View Full Version : Obama sneaks scary healthcare clauses into stimulus
While Democrats and Republicans argue over whether the stimulus gives funds and tax breaks to the right people (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs), Obama has sneakily slipped controversial healthcare clauses into the stimulus package.
If passed, the stimulus will do the following:
1. Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.
That sounds okay, but...
2. But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions.
Okay, what the fuck? Why does the government get to be in control of my doctor? Why does some coordinator get to say whether a treatment is effective? Shouldn't my doctor and I be working toward that together? What if I object to one treatment and want to try another?
There's also this:
3. Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time”
Seriously, that's the wording. Has nobody else but me read Animal Farm or studied Nazi Germany or any other country where someone took over with all these grandiose ideas and then took away ALL of the citizens' freedom?
The writer of the article also says this:
The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.
Seriously.
Yeah, let's slow the development of new medicines and treatments, something I take pride in my country for doing. Let's go to a European system where people like Brad's friend who we've mentioned on the boards are told they have to die because more radical treatments aren't available here.
Yeah, that's a really, really good system to emulate, Obama, you stupid piece of shit. Hope! Change! Hope God heals you? Change for the worse?
And why can't we get rid of this idiot Daschle, who is writing all of this garbage?
Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.
Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).
The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.
In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision.
Yep, that's a system we sure want to emulate.
I hope this stupid stimulus program is voted down. The last thing America needs to do is become more like "European" countries.
You *DO* know that this has been in the works since like, 2001 right? Bush was behind the tracking too. And lets not forget about the RealID program...or is that going to be Obama's fault too?
Angel
02-10-2009, 10:24 PM
Oh, Fi, didn't you know? Everything is Obama's fault.
I don't care about RealID, actually. I think it's an excellent way to kick illegals the fuck out of my country.
And I'm not against this database if it's in the right hands. I think computerizing our medical records is a good idea. My objection is to the government, rather than our doctors, using the information to determine who does and doesn't get treatment.
Doctors handle healthcare much better than the government.
The NHS in England spent billions on it 5 years ago and to this day, none of it has been done. Billions spent, no results. I doubt that we're going to do oh so much better than they are.
As far as RealID, it's got too many holes. Like only people born 1964 or after have to have one. Cos there are no terrorists or illegals over 45.
What I mean is I'll worry about RealID when it's on the table and ready to be passed. The concept doesn't scare me, though. The government taking charge of drivers licenses and other forms of ID makes a lot more sense than the government taking charge of healthcare.
Join the military, and none of that matters.
Actually, wouldn't members of the military be the front-runners to receive the government's new brand of healthcare?
Originally posted by Fi
You *DO* know that this has been in the works since like, 2001 right? Bush was behind the tracking too. And lets not forget about the RealID program...or is that going to be Obama's fault too?
well, by your own words, you must be pro-bush if your pro-obama, obamas whole campaign was "CHANGE YEAH BABY", it'll keep going the same way because niggers are so stupid they voted based on colour instead of real change, anyway, fact is, obamas the current president so he's the one who will get a bullet in his face if he forces this on the public.
i just hope we get something better than the zapruder video.
Originally posted by Dan
Join the military, and none of that matters.
go away cheney *lol*
I believe Bush was in favour of making medical records digital, NOT with having the government be in charge of them. Bush may have been dumb, but I'm fairly sure he realised he was too dumb to be in charge of our healthcare. It's best left in the hands of doctors.
Originally posted by Fi
As far as RealID, it's got too many holes. Like only people born 1964 or after have to have one. Cos there are no terrorists or illegals over 45.
the terrorists over 45 are the planners though, if we got rid of them, who would be able to guide the young terrorist minds onto the path of enlightenment via exploding yourself? :confused:
It's best left in the hands of doctors.
I think it should really be done by a 3rd party honestly - doctors have too much to gain from tampering with records.
And yeah, RealID not applying to over-45s...that just sucks out loud.
A third party would work well, but who would pay for it. If doctors pay for it, you'll have the problems Fi mentioned. If the government pays for it, it's still the government controlling it and I don't think they're competent enough.
In any case, you will have the individual doctors putting the information into the system, so they will have the chance to falsify records if they want to, no matter what. I guess the question is who audits it.
Originally posted by Fi
I think it should really be done by a 3rd party honestly - doctors have too much to gain from tampering with records.
actually, if this passes, the "3rd party" has alot more to gain than doctors ever did.
That's assuming the 3rd party is the type of company to take bribes.
