aka non consented circumcision is a human rights violations rule

  • Norah - She/They@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    10 months ago

    While I agree that most cases of phimosis would be better to wait until teenage/young adult years before intervention is considered, if it’s bad enough that their pee balloons under the foreskin, it requires surgery. However, that surgery does not require full circumcision either in babies or adolescents.

    • Fox@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Ballooning can be harmless and doesn’t mean that there’s severe phimosis, much less severe enough to require surgery. The process of natural separation takes time.

      • Norah - She/They@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        Okay, I’m incredibly anti-circumcision, but you’re just being obtuse. The whole point of medical science is to prevent suffering. For example, we vaccinate babies to prevent harmful illnesses. They cannot speak for themselves so we have to make those decisions for them, but only in their best interests.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Even if there’s phimosis going straight to circumcision is not medically defensible, first there’s testosterone creme and mechanical stimulation. Don’t have statistics at hand but the number of cases where that’s not enough should be lower than that of intersex folks.

        • Fox@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          The standard of care should be too take the least invasive approach possible, especially when the more radical option has lifelong consequences. Not sure how that position is obtuse. And if a child is too young to speak, nobody should be recommending this operation because any diagnosis of ‘phimosis’ at that age is plain bullshit.

          • Norah - She/They@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            …because any diagnosis of ‘phimosis’ at that age is plain bullshit.

            This is the position I believe is obtuse. Circumcision being abhorrent doesn’t mean that any medically necessary surgery in the area is “bullshit”. I’ll point out, again, that surgery for phimosis does not require circumcision, nor does it cause the same lifelong consequences. I’m not going to debate it with you further though.

            Edit: Under your logic, we should just let a baby with a congenital heart defect die instead of operate on them, because they can’t speak for themselves.

            • Fox@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              Good thing that’s not at all my logic. A high risk heart condition and not being retractable at age three are not even slightly the same degree of compelling. Talk about being obtuse. You give an extremely common phenomenon that many boys grow out of and say that it necessitates surgery without any qualifiers. I say bullshit, that is basically the extent of it.