Question:
> As they should. You want cheap healthcare? Spend $100k+ on nine years > of professional school, plus three or four of poorly paid internships > while trying to pay off your loans, then get a job where you have to > fight with insurance companies, pay malpractice, and deal with life and > death situations EVERY DAY OF YOUR LIFE.
The results of MGM are something that boys/men live with EVERY DAY OF OUR LIFE. The extreme sexual violence against boys/men that mutilates men and destroys a man’s ability for normal sexual feeling are nothing but a hate crime against boys/men. The correct "charge" for MGM is aggravated sexual battery of a child — and the reward should be 10 to 20 consecutive for each count. > My Doctor is one of the greatest men in medical history imo,
If you Doctor does MGM, he is one of the worst perverted slimeballs around. > and I will > gladly pay whatever he asks if he thinks a procedure is necessary. He > earned that degree, and put in the hours. That’s why he makes the big > bucks – every bit of which he deserves.
If he makes "big bucks" hacking up the genitals of healthy normal defenseless little children deserves to be hauled into court and punished along with the other slimeballs. It is wrong to hurt a child – even a boy MGM really has to end! Zardoz Greybeard [Note: Please disregard the "personal vendetta" follow on posts by the pro-mutilation flamers. Thanks]
Response:
> As for the monetary aspect, that’s bullshit. If the parent’s say no, then the > procedure isn’t performed. It’s that simple. The doctor and hospital have no > control over the decision.
ROFLOL. In one survey I read a couple of years ago the doctors were asked why they did MGM. Their answers were, "Because the parents wanted it done." The same survey asked the same parents, and they answered, "Because the doctor advised us to." Doctors have huge control over those decisions, whether they deny it or not. Many of them are still burying the "permission" check box in the long list of agreements the mother has to sign. > Do you really think all the attorneys out there are so stupid? If this were > true, hungry attorneys would be all over it in a second.
Attorneys do things that have high profit for little time expended. The cases are still not very common and the cost per dollar is not very high. As soon as some legal groups get landmark decisions through the courts, every tom, dick, and ambulance chaser attorney will be all over it. > Some friends of mine just had their first child. They had him circumcised > despite their doctor’s advice that they *not* circumcise. I think you grossly > underestimate the power of cultural norms, and grossly overestimate the > monetary value of circumcision.
This is partly true. One shouldn’t underestimate the culture misandry that encouraged violent sexual hate crime against males. It is wrong to hurt a child – even a boy MGM really has to end! Zardoz Greybeard [Note: Please disregard the "personal vendetta" follow on posts by the pro-mutilation flamers. Thanks]
Response:
> > Revenue. > It’s only one word, but it explains everything about the routine medical > mutilation of the genitals of newborn boys in the U.S. > Think about it. > Revenue. > Yeah, I understand foreskin is very hot in the black market right now. > Rebecca, who can’t believe she’s dignifying this wack job with a reply
Ever think about it this way. Circumcision has different motivations depending on whom you ask. Clearly a OB who gets about 150 a cut, and operates in a small hospital, where 200 or fewer boys are cut and he gets to do the majority, is making enough money to pay the BMW off!
Response:
> Uh…actually I believe this "wack" job was talking about the fees > that doctors charge to do the procedure (around $200 here in San Diego)
As they should. You want cheap healthcare? Spend $100k+ on nine years of professional school, plus three or four of poorly paid internships while trying to pay off your loans, then get a job where you have to fight with insurance companies, pay malpractice, and deal with life and death situations EVERY DAY OF YOUR LIFE. Then do your surgery yourself for free. Cheap! Easy! My Doctor is one of the greatest men in medical history imo, and I will gladly pay whatever he asks if he thinks a procedure is necessary. He earned that degree, and put in the hours. That’s why he makes the big bucks – every bit of which he deserves. — Brian Ream Kalamazoo Michigan
Response:
> Yeah, I understand foreskin is very hot in the black market right now. > Rebecca, who can’t believe she’s dignifying this wack job with a reply
Uh…actually I believe this "wack" job was talking about the fees that doctors charge to do the procedure (around $200 here in San Diego) Also, I’m sure you are aware that foreskins ARE sold (for skin grafts and oral reconstructive surgery) as well as the placenta (for skin creams and makeup), the umbilical cord (for surgery). Here’s a few sources (there’s many others): http://www.datasync.com/~qsmd/f4sale.htm http://www.cirp.org/CIRP/pages/intactivist/controversial/for-sale
Response:
> Revenue. > It’s only one word, but it explains everything about the routine medical > mutilation of the genitals of newborn boys in the U.S. > Think about it. > Revenue.