There's no GOOD way to do it honestly, we can't trust the government, we can't trust the doctors, and we can't trust a 3rd party who could be bribed/swayed.
Originally posted by Jen
Actually, wouldn't members of the military be the front-runners to receive the government's new brand of healthcare?
Probably. But it wouldn't matter, since the military handles all things medical for me anyway.
Originally posted by Fi
That's assuming the 3rd party is the type of company to take bribes.
There's no GOOD way to do it honestly, we can't trust the government, we can't trust the doctors, and we can't trust a 3rd party who could be bribed/swayed.
that's just it though, the government IS the 3rd party.
Originally posted by Jen
2. But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions.
monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective.
the federal government deems appropriate
Originally posted by Fi
That's assuming the 3rd party is the type of company to take bribes.
There's no GOOD way to do it honestly, we can't trust the government, we can't trust the doctors, and we can't trust a 3rd party who could be bribed/swayed.
I honestly don't see why we can't, in general, trust our doctors in the U.S. I understand that you disagree strongly with circumcision and the advice doctors give with regard to it. But in most cases, American doctors have given me comprehensive and complete information about my prescription drugs and any procedures I've had done.
I know that you have to use your judgment when it comes to unnecessary tests and procedures because doctors are either doing them to pad their wallets or avoid lawsuits, but in some ways it's good. At least they find out what's wrong with you.
I know better than to trust doctors completely, but I think our healthcare is in better hands with them, especially because they're so lawsuit-conscious, than it would be with the federal government.
i got circumcised when i turned 18, never regretted it, anti-circumcision arguments are bullshit, and usually lead by woman, which itself makes the whole argument stupid.
I honestly don't see why we can't, in general, trust our doctors in the U.S. I understand that you disagree strongly with circumcision and the advice doctors give with regard to it
That has NOTHING to do with it - doctors get a lot of payoffs from drug companies and HMOs to push certain drugs, to avoid performing certain screening tests.
Originally posted by Brad
i got circumcised when i turned 18, never regretted it, anti-circumcision arguments are bullshit, and usually lead by woman, which itself makes the whole argument stupid.
Actually, in the US, the #1 group that is anti-circ is cut men, followed by women, and then intact men. There ARE sexual benefits for women, so it makes perfect sense they can be against it.
And I'm sure you didn't know this but the way they cut infants in the States (or at least the way they used to, its changing now quite a bit) was so that the skin was as tight as possible. Now we have a bunch of 25-35 year olds with painful erections that sometimes even split open because there isn't enough skin to accommodate the erection for growers. Show-ers seem to be okay.
And the partners of those men with too tight erections? You have to use an excessive amount of lubricant or have anywhere from uncomfortable sex to vaginal tearing. And because of the skin being so tight the glans draws out the moisture on the out thrust you often have to stop in the middle to re-apply lubricant.
Is it the norm? Depends on where in the US you are, too-tight circumcisions seem to actually be regional. But is it an anomoly? Nope. Why do you think they do them differently now?
And there are just as many guys with foreskin problems who wish their parents had made the opposite decision. In the case of people who were cut too tightly, if the doctors knew what was going to happen, I think a class action suit is in order against them. If they didn't know, it's sad, but they believed they were acting in the boys' best interests.
Yeah, I know that pharmaceutical companies have a lot of doctors in their pockets. But this is how medical research gets done. All I'm saying is I've seen the other side of the system--people DYING because there's nobody to perform or research new treatments--and the American way is better.
Angel
02-14-2009, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by Brad
anti-circumcision arguments are bullshit, and usually lead by woman, which itself makes the whole argument stupid.
Which is how I feel about men arguing against abortion.
Originally posted by Jen
And there are just as many guys with foreskin problems who wish their parents had made the opposite decision. In the case of people who were cut too tightly, if the doctors knew what was going to happen, I think a class action suit is in order against them. If they didn't know, it's sad, but they believed they were acting in the boys' best interests.
Foreskin problems = fixable when the problem occurs with creams, a change in soap, a change in laundry detergent, a dorsal slit, or worst case scenario amputation (gangrene, frostbite, and cancer are the only 3 things that CANNOT be fixed with the others)
Circumcision problems = non-reversible. Don't say restoration either because for some men there just isn't even enough skin and a 3 year process is not as easy as treating a foreskin problems.
Surgery that amputates a relatively important part of the body when there is no problem makes no sense.
And as far as if the doctors knew or not, I'm sure some of them do and I'm sure some of them didn't. The thing I've heard the most is the doctors do it based on their own aesthetic preferences. And you can usually tell an anti-circ doctor (who still wants to line his pockets) because they'll cut almost none off.
