Tuesday, August 23, 2011


MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND CIRCUMCISION

Here is an interesting story about a  simple circumcision turning into the removal of the man's penis.

http://lubbockonline.com/filed-online/2011-08-22/doctor-says-he-save-mans-life-amputating-cancerous-genitalia-without

I am a strong advocate of banning circumcision of babies unless it is medically necessary.  There is one know study out of South Africa which suggests uncircumcised men are more likely to contract HIV.  But when the evidence was compared to countries like the UK and Canada where most men still have their foreskin, it did not hold up.  If you use a condom you are nearly 100% safe from contracting HIV.

In my life I only have one major regret.  The campus doctor at UTEP was referring all students with intact foreskin for circumcision.  In my case there was no medical reason for circumcision.  He was adamant in his belief that we all were going to contract every STD under  the sun.  The fact I have never had sex without a condom meant nothing to this guy.  I went to a school district which showed the boys pictures of what STD's look like on men's genitalia.  Trust me by age 12, I knew why you never have sex without a condom.  I think I was like 20 when I realized condoms were also used for birth control.  The woman I was with said I did not need a condom because she was on the pill.  I  ask does the pill prevent STDs?  She said no - so I said for both of our protection I would  still use a condom.

Anyway at age 19 after being scared to death I chose circumcision.  I will tell you sex is a millions times better if your foreskin is still intact.  I do understand some babies are born with a very tight foreskin and require circumcision.  This is what I mean by medically necessary.  On the religious issue, this country would be up in arms if religious groups demanded the right to circumcise baby girls.  So why do we allow for this bogus excuse for boys?  Religious beliefs are not a basis for mutilating the human body of a child.  As an adult  have at it - it is your body your right.
 
In the case of this man, I have mixed feelings about his case.  Yes he had cancer, but I am not sure why the doctor could not wake him up and get his permission.  But here is the real issue for me, why was he sedated to begin with.  I was fully awake during my circumcision as an adult.  I got 6 needles in the penis and was numb.  Today they should use a block.  I will not lie, I felt a numb cutting, but no pain.  How is it that in 1977, they could do a circumcision without sedation, but not today?  I think the answer is, money - there is more money to be made by sedating the patient.  On this issue I would probably award this guy a large sum - cancer aside - it was his decision to make and not that of his doctor.

No comments: