Doctor's jobs are not performing unnecessary surgeries or genital mutilations. And doctors have the ethics education to know what they are doing is wrong.
-
-
Replying to @Gregory_Malchuk @JazhuStreaming and
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.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_Undersized_ @JazhuStreaming and
Not historically. And they still bully parents. They fact that they present it as an option ITSELF is loaded. They don't "offer" ANY unnecessary surgeries on female genitals. I thought you claimed to be opposed to "circumcision for no reason" which ARE these cases.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @Gregory_Malchuk @JazhuStreaming and
You cant use justification of past instances of an idea and assume the justification is the same now. There is no benefit in female circumcisions, but in males you drastically reduce urethral infection chances. That's enough reason to ask, and the parents are the ones saying yes.
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_Undersized_ @Gregory_Malchuk and
Here's a study where they tried to prove FGM doesn't prevent HIV and accidentally found the opposite. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265824402_Female_Circumcision_and_HIV_Infection_in_Tanzania_for_Better_or_for_Worse … Do I believe it? Hell no! Sometimes bad science happens even despite the best of intentions. Why trust "benefits of male circ" research either?
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @KhazWolf @_Undersized_ and
The point is, those in favor of genital mutilation will latch onto studies that back themselves up, and this IS happening with FGM too. People are citing studies just like this to say that FGM is "heathier" and "cleaner", EXACTLY the same way we defend cutting into boys!
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @KhazWolf @_Undersized_ and
PS: Other studies show circumcision INCREASING incidence of UTIs: http://sciencenordic.com/male-circumcision-greatly-increases-risk-urinary-tract-problems … When you analyze the body of research as a whole, it becomes apparent that this protection is a myth and a statistical anomaly caused by confounding factors, such as forced retraction
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @KhazWolf @Gregory_Malchuk and
That one refers to meatal stenosis, not a UTI
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_Undersized_ @Gregory_Malchuk and
A UTI is easier to treat than meatal stenosis. And even those claiming UTI prevention admit the data only supports this "benefit" for the first few years of life. Why would you sign yourself up for a much bigger risk of much worse problems to avoid a treatable infection?
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @KhazWolf @_Undersized_ and
Here's a source specifically addressing UTIs: https://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/for-professionals/alleged-medical-benefits/urinary-tract-infections/ … And yes it provides citations
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
But it states that circumcision does provide risk reduction of 1.73 times unless I’ve read it wrong.
-
-
Replying to @_Undersized_ @Gregory_Malchuk and
It claims that is a finding someone came up with, but it offers a good thorough explanation of why that finding is unlikely to be accurate. Studies done in America for example are influenced by a lack of education about the proper care of foreskin, which may cause these UTIs
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.