Yeah, I know that pharmaceutical companies have a lot of doctors in their pockets. But this is how medical research gets done. All I'm saying is I've seen the other side of the system--people DYING because there's nobody to perform or research new treatments--and the American way is better.
No, that's not how medical research gets done. When we have new shit to test out we send it to Africa and I'm not just referring to that new circumcision clamp we couldn't get FDA approved but pills, drugs, baby formula, you name it.
What I'm talking about is being in a psych ward and the doctor prescribes everyone the same pill no matter what the problem is. Or a doctor pushing Advair for asthma that isn't so severe it needs it. Giving a patient a drug much stronger than wht they need because they got a payout. Doctors not doing routine blood work on "low risk" patiences and getting a nice check from the HMO at the end of the year.
Meh, women have every right to have an opinion on circumcision and men have every right to have an opinion on abortion.
What I find so remarkable about the anti-circ movement, though, is that it's mostly women. Yes, there is the occasional disgruntled man who is angry his foreskin got cut off. But by and large, this is a movement led by women who have to "convince" their husbands not to cut Baby.
The anti-abortion movement, on the other hand, has about an equal number of women and men.
Originally posted by Fi
Foreskin problems = fixable when the problem occurs with creams, a change in soap, a change in laundry detergent, a dorsal slit, or worst case scenario amputation (gangrene, frostbite, and cancer are the only 3 things that CANNOT be fixed with the others)
Circumcision problems = non-reversible. Don't say restoration either because for some men there just isn't even enough skin and a 3 year process is not as easy as treating a foreskin problems.
Surgery that amputates a relatively important part of the body when there is no problem makes no sense.
Look, people on this very board have PM'd me and told me that the steroid creams don't work or are sometimes just a temporary fix and that a circumcision is sometimes necessary.
And I don't think I really need to bring up my ex again. He might have had a chance at a straight penis if he'd been cut at birth, but no, his hippie-ass parents didn't want to cause him pain he'd never remember anyway.
I also have never met, in person, a guy who didn't like his circumcised dick. For all I know, these disgruntled men on the internet are just Mothering Dot Commune Mamas with alteregos.
Now, cutting too tight, on the other hand, is another story.
And as far as if the doctors knew or not, I'm sure some of them do and I'm sure some of them didn't. The thing I've heard the most is the doctors do it based on their own aesthetic preferences. And you can usually tell an anti-circ doctor (who still wants to line his pockets) because they'll cut almost none off.
The current research shows that leaving some of the foreskin is better, no? I think that's why people are leaving some of the foreskin on.
No, that's not how medical research gets done. When we have new shit to test out we send it to Africa and I'm not just referring to that new circumcision clamp we couldn't get FDA approved but pills, drugs, baby formula, you name it.
What I'm talking about is being in a psych ward and the doctor prescribes everyone the same pill no matter what the problem is. Or a doctor pushing Advair for asthma that isn't so severe it needs it. Giving a patient a drug much stronger than wht they need because they got a payout. Doctors not doing routine blood work on "low risk" patiences and getting a nice check from the HMO at the end of the year.
The doctor gets the payout.
The pharmaceutical company gets paid millions for their brand name shit before a generic version comes out.
The pharmaceutical company uses the profits for more research. And houses with private swimming pools for their top execs.
Nobody should be prescribing meds that are too strong. Doctors who do that should be held accountable. However, trying a new drug that might help somoene I don't disagree with.
He might have had a chance at a straight penis if he'd been cut at birth
ACTUALLY chordee is worsened if the foreskin isn't there to use for the repair. Layne had chordee for about 3 years, quite badly - like David. But that repair can be held off until the kid is old enough to understand what's going on. Since (as you may or may not know) Layne has already had one (necessary) surgery and putting him through another when the problem might fix itself wasn't high on my priority list.
And what do you know, his penis is perfectly straight now. Rushing into surgery for chordee is usually a bad idea since over half of cases do fix themselves.
As far as the creams go, you really have no way of knowing whether or not the person even used them right. People fuck up easy shit like putting on cream all the time. Hell, I saw a report the other day, something like 40% of women MISREAD a pregnancy test. Come on it's really not hard. 2 lines or a + = pregnant. Anything else = no.
And hey, I told you - you can meet Austin anytime. He's cut way too tight and has tried restoring. He got some progress and his penis doesn't split open anymore but it's still very painful to have sex with him at times.
