Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Good Analysis of the Ethics of Iceland's Debate About Male Circumcision

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Good Analysis of the Ethics of Iceland's Debate About Male Circumcision

    Worth a read:

    http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk...ical-analysis/

    Regards
    Last edited by greg_b; 04-25-2018, 05:42 PM.

  • #2
    The link isn't active. Looking forward to the analysis.

    Comment


    • #3
      Sorry about that, not sure why that happened. Fixed now.

      Regards

      Comment


      • #4
        Thanks. I agree, the article is useful because it lists most of the argument, be it pro or con, in one easily read article.

        I also was interested in the public replies to the article. Those replies (I didn't read all of them) which were pro circ, used the illogic of straw man argument. To me, this reveals that "pro" arguers used emotion (whether they realized it or not), and con arguers appealed to fact, at least as they understood the facts.

        Emotional argument for pro circ is a kind of fingers-in-ears stance, which will never be affected by fact, and that has been true in the clinical areas as well. I once had a female nurse tell me that "they sleep right through it" when I asked her about the anesthesia used in the circumcisions she attended. She was saying they used no local/topical anesthesia. So I asked her why the circ was being done (it was RIC). She essentially didn't understand the question at first. I had to repeat several times, "why was the circumcision done? What was the diagnosis?" (I knew there wasn't one; there isn't in RIC). She told me what we both knew to be true, "There isn't one", she said without missing a beat.

        So I said, "then somebody performed an inadequately defined surgery, without a diagnosis. That's a crime under our State law, and it violates your nursing code of ethics". She walked away. Fingers in ears allows you to walk away without looking at the situation, or thinking about what is being done.
        Last edited by Reality; 04-25-2018, 08:13 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          "between 909 and 322,000 circumcisions to prevent a single case [of penile cancer]" Nice bit of information to bring to the table when pro-circ people talk about how circumcision prevents cancer.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Reality View Post
            Thanks. I agree, the article is useful because it lists most of the argument, be it pro or con, in one easily read article.

            I also was interested in the public replies to the article. Those replies (I didn't read all of them) which were pro circ, used the illogic of straw man argument. To me, this reveals that "pro" arguers used emotion (whether they realized it or not), and con arguers appealed to fact, at least as they understood the facts.

            Emotional argument for pro circ is a kind of fingers-in-ears stance, which will never be affected by fact, and that has been true in the clinical areas as well. I once had a female nurse tell me that "they sleep right through it" when I asked her about the anesthesia used in the circumcisions she attended. She was saying they used no local/topical anesthesia. So I asked her why the circ was being done (it was RIC). She essentially didn't understand the question at first. I had to repeat several times, "why was the circumcision done? What was the diagnosis?" (I knew there wasn't one; there isn't in RIC). She told me what we both knew to be true, "There isn't one", she said without missing a beat.

            So I said, "then somebody performed an inadequately defined surgery, without a diagnosis. That's a crime under our State law, and it violates your nursing code of ethics". She walked away. Fingers in ears allows you to walk away without looking at the situation, or thinking about what is being done.
            Thanks for sharing your experience with the nurse. It helps to understand what we are dealing with.

            Yep, similar to my experience. Most of the discussions I have had with proponents of RIC quickly degrade into emotional strong emotions, often with a good bit of fear mongering thrown in. It is actually hard to really have a discussion, often it becomes a debate supported by irrational arguments and dismissal of any facts not supporting their claims.

            There also seems to be a walling off of RIC outside the realm of surgery, or something. One time, when I was being prepared for surgery, I was asked to write down all the surgeries I had had previously. I confirmed that they meant all. And, then put down circumcision in addition to my others. When the nurse came back to go over what I had written down, she saw circumcision, became flustered, and quickly said "We do not need to know that" I found it mildly frustrating and even more amusing in a way. But it said to me they put it out of their minds, and are not prepared to deal with it professionally. Otherwise, she would have asked about it, any complications, as she did for the other surgeries, in a professional manner.

            Regards

            Comment

            Working...
            X