Yeah, I understand foreskin is very hot in the black market right now. Rebecca, who can’t believe she’s dignifying this wack job with a reply
Response:
> The "fundamentalist package" you describe is a pretty good list of the > forces that got routine male genital mutilations started. But these days, > decades after all the fundamentalist reasons for the practice are no longer > valid (they never were, but at one time they were considered to be) there is > one thing that just won’t let the practice die out: doctors and hospitals > aren’t going to voluntarily reduce their revenues.
You’ve apparently been living on another planet where fundamentalism has vanished. Back here in the USA (the one on planet Earth) it is very much alive and well. As for the monetary aspect, that’s bullshit. If the parent’s say no, then the procedure isn’t performed. It’s that simple. The doctor and hospital have no control over the decision. > Revenue. As long as the doctors keep quiet about it, the money will still > pour into the coffers.
Do you really think all the attorneys out there are so stupid? If this were true, hungry attorneys would be all over it in a second. > Revenue. If medicine weren’t a for-profit business in the U.S., the mass > mutilations would have ended a long time ago.
Some friends of mine just had their first child. They had him circumcised despite their doctor’s advice that they *not* circumcise. I think you grossly underestimate the power of cultural norms, and grossly overestimate the monetary value of circumcision. — Carey Gregory
Response:
> That doesn’t mean an HMO should REFUSE to do them. For what would > also invite suit from parents who want it done for religious reasons, > but want it done with some kind of antisepsis and anaesthesia, by a > doctor, in a hospital. So everybody walks a fine line on this.
Of course the ought to REFUSE to violate the boy/man’s fundamental human rights no matter how sadistic his parents are. There is no excuse for extreme violent sexual child abuse — even by a HMO. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if angry men didn’t start taking their anger out on those who run such organizations. I know of at least one incident where a man did serious damage to the medical center where he was mutilated — and as more and more men come to terms with the sexual violence done to them I would not at all be surprised to see more violence against violent child abusers. > There’s not THAT much difference, and certainly not enough to be worth > the bruhaha that we see regularly take over these NGs. > Steve Harris, M.D.
If it’s not worth the brouhaha then people shouldn’t do it. I know one man who traveled over 2,000 miles to desecrate the grave of the doctor who didn’t have the courtesy to live long enough for his young victim to grow up and learn about the extreme sexual violence done to him. You comment that extreme sexual violence to males is "not worth the brouhaha" is sexist prejudice. If a single little girl was raped or sexually violated the government and everyone would acknowledge that her trauma was "worth the brouhaha" that was aroused to bring the perpetrator to justice. Passing off extreme sexual violence against 100,000,000 boys/men as "not worth the brouhaha" is offensive anti-male prejudice. It is wrong to hurt a child – even a boy MGM really has to end! Zardoz Greybeard [Note: Please disregard the "personal vendetta" follow on posts by the pro-mutilation flamers. Thanks]
Response:
> Oh, hell, how the heck do I put _this_ one in my killfile? I already > have "circ" and "crap" to get rid of these idiotic threads. Christ. > What a moron.
You got that right, Ernest. > Yell at me all you want, but I think you anti-circs are jerks, and > heck, that even rhymes.
Jerks? Those who hack up their children sure, and a bunch more. See above on morons. > Ernest > Proud father of > Alexander Brandon (9/24/94) and Savannah Georgia (1/9/96)
How proud are you if you call part of your son garbage, hack it off and toss part of HIM in the garbage? Not proud at all, just a jerk moron. >Revenue.
That explains much, especially for the "doctors" in the baby butchering business. Doesn’t explain moron parents though. It is wrong to hurt a child – even a boy MGM really has to end! Zardoz Greybeard [Note: Please disregard the "personal vendetta" follow on posts by the pro-mutilation flamers. Thanks]
Response:
> You must admit that fear of lawsuits is a powerful factor in medical > policy for doctors and especially for hospitals, insurers and HMOs. > To admit that circumcision causes harm and that this has been known > for years would indeed open up all these groups to the possibility > of suit.
