Genital Mutilation - American Style
Feb 8th 2005 | 1:15 pm
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Genital Mutilation - American Style
Genital Mutilation American Style
How a father discovered, too late, that circumcision is not a good
thing.
by Rio Cruz
Most Americans, when presented with the information that approximately
97% of the world's infant male population is not circumcised, are
rather astounded. "But I thought everybody was circumcised. I thought
it was a medically necessary thing to do," said a friend when I
brought up the issue a few weeks ago.
"Nope," I replied, "not even close. The foreskin is not a birth defect
needing remedy by the A.M.A. Nobody in all of Europe, non-Muslim Asia,
or Latin America is routinely circumcised. In fact, the only people
who routinely cut off the most erogenous part of their boys' penis are
Jews, Muslims, certain tribal groups in far-flung parts of the world
and... the United States. Everybody else leaves their sons intact as
nature made them." This is a fact. Indisputable. Most leave their
girls intact, too.
Roughly one million baby boys a year in this country are rudely
welcomed into the world by the amputation, without anesthesia, of an
integral, sexually important part of their anatomy. By definition, the
removal of a normal, healthy, functional body part is mutilation. Pure
and simple. These one million babies represent around 60% of all male
infants born in this country, a figure that is down from a high
reached in the 1970's and 1980's of around 90%. And what is truly
astounding is that, while we become incensed over the female genital
mutilations going on in Africa and other third-world countries far,
far away, we ignore the routine mutilations perpetrated here against
our own sons.
The sexism of this perspective is stunning. In fact, in 1996 the U.S.
Congress, eager to appease feminist groups and appear to be the Great
White Protectors of American Girlhood, passed a law against female
circumcision or any other form of genital modification of girls below
the age of consent. This was pure political theater, baby kissing,
butt patting. As a society, we simply do not cut the genitals of baby
girls in this country... only the genitals of baby boys. Passing a law
against female genital mutilation (FGM) was a slam dunk for the
politicians. They could look big and strong and macho and foursquare
in favor of protecting babies... as long as the babies were girls,
that is. In our culture, unlike other more civilized societies, it is
perfectly acceptable to amputate the male prepuce against the
shrieking protests of the victims. Our national chauvinism has blinded
us to our own human rights abuses, against our sons, and does not
allow us to see anything wrong.
I never saw anything wrong with it either until I witnessed my own son
being circumcised. The doctor assured me it was a simple little snip
of extra skin that had no function and that really didn't hurt the
infant. "You want him to look like you, don't you?" Well, since I
really hadn't thought much about it, and since I, too, had gone under
the knife at birth, I said "Sure. I guess so. Why not?"
He didn't answer the "Why not?" but it was soon apparent to me. My
newborn son was taken from his mother's warm, nourishing breast and
placed naked on a cold, plastic board called a Circumstraint. His
little legs were spread-eagled and strapped down with Velcro bands and
his arms were strapped to his sides. He immediately protested and
began to cry. The doctor draped a thin cloth with a hole in the center
over his shivering body and drew his little penis through the hole.
The doctor washed my baby's penis with an antiseptic solution. He took
a pair of steel hemostats and, holding the penis in one hand, inserted
the tip of the hemostat into the opening of the foreskin and began
pushing it between the foreskin and the glans, ripping the two
structures apart. The foreskin and glans were tightly fused together
by the normal balanopreputial membrane called the synechia, similar to
the membrane that attaches the fingernail to the finger. It's the
body's way, in part, of protecting against harmful bacteria.
My baby was shrieking now, his protest going from a simple cry to what
sounded like screams of sheer terror. His body was rigid, contorted as
he strained against the straps and the pain. If the Circumstraint had
not been bolted down, it and my child would have crashed to the floor.
Every instinct I had told me this was not right, that I should be
protecting my son instead of acquiescing to the barbaric spectacle
before me. But I am a "civilized" man. I have been socialized to
accept what the doctor is doing. It's the right thing to do. Right?
The foreskin did not easily give up its hold on my son's glans. The
doctor continued to rip the skin with the hemostat. My son was
shaking, tossing his head from side to side, his fists and eyes were
clenched, sweat beaded on his brow.
The doctor finally got the glans and foreskin separated, then clamped
the foreskin tight with another hemostat and cut the skin vertically
with scissors. The wound was bleeding profusely. He tried to insert a
steel cone into the tissue but had to force it because the incision
was too short. My son stopped screaming. His eyes were glazed and
rolled back. He appeared to be sleeping, but he was really in a state
of complete and total shock.
The doctor put a large metal clamp around the bleeding foreskin, the
cone supposedly to protect the glans, and he proceeded to crush the
nerves, the blood vessels and tissue of the foreskin with the clamp.
He took a knife and sliced around the clamp, letting the foreskin drop
onto the cloth. My son lay motionless on the board, completely
disassociated into some other, more hospitable space. The doctor
looked at me and winked. He left the room. A nurse gave my son back to
his mother. Welcome to America, little man.
"Why not?" I ask again. I'll tell you why not. Because my son had
absolutely no medical condition requiring the amputation of his
perfectly normal, natural, healthy foreskin. None! There is not one
child born in this country who has any condition requiring this
procedure, yet out of cultural inertia, greed on the part of
circumcising physicians and hospitals, flat out abject ignorance on
the part of both doctors and parents, and the satisfying of
psycho-sexual compulsions on the part of certain sadistic
practitioners, the grisly business continues. And, it continues to
fill the pockets and coffers of physicians, hospitals and clinics to
the tune of approximately one billion dollars a year.
Perhaps protecting this cash cow is one of the reasons I could not get
even one of our area's circumcising physicians to agree to an
interview on this subject. Not one! "That's much too emotional an
issue to discuss," said one. "There are concerns for legal liability,"
said another. Others gave no reason. They simply refused to be
interviewed. Still others never returned my calls. They all seem brave
enough when armed with steel knives, clamps and scissors against an
infant's naked penis, but try to engage them in adult conversation on
this issue and they flee into the shadows.
However, one well-known, popular family practice physician who does
not perform circumcisions but who, nevertheless, preferred not to go
on record for this article, said that circumcisions were done en masse
in this country because "It's really a question of cosmetic surgery.
It's an elective. It's tradition. There is no medical justification
for it," she said. "We simply do it at the request of parents. It's
their decision to make." But only if the child is a boy. Remember,
girls are protected by law from such parental requests.
Not many years ago it was perfectly accepted for dog owners to
amputate the tail and cut the ears of their pets for cosmetic reasons.
It was the owners' choice to make. Social consensus now holds this to
be inhumane treatment of animals and few veterinarians will accede to
such requests. The idea that anyone would even consider circumcising
their pet for any reason at all is abhorrent. Incomprehensibly, it is
still perfectly acceptable for parents to consent to the cosmetic
amputation of their son's prepuce, a far more injurious operation than
an ear clipping or a tail docking. As a society we should be ashamed
of this fact.
The idea that parents have the right to request amputation of normal,
erogenous tissue is central to the debate surrounding this issue and
highlights the ethical void enveloping the medical establishment.
Leading medical ethicist and professor at the McGill Center of
Medicine, Ethics and Law, Dr. Margaret Somerville, has stated publicly
that circumcision, as performed in our country, is nothing short of
"criminal assault." How could it be otherwise? If parents requested
that their newborn have a healthy ear or a pinky finger or the tip of
its nose amputated at birth so as to conform to family tradition or to
look like Daddy or Mommy or the other kids in the neighborhood, or
because it might get some sort of infection later in life, any ethical
doctor would refuse to do it. If it was done, both doctor and parent
would be hauled off to jail where they belong. Of course! Primum non
nocere--First, Do No Harm!--the prime directive of the Hippocratic
oath... until it comes to mutilating a boy's genitals. Then all
ethical concerns are off.
