediatricians suggest those first lines from the ones I've talked to.

It never should have been a public spectacle and the judge should have appointed the kid an advocate to actually do what's in his best interest since neither parent seems to be interested in anything other than screwing the other over. The internet, regardless of being an intactivist or not, shouldn't have gotten involved, period. The courts shouldn't have put up with the parents' drama.

Edited by Delphi, 15 June 2015 - 08:57 PM.