Talk:Circumcision/Archive 23

message: First, note that the section heading is Policies of various national medical associations; and the RACP nations in question are Australia and New Zealand.  Take note two critical statements removed by Jakew ... "without proven medical benefit," and "no evidence of benefit outweighing harm for circumcision as a routine procedure in the neonate."  Here's my version, with few edits to original statement:
:====Australia and New Zealand====
The Royal Australasian College of Physicians position is as follows:
And here's Jakew's reversion:
:====Australasia====
The Royal Australasian College of Physicians position is as follows:
TipPt 19:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Already discussed at length in Talk:Circumcision/Archive 21. Jakew 17:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where Jakew basically says it needed condensing, that we can't violate copyright (a strange argument), and it meets editors needs.  It's very pro-circ for Jakew to remove critical text from the CPS and RACP statements.TipPt 00:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why on earth do you consider avoiding copyright violations to be 'strange'? Jakew 10:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jakew making the RACP quote POV... 

message: I found the following introduction to this section:
:The medical associations noted below find the current data insufficient to recommend neonatal circumcision. They agree that parental choice remains a legitimate reason to perform the procedure.
The problem with this introduction is that it directs attention to just two points, whether the current data is sufficient to recommend [routine] neonatal circumcision and the legitimacy of parental choice in this area. However, the policies, as quoted, showed a much wider range of concerns, including the significance of the various findings about disease such as UTIs and penile cancer, or the overprescribing of circumcision for conditions that can be treated in other ways. The policies speak well for themselves; they don't need an introduction that is pushing just two aspects of the various points they make.Michael Glass 03:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't entirely agree with your reasoning - it seems to me that we must summarise sooner or later - but I'm inclined to agree that the policies can largely speak for themselves. I would eventually like to see some kind of introduction, but in the meantime I think removing this is probably a good choice. Jakew 10:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We already know the content of that section introduction from the topic intro paragraphs.TipPt 15:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Policies of various countries

message: I have changed the introduction to the quotation to point out that it is only an excerpt. I have also quoted more from the policy because it does make several important points, about the need for a child-friendly environment, the comment about the review of the literature and the question of the legality of infant circumcision. I believe that the legal comment should be quoted in full, even though some may regard it as contentious. Michael Glass 04:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RACP Policy

message: The Cochrane review only looked at EMLA and DPNB; it did not study ring block.  Jakew's version is incorrect.TipPt 15:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a review of pain relief for circumcision, which included EMLA, DPNB, and other forms (eg sucrose). It reviewed other comparisons, but did not technically make a comparison itself. Jakew 18:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction to procedures/anesthesia Jakew reverted away....[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circumcision&diff=106794984&oldid=106640635] 

message: Lander’s, in researching neonatal circumcision without anesthesia, found that without exception, newborns in this study who did not receive an anesthetic suffered great distress during and following the circumcision, and they were exposed to unnecessary risk.  Two of 11 newborns in the study who received no local anesthetic had potentially dangerous episodes within minutes of the procedure.  Fitzgerald et al conclude that early tissue trauma and pain in infants may “disrupt normal synaptic organization within the somatosensory system” that, though research was considered incomplete, “can have long-term consequences on sensory or pain behaviour that extend into childhood or beyond."  Razmus et al reported that newborns circumcised with the dorsal block and the ring block in combination with the concentrated oral sucrose had the lowest pain scores, and Ng et all found that EMLA cream, in addition to local anaesthetic, effectively reduces the sharp pain induced by needle puncture.  Stang et al argues that "performing a circumcision on a newborn without using anesthesia is justified, only if one would be willing to perform a circumcision on an older child or adult without anesthesia."
Jakew's revert looses a critical point ... that circumcision can be painful without anesthesia and may cause sensory harm.  Here's all he wrote, and reverted back:TipPt 16:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another duplicate. Fitzgerald is discussed above. Jakew 18:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pain as a potential risk of circumcision 

message: What is this edit about?  I am trying to engage in this problematic page in a constructive way in order to try to help improve its overall quality. I think I may be argued with, I may be proved wrong, but I think it is a grave contravention of some policy somewhere if my contributions are purposely blanked from discussions, whether I may have misremembered some unspecified thing or not.  Please do not do that. --Nigelj 17:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was an accident; my apologies. -- Avi 20:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for re-instating. Now we have a discussion - see above. --Nigelj 21:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hey! Do not blank my comments from a talk page please! 