It was precisely this ethical void that prompted nurse Marilyn Milos
to establish the National Organization of Circumcision Information
Resource Centers (NOCIRC) in 1986. These centers now have branches in
almost every state of the union and throughout the world. "There
really was no other choice," she said. "Baby boys were and are being
routinely tortured and mutilated all over this country for no medical
reason whatsoever. The doctors know this, the attending nurses know
this. Yet the inertia of years of social conditioning and medical
practice has immunized them against the pain and lifelong trauma they
inflict on normal babies. It's the most grievous medical scandal of
the century!" She videotaped a circumcision to show parents what the
cutting entailed. The hospital authorities promptly censored the video
and shortly thereafter she was fired from her job. "I simply wanted
parents to know what they were subjecting their infants to. I wanted
them to know what I wished I had known before allowing my own sons to
be cut. I wanted them to make an informed decision on behalf of their
sons. The medical establishment knew this would be devastating to
their income and to their image as providers of loving care. They
fired me for my efforts because they couldn't silence me. It's the
best thing they could have done, however, because now I am no longer
muzzled by an economically-motivated medical community. I am free to
promulgate the truth of this barbaric practice and help put a stop to
it."
Help put a stop to it is exactly what she has done. NOCIRC has spawned
a grass-roots movement all across this country and has been largely
responsible for the drop in circumcision rates over the past ten
years. Milos' efforts have also prompted other health-care
practitioners to enlist in the cause. Doctors Opposing Circumcision
(DOC) was founded in 1996 and now counts physicians from all over the
world among its ranks. "Many doctors recognize that no one has the
right to forcibly remove sexual body parts from another individual,"
says Dr. George Denniston, President. "They recognize that doctors
should have no role in this painful, unnecessary procedure inflicted
on the newborn. Routine circumcisions have been found to violate not
only the Golden Rule, but the first tenet of medical practice, 'First,
Do No Harm'. Amazingly, circumcision violates all seven principles of
the A.M.A. Code of Ethics, and yet doctors continue to do it!" Dr.
Denniston goes on to point out that, "Circumcision is not surgery, by
definition. Surgical procedures have been defined as: repair of
wounds, extirpation of diseased organs or tissue, reconstructive
surgery, and physiologic surgery (i.e. sympathectomy). Routine
circumcision does not fall into any of these categories. Therefore,
routine infant male circumcision is not a valid surgical procedure."
Besides the pain of the initial crushing and cutting, circumcision
harms in many other ways. First, the male glans and inner foreskin,
just like the glans clitorides and inner labia of women, are actually
internal structures covered by mucous membrane that, when exposed to
the air and harsh environment through circumcision, develop a tough,
dry covering to protect the delicate, sensitive tissue. It's sort of
like if you went around with your eyelids pulled back or your tongue
sticking out all the time or if a woman were to walk around with her
labia pulled back exposing the clitoris and internal lining to the
air. The moist, warm membranes of eye, tongue, clitoris or labia would
react to the dry air and defend against it. The nerve endings would
become dulled because layers of cells build-up in a process called
keratinization. This keratin, a tough, insoluble protein substance, is
the chief structural constituent of hair, nails, horns, and hoofs.
Over time, these once exquisitely sensual organs acquire all the
sensitivity of an old garden glove.
Circumcision is not simply the cutting off of useless skin. Author
Gary L. Harryman innumerates what circumcision destroys:
***Its connective synechia, which fuses the foreskin to the glans
while the penis develops.
***Approximately half of the smooth muscle sheath called the dartos
fascia.
***Most of the erotogenic nerve endings on the penis, including the
densely innervated ridged bands, reducing the sensitivity of the penis
to that of ordinary skin.
***Specialized epithelial Langerhans cells, a component of the immune
system.
***Thousands of coiled fine-touch receptors, including the Meissner's
corpuscles.
***Estrogen receptors--the purpose and value of which are not yet
fully understood.
***Ectopic sebaceous glands, which lubricate and moisturize.
***The protective covering of the glans, normally an internal
structure. The foreskin shields from abrasion, drying, and callusing,
and protects from dirt and other contaminants.
***The entire immunological defense system of the soft mucosa, which
may produce antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as lysozyme,
also found in mother's milk, and plasma cells, which secrete
immunoglobulin antibodies.
***Lymphatic vessels, the loss of which interrupts the lymph flow
within a part of the body's immune system.
***The frenulum, the sensitive "V" shaped tethering structure on the
underside of the glans is also usually amputated, severed, or
destroyed.
***The apocrine glands, which produce pheromones, nature's powerful,
silent, invisible signals to potential sexual partners.
***As much as 50% or more of the total penile skin, radically
immobilizing and desensitizing whatever skin remains.
***The "gliding" mechanism. If unfolded and spread out flat, the
average adult foreskin would measure 15-20 square inches, the size of
a postcard. This abundance of specialized, self-lubricating skin gives
the natural penis its unique-hallmark ability to smoothly "glide" back
and forth within itself, permitting non-abrasive intercourse, without
drying out the vagina.
***The pink to red to dark purple natural coloration of the glans.
***10% to 20% of its circumference because its double-layered wrapping
of loose foreskin is now missing making the circumcised penis thinner.
*** As much as one inch of the erect penis' length due to scarring and
shrinkage from loss of the mobile, richly vascularized foreskin.
***Several feet of blood vessels, including the frenular artery and
branches of the dorsal artery, the loss of which interrupts normal
blood flow to the shaft and glans of the penis, damaging its natural
function and possibly stunting its growth.
*** An estimated 240 feet of microscopic nerves, including branches of
the dorsal nerve.
*** Perhaps most importantly, between at least 10,000 to 20,000
specialized erotogenic nerve endings of various types, which can
discern slight motion, subtle changes in temperature, and fine
gradations in texture.
And occasionally a boy will lose his life from this needless
operation. It has been estimated that as many as 209 babies die every
year from circumcision and related complications.
Rest of article......
http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/gmas/
For more information contact:
National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers
(NOCIRC)
Post Office Box 2512
San Anselmo, CA 94979-2512
U.S.A.
Telephone: (415) 488-9883
Fax: (415) 488-9660
http://www.nocirc.org/
Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)
2442 NW Market Street, Suite 42
Seattle, Washington, 98107
U.S.A.
http://weber.u.washington.edu/~gcd/DOC/
Attorneys for the Rights of the Child (ARC)
2961 Ashby Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94705
USA
Tel. 510-848-4437
E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.noharmm.org/ARC.htm
Patients In ARMS
(Advocates Reforming Medical Standards)
7480 Gravies Road
Dieters, Missouri 63023
USA
(314) 274-ARMS
[email protected]
How a father discovered, too late, that circumcision is not a good
thing.
by Rio Cruz
Most Americans, when presented with the information that approximately
97% of the world's infant male population is not circumcised, are
rather astounded. "But I thought everybody was circumcised. I thought
it was a medically necessary thing to do," said a friend when I
brought up the issue a few weeks ago.
"Nope," I replied, "not even close. The foreskin is not a birth defect
needing remedy by the A.M.A. Nobody in all of Europe, non-Muslim Asia,
or Latin America is routinely circumcised. In fact, the only people
who routinely cut off the most erogenous part of their boys' penis are
Jews, Muslims, certain tribal groups in far-flung parts of the world
and... the United States. Everybody else leaves their sons intact as
nature made them." This is a fact. Indisputable. Most leave their
girls intact, too.
Roughly one million baby boys a year in this country are rudely
welcomed into the world by the amputation, without anesthesia, of an
integral, sexually important part of their anatomy. By definition, the
removal of a normal, healthy, functional body part is mutilation. Pure
and simple. These one million babies represent around 60% of all male
infants born in this country, a figure that is down from a high
reached in the 1970's and 1980's of around 90%. And what is truly
astounding is that, while we become incensed over the female genital
mutilations going on in Africa and other third-world countries far,
far away, we ignore the routine mutilations perpetrated here against
our own sons.