The members of NORM (which are ALL MEN as women can't join it) are disgruntled about it and theres tens of thousands of them so to say everyone who is anti-circ posts on MDC is pretty inaccurate honestly. Especially considering NORM has meetings and the like mostly in the US and UK.
Lets be realistic. Only 50% of babies in the US and 10% of babies in Canada are being cut. Compare that to 90% and 50% respectively in the mid 70s (79 is when the first "This is bad" Statement came out in the US - the AAP was against it until Der Schoen [a self admitted circumfetishist] pressured them into changing it to a neutral statement). The rates have been steadily falling since the 80s and now we have insurance companies and Medicaid defunding it and doctors refusing to do (and nurses refusing to assist) it calling it unethical.
It's the exact same thing that happened with Sunna circumcisions, otherwise known as female foreskin (clitoral hood) removals. The rates were never as high (its estimated up to 20%) but if a girl was swollen in the genitals at birth, a lot of doctors would "trim her up". There's medical textbooks from the 50s touting how NECESSARY it was for a good life - how she'd be cleaner and more aesthetically pleasing to her husband. How if she didn't have it done she'd get phimosis. People stopped doing it realising that the swollen genitals thing was a side effect from moms hormones, insurance companies started defunding it, and eventually (1996) it became illegal.
While I don't think male circ will become illegal due to the Jewish population, I think it'll turn into how it is in Canada, which is "most people don't do it, and those who do are concentrated to one geographical region". Like it's not done here in BC, since there are only changing tables in women or handicapped bathrooms I see a lot of naked babies anytime I use the restroom and I haven't seen one cut - not even Muslim - since I've been here. The health ministry says its like 5% here I think. But out in Alberta and Ontario it's closer to 40% and then there are some provinces where it's 1-2%. Just like in the US there are some states under 20% and some over 80%. But it's very regional.
The doctor gets the payout.
The pharmaceutical company gets paid millions for their brand name shit before a generic version comes out.
The pharmaceutical company uses the profits for more research. And houses with private swimming pools for their top execs.
Nobody should be prescribing meds that are too strong. Doctors who do that should be held accountable. However, trying a new drug that might help somoene I don't disagree with.
I don't disagree with trying a new drug that may help a person, but there's no real way to hold doctors accountable for just pushing drugs.
When I was in the hospital at 14 and again at 16, the doctor did exactly that. EVERYONE was prescribed the same drug no matter what was wrong with them. The first time I was there it was Celexa, the second time was Lithium. And I was there as a runaway, the hospital beats Juvy. What does a runaway need Lithium for?
Your son is young. David had this until he was at least 20. Something should have been done about it long before he reached puberty.
The latest circumcision study I saw shows an 82.3% circumcision rate (http://www.jpurol.com/article/S1477-5131(08)00341-0/abstract). Hospital rates don't mean anything because a lot of people are bringing the baby back to get circumcised after they've brought him home from the hospital.
Results
Hospital discharge data showed that 75.3% of male infants were circumcised, and survey data showed that 82.3% of male infants were circumcised. The circumcision rate among infants weighing <1500g at birth was 38.9% using hospital discharge data and 74.5% using maternal survey data. Both sources revealed lower circumcision rates among Asian and Hispanic infants than among non-Hispanic white and non-Hispanic black infants.
Conclusions
Despite reports of decreasing circumcision rates nationally, rates remain high in Maryland. In addition to providing for the inclusion of circumcision procedures that may not have been coded properly in hospital discharge records and procedures that were performed after hospital discharge, maternal survey data provide more comprehensive information than hospital discharge data about parental characteristics and factors relevant to the circumcision decision-making process.
I haven't seen that one on Mothering. *lol*
I know there was at least one class-action in like 2002 for people who were prescribed Celexa for conditions it's not indicated for. I know there are inethical doctors out there. I just don't think the government should be the ones to police them.
Actually chordee usually takes UNTIL puberty to resolve. Layne got lucky methinks. At puberty yeah, the guy should be able to decide whether or not he wants it fixed.
I say it shouldn't be automatically done because sometimes the repair causes more damage than the problem itself. Chordee repairs can fuck over your penis completely which is why men with minor bends (again, not talking about David here at all, but chordee patients in general) usually don't opt to get it fixed. If you read what they have to do, you'd understand. And chordee repair does NOT require the foreskin nor do most doctors use it unless it's a 90 degree bend case.
Oh and I thought of more non-moms who are anti-circumcision - DOC (Doctors Against Circumcision which is like 90% male) and Nurses for the Rights of a Child.
