Botched circumcision on Ontario newborn

[Bill Bumface]

Penisectomies combined with rectal fusion result in 99.9% reduced risk of contracting HIV in males.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by blueski

I don't understand why "reduction in sensitivity" is listed as a con. Won't you last longer for the win?

There's probably little to no actual information on this, mostly because not many guys would answer honestly even if they did have problems it that area.

As an ant-eater, can't say "quickness" has ever been an issue. So if it doesn't impact that, the increased sensitivity can only be a good thing!

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I would think that "have a penis" allows someone to have a relevant opinion on this topic. Why do we have to have kids to have an opinion on the affect of circumcision? Especially when a lot of the talk in here isn't necessarily about health as much as it is about perceptions and traditions. Single people (people most likely to be exposed to the health risks of STIs and the like) will have a totally different perspective on this than people who are contemplating it for their own children. You don't find that perspective relevant?

No, I was responding strictly to the over the top claims that this is a barbaric practice that some misinformed parents perform on their children. To which I waded through 2 pages of posts that seemed geared towards. The article was about a baby who died due to poor treatment after a circumcision. It is pretty clear to me what this thread is discussing.

Look my point is, I am reading that posters here feel that there isn't science to backup a decision I myself made. That it is religious. That there aren't any benefits. That it is barbaric. My response to these seemingly emotional arguments (sorry "pain, blood, hurt" is not a logical argument) is that I actually did my homework, I actually talked to experts who have doctorates in this area, I am an educated science based person myself. Someone needs to voice up for parents like me who for some reason get painted as negligent on this issue. We're not.

I don't care if someone has an opinion not to do it to themselves, or their son. I just would hope people would stop the hysterical reactions, shaming, name calling, and look at other peoples fact based perspectives. I especially don't want to hear it from non-parents to parents.

[Jason14h]

As this thread has little to do with the actual child death, can anyone explain/has read what they messed up that causes the child to bleed to death? I find that very weird at a hospital.

[blueski]

Originally Posted by MattyC

There's probably little to no actual information on this, mostly because not many guys would answer honestly even if they did have problems it that area.

As an ant-eater, can't say "quickness" has ever been an issue. So if it doesn't impact that, the increased sensitivity can only be a good thing!

We need some ho's to weigh in on this.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Penisectomies combined with rectal fusion result in 99.9% reduced risk of contracting HIV in males.

Can you get it from swallowing?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

As this thread has little to do with the actual child death, can anyone explain/has read what they messed up that causes the child to bleed to death? I find that very weird at a hospital.

The baby was sent home, but then started bleeding. He died 7 days after the circumcision from loss of blood:

The parents called about bleeding later that day, though, and he advised them to take Ryan to Toronto’s North York General Hospital, which they did.

“We … waited for care that could have saved his life, but that level of care never came,” says Ahmadi.

A sparse outline in the board’s decision says Ryan was eventually transferred to Sick Kids hospital, but died there seven days later. Pathologists said he succumbed to “hypovolemic shock” caused by bleeding from the circumcision, which emptied his body of 35 to 40 per cent of its blood.

The doctor at North York General — whose name has been withheld according to College policy — was cautioned for failing to recognize the seriousness of the boy’s condition or treating “compensated shock” – the first stage of the condition.

The hospital couldn't stop the bleeding over the course of a week?

[Coach]

Originally Posted by blueski

We need some ho's to weigh in on this.

Lol. Honestly, I have doubts it affects your partner positively or negatively in any way. As mentioned, when at full mast, there's not really any difference.

I am interested in seeing some female opinions on aesthetics and/or performance. But referring to ladies as "hos" is probably not conducive to them bringing themselves into the discussion.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

No, I was responding strictly to the over the top claims that this is a barbaric practice that some misinformed parents perform on their children. To which I waded through 2 pages of posts that seemed geared towards. The article was about a baby who died due to poor treatment after a circumcision. It is pretty clear to me what this thread is discussing.

Look my point is, I am reading that posters here feel that there isn't science to backup a decision I myself made. That it is religious. That there aren't any benefits. That it is barbaric. My response to these seemingly emotional arguments (sorry "pain, blood, hurt" is not a logical argument) is that I actually did my homework, I actually talked to experts who have doctorates in this area, I am an educated science based person myself. Someone needs to voice up for parents like me who for some reason get painted as negligent on this issue. We're not.

I don't care if someone has an opinion not to do it to themselves, or their son. I just would hope people would stop the hysterical reactions, shaming, name calling, and look at other peoples fact based perspectives. I especially don't want to hear it from non-parents to parents.

I appreciate this response.

I don't necessarily agree with you, and would not have it done to my child, but can live with the fact that someone came to a different conclusion and is looking to do the best thing for their child.