The sexism of this perspective is stunning. In fact, in 1996 the U.S.
Congress, eager to appease feminist groups and appear to be the Great
White Protectors of American Girlhood, passed a law against female
circumcision or any other form of genital modification of girls below
the age of consent. This was pure political theater, baby kissing,
butt patting. As a society, we simply do not cut the genitals of baby
girls in this country... only the genitals of baby boys. Passing a law
against female genital mutilation (FGM) was a slam dunk for the
politicians. They could look big and strong and macho and foursquare
in favor of protecting babies... as long as the babies were girls,
that is. In our culture, unlike other more civilized societies, it is
perfectly acceptable to amputate the male prepuce against the
shrieking protests of the victims. Our national chauvinism has blinded
us to our own human rights abuses, against our sons, and does not
allow us to see anything wrong.
I never saw anything wrong with it either until I witnessed my own son
being circumcised. The doctor assured me it was a simple little snip
of extra skin that had no function and that really didn't hurt the
infant. "You want him to look like you, don't you?" Well, since I
really hadn't thought much about it, and since I, too, had gone under
the knife at birth, I said "Sure. I guess so. Why not?"
He didn't answer the "Why not?" but it was soon apparent to me. My
newborn son was taken from his mother's warm, nourishing breast and
placed naked on a cold, plastic board called a Circumstraint. His
little legs were spread-eagled and strapped down with Velcro bands and
his arms were strapped to his sides. He immediately protested and
began to cry. The doctor draped a thin cloth with a hole in the center
over his shivering body and drew his little penis through the hole.
The doctor washed my baby's penis with an antiseptic solution. He took
a pair of steel hemostats and, holding the penis in one hand, inserted
the tip of the hemostat into the opening of the foreskin and began
pushing it between the foreskin and the glans, ripping the two
structures apart. The foreskin and glans were tightly fused together
by the normal balanopreputial membrane called the synechia, similar to
the membrane that attaches the fingernail to the finger. It's the
body's way, in part, of protecting against harmful bacteria.
My baby was shrieking now, his protest going from a simple cry to what
sounded like screams of sheer terror. His body was rigid, contorted as
he strained against the straps and the pain. If the Circumstraint had
not been bolted down, it and my child would have crashed to the floor.
Every instinct I had told me this was not right, that I should be
protecting my son instead of acquiescing to the barbaric spectacle
before me. But I am a "civilized" man. I have been socialized to
accept what the doctor is doing. It's the right thing to do. Right?
The foreskin did not easily give up its hold on my son's glans. The
doctor continued to rip the skin with the hemostat. My son was
shaking, tossing his head from side to side, his fists and eyes were
clenched, sweat beaded on his brow.
The doctor finally got the glans and foreskin separated, then clamped
the foreskin tight with another hemostat and cut the skin vertically
with scissors. The wound was bleeding profusely. He tried to insert a
steel cone into the tissue but had to force it because the incision
was too short. My son stopped screaming. His eyes were glazed and
rolled back. He appeared to be sleeping, but he was really in a state
of complete and total shock.
The doctor put a large metal clamp around the bleeding foreskin, the
cone supposedly to protect the glans, and he proceeded to crush the
nerves, the blood vessels and tissue of the foreskin with the clamp.
He took a knife and sliced around the clamp, letting the foreskin drop
onto the cloth. My son lay motionless on the board, completely
disassociated into some other, more hospitable space. The doctor
looked at me and winked. He left the room. A nurse gave my son back to
his mother. Welcome to America, little man.
"Why not?" I ask again. I'll tell you why not. Because my son had
absolutely no medical condition requiring the amputation of his
perfectly normal, natural, healthy foreskin. None! There is not one
child born in this country who has any condition requiring this
procedure, yet out of cultural inertia, greed on the part of
circumcising physicians and hospitals, flat out abject ignorance on
the part of both doctors and parents, and the satisfying of
psycho-sexual compulsions on the part of certain sadistic
practitioners, the grisly business continues. And, it continues to
fill the pockets and coffers of physicians, hospitals and clinics to
the tune of approximately one billion dollars a year.
Perhaps protecting this cash cow is one of the reasons I could not get
even one of our area's circumcising physicians to agree to an
interview on this subject. Not one! "That's much too emotional an
issue to discuss," said one. "There are concerns for legal liability,"
said another. Others gave no reason. They simply refused to be
interviewed. Still others never returned my calls. They all seem brave
enough when armed with steel knives, clamps and scissors against an
infant's naked penis, but try to engage them in adult conversation on
this issue and they flee into the shadows.
However, one well-known, popular family practice physician who does
not perform circumcisions but who, nevertheless, preferred not to go
on record for this article, said that circumcisions were done en masse
in this country because "It's really a question of cosmetic surgery.
It's an elective. It's tradition. There is no medical justification
for it," she said. "We simply do it at the request of parents. It's
their decision to make." But only if the child is a boy. Remember,
girls are protected by law from such parental requests.
Not many years ago it was perfectly accepted for dog owners to
amputate the tail and cut the ears of their pets for cosmetic reasons.
It was the owners' choice to make. Social consensus now holds this to
be inhumane treatment of animals and few veterinarians will accede to
such requests. The idea that anyone would even consider circumcising
their pet for any reason at all is abhorrent. Incomprehensibly, it is
still perfectly acceptable for parents to consent to the cosmetic
amputation of their son's prepuce, a far more injurious operation than
an ear clipping or a tail docking. As a society we should be ashamed
of this fact.
The idea that parents have the right to request amputation of normal,
erogenous tissue is central to the debate surrounding this issue and
highlights the ethical void enveloping the medical establishment.
Leading medical ethicist and professor at the McGill Center of
Medicine, Ethics and Law, Dr. Margaret Somerville, has stated publicly
that circumcision, as performed in our country, is nothing short of
"criminal assault." How could it be otherwise? If parents requested
that their newborn have a healthy ear or a pinky finger or the tip of
its nose amputated at birth so as to conform to family tradition or to
look like Daddy or Mommy or the other kids in the neighborhood, or
because it might get some sort of infection later in life, any ethical
doctor would refuse to do it. If it was done, both doctor and parent
would be hauled off to jail where they belong. Of course! Primum non
nocere--First, Do No Harm!--the prime directive of the Hippocratic
oath... until it comes to mutilating a boy's genitals. Then all
ethical concerns are off.
It was precisely this ethical void that prompted nurse Marilyn Milos
to establish the National Organization of Circumcision Information
Resource Centers (NOCIRC) in 1986. These centers now have branches in
almost every state of the union and throughout the world. "There
really was no other choice," she said. "Baby boys were and are being
routinely tortured and mutilated all over this country for no medical
reason whatsoever. The doctors know this, the attending nurses know
this. Yet the inertia of years of social conditioning and medical
practice has immunized them against the pain and lifelong trauma they
inflict on normal babies. It's the most grievous medical scandal of
the century!" She videotaped a circumcision to show parents what the
cutting entailed. The hospital authorities promptly censored the video
and shortly thereafter she was fired from her job. "I simply wanted
parents to know what they were subjecting their infants to. I wanted
them to know what I wished I had known before allowing my own sons to
be cut. I wanted them to make an informed decision on behalf of their
sons. The medical establishment knew this would be devastating to
their income and to their image as providers of loving care. They
fired me for my efforts because they couldn't silence me. It's the
best thing they could have done, however, because now I am no longer
muzzled by an economically-motivated medical community. I am free to
promulgate the truth of this barbaric practice and help put a stop to
it."