Let’s see, if 100,000,000 mutilated men in the USA are named plaintiffs on a class action lawsuit and settle for, say $40,000 each, how much is that? Can you say "bankrupt" for every doctor, hospital, medical center, university medical school, HMO, and malpractice insurance company in the country? [note: malpractice insurance does not cover deliberate malpractice -- the insurance companies will dump the doc's like a hot potato] Medial centers in some states, CA, already admit that MGM has no medical purpose on their "permission" forms. Lots of doctors can now be found who will testify that MGM is just violent sexual child abuse. The tide is truning and fast. It won’t be long. Doctors with any sense will be running as fast as possible to reduce their liability. And parents — men are already suing their parents for sexual child abuse. It is wrong to hurt a child – even a boy MGM really has to end! Zardoz Greybeard [Note: Please disregard the "personal vendetta" follow on posts by the pro-mutilation flamers. Thanks]
Response:
writes: >You must admit that fear of lawsuits is a powerful factor in medical >policy for doctors and especially for hospitals, insurers and HMOs. >To admit that circumcision causes harm and that this has been known >for years would indeed open up all these groups to the possibility >of suit. >Money may not be the only factor, but certainly it cannot be ignored. >Steve
To continue to advocate circ when the major American medical bodies have said there is no reason medically to do it, would ALSO open HMOs to suit. Knowledge changes. The best things for an HMO to do is follow whatever the most conservative guidelines of the times are. That doesn’t mean an HMO should REFUSE to do them. For what would also invite suit from parents who want it done for religious reasons, but want it done with some kind of antisepsis and anaesthesia, by a doctor, in a hospital. So everybody walks a fine line on this. For the record, if I had a son, I would not circumcise him, and the reasons are pretty much the libertarian ones that have already been given, ad nauseum, here. Let the kid chose himself when he gets older, as with a nose-job. And I recommend against them medically, when I get the chance to, which isn’t often, since I’m a geriatrician (it’s a question that comes up only among my friends and family). But neither am I a rabid, foam at the mouth, "you’re mulilating your baby" type. I KNOW adults, and know friends of adults, who’ve been circ’d as adults, and what they say convinces me it’s benign. A know one gay man who says he’s had oral sex with thousands of men (and I’m sure he’s telling the truth, knowing his habits), and he gets to talk to all kinds of people about their penises, and find out directly about what their sensitivies are. His perception is pretty much the same as mine. There’s not THAT much difference, and certainly not enough to be worth the bruhaha that we see regularly take over these NGs. Steve Harris, M.D.
Response:
> Obviously you just don’t get it. >On the contrary, dear doc. I get too well. >Things continue for other >reasons than "revenue." The death penalty in Florida and Texas does >not continue because of "revenue". Sodomy laws do not continue because >of revenue. Dry counties in some states do not continue because of >revenue. >Sorry, doc, but what does all this have to do with the routine medical >mutilation of infant boys in the U.S.?
As if I hadn’t already explained. These things are all aspects of religious fundamentalism, relying on the Old Testament. >That fact that somewhere, somebody makes money off a >practice, is not prima facie evidence that the practice is money >driven, and would stop if the money aspect disappeared. >The mass medical mutilation of infant boys as it exists today in the >U.S. *is* money driven, doc. (As if the doc didn’t know…..)
Repeating it enough times won’t make it so. Parents don’t have their children circumsized in the US largely because the DOCTOR convinces them to. That’s nonsense. >That things >that involve money are done only for money, is one of the world’s >dumbest arguments. >Dear doc, your cronies in the medical profession give a ton of reasons >for butchering our penises. I’m sure you know them from memory.
Actually, I don’t. The American Academy of Pediatrics has come out and said there’s no reason for it. The family practice docs I work with (I teach them geriatrics) leave it up to the parents. So do I. >Those aren’t reasons, those are excuses. The real reason is revenue. All >else is pretense. >It says something about the mind of the person >making it, and what it says isn’t very pretty. > Steve Harris, M.D. >What kind of medicine do you practice, doc?
I’m a geriatrician. Steve Harris, M.D.
Response:
> Obviously you just don’t get it. Things continue for other > reasons than "revenue." The death penalty in Florida and Texas does > not continue because of "revenue". Sodomy laws do not continue because > of revenue. Dry counties in some states do not continue because of > revenue. That fact that somewhere, somebody makes money off a > practice, is not prima facie evidence that the practice is money > driven, and would stop if the money aspect disappeared. That things > that involve money are done only for money, is one of the world’s > dumbest arguments. It says something about the mind of the person > making it, and what it says isn’t very pretty.
