-
-
Yes. It’s reasons. If someone told me my chance for cancer and HIV would decrease with a small surgery and minimal long term effect,
-
I would consider it.
-
Would you seriously consider it for your daughters? Let’s apply the logic here. Penile cancer affects 1 in 100,000 men. Vulvar cancer affects 1 in 400 women or so. Radical vulvectomy prevents cancer AND you can still enjoy sex. Ready to cut your daughters?
#i2 -
If there were a study with more than 10 people I would definitely think about this- esp for women wth BRCA gene
-
Wouldn’t it be better to look for non-invasive ways to prevent problems? I dunno about you, but the less parts of my children I have to have surgically removed, the better.
#i2 -
Relevant to the topic; science tries to outdated itself. The point of medical research is to come up with better, more effective solutions to problems. Do you not see it as problematic that “researchers” are trying to keep medicine 2,000 years in the past?
#i2 -
Researchers are supposed to be making surgery obsolete. Here we “researchers” trying to necessitate a surgery that just happens to be a controversial religious ritual. Do you not see a conflict of interest here?
#i2 - 22 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
What if “research” backed
#FGM? Would it be OK? (Guess what; it does...) please stop it with the#pseudomedicine and#pseudoscience. It’s not about that.#i2 http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2017/08/does-female-genital-mutilation-have-health-benefits-the-problem-with-medicalizing-morality/ …Thanks. Twitter will use this info to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.