Even more, legislators need to stop telling doctors what care they can provide patients and then forcing doctors and patients to comply by using health insurance as a punitive tool.

Y'all already know my opinion of health insurance - it needs to go away. It was a bad idea when it was born and has grown into a hideous chthonic beast, made worse by legislators.

Mind, I think some legislators really want to improve it, but they can't fix something as badly broken as healthcare by tweaking it here and there.

It needs to go away.


The health industry will still be there. The need for patient advocacy will still be there. Medical malpractice will still be there. The need to oversee healthcare will still be there.

But it can't and shouldn't be done as a for-profit health insurance program.

People needing essential medical care will be denied it because it messes with the bottom line, and not because it would be a bad idea, medically speaking. We see so much of that already, and if health insurance gets the ability to deny even more claims by legal fiat, what glee they must have as they pad their wallets.

talon: (Default)
( Apr. 14th, 2011 11:46 am)

The HIV argument does not apply to newborns. Newborns, infants, toddlers, pre-schoolers, kindergarteners, elementary schoolers, and most middle schoolers, shouldn't be sexually active; therefore circumcising them for that reason is a bogus one! I agree with the doctor who said it should be a decision made when the boy hits puberty.

The recovery time is no longer for a teen or adult than it is for a newborn, but when circumcised as an adult, the doctors use pain relief, and the person is able to provide his own after care, where he's more vested in doing it right and doesn't have to deal with diaper rash hindering the healing and causing more pain.

I think it is ethically and morally wrong to perform such unnecessary cosmetic surgery on a minor who is incapable of consenting.

I chose not to circumcise my son at a time when circumcision was still considered a routine part of the birth process, like cutting the umbilical cord. Most doctors didn't even ask, it was just assumed you wanted it done to your newborn boy. There were no consent forms to sign.

I had to be vigilant the entire time my son was in NICU to prevent them from whisking him off for a little snip, even though I'd categorically stated my opposition to circumcision loudly, clearly, and often.

It became a little more acceptable to not circumcise shortly after that.

Now, only about 1/3 of the newborn boys get automatically circumcised.

The only thing that entered my decision to not circumcise my sons was that this was their decision to make. I had no right to make a permanent physical alteration to their bodies without their informed consent, and as a newborn, they couldn't give it.

It wasn't a surgery that would save his life right that second. He had the right to grow old enough to understand what the surgery was and what it could and couldn't do for him, and to make an informed decision for himself.

Unlike a tattoo or piercing, a circumcision is an irreversible physical alteration.

I'm as against male circumcision as I am female circumcision. The person to whom this procedure is done is the person who gets to make the informed choice of having it done or not.

I do not own my children. I was in charge of them and responsible for them and had to make informed decisions on their behalf until they were capable of doing so themselves. Circumcision was not a life-or-death, must-be-done-NOW decision. It could wait until they were older.



talon: (Default)
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags