What about circumcision and pain relief for baby

"toypup" wrote in message
news:ZUcEb.419822$ao4.1356007@attbi_s51...

"Chotii" wrote in message
...
asking me if I wanted my future boy circ'd, "The foreskin of the newborn
infant male is adhered to the glans like your fingernails are adhered to
your fingers, naturally protecting the glans inside a diaper.

You say this as if diapers have been around since the earliest man and he
evolved so that a baby's forekin adheres to protect him from diapers,
naturally. I really doubt that's its purpose. I suppose if you go to the
tribal areas where diapers are not worn and have never been worn, you'd
see
foreskins adhering to glans on babies.

Sigh. Of course you would. The point I'm trying to make is that the foreskin
protects and cushions the sensitive glans. Whether it was "evolved" or
"created" or "designed" to do that, or if nature simply hasn't had the
chance to select against it because of the advent of tighty whities, I have
no idea. But, the average mom going into her average OB appointment is
probably going to diaper her baby. Not very many people (in Western
civilization) know about elimination training and fewer still will want to
make the effort. So, the adhered foreskin protects the glans against the
sorts of soil one finds inside diapers, just as it protects the baby who
runs around (or lies around) un-diapered in the forest, desert, or wherever
else men have lived or still live today, from the soil in their
environments. It serves a purpose.

I am merely tooling my argument for the audience I expect is reading it:
"This is your situation. This is how your situation may be affected if you
make choice A instead of choice B." I don't mean to imply at all that other
situations don't or haven't existed.

--angela

"0tterbot" wrote in message ...
"XOR" wrote in message

btw - are cranberries strictly a temperate climate thing? I couldn't
find cranberry juice anywhere in Thailand.

that would make sense.

And when I asked my Aussie
MD (ob/gyn) friend about it, she said she'd never heard of the
cranberry juice thing for UTIs (nor had she ever had cranberry juice).

she should have by now, surely. i'm not a dr & i have. ocean spray entered
the market a couple of years ago. (to an underwhelming response, i gather.)
i'd assume most of my compatriots would find the drinking of cranberry juice
to be an odd pastime. we don't have cranberries, that's just the way it is
:-)
kylie

I should have clarified that though Aussie, she's been living and
working in rural Thailand for the past 8 years. So while she does
generally keep up to date with her medical work, and occassionally
visits Oz, it is easy for her to miss common cultural things (like the
introduction of Ocean Spray).

"Chotii" wrote in message .. .
"CBI" wrote in message
ink.net...


"Chotii" wrote in message
...

However, there's simply no way to quantify the degree of damage
done.

Exactly. This should have been the first and last sentence.

As you wish. I merely think most people assume, since "Everybody does it"
and "it doesn't matter if you do it" that no damage *is* done. The failure
on the part of OBs and others to offer information unless specifically
requested feeds into this.

I agree that the standards of informed consent are not met (or at
least rarely are) and that the burden of meeting those standards
should fall on the one doing the procedure. However, spreading
misinformation does not help the situation.

--
CBI, MD

Shena Delian O'Brien wrote in message news:OZ6Eb.584857$Fm2.541892@attbi_s04...
Hillary Israeli wrote:

onchyectomy - I talk about "declawing" their cats. I do explain that when
a declaw is done, the distal toes are amputated, but I don't say "so, if
you're still interested despite my recommendation against the procedure,
you can call and schedule your toe amputation at your convenience, Dr B
will do it." I say "if you're still interested...you can call and schedule
a declaw with Dr. B..." YKWIM?

I would call it toe amputation. Declawing is awful. *shudder*

I agree. My father-in-law, who raises cats, is against it, and
whenever he places a cat, the new owners have to sign a contract that
says they won't declaw unless it's due to a health reason for the cat.
(He had had a cat whose claws routinely grew quickly, and then
embedded themselves into the bottom of her feet - that's the only
declaw he's ever had done - not sure why clipping the claws wasn't an
option - possibly that was the cat it was impossible to do do
clippy-claws on.)

Cathy Weeks
Mommy to Kivi Alexis 12/01

"Chotii" wrote in message
...

"toypup" wrote in message
news:ZUcEb.419822$ao4.1356007@attbi_s51...

"Chotii" wrote in message
...
asking me if I wanted my future boy circ'd, "The foreskin of the
newborn
infant male is adhered to the glans like your fingernails are adhered
to
your fingers, naturally protecting the glans inside a diaper.