I find it especially abhorrent though when it is performed for no reason other than tradition (dad is/religion/need to fit in) or aesthetics (women prefer it in their experience). Truthfully I think most people are trying to combat these reasons for doing it. Doing it for a medical reason where it is deemed necessary is fine. Researching it and deciding it is a net gain to do it shows you put a lot of thought into doing it and weighed the pros and cons. Doing it for other reasons does seem "barbaric" to me.

I wouldn't choose it for my child, I do not think it is worth doing. That said, if you did a lot of research and chose differently, I'd say that is a hell of a lot better than doing it "just because".

[Cain]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I am interested in seeing some female opinions on aesthetics and/or performance.

I know you guys aren't being overly serious, but I am bothered somewhat by the train of thought because I do think it plays a part sometimes (for some people).

Aesthetics should not play a part whatsoever. Honestly it is the worst reason of them all.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Cain

I know you guys aren't being overly serious, but I am bothered somewhat by the train of thought because I do think it plays a part sometimes (for some people).

Aesthetics should not play a part whatsoever. Honestly it is the worst reason of them all.

No I actually am being serious haha. Because I agree, a lot of the time I hear people talk about the aesthetics of it and that ladies like it more and so on. As a kid, you were teased if you were an ant-eater, and the girls joined in on it too. And in my adult life, I just see literally zero evidence of either of those things. It bugs me that they still get perpetuated.

[Ace]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

As this thread has little to do with the actual child death, can anyone explain/has read what they messed up that causes the child to bleed to death? I find that very weird at a hospital.

It sounds like, based on the article, that the procedure was done and the child sent home (according to the doctor) with no abnormal bleeding; and sometime later the wound opened up and started bleeding significantly and when the parents noticed they called the doc and went to the hospital. Presumably, since the baby was there for 7 days they were able to stop the bleeding, but the initial loss of blood was just too much for the tiny baby leading to a shock that could not be overcome.

Has the baby been in hospital when it was bleeding, they might have been able to intervene earlier?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Ace

It sounds like, based on the article, that the procedure was done and the child sent home (according to the doctor) with no abnormal bleeding; and sometime later the wound opened up and started bleeding significantly and when the parents noticed they called the doc and went to the hospital. Presumably, since the baby was there for 7 days they were able to stop the bleeding, but the initial loss of blood was just too much for the tiny baby leading to a shock that could not be overcome.

Has the baby been in hospital when it was bleeding, they might have been able to intervene earlier?

It sounds like there were a lot of issues with the doctor's in the ER not recognizing the severity of the issue fast enough:

The doctor at North York General — whose name has been withheld according to College policy — was cautioned for failing to recognize the seriousness of the boy’s condition or treating “compensated shock” – the first stage of the condition.

http://news.nationalpost.com/health/...im-circumcised

[GGG]

Originally Posted by blankall

From these guidelines:

Ummm your quote states that their is insufficient medical data to make a decision.

So the American pediatricians are stating insufficient data.


And the CDC is saying that Medical intervention is effective at prevention. It does not say that the prevention outweighs potential harm.

And there isn't cultural or religious reasons non to get circumcised. Its the religious and cultural reasons that generate circumsitions currently. Essentially the APA is saying there is insufficient data but if peoples are religiously committed to it there is little harm.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Cain

I know you guys aren't being overly serious, but I am bothered somewhat by the train of thought because I do think it plays a part sometimes (for some people).

Aesthetics should not play a part whatsoever. Honestly it is the worst reason of them all.

Yeah, I think the only reason worse than "I wanted you to look like me" is "that's how your mother likes them".

Eww.

[blueski]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Lol. Honestly, I have doubts it affects your partner positively or negatively in any way. As mentioned, when at full mast, there's not really any difference.

I am interested in seeing some female opinions on aesthetics and/or performance. But referring to ladies as "hos" is probably not conducive to them bringing themselves into the discussion.

Well we need someone with lots of *experience* to weigh in on who lasts longer cut or uncut. I'm thinking if it is less sensitive, it lasts longer.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by getbak

Yeah, I think the only reason worse than "I wanted you to look like me" is "that's how your mother likes them".

Eww.

That's hilarious.

What's just as bad is how the mom has to debate their own newborn son's future sexual performance when the kid is less than a year old, and his dick is the size of a raisin.


"Well do Honey you want the girl to feel more rub, or do you want Haydyn to last longer when she's riding him reverse cowgirl?"
"No, I think smegma concerns come first. Oh, and he just spat up on your shoulder"

[Coys1882]

Originally Posted by blueski

Well we need someone with lots of *experience* to weigh in on who lasts longer cut or uncut. I'm thinking if it is less sensitive, it lasts longer.

It doesn't matter if you have a toque or not - it's all about the kegels.

NSFW!

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by blueski

Well we need someone with lots of *experience* to weigh in on who lasts longer cut or uncut. I'm thinking if it is less sensitive, it lasts longer.

You certainly seem to have a lot of interest in lasting longer...

[peter12]

Lots of classy people posting in this thread.