What about circumcision and pain relief for baby

In ,
Chotii wrote:

*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."

On what planet are these people living that they don't know what a tonsil
is? Am I THAT out of touch with reality? (you don't have to answer that,
hee hee). One sec, let me take a quick survey of some parents...ok, I just
asked a group of random women with whom I have an online acquaintance (all
of whom are hanging out in a chat room with me right now) and four out of
four of them know what a tonsil is. In fact one of them stated that it is
a collection of lymphoid tissue, and one of them stated that it is one of
the lumps of tissue in the back of the mouth on either side of the uvula.
And these are not physicians or nurses, either. My husband says "it's a
gland, in the throat, well, no, the back of the mouth really, but everyone
knows that!" He's a computer geek for a living, so there you go.

*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

Sure, but what I'm saying is that when I explain what it is, they STILL
want it done, much of the time.

*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.*

Just to be clear, like I said before, I don't declaw for non-medical
purposes, and have never needed to do it for medical purposes, so I
haven't ever done one. They didn't teach it to us in vet school; our
surgical instructors were generally from countries where it's illegal and
they weren't inclined to learn how to do it just to teach us to do it when
they don't believe in it! I'd have to learn it from someone else if I
wanted to do it (not that it is such a difficult procedure, I'm told).

*(*)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,

It certainly does have a certain logic, doesn't it? Of course I would
contend that G-d's will trumps not only my will as a parent but my son's
will as a person, assuming of course one believes in G-d and the
commandmant to circumcise.

*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.

Yes, that is the big issue in the field right now. Sadly, there are a lot
of people who WOULD choose to kill a cat rather than declaw it, and it's
a problem for those vets like me who would like to see cosmetic/routine
declaw outlawed. How do you get from here (it's legal) to there (it's
illegal) without killing those cats in the meantime? and if you can't,
does the end justify the means?

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

"Hillary Israeli" wrote in message
...
*
* 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.

Oh, I agree with you there. But if one is going to claim that the current
term is a misnomer and suggest a new one then it would be best if the new
term is accurate.

--
CBI

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


"Chotii" wrote in message
...

The problem is, I think most people really *don't* understand what it
IS.
Most people have no idea what the foreskin *is*, what its function is,
and
why its removal creates an unnatural situation.

I don't think anyone understands this.


Virtually no one understands
that the human penis is functionally an internal organ, intended to be
covered with protective skin right up to its tip, except when "in use";

Evolution does not "intend" anything. Some things provide an advantage in
propagation and some things just haven't been selected against.


nor
do they understand that the glans is a mucous membrane, meant to be
lubricated at all times, *not* dry.

That's not true.

I stand corrected. It is *not* the head of the penis which is mucosal in
nature, but rather the inner portion of the foreskin which customarily
covers the head. Being that I am not a doctor, I will let the authors of
this study (an MD and a pathologist) speak for themselves. That way I
neither exaggerate or speak incorrectly:
http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/.

However, I maintain that, given that the tissues that comprise the foreskin
are homologous (or analogous?) to the clitoral hood, one might expect to
find the intact male's glans to be naturally moist under its covering in the
same way that the clitoris is. I never hear anybody suggesting that baby
girls should have their clitoral-hood excised for any reason, least of all
cleanliness or appearance.

--angela

(Yes, CBI, I know you're no proponent, but as I had misspoken and
misrepresented, I felt I ought to correct myself, and provide a reference
that says what I thought I was saying.)

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 05:45:40 GMT, "Carol Ann"
wrote:

I have no ral experience in the matter. I am also having a daughter, but
still, would have the child circumsized if it were a boy (I think).

~Carol Ann

Other than religious reasons, why?


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

"Chotii" wrote in message
...
same way that the clitoris is. I never hear anybody suggesting that baby
girls should have their clitoral-hood excised for any reason, least of all
cleanliness or appearance.

I have. Those tribes that practice the less radical female circumsions do
it that way.

"toto" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 05:45:40 GMT, "Carol Ann"
wrote:

I have no ral experience in the matter. I am also having a daughter, but
still, would have the child circumsized if it were a boy (I think).

~Carol Ann

Other than religious reasons, why?

She's already told us. She thinks it's prettier.

"toypup" wrote in message
news8wEb.599814$Fm2.547203@attbi_s04...

"Chotii" wrote in message
...
same way that the clitoris is. I never hear anybody suggesting that baby
girls should have their clitoral-hood excised for any reason, least of
all
cleanliness or appearance.

I have. Those tribes that practice the less radical female circumsions do
it that way.

No doubt. Again, I should have been more clear: "I never hear anybody
suggesting" meaning here, in the newsgroups.

--angela

In . net,
CBI wrote:

*
*
*
*"Hillary Israeli" wrote in message
...
* *
* * 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.
*
*Oh, I agree with you there. But if one is going to claim that the current
*term is a misnomer and suggest a new one then it would be best if the new
*term is accurate.

Yeah, yeah. Go ahead and confuse us with actual facts, why don't you.

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

"Nan" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 05:42:50 GMT, "toypup"
wrote:


"toto" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 05:45:40 GMT, "Carol Ann"
wrote:

I have no ral experience in the matter. I am also having a daughter,
but
still, would have the child circumsized if it were a boy (I think).

~Carol Ann

Other than religious reasons, why?

She's already told us. She thinks it's prettier.

You just don't let up on the stupid comments, do you.

She said it, not me.

"Nan" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:47:01 GMT, "toypup"
wrote:


"Nan" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 05:42:50 GMT, "toypup"
wrote:


"toto" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 05:45:40 GMT, "Carol Ann"
wrote:

I have no ral experience in the matter. I am also having a
daughter,
but
still, would have the child circumsized if it were a boy (I think).

~Carol Ann

Other than religious reasons, why?

She's already told us. She thinks it's prettier.

You just don't let up on the stupid comments, do you.

She said it, not me.

So? Does that make your comment any less childish?

I'm just answering the poster's question about Carol Ann's reason. She's
stated her reason and that's what it was. If she restated her reason, you'd
have thought nothing of it. You just don't like it because I said it.