You must admit that fear of lawsuits is a powerful factor in medical policy for doctors and especially for hospitals, insurers and HMOs. To admit that circumcision causes harm and that this has been known for years would indeed open up all these groups to the possibility of suit. Money may not be the only factor, but certainly it cannot be ignored. Steve
Response:
[misc.kids, misc.kids.parenting snipped from newsgroup list] >Revenue. It’s the sole reason why the medical mutilations continue. >Revenue. Think about it.
Obsession. It’s the reason these looneys keep posting to groups (like sci.med, where I see them till I can killfile the thread) where nobody welcomes them. And, I’d like to propose a rule of thumb that any posting that ends with "think about it" is a posting that need not be thought about, or even read. — David Wright :: wright at ibnets.com :: Not a Spokesman for Anyone These are my opinions only, but they’re almost always correct. "The daily floggings will continue until morale improves."
Response:
It is a parents choice to have a child circ’d, not the hospital’s. The choice belongs to the *owner* of the penis.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>Revenue. >>It’s only one word, but it explains everything about the routine >medical >>mutilation of the genitals of newborn boys in the U.S. >>Think about it. >>Revenue. > Too simplistic. The US has always been a more religious country >than most, and it uses bible which contains an old testiment which is >based on Hebrew scriptures. You can’t use "revenue" to eplain the US’s >puritanical occupation with sex this last century, the long outlawing >of aborion, condom sales except to married people, laws against >"sodomy", the use of the death penalty when other Western contries had >long abandoned it. It’s all part of the same fundamentalist package. >Most of it has NOTHING to do with money. > Steve Harris, M.D. >The "fundamentalist package" you describe is a pretty good list of the >forces that got routine male genital mutilations started. But these days, >decades after all the fundamentalist reasons for the practice are no longer >valid (they never were, but at one time they were considered to be) there is >one thing that just won’t let the practice die out: doctors and hospitals >aren’t going to voluntarily reduce their revenues. >Another monetary aspect of the issue, and the reason why doctors will never >come out and admit that they were wrong to institute this practice, is >litigation. They know that stopping the mutilations is tantamount to >admiting they are wrong, and as long as they keep the public in the dark >about it, they won’t have to fear that males will find out what doctors have >always known, that this procedure butchers them irreparably for life, and >doctors won’t have to face massive class-action lawsuits from millions of >American men who have been cheated and harmed. >It’s the reason doctors vacillate and equivocate so much on the issue, and >tapdance and tiptoe around so softly in those delicately worded documents >that leave everybody who reads them wondering "what is it that they’re >saying?" and make everybody who reads them come to a different conclusion. >Revenue. As long as the doctors keep quiet about it, the money will still >pour into the coffers. >Revenue. If medicine weren’t a for-profit business in the U.S., the mass >mutilations would have ended a long time ago. >Revenue. It’s the sole reason why the medical mutilations continue. >Revenue. Think about it.
Obviously you just don’t get it. Things continue for other reasons than "revenue." The death penalty in Florida and Texas does not continue because of "revenue". Sodomy laws do not continue because of revenue. Dry counties in some states do not continue because of revenue. That fact that somewhere, somebody makes money off a practice, is not prima facie evidence that the practice is money driven, and would stop if the money aspect disappeared. That things that involve money are done only for money, is one of the world’s dumbest arguments. It says something about the mind of the person making it, and what it says isn’t very pretty. Steve Harris, M.D.
Response:
It is a parents choice to have a child circ’d, not the hospital’s. always welcome.
Response:
> Obviously you just don’t get it.
On the contrary, dear doc. I get too well. >Things continue for other >reasons than "revenue." The death penalty in Florida and Texas does >not continue because of "revenue". Sodomy laws do not continue because >of revenue. Dry counties in some states do not continue because of >revenue.
Sorry, doc, but what does all this have to do with the routine medical mutilation of infant boys in the U.S.? >That fact that somewhere, somebody makes money off a >practice, is not prima facie evidence that the practice is money >driven, and would stop if the money aspect disappeared.
