They don’t just “perform it”, they *have* to ask the parents. Blame them, not the poor doctor who has to listen to the baby wail.
-
-
Replying to @_Undersized_ @Gregory_Malchuk and
A doctor has an obligation to do no harm. In this case, he's harming for a profit.
1 reply 1 retweet 7 likes -
Replying to @dlindenii @Gregory_Malchuk and
They get paid per minute of surgery not per surgery and in some hospitals get paid hourly, nice slogan though.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_Undersized_ @dlindenii and
Circumcision is the most common surgery in America. About a million cuts per year, and each one costs the parent hundreds of dollars. The foreskin may then be sold afterwards for hundreds more yet. Circumcision is absurdly profitable. Like $600 for a 15 minute surgery?pic.twitter.com/it7giSaWTv
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @KhazWolf @dlindenii and
So educate the parents and then they’ll opt out. Or restructure the American healthcare system, which is a different debate. Either way, the doctors aren’t to blame for the parent’s informed decisions.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_Undersized_ @KhazWolf and
You say "educate the parents" then say "parent's informed decisions" if the parents need educating, that means they are not making informed decisions, they are making uninformed decisions, and the information they get then tends to come from the doctors.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
You can’t do anything more than educate the parents, because the surgery is optional. The doctors tell the parents the pros and cons pretty quickly and then parents decide. And trust me, people are happy to doubt medical professionals. Look at the anti-vax movement.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_Undersized_ @KhazWolf and
The doctors DON'T give the parents the pros and cons, not all of them at least. They don't also explain that those pros are not conclusive, that as much, sometimes more, research shows no real benefit, and many of the benefits are minute. like 1/322k for cancer reduction.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
That’s why I never mentioned cancer, but there is a majority consensus that it reduces the rate of urinary tract infections. Keep it to the argument. There are papers here posted by people that agree with you that back me up on this with numbers like 1.73 to 4x reduction.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_Undersized_ @KhazWolf and
Girls get urinary tract infections 5 to 10 times more often than boys do, we give them antibiotics, not surgery, we can easily do the same for boys. Also in Europe the UTI rate is similar to the circumcised rate in the USA, the USA infection rate in intact boys is due to poor >>
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
2> care. Circumcision was so common they forgot how to properly care for an intact penis. They instruct parents to pull back the foreskin and wash under it, in children this increases the risk of UTIs, particularly in infants, due to the possibility of anal bacteria migrating >>
-
-
Replying to @ReyosB @_Undersized_ and
3> in a dirty diaper. The foreskin is fused to the glans for years, at least three, possibly as many as 17, when an infant is born, this is part of how it stays clean, the narrow opening and urine flushing it.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this 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.