Help put a stop to it is exactly what she has done. NOCIRC has spawned
a grass-roots movement all across this country and has been largely
responsible for the drop in circumcision rates over the past ten
years. Milos' efforts have also prompted other health-care
practitioners to enlist in the cause. Doctors Opposing Circumcision
(DOC) was founded in 1996 and now counts physicians from all over the
world among its ranks. "Many doctors recognize that no one has the
right to forcibly remove sexual body parts from another individual,"
says Dr. George Denniston, President. "They recognize that doctors
should have no role in this painful, unnecessary procedure inflicted
on the newborn. Routine circumcisions have been found to violate not
only the Golden Rule, but the first tenet of medical practice, 'First,
Do No Harm'. Amazingly, circumcision violates all seven principles of
the A.M.A. Code of Ethics, and yet doctors continue to do it!" Dr.
Denniston goes on to point out that, "Circumcision is not surgery, by
definition. Surgical procedures have been defined as: repair of
wounds, extirpation of diseased organs or tissue, reconstructive
surgery, and physiologic surgery (i.e. sympathectomy). Routine
circumcision does not fall into any of these categories. Therefore,
routine infant male circumcision is not a valid surgical procedure."
Besides the pain of the initial crushing and cutting, circumcision
harms in many other ways. First, the male glans and inner foreskin,
just like the glans clitorides and inner labia of women, are actually
internal structures covered by mucous membrane that, when exposed to
the air and harsh environment through circumcision, develop a tough,
dry covering to protect the delicate, sensitive tissue. It's sort of
like if you went around with your eyelids pulled back or your tongue
sticking out all the time or if a woman were to walk around with her
labia pulled back exposing the clitoris and internal lining to the
air. The moist, warm membranes of eye, tongue, clitoris or labia would
react to the dry air and defend against it. The nerve endings would
become dulled because layers of cells build-up in a process called
keratinization. This keratin, a tough, insoluble protein substance, is
the chief structural constituent of hair, nails, horns, and hoofs.
Over time, these once exquisitely sensual organs acquire all the
sensitivity of an old garden glove.
Circumcision is not simply the cutting off of useless skin. Author
Gary L. Harryman innumerates what circumcision destroys:
***Its connective synechia, which fuses the foreskin to the glans
while the penis develops.
***Approximately half of the smooth muscle sheath called the dartos
fascia.
***Most of the erotogenic nerve endings on the penis, including the
densely innervated ridged bands, reducing the sensitivity of the penis
to that of ordinary skin.
***Specialized epithelial Langerhans cells, a component of the immune
system.
***Thousands of coiled fine-touch receptors, including the Meissner's
corpuscles.
***Estrogen receptors--the purpose and value of which are not yet
fully understood.
***Ectopic sebaceous glands, which lubricate and moisturize.
***The protective covering of the glans, normally an internal
structure. The foreskin shields from abrasion, drying, and callusing,
and protects from dirt and other contaminants.
***The entire immunological defense system of the soft mucosa, which
may produce antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as lysozyme,
also found in mother's milk, and plasma cells, which secrete
immunoglobulin antibodies.
***Lymphatic vessels, the loss of which interrupts the lymph flow
within a part of the body's immune system.
***The frenulum, the sensitive "V" shaped tethering structure on the
underside of the glans is also usually amputated, severed, or
destroyed.
***The apocrine glands, which produce pheromones, nature's powerful,
silent, invisible signals to potential sexual partners.
***As much as 50% or more of the total penile skin, radically
immobilizing and desensitizing whatever skin remains.
***The "gliding" mechanism. If unfolded and spread out flat, the
average adult foreskin would measure 15-20 square inches, the size of
a postcard. This abundance of specialized, self-lubricating skin gives
the natural penis its unique-hallmark ability to smoothly "glide" back
and forth within itself, permitting non-abrasive intercourse, without
drying out the vagina.
***The pink to red to dark purple natural coloration of the glans.
***10% to 20% of its circumference because its double-layered wrapping
of loose foreskin is now missing making the circumcised penis thinner.
*** As much as one inch of the erect penis' length due to scarring and
shrinkage from loss of the mobile, richly vascularized foreskin.
***Several feet of blood vessels, including the frenular artery and
branches of the dorsal artery, the loss of which interrupts normal
blood flow to the shaft and glans of the penis, damaging its natural
function and possibly stunting its growth.
*** An estimated 240 feet of microscopic nerves, including branches of
the dorsal nerve.
*** Perhaps most importantly, between at least 10,000 to 20,000
specialized erotogenic nerve endings of various types, which can
discern slight motion, subtle changes in temperature, and fine
gradations in texture.
And occasionally a boy will lose his life from this needless
operation. It has been estimated that as many as 209 babies die every
year from circumcision and related complications.
Rest of article......
http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/gmas/
For more information contact:
National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers
(NOCIRC)
Post Office Box 2512
San Anselmo, CA 94979-2512
U.S.A.
Telephone: (415) 488-9883
Fax: (415) 488-9660
http://www.nocirc.org/
Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)
2442 NW Market Street, Suite 42
Seattle, Washington, 98107
U.S.A.
http://weber.u.washington.edu/~gcd/DOC/
Attorneys for the Rights of the Child (ARC)
2961 Ashby Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94705
USA
Tel. 510-848-4437
E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.noharmm.org/ARC.htm
Patients In ARMS
(Advocates Reforming Medical Standards)
7480 Gravies Road
Dieters, Missouri 63023
USA
(314) 274-ARMS
[email protected]
Feb 9th 2005 | 6:49 pm
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Genital Mutilation - American Style
Ban Sexual Mutilation wrote:
> Genital Mutilation American Style
>
> How a father discovered, too late, that circumcision is not a good
> thing.
>
> by Rio Cruz
>
> Most Americans, when presented with the information that approximately
> 97% of the world's infant male population is not circumcised, are
> rather astounded. "But I thought everybody was circumcised. I thought
> it was a medically necessary thing to do," said a friend when I
> brought up the issue a few weeks ago.
>
> "Nope," I replied, "not even close. The foreskin is not a birth defect
> needing remedy by the A.M.A. Nobody in all of Europe, non-Muslim Asia,
> or Latin America is routinely circumcised. In fact, the only people
> who routinely cut off the most erogenous part of their boys' penis are
> Jews, Muslims, certain tribal groups in far-flung parts of the world
> and... the United States. Everybody else leaves their sons intact as
> nature made them." This is a fact. Indisputable. Most leave their
> girls intact, too.
>
> Roughly one million baby boys a year in this country are rudely
> welcomed into the world by the amputation, without anesthesia, of an
> integral, sexually important part of their anatomy. By definition, the
> removal of a normal, healthy, functional body part is mutilation. Pure
> and simple. These one million babies represent around 60% of all male
> infants born in this country, a figure that is down from a high
> reached in the 1970's and 1980's of around 90%. And what is truly
> astounding is that, while we become incensed over the female genital
> mutilations going on in Africa and other third-world countries far,
> far away, we ignore the routine mutilations perpetrated here against
> our own sons.
>
> The sexism of this perspective is stunning. In fact, in 1996 the U.S.
> Congress, eager to appease feminist groups and appear to be the Great
> White Protectors of American Girlhood, passed a law against female
> circumcision or any other form of genital modification of girls below
> the age of consent. This was pure political theater, baby kissing,
> butt patting. As a society, we simply do not cut the genitals of baby
> girls in this country... only the genitals of baby boys. Passing a law
> against female genital mutilation (FGM) was a slam dunk for the
> politicians. They could look big and strong and macho and foursquare
> in favor of protecting babies... as long as the babies were girls,
> that is. In our culture, unlike other more civilized societies, it is
> perfectly acceptable to amputate the male prepuce against the
> shrieking protests of the victims. Our national chauvinism has blinded
> us to our own human rights abuses, against our sons, and does not
> allow us to see anything wrong.
>
> I never saw anything wrong with it either until I witnessed my own son
> being circumcised. The doctor assured me it was a simple little snip
> of extra skin that had no function and that really didn't hurt the
> infant. "You want him to look like you, don't you?" Well, since I
> really hadn't thought much about it, and since I, too, had gone under
> the knife at birth, I said "Sure. I guess so. Why not?"
>
> He didn't answer the "Why not?" but it was soon apparent to me. My
> newborn son was taken from his mother's warm, nourishing breast and
> placed naked on a cold, plastic board called a Circumstraint. His
> little legs were spread-eagled and strapped down with Velcro bands and
> his arms were strapped to his sides. He immediately protested and
> began to cry. The doctor draped a thin cloth with a hole in the center
> over his shivering body and drew his little penis through the hole.
>
> The doctor washed my baby's penis with an antiseptic solution. He took
> a pair of steel hemostats and, holding the penis in one hand, inserted
> the tip of the hemostat into the opening of the foreskin and began
> pushing it between the foreskin and the glans, ripping the two
> structures apart. The foreskin and glans were tightly fused together
> by the normal balanopreputial membrane called the synechia, similar to
> the membrane that attaches the fingernail to the finger. It's the
> body's way, in part, of protecting against harmful bacteria.
>
> My baby was shrieking now, his protest going from a simple cry to what
> sounded like screams of sheer terror. His body was rigid, contorted as
> he strained against the straps and the pain. If the Circumstraint had
> not been bolted down, it and my child would have crashed to the floor.
> Every instinct I had told me this was not right, that I should be
> protecting my son instead of acquiescing to the barbaric spectacle
> before me. But I am a "civilized" man. I have been socialized to
> accept what the doctor is doing. It's the right thing to do. Right?
>
> The foreskin did not easily give up its hold on my son's glans. The
> doctor continued to rip the skin with the hemostat. My son was
> shaking, tossing his head from side to side, his fists and eyes were
> clenched, sweat beaded on his brow.
>
> The doctor finally got the glans and foreskin separated, then clamped
> the foreskin tight with another hemostat and cut the skin vertically
> with scissors. The wound was bleeding profusely. He tried to insert a
> steel cone into the tissue but had to force it because the incision
> was too short. My son stopped screaming. His eyes were glazed and
> rolled back. He appeared to be sleeping, but he was really in a state
> of complete and total shock.
>
> The doctor put a large metal clamp around the bleeding foreskin, the
> cone supposedly to protect the glans, and he proceeded to crush the
> nerves, the blood vessels and tissue of the foreskin with the clamp.
> He took a knife and sliced around the clamp, letting the foreskin drop
> onto the cloth. My son lay motionless on the board, completely
> disassociated into some other, more hospitable space. The doctor
> looked at me and winked. He left the room. A nurse gave my son back to
> his mother. Welcome to America, little man.
>
> "Why not?" I ask again. I'll tell you why not. Because my son had
> absolutely no medical condition requiring the amputation of his
> perfectly normal, natural, healthy foreskin. None! There is not one
> child born in this country who has any condition requiring this
> procedure, yet out of cultural inertia, greed on the part of
> circumcising physicians and hospitals, flat out abject ignorance on
> the part of both doctors and parents, and the satisfying of
> psycho-sexual compulsions on the part of certain sadistic
> practitioners, the grisly business continues. And, it continues to
> fill the pockets and coffers of physicians, hospitals and clinics to
> the tune of approximately one billion dollars a year.
>
> Perhaps protecting this cash cow is one of the reasons I could not get
> even one of our area's circumcising physicians to agree to an
> interview on this subject. Not one! "That's much too emotional an
> issue to discuss," said one. "There are concerns for legal liability,"
> said another. Others gave no reason. They simply refused to be
> interviewed. Still others never returned my calls. They all seem brave
> enough when armed with steel knives, clamps and scissors against an
> infant's naked penis, but try to engage them in adult conversation on
> this issue and they flee into the shadows.
>
> However, one well-known, popular family practice physician who does
> not perform circumcisions but who, nevertheless, preferred not to go
> on record for this article, said that circumcisions were done en masse
> in this country because "It's really a question of cosmetic surgery.
> It's an elective. It's tradition. There is no medical justification
> for it," she said. "We simply do it at the request of parents. It's
> their decision to make." But only if the child is a boy. Remember,
> girls are protected by law from such parental requests.
>
> Not many years ago it was perfectly accepted for dog owners to
> amputate the tail and cut the ears of their pets for cosmetic reasons.
> It was the owners' choice to make. Social consensus now holds this to
> be inhumane treatment of animals and few veterinarians will accede to
> such requests. The idea that anyone would even consider circumcising
> their pet for any reason at all is abhorrent. Incomprehensibly, it is
> still perfectly acceptable for parents to consent to the cosmetic
> amputation of their son's prepuce, a far more injurious operation than
> an ear clipping or a tail docking. As a society we should be ashamed
> of this fact.
>
> The idea that parents have the right to request amputation of normal,
> erogenous tissue is central to the debate surrounding this issue and
> highlights the ethical void enveloping the medical establishment.
> Leading medical ethicist and professor at the McGill Center of
> Medicine, Ethics and Law, Dr. Margaret Somerville, has stated publicly
> that circumcision, as performed in our country, is nothing short of
> "criminal assault." How could it be otherwise? If parents requested
> that their newborn have a healthy ear or a pinky finger or the tip of
> its nose amputated at birth so as to conform to family tradition or to
> look like Daddy or Mommy or the other kids in the neighborhood, or
> because it might get some sort of infection later in life, any ethical
> doctor would refuse to do it. If it was done, both doctor and parent
> would be hauled off to jail where they belong. Of course! Primum non
> nocere--First, Do No Harm!--the prime directive of the Hippocratic
> oath... until it comes to mutilating a boy's genitals. Then all
> ethical concerns are off.
>
> It was precisely this ethical void that prompted nurse Marilyn Milos
> to establish the National Organization of Circumcision Information
> Resource Centers (NOCIRC) in 1986. These centers now have branches in
> almost every state of the union and throughout the world. "There
> really was no other choice," she said. "Baby boys were and are being
> routinely tortured and mutilated all over this country for no medical
> reason whatsoever. The doctors know this, the attending nurses know
> this. Yet the inertia of years of social conditioning and medical
> practice has immunized them against the pain and lifelong trauma they
> inflict on normal babies. It's the most grievous medical scandal of
> the century!" She videotaped a circumcision to show parents what the
> cutting entailed. The hospital authorities promptly censored the video
> and shortly thereafter she was fired from her job. "I simply wanted
> parents to know what they were subjecting their infants to. I wanted
> them to know what I wished I had known before allowing my own sons to
> be cut. I wanted them to make an informed decision on behalf of their
> sons. The medical establishment knew this would be devastating to
> their income and to their image as providers of loving care. They
> fired me for my efforts because they couldn't silence me. It's the
> best thing they could have done, however, because now I am no longer
> muzzled by an economically-motivated medical community. I am free to
> promulgate the truth of this barbaric practice and help put a stop to
> it."
>
> Help put a stop to it is exactly what she has done. NOCIRC has spawned
> a grass-roots movement all across this country and has been largely
> responsible for the drop in circumcision rates over the past ten
> years. Milos' efforts have also prompted other health-care
> practitioners to enlist in the cause. Doctors Opposing Circumcision
> (DOC) was founded in 1996 and now counts physicians from all over the
> world among its ranks. "Many doctors recognize that no one has the
> right to forcibly remove sexual body parts from another individual,"
> says Dr. George Denniston, President. "They recognize that doctors
> should have no role in this painful, unnecessary procedure inflicted
> on the newborn. Routine circumcisions have been found to violate not
> only the Golden Rule, but the first tenet of medical practice, 'First,
> Do No Harm'. Amazingly, circumcision violates all seven principles of
> the A.M.A. Code of Ethics, and yet doctors continue to do it!" Dr.
> Denniston goes on to point out that, "Circumcision is not surgery, by
> definition. Surgical procedures have been defined as: repair of
> wounds, extirpation of diseased organs or tissue, reconstructive
> surgery, and physiologic surgery (i.e. sympathectomy). Routine
> circumcision does not fall into any of these categories. Therefore,
> routine infant male circumcision is not a valid surgical procedure."
>
> Besides the pain of the initial crushing and cutting, circumcision
> harms in many other ways. First, the male glans and inner foreskin,
> just like the glans clitorides and inner labia of women, are actually
> internal structures covered by mucous membrane that, when exposed to
> the air and harsh environment through circumcision, develop a tough,
> dry covering to protect the delicate, sensitive tissue. It's sort of
> like if you went around with your eyelids pulled back or your tongue
> sticking out all the time or if a woman were to walk around with her
> labia pulled back exposing the clitoris and internal lining to the
> air. The moist, warm membranes of eye, tongue, clitoris or labia would
> react to the dry air and defend against it. The nerve endings would
> become dulled because layers of cells build-up in a process called
> keratinization. This keratin, a tough, insoluble protein substance, is
> the chief structural constituent of hair, nails, horns, and hoofs.
> Over time, these once exquisitely sensual organs acquire all the
> sensitivity of an old garden glove.
>
> Circumcision is not simply the cutting off of useless skin. Author
> Gary L. Harryman innumerates what circumcision destroys:
>
> ***Its connective synechia, which fuses the foreskin to the glans
> while the penis develops.
>
> ***Approximately half of the smooth muscle sheath called the dartos
> fascia.
>
> ***Most of the erotogenic nerve endings on the penis, including the
> densely innervated ridged bands, reducing the sensitivity of the penis
> to that of ordinary skin.
>
> ***Specialized epithelial Langerhans cells, a component of the immune
> system.
>
> ***Thousands of coiled fine-touch receptors, including the Meissner's
> corpuscles.
>
> ***Estrogen receptors--the purpose and value of which are not yet
> fully understood.
>
> ***Ectopic sebaceous glands, which lubricate and moisturize.
>
> ***The protective covering of the glans, normally an internal
> structure. The foreskin shields from abrasion, drying, and callusing,
> and protects from dirt and other contaminants.
>
> ***The entire immunological defense system of the soft mucosa, which
> may produce antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as lysozyme,
> also found in mother's milk, and plasma cells, which secrete
> immunoglobulin antibodies.
>
> ***Lymphatic vessels, the loss of which interrupts the lymph flow
> within a part of the body's immune system.
>
> ***The frenulum, the sensitive "V" shaped tethering structure on the
> underside of the glans is also usually amputated, severed, or
> destroyed.
>
> ***The apocrine glands, which produce pheromones, nature's powerful,
> silent, invisible signals to potential sexual partners.
>
> ***As much as 50% or more of the total penile skin, radically
> immobilizing and desensitizing whatever skin remains.
>
> ***The "gliding" mechanism. If unfolded and spread out flat, the
> average adult foreskin would measure 15-20 square inches, the size of
> a postcard. This abundance of specialized, self-lubricating skin gives
> the natural penis its unique-hallmark ability to smoothly "glide" back
> and forth within itself, permitting non-abrasive intercourse, without
> drying out the vagina.
>
> ***The pink to red to dark purple natural coloration of the glans.
>
> ***10% to 20% of its circumference because its double-layered wrapping
> of loose foreskin is now missing making the circumcised penis thinner.
>
> *** As much as one inch of the erect penis' length due to scarring and
> shrinkage from loss of the mobile, richly vascularized foreskin.
>
> ***Several feet of blood vessels, including the frenular artery and
> branches of the dorsal artery, the loss of which interrupts normal
> blood flow to the shaft and glans of the penis, damaging its natural
> function and possibly stunting its growth.
>
> *** An estimated 240 feet of microscopic nerves, including branches of
> the dorsal nerve.
>
> *** Perhaps most importantly, between at least 10,000 to 20,000
> specialized erotogenic nerve endings of various types, which can
> discern slight motion, subtle changes in temperature, and fine
> gradations in texture.
>
> And occasionally a boy will lose his life from this needless
> operation. It has been estimated that as many as 209 babies die every
> year from circumcision and related complications.
>
> Rest of article......
> http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/gmas/
>
> For more information contact:
>
> National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers
> (NOCIRC)
> Post Office Box 2512
> San Anselmo, CA 94979-2512
> U.S.A.
> Telephone: (415) 488-9883
> Fax: (415) 488-9660
> http://www.nocirc.org/
>
> Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)
> 2442 NW Market Street, Suite 42
> Seattle, Washington, 98107
> U.S.A.
> http://weber.u.washington.edu/~gcd/DOC/
>
> Attorneys for the Rights of the Child (ARC)
> 2961 Ashby Avenue
> Berkeley, CA 94705
> USA
> Tel. 510-848-4437
> E-mail: [email protected]
> http://www.noharmm.org/ARC.htm
>
> Patients In ARMS
> (Advocates Reforming Medical Standards)
> 7480 Gravies Road
> Dieters, Missouri 63023
> USA
> (314) 274-ARMS
> [email protected]
>
It would be most appreciated if somebody could explain to us why the
above should be published in a European travel forum.
TIA,
Kim
> Genital Mutilation American Style
>
> How a father discovered, too late, that circumcision is not a good
> thing.
>
> by Rio Cruz
>
> Most Americans, when presented with the information that approximately
> 97% of the world's infant male population is not circumcised, are
> rather astounded. "But I thought everybody was circumcised. I thought
> it was a medically necessary thing to do," said a friend when I
> brought up the issue a few weeks ago.
>
> "Nope," I replied, "not even close. The foreskin is not a birth defect
> needing remedy by the A.M.A. Nobody in all of Europe, non-Muslim Asia,
> or Latin America is routinely circumcised. In fact, the only people
> who routinely cut off the most erogenous part of their boys' penis are
> Jews, Muslims, certain tribal groups in far-flung parts of the world
> and... the United States. Everybody else leaves their sons intact as
> nature made them." This is a fact. Indisputable. Most leave their
> girls intact, too.
>
> Roughly one million baby boys a year in this country are rudely
> welcomed into the world by the amputation, without anesthesia, of an
> integral, sexually important part of their anatomy. By definition, the
> removal of a normal, healthy, functional body part is mutilation. Pure
> and simple. These one million babies represent around 60% of all male
> infants born in this country, a figure that is down from a high
> reached in the 1970's and 1980's of around 90%. And what is truly
> astounding is that, while we become incensed over the female genital
> mutilations going on in Africa and other third-world countries far,
> far away, we ignore the routine mutilations perpetrated here against
> our own sons.
>
> The sexism of this perspective is stunning. In fact, in 1996 the U.S.
> Congress, eager to appease feminist groups and appear to be the Great
> White Protectors of American Girlhood, passed a law against female
> circumcision or any other form of genital modification of girls below
> the age of consent. This was pure political theater, baby kissing,
> butt patting. As a society, we simply do not cut the genitals of baby
> girls in this country... only the genitals of baby boys. Passing a law
> against female genital mutilation (FGM) was a slam dunk for the
> politicians. They could look big and strong and macho and foursquare
> in favor of protecting babies... as long as the babies were girls,
> that is. In our culture, unlike other more civilized societies, it is
> perfectly acceptable to amputate the male prepuce against the
> shrieking protests of the victims. Our national chauvinism has blinded
> us to our own human rights abuses, against our sons, and does not
> allow us to see anything wrong.
>
> I never saw anything wrong with it either until I witnessed my own son
> being circumcised. The doctor assured me it was a simple little snip
> of extra skin that had no function and that really didn't hurt the
> infant. "You want him to look like you, don't you?" Well, since I
> really hadn't thought much about it, and since I, too, had gone under
> the knife at birth, I said "Sure. I guess so. Why not?"
>
> He didn't answer the "Why not?" but it was soon apparent to me. My
> newborn son was taken from his mother's warm, nourishing breast and
> placed naked on a cold, plastic board called a Circumstraint. His
> little legs were spread-eagled and strapped down with Velcro bands and
> his arms were strapped to his sides. He immediately protested and
> began to cry. The doctor draped a thin cloth with a hole in the center
> over his shivering body and drew his little penis through the hole.
>
> The doctor washed my baby's penis with an antiseptic solution. He took
> a pair of steel hemostats and, holding the penis in one hand, inserted
> the tip of the hemostat into the opening of the foreskin and began
> pushing it between the foreskin and the glans, ripping the two
> structures apart. The foreskin and glans were tightly fused together
> by the normal balanopreputial membrane called the synechia, similar to
> the membrane that attaches the fingernail to the finger. It's the
> body's way, in part, of protecting against harmful bacteria.
>
> My baby was shrieking now, his protest going from a simple cry to what
> sounded like screams of sheer terror. His body was rigid, contorted as
> he strained against the straps and the pain. If the Circumstraint had
> not been bolted down, it and my child would have crashed to the floor.
> Every instinct I had told me this was not right, that I should be
> protecting my son instead of acquiescing to the barbaric spectacle
> before me. But I am a "civilized" man. I have been socialized to
> accept what the doctor is doing. It's the right thing to do. Right?
>
> The foreskin did not easily give up its hold on my son's glans. The
> doctor continued to rip the skin with the hemostat. My son was
> shaking, tossing his head from side to side, his fists and eyes were
> clenched, sweat beaded on his brow.
>
> The doctor finally got the glans and foreskin separated, then clamped
> the foreskin tight with another hemostat and cut the skin vertically
> with scissors. The wound was bleeding profusely. He tried to insert a
> steel cone into the tissue but had to force it because the incision
> was too short. My son stopped screaming. His eyes were glazed and
> rolled back. He appeared to be sleeping, but he was really in a state
> of complete and total shock.
>
> The doctor put a large metal clamp around the bleeding foreskin, the
> cone supposedly to protect the glans, and he proceeded to crush the
> nerves, the blood vessels and tissue of the foreskin with the clamp.
> He took a knife and sliced around the clamp, letting the foreskin drop
> onto the cloth. My son lay motionless on the board, completely
> disassociated into some other, more hospitable space. The doctor
> looked at me and winked. He left the room. A nurse gave my son back to
> his mother. Welcome to America, little man.
>
> "Why not?" I ask again. I'll tell you why not. Because my son had
> absolutely no medical condition requiring the amputation of his
> perfectly normal, natural, healthy foreskin. None! There is not one
> child born in this country who has any condition requiring this
> procedure, yet out of cultural inertia, greed on the part of
> circumcising physicians and hospitals, flat out abject ignorance on
> the part of both doctors and parents, and the satisfying of
> psycho-sexual compulsions on the part of certain sadistic
> practitioners, the grisly business continues. And, it continues to
> fill the pockets and coffers of physicians, hospitals and clinics to
> the tune of approximately one billion dollars a year.
>
> Perhaps protecting this cash cow is one of the reasons I could not get
> even one of our area's circumcising physicians to agree to an
> interview on this subject. Not one! "That's much too emotional an
> issue to discuss," said one. "There are concerns for legal liability,"
> said another. Others gave no reason. They simply refused to be
> interviewed. Still others never returned my calls. They all seem brave
> enough when armed with steel knives, clamps and scissors against an
> infant's naked penis, but try to engage them in adult conversation on
> this issue and they flee into the shadows.
>
> However, one well-known, popular family practice physician who does
> not perform circumcisions but who, nevertheless, preferred not to go
> on record for this article, said that circumcisions were done en masse
> in this country because "It's really a question of cosmetic surgery.
> It's an elective. It's tradition. There is no medical justification
> for it," she said. "We simply do it at the request of parents. It's
> their decision to make." But only if the child is a boy. Remember,
> girls are protected by law from such parental requests.
>
> Not many years ago it was perfectly accepted for dog owners to
> amputate the tail and cut the ears of their pets for cosmetic reasons.
> It was the owners' choice to make. Social consensus now holds this to
> be inhumane treatment of animals and few veterinarians will accede to
> such requests. The idea that anyone would even consider circumcising
> their pet for any reason at all is abhorrent. Incomprehensibly, it is
> still perfectly acceptable for parents to consent to the cosmetic
> amputation of their son's prepuce, a far more injurious operation than
> an ear clipping or a tail docking. As a society we should be ashamed
> of this fact.
>
> The idea that parents have the right to request amputation of normal,
> erogenous tissue is central to the debate surrounding this issue and
> highlights the ethical void enveloping the medical establishment.
> Leading medical ethicist and professor at the McGill Center of
> Medicine, Ethics and Law, Dr. Margaret Somerville, has stated publicly
> that circumcision, as performed in our country, is nothing short of
> "criminal assault." How could it be otherwise? If parents requested
> that their newborn have a healthy ear or a pinky finger or the tip of
> its nose amputated at birth so as to conform to family tradition or to
> look like Daddy or Mommy or the other kids in the neighborhood, or
> because it might get some sort of infection later in life, any ethical
> doctor would refuse to do it. If it was done, both doctor and parent
> would be hauled off to jail where they belong. Of course! Primum non
> nocere--First, Do No Harm!--the prime directive of the Hippocratic
> oath... until it comes to mutilating a boy's genitals. Then all
> ethical concerns are off.
>
> It was precisely this ethical void that prompted nurse Marilyn Milos
> to establish the National Organization of Circumcision Information
> Resource Centers (NOCIRC) in 1986. These centers now have branches in
> almost every state of the union and throughout the world. "There
> really was no other choice," she said. "Baby boys were and are being
> routinely tortured and mutilated all over this country for no medical
> reason whatsoever. The doctors know this, the attending nurses know
> this. Yet the inertia of years of social conditioning and medical
> practice has immunized them against the pain and lifelong trauma they
> inflict on normal babies. It's the most grievous medical scandal of
> the century!" She videotaped a circumcision to show parents what the
> cutting entailed. The hospital authorities promptly censored the video
> and shortly thereafter she was fired from her job. "I simply wanted
> parents to know what they were subjecting their infants to. I wanted
> them to know what I wished I had known before allowing my own sons to
> be cut. I wanted them to make an informed decision on behalf of their
> sons. The medical establishment knew this would be devastating to
> their income and to their image as providers of loving care. They
> fired me for my efforts because they couldn't silence me. It's the
> best thing they could have done, however, because now I am no longer
> muzzled by an economically-motivated medical community. I am free to
> promulgate the truth of this barbaric practice and help put a stop to
> it."
>
> Help put a stop to it is exactly what she has done. NOCIRC has spawned
> a grass-roots movement all across this country and has been largely
> responsible for the drop in circumcision rates over the past ten
> years. Milos' efforts have also prompted other health-care
> practitioners to enlist in the cause. Doctors Opposing Circumcision
> (DOC) was founded in 1996 and now counts physicians from all over the
> world among its ranks. "Many doctors recognize that no one has the
> right to forcibly remove sexual body parts from another individual,"
> says Dr. George Denniston, President. "They recognize that doctors
> should have no role in this painful, unnecessary procedure inflicted
> on the newborn. Routine circumcisions have been found to violate not
> only the Golden Rule, but the first tenet of medical practice, 'First,
> Do No Harm'. Amazingly, circumcision violates all seven principles of
> the A.M.A. Code of Ethics, and yet doctors continue to do it!" Dr.
> Denniston goes on to point out that, "Circumcision is not surgery, by
> definition. Surgical procedures have been defined as: repair of
> wounds, extirpation of diseased organs or tissue, reconstructive
> surgery, and physiologic surgery (i.e. sympathectomy). Routine
> circumcision does not fall into any of these categories. Therefore,
> routine infant male circumcision is not a valid surgical procedure."