The mass medical mutilation of infant boys as it exists today in the U.S. *is* money driven, doc. (As if the doc didn’t know…..) >That things >that involve money are done only for money, is one of the world’s >dumbest arguments.
Dear doc, your cronies in the medical profession give a ton of reasons for butchering our penises. I’m sure you know them from memory. So do I. Those aren’t reasons, those are excuses. The real reason is revenue. All else is pretense. >It says something about the mind of the person >making it, and what it says isn’t very pretty. > Steve Harris, M.D.
What kind of medicine do you practice, doc?
Response:
>Revenue. >It’s only one word, but it explains everything about the routine medical >mutilation of the genitals of newborn boys in the U.S. >Think about it. >Revenue.
Too simplistic. The US has always been a more religious country than most, and it uses bible which contains an old testiment which is based on Hebrew scriptures. You can’t use "revenue" to eplain the US’s puritanical occupation with sex this last century, the long outlawing of aborion, condom sales except to married people, laws against "sodomy", the use of the death penalty when other Western contries had long abandoned it. It’s all part of the same fundamentalist package. Most of it has NOTHING to do with money. Steve Harris, M.D.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Revenue. >It’s only one word, but it explains everything about the routine >medical >mutilation of the genitals of newborn boys in the U.S. >Think about it. >Revenue. > Too simplistic. The US has always been a more religious country >than most, and it uses bible which contains an old testiment which is >based on Hebrew scriptures. You can’t use "revenue" to eplain the US’s >puritanical occupation with sex this last century, the long outlawing >of aborion, condom sales except to married people, laws against >"sodomy", the use of the death penalty when other Western contries had >long abandoned it. It’s all part of the same fundamentalist package. >Most of it has NOTHING to do with money. > Steve Harris, M.D.
The "fundamentalist package" you describe is a pretty good list of the forces that got routine male genital mutilations started. But these days, decades after all the fundamentalist reasons for the practice are no longer valid (they never were, but at one time they were considered to be) there is one thing that just won’t let the practice die out: doctors and hospitals aren’t going to voluntarily reduce their revenues. Another monetary aspect of the issue, and the reason why doctors will never come out and admit that they were wrong to institute this practice, is litigation. They know that stopping the mutilations is tantamount to admiting they are wrong, and as long as they keep the public in the dark about it, they won’t have to fear that males will find out what doctors have always known, that this procedure butchers them irreparably for life, and doctors won’t have to face massive class-action lawsuits from millions of American men who have been cheated and harmed. It’s the reason doctors vacillate and equivocate so much on the issue, and tapdance and tiptoe around so softly in those delicately worded documents that leave everybody who reads them wondering "what is it that they’re saying?" and make everybody who reads them come to a different conclusion. Revenue. As long as the doctors keep quiet about it, the money will still pour into the coffers. Revenue. If medicine weren’t a for-profit business in the U.S., the mass mutilations would have ended a long time ago. Revenue. It’s the sole reason why the medical mutilations continue. Revenue. Think about it.
Response:
Revenue. It’s only one word, but it explains everything about the routine medical mutilation of the genitals of newborn boys in the U.S. Think about it. Revenue.
Response:
There’s only one word that describes this post: kook. Think about it. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Revenue. >It’s only one word, but it explains everything about the routine medical >mutilation of the genitals of newborn boys in the U.S. >Think about it. >Revenue.
Response:
>There’s only one word that describes this post: >kook. Think about it. >Revenue. >It’s only one word, but it explains everything about the routine medical >mutilation of the genitals of newborn boys in the U.S. >Think about it. Revenue.
It’s basicly true. Beginning after WWII, when indemnity health insurance became widely available in the U.S., various kinds of surgery rapidly increased. A great many were pointless and done solely for revenue [with all the appropriate rationalizations]. Among these were hysterectomy, c-section, tonsillectomy, mastectomy, and circumcision. -roy
Response:
Oh, hell, how the heck do I put _this_ one in my killfile? I already have "circ" and "crap" to get rid of these idiotic threads. Christ. What a moron. Yell at me all you want, but I think you anti-circs are jerks, and heck, that even rhymes. Have a great day! Ernest Proud father of Alexander Brandon (9/24/94) and Savannah Georgia (1/9/96) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Revenue. >It’s only one word, but it explains everything about the routine medical >mutilation of the genitals of newborn boys in the U.S. >Think about it. >Revenue.
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.