The latest circumcision study I saw shows an 82.3% circumcision rate. Hospital rates don't mean anything because a lot of people are bringing the baby back to get circumcised after they've brought him home from the hospital.
Red herring Jen. #1 it's for 1 state. #2 that state falls in the "regions that have high circumcision rates" that I had mentioned. NATIONALLY it's 50%. It's about 60% in PA from what I know, which is the bordering state to MD. NY, Maine, and Vermont are all pretty low.
Any state where Medicaid no longer covers it (16 to date) AND where major health insurance doesn't cover it (about half of all major plans) have lower rates than States where insurance still pays for it. The reason for that is generally cited as "If insurance doesn't pay for it, it's probably not all that necessary".
Both sources revealed lower circumcision rates among Asian and Hispanic infants than among non-Hispanic white and non-Hispanic black infants.
That's the interesting part of that - a LOT of non-whites or blacks circ to "fit in" in their new (or 1-2 generation "new") country even if they're against it. Yet the Latinos and Asians in this area aren't. I wonder what the cause of that is.
Anti-circ people always have some sort of defense against the hard numbers. Yeah, it's one state, but the study was actually done. Show me a peer-reviewed study in a journal that indicates a 50/50 rate in 2008. I don't think you can find one. Also, anyone claiming a 50/50 rate has found it from hospital discharges. As this study shows, a lot of people are having it done later.
It also bothers me when circumcision is denied medicaid funding. While it should be an informed choice, it really bothers me that a rich person will have the option while a poor person won't.
Red herring #2 - your study isn't peer reviewed either. You pay to get published in certain journals. And it's based off of parental survey.
Numbers for 2008 aren't out but I do believe 2007 was 51%.
[quote]It also bothers me when circumcision is denied medicaid funding.[quote]
Why? It's ELECTIVE. It's been deemed COSMETIC SURGERY by enough of the medical establishment that both Medicaid AND private insurance are paying for it. Therefore, the government should not have to pay for it - isn't that a pretty socialist view to hold Jen? If someone wants something the government should just hand it to them, they shouldn't have to work for it.
How bout an abortion? They're all controversial personal choices that aren't medically necessary, the government should pay for them by your logic. It's not fair only rich white girls can get safe abortions. It has just as many medical benefits as a non-theraputic neonatal circumcision after all. Abortions shouldn't be for just the rich!
Fuck, even if you're destitute you can set up a small payment plan OR get a discount on it just because you're on Medicaid (which they do for abortions too - the clinic I got mine done at gave you $50 off if you showed your food stamp/TANF, or Medicaid card).
And if you're really THAT BROKE you can go to a rabbi who will ALWAYS do it cheaper than a doctor (and more humanely too!) and will DEFINITELY take a payment plan.
So don't sit there and say there aren't options for the poor. The poor less educated people have a higher circ rate. In both circ and breastfeeding, education is a factor on your decision. The more educated you are, the more likely you are to breastfeed and the less likely to circumcise. Not to make a sweeping generalisation or anything, it's just what the pattern is looking like from the studies that HAVE been done on both topics. Oh and if you circ you're more likely NOT to succeed breastfeed because the surgery sometimes makes the babies not want to eat. HOWEVER it's not JUST circ, it's ANY surgery during early infancy.
Abortion kills. Circumcision doesn't.
A lot of people consider circumcision to be preventative medicine. Looking at what can happen when you don't circumcise, I will choose it for any sons I happen to have, even if I have to pay. I would also breastfeed for a year.
I also worry about Medicaid refusing to do necessary circumcisions when problems develop because they've chosen not to cover the procedure.
Circumcision absolutely kills. As often as abortion? Of course not, abortions whole purpose is to kill. A baby actually bled to death this very week from circumcision and several have died from MRSA in the past few months. Don't tell me circumcision never kills, you know better.
The "preventative medicine" argument is so/so at best. It's very misguided because circumcision has literally 3x more risks to it than not circumcising. At least. And that's using all of the "pros" of circumcising from the pro-circ and circumfetishist sites and the cons from actual doctors. Using the actually medical pros would literally leave 3. Because phimosis is still possible on a circumcised penis. Especially with a modern (aka loose) circ. And the infection rate of MRSA is ONLY for cut boys - an intact boy cannot get MRSA entering through his penis, you can only get it through an open wound.