message: I contributed some serious personal ideas about circumcision yesterday that have today been removed. Just because some nut posted a crazy insulting response is no reason to wipe my contribution out.
If Wikipedia wants to be a serious resource for would-be parents of newborn baby boys who are contemplating circumcision, they should have all the facts they need.
As the WP page on circumcision now stands, it is very academic and quite far removed from today's reality. As always, anyone who talks about their own penis is quickly censored.
I request that my serious argument be reinstated to this Talk Page. Thanks,  ````Brian B, Florida 12 February 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.191.87.154 (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest you re-read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Please restrict your comments to content, and not editors. Thank you. -- Avi 20:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hey, Why did you remove my discussion about Non-Surgical alternatives to Circumcision? 

message: If the sexual effects of circumcision belong on the Genital Integrity page, then all of this biased information about HIV belongs on a web page that should be called POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO CIRCUMCISION.   This article is about the procedure.  Not what some Jewish doctors in Africa say circumcision can prevent.  That is just as out of place as any other biased information on this page.  I'm so glad my husband is NOT circumcised.  I can't have an orgasm with 'cut' men.  Choosing a circumcised man would be like choosing a dildo over a vibrator (vibrating dildo) becuase it looks prettier.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.167.107.118 (talk • contribs).
Yes the articles here are truly bizarre and defending toward child mutilation. I do think "Genital Integrity" is a bad label, easily used without further discussion. Most of the worlds loving parents choose not to mutilate their child boys, so the mutilation itself is out of the ordinary, not the other way around. After all, men are born with a foreskin. —151.202.74.4 17:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BIASED 

message: How can we have a topic of circumcision without shopwing a picture of the actual procedure? Can we have a topic of heart operation without showing the procedure? 
Here is an excellent photo that I recommend be added to the topic. It is of course highly relevant as it shows the procedure quite well.  http://www.emediawire.com/prfiles/2005/03/11/217505/screamingbaby.jpg
Perhaps you have another photo that could serve this purpose (getting permission etc of course)
Thanks
– — … ° ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · §   Veffari 17:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if it were not copyrighted (by the Saturday Evening Post, according to the right-hand side of this page), it would be inappropriate for inclusion. Such an image is merely an appeal to emotion, unsuitable for an encyclopaedia. Jakew 17:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: A photo of the procedure is a possibility, provided that it is appropriate and available under a suitable license. Jakew 17:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circumcision photo 

message: There’s lots of research finding high rates of infection associated with ritual circumcisions.   Just search Google for "Jewish circumcision infection."  A few of the pubmed articles are quite good.
The infection rates make circ UTI "benefits" look silly.    
We need to present this information, but I've a moral problem; since the medical establishment seeks to hospitalize circs.  Unfortunately, the end result of hospital circs is generally more radical than ritual circs ... tighter shaft skin, less mucosa remaining, and the frenulum damaged or removed more frequently.  No research to cite, just observations of technique.
If I had to circ my infant son, it would be done by a Mohel, not a DR in a hospital.  Possible a specialist, but those seem very rare (micro surgery and all that).  I hate to provide information that drives the procedure into hospitals.TipPt 20:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moral quandary 

message: …is the Chief Officer of Medical Ethics, the Ministry of Health, Israel. As reliable and notable as anyone else in this article. -- Avi 05:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but how does that mean you can distort the original covenant (in terms of actual practice)?TipPt 15:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its original purpose was to help healing. "Clean the wound" is a bit of a simplification/misstatement. I would rather take the words of a world-renknown physician, bioethicist, and Talmudic authority over New York Times beat-writer in this case. One has an inordiante expertise in both the physical and religious matters relating to this case, the other most probably did not know the difference between metzitza and mezuza before his article. I think the scholarly, reliable, and verifiable choice is obvious. Who is more of an expert on the orginal covenantm Halperin or Newman? -- Avi 15:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mordechai Halperin]]… 

message: I don't really have a clue what Avi's talking about, sorry.  
I do know that the original covenant is to remove just the tip of the foreskin … that procedure met religious requirements for half of Jewish history.  The current text misrepresents both by omitting historical fact, and by it's grossly incomplete description of current practice.  It misleads, by leaving the reader thinking that a radical circumcision is the covenant.  Radical became a strong cultural ritual, but it's not God's requirement.  Such omission is fraudulant.
We need something like...
"The original Brit milah consisted of excising the foreskin tissue which extended beyond the tip of the glans penis, while current practice (Brit periah) removes the foreskin to completely expose the glans."http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=514&letter=C ...in the Topic.TipPt 17:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The covenant