Roman wrote:
draelynn wrote:
Doctors oath says 'first, do not harm'. It never rang truer than it does on this issue.
It is truer in case of lobotomy and shock thereapy. In case of circumcision at least harm is just a side effect. But for lobotomy and shock therapy harm is the ultimate goal of the treatment.
i dunno about that. at least lobotomy and shock therapy are targeting a problem or disorder. circumcision is chopping off a perfectly healthy and functional part of the body. thats true harm.
i have 3 sons, all intact. there was never any doubt for me about that particular choice. and to be honest, it wasnt even an option regardless of what my ex or my SO wanted. that simply wasnt going to happen to my babies.
the risks of circumcision are very real. even death is a potential "side effect". more common than death and just as horrifying is the occurrence of penile amputation. cases like that of david reimer are what made the decision easy for me. why run the risks of complications, amputation, or even death for what is an elective cosmetic surgery on an infant?
_________________
Neurotypically confused.
partner to: D - 40 yrs med dx classic autism
mother to 3 sons:
K - 6 yrs med/school dx classic autism
C - 8 yrs NT
N - 15 yrs school dx AS