Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Well, read them Dr. Freedman!


Dr Anthony Freedman, a member of the AAP task force on circumcision:

"q: Do you have a son and, if so, did you have him circumcised?

a: Yes, I do. I circumcised him myself on my parents’ kitchen table on the eighth day of his life. But I did it for religious, not medical reasons."
"On my parents’ kitchen table"!!!! That guy is too much. Not only breaks the specifications of the committee of bioethics, but treats his own child like it's a chicken from the fridge???

Pediatricians, when providing medical care for their own children, are more likely to lack objectivity, function with incomplete information, and have difficulty setting physician-patient boundaries. Significant confidentiality issues could arise when caring for minor relatives and the children of close friends. By providing potentially less-than-optimal care for these children, pediatricians violate a fundamental professional obligation. Exceptions to the general prohibition are limited to minor treatments and decisions (often similar to those handled by nonphysician parents) or clear emergencies and disasters and for pediatricians who practice in underserved areas in which there are no other physicians capable of providing pediatric care. ( )  But I guess he wasn't giving his son medical attention, he was performing a religious ceremony.

 "Why is there such negative sentiment against circumcision?

"I can’t really say. However, I can tell you that I’ve received thousands of e-mails over the years from parents..."
Well, read the letters! That's how you will be able to say!

Intact America, a New York nonprofit against infant circumcision, is demanding that the AAP retract its report “on the basis that it is inaccurate, biased and misleading,” among other charges.

Dr. Freedman said such backlash was expected. He said the AAP task force went out of its way in the technical report “to be inclusive, comprehensive and transparent as to the quality of the evidence.”

“As a practicing pediatric urologist, 20% of the patients I will see today are here because of something related to their circumcision,” Dr. Freedman said. “The procedure has some modest benefits and some modest risks.”

Families shouldn’t “feel like they’re harming their child no matter what they decide to do.
 The AAP encourages physicians to ensure that families understand that infant male circumcision is an elective procedure. The updated statement also accounts for the fact that male circumcision is not purely a medical decision, but includes aesthetic, cultural and religious factors [... my note: just like female cutting!] as well, Dr. Freedman said.

“We recognize our ethical obligation is in the best interest of the child, and we don’t have the ability to judge the best interest of the child across all those paradigms, []” said note: your job was to judge best interest in medical terms, not religious, not cultural, not "aesthetic" for the pleasure of all the circumfetishists and acucullophiles out thereDr. Freedman, a pediatric urologist at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. “If [families] want the procedure, they can justify getting it. If they don’t want it, they don’t have to have it.”

The American Medical Association says the decision for neonatal circumcision should be determined by parents in circumstances in which the procedure is not essential to the child’s well-being.
Well Dr. Freedman, the guys in the photos in circumcision harm (click here) are a clear example of what this policy can achieve. Please look at them and  tell me if they received a modest benefit or a modest risk. Please tell me if they lives were not simply ruined by a guy just like you. Please look at them and tell me again how you don't understand why there is such a negative sentiment against circumcision.

Please tell me again why you had the right to be a part of the Task Force on Forced Male Genital Cutting, because I really don't understand that.

No comments:

Post a Comment