What about circumcision and pain relief for baby

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*

In OZ6Eb.584857$Fm2.541892@attbi_s04,
Shena Delian O'Brien wrote:

*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'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.

Disclaimer: I have never done and probably will never do a declaw, unless
one of my feline patients develops an immune mediated or other disease
requiring it.

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

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.

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 it IS
NOT called that, is my point - so you know, who am I to decide for the
world that it should be called something else? Similarly with circumcision
- it's called what it's called. As long as we understand what it IS
(removal of the foreskin), who cares what we call it (as long as we don't
call it late for dinner)?

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

"Circe" wrote in message
news:X61Eb.29635$BQ5.8145@fed1read03...
"Hillary Israeli" wrote in message
...
In ,
Chotii wrote:

*Please don't say "circumcision", it's a euphemism, a neat, tidy way of
*saying something that's awful to talk about straight out. Please say
"They
*are going to amputate my son's foreskin tomorrow". That's the honest
truth.

But why?
I would say "I'm going to have a mastectomy," not "I'm going to have a
breast amputation." I would say "I'm going to have a cholecystectomy,"
not
"they are going to amputate my gall bladder tomorrow." I don't really
get
the difference here.

Not to agree or disagree, exactly, but the "ectomy" part of the names of
those surgeries *means* to cut off, remove, or amputate. I can't find the
Latin for "foreskin" (the Romans seem to have thought of it as
indistinguishable from the rest of the penis and therefore didn't have a
separate word for it), but the parallel name for circumcision would be
"foreskin-ectomy".

Actually the word circumcision implies "cutting around" or a circular cut
(or split). It seems the name is apt and descriptive.

--
CBI, MD

"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.

--
CBI

"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 it IS
NOT called that, is my point - so you know, who am I to decide for the
world that it should be called something else? Similarly with circumcision
- it's called what it's called. As long as we understand what it IS
(removal of the foreskin), who cares what we call it (as long as we don't
call it late for dinner)?

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. 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"; nor
do they understand that the glans is a mucous membrane, meant to be
lubricated at all times, *not* dry. If people understood this, would as many
choose the removal of "extra skin"? Even calling it "extra" implies "and
therefore unnecessary and undesirable". With infants, you can't even say
'removal of loose skin' because that skin is naturally attached, and not
loose. It's not "extra". Except that people are told it is. And then, well,
who *wouldn't* want it removed, like an extra toe? We talk a lot over in
misc.kids.breastfeeding about language being everything - if you talk about
formula as the norm, then breastfeeding becomes something that's maybe a
little better maybe, but it hardly matters. If you talk about the circed
penis as normal, then one left natural is somehow...abnormal.

There's no doubt that the vast majority of men who have been cut as infants
continue to function sexually: they can orgasm, they can father children.
The few who cannot orgasm, or who are damaged so badly during the procedure
that they are reassigned to the female gender are not statistically
relevant. However, there's simply no way to quantify the degree of damage
done. The ability to orgasm does not tell us anything about the degree of
pleasure felt (and I think most women could describe instances in which they
themselves had an orgasm and got little pleasure from it - it happens).
There's no way to compare one man's pleasure against another man's pleasure.
All we can see is 'it still works, so clearly there's no harm done'. Therein
lies the problem. We cannot quantify the damage, so we tell ourselves there
*is* no damage. Particularly (I think) most men *must* believe there is no
damage, because to admit they have a permanently
less-than-what-they-were-born-to-have penis is basically beyond them. We
joke about how men think with their little heads....what a blow to their
egos if they came to believe their *manhoods* had been permanently
diminished?

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 believe firmly in "full disclosure" and "educated choice". My OB's office
told me that they "answer the questions parents ask, and if parents don't
ask, they assume the parents know everything they want to know". I told
them that a great many people don't know the questions to ask, and in fact
don't even know there *are* questions to ask. A lack of questions does not
imply the making of an educated decision. (And I have faced this problem
also in trying to get proper treatment for my daughter who was born with
congenital defects. It's frustrating, trying to get information when you
don't know what to ask.) Certainly *no* nurse or doctor *ever* said, when
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. As the boy
grows up, it gradually becomes detached, and in the adult male it functions
to protect the flaccid penis, to provide natural lubrication, and to allow
for a rolling, gliding action during intercourse. If you remove it, these
will not be present. However, you may consider it more visually appealing,
and some people think hygiene is better with it gone. Do you wish to have
this done?" In fact, I wasn't told anything. Just "If you have a boy, do you
want him to be circumcised?" That's it. Yay full disclosure. Yay educated
choice. (I said no. The nurse actually cheered.)

Why aren't parents typically offered this information? Is it because their
caregivers consider it irrelevant? Do they not tell, because they consider
it irrelevant and beneath mention? Do they assume all parents know these
things, and don't care? Or do they just not want to make people feel
guilty, or something, since it's a cultural norm?

--angela

"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.


There's no doubt that the vast majority of men who have been cut as
infants
continue to function sexually: they can orgasm, they can father children.

Exactly.


The few who cannot orgasm,

How would you ever know this is from the circ? Surely, there are "natural"
men who also have problems.


or who are damaged so badly during the procedure
that they are reassigned to the female gender are not statistically
relevant.

That is exceedingly rare. I'll bet we would find more examples of men with
damage from phimosis than this degree of damage fromt he circ.


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

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

I am not pro-circ. Quite the opposite - I think it is pretty pointless and
did not have it done to my son. However, I would prefer that the discussion
remain factually accurate. There are enough facts to support not doing it
without having to embellish them.

--
CBI, MD

"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.

--angela

"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.