"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
Doctors hauled out to defend circumcisions
- Roofus
- 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
What a bunch of bulls***. Getting your dick sliced up without anesthesia for practically no reason is what I would deem unnecaessary pain.But Dr Virinder Madhok and Dr Ayyaswany Vasanthakrishnan, from Glasgow, denied causing them unnecessary 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.
You have to believe everything that has ever gone wrong in the history of your country was due to Liberals.
-
- Soul Sold for DCEmu
- Posts: 4085
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2001 7:44 pm
- Location: NYC
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
- Contact:
- az_bont
- Administrator
- Posts: 13567
- Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2002 8:35 am
- Location: Swansea, Wales
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
- Contact:
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?
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!
-
- DCEmu Nutter
- Posts: 960
- Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2003 3:44 pm
- Location: the Islands
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
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.
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
"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.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.
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/
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?Up to 96 percent of the babies in the United States and Canada receive no anesthesia when they are circumcised
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.
You have to believe everything that has ever gone wrong in the history of your country was due to Liberals.