It's a catch 22 isnt it? Too much skin gone and your son may have a fucked up sex life, a dick that splits open when it's hard and "too little" taken off and he's at risk for every single problem a not cut boy is. Because in loose circs the skin still covers the glans in most cases or bunches up behind it and readheres (FYI you leave it alone and it clears up on its own, if you tear it back or even push it back to clean you can cause a LOT of scarring). So what's the difference between a loose circ and not being cut? In adulthood the glans MAY show. Some cut guys are 75%-100% covered in adulthood which just means they had their ridged band removed for nothing *shrug*
Circ "kills" the way appendectomies "kill." I don't think anybody will argue that the procedure itself is murder.
All I'm saying is that there are benefits and if, after considering the potential benefits and potential risks, the parents decide they want to circumcise, the option should be there. It does bother me if it's not covered by Medicaid, because the poor are getting substandard care, but you're right, it is something people can save for if they really want it.
I just think it should definitely remain a choice. Another statistic I think I'd find really interesting would be the number of uncut Americans who want their sons cut.
It's true - it kills the way any surgery kills but with the MRSA outbreaks, it's more often than it used to be. And that is only because of the age of a victim. Babies are twice as likely.
This is directly from a consent form:
3. I/we understand these risks include hemorrhage (bleeding ), infection, adhesion formation, cosmetic deformity, or functional defect. Significant complication occurs about once in every 500 circumcisions.
1 in 500 is a terrible complication rate for something that is supposed to be "incredibly easy". Is it a HIGH overall rate? No. But for an outpatient procedure that gets no anesthesia and isn't followed up on? That's alarming. The baby that died this week died because the parents didn't know what to look for and then the number they were told to call if anything looked wrong was DISCONNECTED. Instead of going to the hospital the morons waited 7 hours and he bled to death. Again, is it the norm? No.
But "significant complications" that hit 1 in 500 on a PENIS. That's unnerving just because it makes me question if the methods are right, if the doctors are well trained, or if maybe something is inherently wrong with the surgery itself.
Another statistic I think I'd find really interesting would be the number of uncut Americans who want their sons cut.
I was always curious about this too. So I lurked around on boards where the intelligence is low (not because of circ either but OMG BOTTLEFEEDING IS THE SAME IF I PUT CEREAL IN WILL HE SLEEP ALL NIGHT AND IF I LET HIM SCREAM FOR 4 HOURS IN A WET DIAPER ITS OKAY YEAH?!?!?).
Here's what I gathered.
This number seems to be low and the families with intact adult man fall into 4 groups overall.
Men and women who never discuss it, never think about it and cut. It's just done automatically with no faults. Several of the women were steered to MDC's regret posting page and BLOUCH after expressing regret and "wondering what they did" (they had seen no anti-circ stuff that they mentioned, just either some complication with the circ, an infection, or something "just felt wrong").
Men and women who never discussed it and turned it down because he wasn't done and was fine so they might as well do it.
Women who wanted it done and intact men that didn't. The women didn't have a problem with foreskin itself but "its just what you do". The husbands just give in.
Men who want it done "just because it is" and women who don't but give in.
I've honestly NEVER seen the "locker room" shit from an intact man/female couple. Only from cut women/female couples.
Oh and just because it's kind of interesting:
Consent for circumcision
Circumcision is a procedure in which the foreskin ( fold of skin that covers the end of the penis) is surgically removed. Many parents are interested i having circumcision done for ethnic, cultural , religious, or social reasons; but there is still some medical controversy about the need for the procedure on a routine basis. Please read and sign this consent form if you wish to have your infant circumcised.
1. I/we would like to have our infant circumcised.
2. I/we have read the information sheet "considerations for non-ritual circumcision" and have discussed the advantages and risks of the surgery with our obstetrician.
3. I/we understand these risks include hemorrhage (bleeding ), infection, adhesion formation, cosmetic deformity, or functional defect. Significant complication occurs about once in every 500 circumcisions.
4. I/we understand that other unexpected risks or complications not mentioned may occur, and I/we acknowledge that no guarantees nor promises have been mad e to me/us concerning the results of this surgery.
5. I authorize doctor ______ to perform a circumcision on our infant ___.
6. I/we authorize and request the authorities of the _____ hospital to dispose of any tissue which may be removed and/or use it for diagnostic, scientific, or teaching purposes.
Wonder how many of those people read that paper let alone the attached form or that chat with the OB.
They should be forced to read the form, provided it contains factual, non-emotional information.
And I wasn't talking about the locker room argument necessarily, I was talking about intact men who had penis problems and don't want their sons to have the same. I know these men exist.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.