Doctors hauled out to defend circumcisions

Talk about anything and everything not related to this site or the Dreamcast, such as news stories, political discussion, or anything else. If there's not a forum for it, it belongs in here. Also, be warned that personal insults, threats, and spamming will not be tolerated.
Post Reply
User avatar
Roofus
President & CEO Roofuscorp, LLC
President & CEO Roofuscorp, LLC
Posts: 9898
https://www.artistsworkshop.eu/meble-kuchenne-na-wymiar-warszawa-gdzie-zamowic/
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 11:42 pm
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Doctors hauled out to defend circumcisions

Post by Roofus »

"Two doctors have admitted carrying out circumcisions on two baby boys without the parents' written consent, the General Medical Council has heard... As the family waited to be seen by the doctor they saw another boy who had just been circumcised return to his family. His body and legs were covered in blood, he was sweating and in a distressed state, Master A's aunt told the hearing. 'He was just crying and crying and just wouldn't stop. He was covered in blood, it got me quite scared,' she said. She told the GMC that she noticed Dr Madhok's hands were also covered in blood and he was not wearing gloves. The doctor handed back the baby to its parents, telling them he was a 'stubborn child who would cause them a lot of problems in the future.' When Aunt A intervened and pointed out he was only a baby, Dr Madhok replied: 'I don't need a lecture from you. I've been doing this for 52 years,' she said."

Read article
Lartrak
DCEmu Respected
DCEmu Respected
Posts: 6166
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2002 9:28 pm
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Post by Lartrak »

But Dr Virinder Madhok and Dr Ayyaswany Vasanthakrishnan, from Glasgow, denied causing them unnecessary pain.
What a bunch of bulls***. Getting your dick sliced up without anesthesia for practically no reason is what I would deem unnecaessary pain.
How to be a Conservative:
You have to believe everything that has ever gone wrong in the history of your country was due to Liberals.
User avatar
Sephiroth
Insane DCEmu
Insane DCEmu
Posts: 112
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2004 12:03 pm
Location: Midgar
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0
Contact:

Post by Sephiroth »

UGH, that must have been painful as hell. Stupid docter's....
Image
Ultimate Evil... :headbang:
AmadeusZull
Soul Sold for DCEmu
Soul Sold for DCEmu
Posts: 4085
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2001 7:44 pm
Location: NYC
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0
Contact:

Post by AmadeusZull »

i got sliced as a baby. bro 2.
Image

I am no longer an ACE@ite. Never will I kiss his feet is what I don't. And that I don't, is good I do.
User avatar
az_bont
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 13567
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2002 8:35 am
Location: Swansea, Wales
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0
Contact:

Post by az_bont »

The whole operation is completely pointless in this day and age. The only defense for the mutilation of newborn baby boys in the past has been that it is more hygenic, but nowadays it can just lead to more problems - like risk of infection.

Why surgically remove part of a person if it's not absolutely necessary?
Sick of sub-par Dreamcast web browsers that fail to impress? Visit Psilocybin Dreams!
ace
Forum ace
Forum ace
Posts: 6297
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2001 7:07 pm
Location: Canada.
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Post by ace »

Cleanliness isnt even that much of a problem... you have to be a complete nub to not be able to peel back the foreskin and rub a bar of soap over yourself in that general area for a few seconds -just long enough to disinfect :?
MystiK
DCEmu Nutter
DCEmu Nutter
Posts: 960
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2003 3:44 pm
Location: the Islands
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Post by MystiK »

well..for some people the space is too small and circumcision is necessary or they can die.
also for religious purposes...
and then i've heard that most of the receptors for STD's are in the skin removed in circumcision so it's actually more hygenic..?
as for using no anesthesia that's purely religious or even modus operandi if you're in some kind of 4th world health facility.
French Connection United Kingdom should be renamed to French Union Connection Klothing
Lartrak
DCEmu Respected
DCEmu Respected
Posts: 6166
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2002 9:28 pm
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Post by Lartrak »

MystiK wrote:well..for some people the space is too small and circumcision is necessary or they can die.
also for religious purposes...
and then i've heard that most of the receptors for STD's are in the skin removed in circumcision so it's actually more hygenic..?
as for using no anesthesia that's purely religious or even modus operandi if you're in some kind of 4th world health facility.
"Receptors"? What are you talking about? There's a very slight increase in transmissions of a couple kinds of infections in women who have uncut partners, which is largely eliminated by regular bathing, but that is the only thing I'm aware of. I would expect transmission of some STDs to be reduced, in fact, since uncircumcised men are naturally better lubricated.

And BTW, they don't use anesthesia on newborns. Well, sometimes, they do, but usually not. I wasn't, for instance.

http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9712/23/circu ... nesthetic/
Up to 96 percent of the babies in the United States and Canada receive no anesthesia when they are circumcised
It is also worth mentioning that into the SEVENTIES they performed surgery on infants without anesthesia, in the mistaken belief that they felt no pain. Then one day they did a study where they gave babies anesthesia, and found they recovered much faster and were less likely to die and other such things. Gee, you'd think they'd have tried that sooner, huh?
How to be a Conservative:
You have to believe everything that has ever gone wrong in the history of your country was due to Liberals.
Post Reply