This research is aimed precisely at making it safe enough to administer general anesthesia in these populations for that to become standard of care.
Let me preempt one possible line here: I do not love the circumstances under which I would have been circumcised as a neonate in Mississippi in the very early 1980s, and I do not resent the result. Living that far tied up in the past is for men who can't figure out how to do anything else. I am not one of those and despite an essential sympathy with the theoretical basis of their position that no putative benefit remotely
justifies the the risk of the intervention, I have a short way with "intactivists."
But if it had been possible safely to administer more than EMLA (perhaps!) for pain relief, not even in that place and time would anyone be so barbaric as to refuse it. Of course. And that, making possible that precise measure of mercy in the case where the intervention is not merely cosmetic, is exactly that at which this research is directed. So, to anyone looking to make a cause of the ghosts of a billion foreskins or whatever, I would say please do not attempt even by implication to recruit my argument in support of your position.
I didn't say anything about a foreskin anywhere. And my point is, they did not just do minor stuff like a circumcision (which I think is a barbaric, pointless and immoral practice to inflict on non-consenting minors in any case except to maybe cure phimosis).
They did major surgery. Like opening the cranium or abdomen. Like removing limbs. Like removing burnt skin by brushing it off and applying skin grafts. And no, they didn't even apply Lidocain, because children don't feel pain. At best, they gave muscle relaxants as chemical restraints and to make the tissue easier to cut.
Yes, any, male or female, genital mutilation is life-changing.
What I meant is, it is "minor" as far as surgery goes, as opposed to "major". The distinction is about the risk to the life of the patient, the kind of anesthesia you need (local vs knockout), the setting you do it in (walk-in vs stay at the hospital) and the amount of aftercare required (change the bandage vs. medication+monitoring+hospital).
And those studies are BS, done to prove a preexisting point. Any properly done study by independent researchers without an agenda doesn't show any kind of effect from circumcision beyond the resulting sensory problems, deformation, nerve damage, erectile dysfunction, scarring and adhesion.
I really do not understand why did you felt the need to push for circumcisions here. Like, no one asked or discussed them one way or the other. Like ok, it is religious for Jews and Arabs, but no one else have to care.
Jesus, I tried as hard as I knew how not to start a fight, knowing this place plays host to a few foreskin mourners. Better just to avoid entirely, it appears, and duly noted.
What a shame the eyeroll emoji is filtered here. That, apparently, is the level people are on. A paragraph is too much! Or is everyone still rationing since Cerebral, or whatever that telemedicine pill mill was called, shut down a few years back? Is that why no one is reading today?
I never thought I'd say this, but for God's sake and as a favor to us both, pipe my shit through ChatGPT and ask for a reframing on a sixth-grade reading level. You pay for access to the damned robot, let it wipe your nose through the remedial work. I've got embroidery to do and movies to watch.
What? How are you making that leap? I'm not insulted; we've never met. I am confused, though, and you are a licensed professional facing specific ethical requirements and constraints on your issuance of medical advice. Perhaps you'll explain what you know that I don't.
Circumcision induces keratinization of the glans (one of the reasons this makes us more resistant to many STDs). I noticed a huge difference in touch perception before vs. after and I strongly resent that this was brought onto me. I'm not trying to insult anyone. It's personal.
Let me preempt one possible line here: I do not love the circumstances under which I would have been circumcised as a neonate in Mississippi in the very early 1980s, and I do not resent the result. Living that far tied up in the past is for men who can't figure out how to do anything else. I am not one of those and despite an essential sympathy with the theoretical basis of their position that no putative benefit remotely justifies the the risk of the intervention, I have a short way with "intactivists."
But if it had been possible safely to administer more than EMLA (perhaps!) for pain relief, not even in that place and time would anyone be so barbaric as to refuse it. Of course. And that, making possible that precise measure of mercy in the case where the intervention is not merely cosmetic, is exactly that at which this research is directed. So, to anyone looking to make a cause of the ghosts of a billion foreskins or whatever, I would say please do not attempt even by implication to recruit my argument in support of your position.