You say this as if diapers have been around since the earliest man and
he
evolved so that a baby's forekin adheres to protect him from diapers,
naturally. I really doubt that's its purpose. I suppose if you go to
the
tribal areas where diapers are not worn and have never been worn, you'd
see
foreskins adhering to glans on babies.

Sigh. Of course you would. The point I'm trying to make is that the
foreskin
protects and cushions the sensitive glans. Whether it was "evolved" or
"created" or "designed" to do that, or if nature simply hasn't had the
chance to select against it because of the advent of tighty whities, I
have
no idea. But, the average mom going into her average OB appointment is
probably going to diaper her baby. Not very many people (in Western
civilization) know about elimination training and fewer still will want to
make the effort. So, the adhered foreskin protects the glans against the
sorts of soil one finds inside diapers, just as it protects the baby who
runs around (or lies around) un-diapered in the forest, desert, or
wherever
else men have lived or still live today, from the soil in their
environments. It serves a purpose.

I do not deny that the foreskin serves a purpose. In fact, if you read my
posts, I am pretty much anti-c*rc. DS was not c*rced. I just didn't agree
with your statement about how the foreskin adheres naturally so it can
protect from diapers. There's not much natural about diapers that a
foreskin would evolve to adhere for. Anyway, if it needs to adhere in order
to protect a baby from forest or desert, why not adhere to protect an adult?
I'm sure there's a reason it adheres, if only because that's what it needs
to do to mature, but I'm not so sure it's adhering for the sake of extra
protection from diapers, or anything else for that matter.

In et,
CBI wrote:

*
*
*"Hillary Israeli" wrote in message
...
* In _e7Eb.573709$HS4.4314332@attbi_s01,
* Shena Delian O'Brien wrote:
*
* *Hillary Israeli wrote:
* *
* * I'm not a fan of it either, but I don't see the point in being the only
* * person calling it "toe amputation." The accepted name of the procedure
*is
* * "declaw" or "onychectomy" (I see I spelled it wrong above, whoops). As
* * long as I explain what it is before it's done, I don't see the big deal
* * really.
* *
* *I think my objection to the term is that it is kind of a misnomer. It
* *should be called "detoe" or something ... "declaw" makes people think
* *you are only removing the cat's "fingernails" which sorta takes away the
* *full impact of the actual surgery.
*
* Well, I agree, I think it should be called toe removal also -
*
*But the whole toe is not removed.

Ok. I think it should be called P3 removal. But no one would know what I'm
talking about, so I call it a "declaw," and then explain using a model or
a drawing (depending on where I am) exactly what the procedure entails. My
point remains that I don't really think the name of the procedure matters.
Do you want to have a Whipple procedure more than you want to have a
partial pancreas, gall bladder, duodenum, and common bile duct
amputation??

--
hillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net
"uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est."
not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large

In ,
Chotii wrote:

*The problem is, I think most people really *don't* understand what it IS.

I've never met a parent of a boy who didn't know what a foreskin is.

*Back to declawing - what percentage of people would persist in having their
*cats declawed if they were told bluntly that the cat would be detoed? How
*many would recoil in absolute horror and leave immediately?

I am very clear in my explanations and if you're implying that I in any
way sugar-coat it, well - you're mistaken. I tell my clients that they are
removing the distal portion of the toe. I show them with a model foot, a
drawing, and my own finger exactly where the disarticulation occurs and
what is removed. At LEAST half of them still desire the procedure and are
referred for it. About 10% or so tell me they had no idea. The rest of
them say "yeah, I know, I still kind of want it, well, let me think about
it" and defer the decision until a later date.

h.

--
hillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net
"uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est."
not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large

"toypup" wrote in message
news:68mEb.392737$Dw6.1244066@attbi_s02...

... I just didn't agree
with your statement about how the foreskin adheres naturally so it can
protect from diapers. There's not much natural about diapers that a
foreskin would evolve to adhere for. Anyway, if it needs to adhere in
order
to protect a baby from forest or desert, why not adhere to protect an
adult?
I'm sure there's a reason it adheres, if only because that's what it needs
to do to mature, but I'm not so sure it's adhering for the sake of extra
protection from diapers, or anything else for that matter.

Clearly, then, I chose the wrong words to make the statement I was trying to
make which was this:

"The infant foreskin naturally adheres to the glans. The presence of
non-retractable skin protects the glans."

I'm entirely unclear how ""The foreskin of the newborn infant male is
adhered to the glans....naturally protecting the glans inside a diaper" is
construed to mean "this adhesion evolved to protect babies inside diapers",
which is what I hear you saying I said.

For the record, the adult foreskin also protects the male glans. And there
is some degree of adhesion, just as you would expect when any two pieces of
moist skin touch each other (or even, think of it, when you sit on a vinyl
seat on a hot day, in shorts - the sweat creates a mild form of stickiness).
This is why the adult forekin 'peels' back instead of just pushing back.
The fully-restored men on the restoration list say that the sensation of
coverage is wonderful - that exceedingly soft, cushiony skin protecting the
sensitive glans from rubbing against their shorts. I'm not trying to say
that evolution had this in mind, but it seems like a really nice side
benefit. Those men certainly say so.

--angela

"XOR" wrote in message
om...
"0tterbot" wrote in message
...
"XOR" wrote in message

btw - are cranberries strictly a temperate climate thing? I couldn't
find cranberry juice anywhere in Thailand.

that would make sense.

And when I asked my Aussie
MD (ob/gyn) friend about it, she said she'd never heard of the
cranberry juice thing for UTIs (nor had she ever had cranberry juice).

she should have by now, surely. i'm not a dr & i have. ocean spray
entered
the market a couple of years ago. (to an underwhelming response, i
gather.)
i'd assume most of my compatriots would find the drinking of cranberry
juice
to be an odd pastime. we don't have cranberries, that's just the way it
is
:-)
kylie

I should have clarified that though Aussie, she's been living and
working in rural Thailand for the past 8 years. So while she does
generally keep up to date with her medical work, and occassionally
visits Oz, it is easy for her to miss common cultural things (like the
introduction of Ocean Spray).

ah, i see.
but i don't think she's missed much anyway. as a preventative for utis,
you'd need to sell your firstborn on the internet to afford to do it, after
you found somewhere that sells the stupid stuff in the first place.
kylie

"Hillary Israeli" wrote in message
...
In ,
Chotii wrote:

*The problem is, I think most people really *don't* understand what it IS.

I've never met a parent of a boy who didn't know what a foreskin is.

I would venture to say that a great many parents (not all, but many) only
know about the foreskin in theory; if the father was cut as an infant and
has himself never seen an intact man; if the mother has never seen or been
with an intact man; if neither parent has any idea what how the foreskin
functions, how can they really understand what is lost when it is removed?
I have a pretty good idea that most people have a vague idea what the
tonsils are, too, but they couldn't tell you more than maybe mumble, "Uh,
don't kids have those taken out? Mine were."

*Back to declawing - what percentage of people would persist in having
their
*cats declawed if they were told bluntly that the cat would be detoed? How
*many would recoil in absolute horror and leave immediately?

I am very clear in my explanations and if you're implying that I in any
way sugar-coat it, well - you're mistaken. I tell my clients that they are
removing the distal portion of the toe. I show them with a model foot, a
drawing, and my own finger exactly where the disarticulation occurs and
what is removed. At LEAST half of them still desire the procedure and are
referred for it. About 10% or so tell me they had no idea. The rest of
them say "yeah, I know, I still kind of want it, well, let me think about
it" and defer the decision until a later date.

I have not tried to make any judgments about how you speak to your patients'
owners. I only mean to point out that just because people know the
doctor-speak name of a procedure, does NOT mean they understand the
procedure with its inherent risks and potential long-term effects. My own
experience with the medical community around here, in my now-4-year-quest to
address my daughter's medical issues, is that unless I ask specific
questions from the right people at the right time, I'm left bumbling around
in the dark. Even when I have actively, even desperately, sought answers to
specific questions, I have not gotten answers. My experience tells me that
the medical community in general does not offer "gratuitous" information -
and they get to decide what is "gratuitous" - even if I might consider that
information vital (and often have).

If you do as you describe, then you have a d*mn sight better "bedside
manner" than I typically run into, and I wish I had a pet so I could bring
it to you. Some of your patients change their mind when you describe what
you will do. Some don't. That's an educated choice. I respect that.*

--angela

(*)In the case of routine infant circumcision, I still contend that because
the surgery is non-essential and cosmetic in nature, the patient in question
should be the one making the educated choice, and so that choice must be
deferred until the patient can make the choice himself. Cats are....well,
cats. I don't own one, and I doubt I ever will (DH doesn't like them), but
it would be a very hard thing for me to do that to a cat - it would have to
be a situation where, "If this cat is not declawed, I will have to have it
destroyed." Then I would choose the thing that would let the animal
continue to live, rather than killing it, and take the necessary precautions
to protect it afterward. So you can see where I'm coming from there, too. I
think I'm quite consistent in this.