>
> Besides the pain of the initial crushing and cutting, circumcision
> harms in many other ways. First, the male glans and inner foreskin,
> just like the glans clitorides and inner labia of women, are actually
> internal structures covered by mucous membrane that, when exposed to
> the air and harsh environment through circumcision, develop a tough,
> dry covering to protect the delicate, sensitive tissue. It's sort of
> like if you went around with your eyelids pulled back or your tongue
> sticking out all the time or if a woman were to walk around with her
> labia pulled back exposing the clitoris and internal lining to the
> air. The moist, warm membranes of eye, tongue, clitoris or labia would
> react to the dry air and defend against it. The nerve endings would
> become dulled because layers of cells build-up in a process called
> keratinization. This keratin, a tough, insoluble protein substance, is
> the chief structural constituent of hair, nails, horns, and hoofs.
> Over time, these once exquisitely sensual organs acquire all the
> sensitivity of an old garden glove.
>
> Circumcision is not simply the cutting off of useless skin. Author
> Gary L. Harryman innumerates what circumcision destroys:
>
> ***Its connective synechia, which fuses the foreskin to the glans
> while the penis develops.
>
> ***Approximately half of the smooth muscle sheath called the dartos
> fascia.
>
> ***Most of the erotogenic nerve endings on the penis, including the
> densely innervated ridged bands, reducing the sensitivity of the penis
> to that of ordinary skin.
>
> ***Specialized epithelial Langerhans cells, a component of the immune
> system.
>
> ***Thousands of coiled fine-touch receptors, including the Meissner's
> corpuscles.
>
> ***Estrogen receptors--the purpose and value of which are not yet
> fully understood.
>
> ***Ectopic sebaceous glands, which lubricate and moisturize.
>
> ***The protective covering of the glans, normally an internal
> structure. The foreskin shields from abrasion, drying, and callusing,
> and protects from dirt and other contaminants.
>
> ***The entire immunological defense system of the soft mucosa, which
> may produce antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as lysozyme,
> also found in mother's milk, and plasma cells, which secrete
> immunoglobulin antibodies.
>
> ***Lymphatic vessels, the loss of which interrupts the lymph flow
> within a part of the body's immune system.
>
> ***The frenulum, the sensitive "V" shaped tethering structure on the
> underside of the glans is also usually amputated, severed, or
> destroyed.
>
> ***The apocrine glands, which produce pheromones, nature's powerful,
> silent, invisible signals to potential sexual partners.
>
> ***As much as 50% or more of the total penile skin, radically
> immobilizing and desensitizing whatever skin remains.
>
> ***The "gliding" mechanism. If unfolded and spread out flat, the
> average adult foreskin would measure 15-20 square inches, the size of
> a postcard. This abundance of specialized, self-lubricating skin gives
> the natural penis its unique-hallmark ability to smoothly "glide" back
> and forth within itself, permitting non-abrasive intercourse, without
> drying out the vagina.
>
> ***The pink to red to dark purple natural coloration of the glans.
>
> ***10% to 20% of its circumference because its double-layered wrapping
> of loose foreskin is now missing making the circumcised penis thinner.
>
> *** As much as one inch of the erect penis' length due to scarring and
> shrinkage from loss of the mobile, richly vascularized foreskin.
>
> ***Several feet of blood vessels, including the frenular artery and
> branches of the dorsal artery, the loss of which interrupts normal
> blood flow to the shaft and glans of the penis, damaging its natural
> function and possibly stunting its growth.
>
> *** An estimated 240 feet of microscopic nerves, including branches of
> the dorsal nerve.
>
> *** Perhaps most importantly, between at least 10,000 to 20,000
> specialized erotogenic nerve endings of various types, which can
> discern slight motion, subtle changes in temperature, and fine
> gradations in texture.
>
> And occasionally a boy will lose his life from this needless
> operation. It has been estimated that as many as 209 babies die every
> year from circumcision and related complications.
>
> Rest of article......
> http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/gmas/
>
> For more information contact:
>
> National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers
> (NOCIRC)
> Post Office Box 2512
> San Anselmo, CA 94979-2512
> U.S.A.
> Telephone: (415) 488-9883
> Fax: (415) 488-9660
> http://www.nocirc.org/
>
> Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)
> 2442 NW Market Street, Suite 42
> Seattle, Washington, 98107
> U.S.A.
> http://weber.u.washington.edu/~gcd/DOC/
>
> Attorneys for the Rights of the Child (ARC)
> 2961 Ashby Avenue
> Berkeley, CA 94705
> USA
> Tel. 510-848-4437
> E-mail: [email protected]
> http://www.noharmm.org/ARC.htm
>
> Patients In ARMS
> (Advocates Reforming Medical Standards)
> 7480 Gravies Road
> Dieters, Missouri 63023
> USA
> (314) 274-ARMS
> [email protected]
>
It would be most appreciated if somebody could explain to us why the
above should be published in a European travel forum.
TIA,
Kim
Feb 9th 2005 | 8:26 pm
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Genital Mutilation - American Style
"Kim_il_Zoom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >
> It would be most appreciated if somebody could explain to us why the
> above should be published in a European travel forum.
> TIA,
> Kim
Why not?
Everything else is!
news:[email protected]...
> >
> It would be most appreciated if somebody could explain to us why the
> above should be published in a European travel forum.
> TIA,
> Kim
Why not?
Everything else is!
Feb 9th 2005 | 11:31 pm
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Genital Mutilation - American Style
"Gerrit 't Hart" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Kim_il_Zoom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> It would be most appreciated if somebody could explain to us why the
>> above should be published in a European travel forum.
>> TIA,
>> Kim
> Why not?
> Everything else is!
I see the squabling between FIAT and General Motors is still going on about
whether or not GM has to exercise it's option to buy FIAT Motorcar Division.
I wondered if they did, would the new company be called GenItalia..
news:[email protected]...
> "Kim_il_Zoom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> It would be most appreciated if somebody could explain to us why the
>> above should be published in a European travel forum.
>> TIA,
>> Kim
> Why not?
> Everything else is!
I see the squabling between FIAT and General Motors is still going on about
whether or not GM has to exercise it's option to buy FIAT Motorcar Division.
I wondered if they did, would the new company be called GenItalia..
Feb 10th 2005 | 12:48 am
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Genital Mutilation - American Style
> I see the squabling between FIAT and General Motors is still going on about
> whether or not GM has to exercise it's option to buy FIAT Motorcar Division.
> I wondered if they did, would the new company be called GenItalia..
LOL!
--
Tim C.
> whether or not GM has to exercise it's option to buy FIAT Motorcar Division.
> I wondered if they did, would the new company be called GenItalia..
LOL!
--
Tim C.
Feb 10th 2005 | 4:47 am
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Genital Mutilation - American Style
Tim Challenger wrote:
>>I see the squabling between FIAT and General Motors is still going on about
>>whether or not GM has to exercise it's option to buy FIAT Motorcar Division.
>>I wondered if they did, would the new company be called GenItalia..
>
>
> LOL!
>
>
Me too!
OK, guys, I´m gradually getting the idea what this
(and any other) forum is actually about. Sorry for
being somewhat slow-witted.
The story about the fired White House Chef, American
use of pillows et cetera seem to be well covered here.
Any news on O J Simpson lately?
Rgds,
Kim
>>I see the squabling between FIAT and General Motors is still going on about
>>whether or not GM has to exercise it's option to buy FIAT Motorcar Division.
>>I wondered if they did, would the new company be called GenItalia..
>
>
> LOL!
>
>
Me too!
OK, guys, I´m gradually getting the idea what this
(and any other) forum is actually about. Sorry for
being somewhat slow-witted.
The story about the fired White House Chef, American
use of pillows et cetera seem to be well covered here.
Any news on O J Simpson lately?
Rgds,
Kim
