American Academy of Pediatrics: Benefits of Circumcision Outweigh Risks

[Valmy]

Yeah there was a medical reason I couldn't circumsize my oldest son.  That medical reason eventually required surgery in that exact area so I just got it done then.  If it were not for the surgery I would have left him helmeted also.

[Zanza]

Germans 

I think you have not understood the argument made by the German court. It was not about whether the procedure may be medically beneficial or carry risks, which is what the American Academy of Pediatrics cares about. It was about whether parents should have the right to subject their children this medical procedure. The principles in question were not medical, but rather about the rights of the children and the parents. So I don't see why the American Academy of Pediatrics changing the policy on the procedure has any relevance for the previous case in Germany.

[Maximus]

Certainly. The issue is whether the shrillness, the moral outrage, is justified and proportional to the alleged "problem".

In the large majority of modern cases of those attempting some sort of prohibition, it isn't.

Porn? Video Games? Drugs? Wearing of religious symbols? And now this.

You seem to be indicating that the default position is to allow involuntary body modifications and that prohibiting circumcision would be an exception that must be defended. The opposite is true. Allowing circumcision is the exception and the onus is on proponents to make the case that it should be allowed.

That case could be made, but I personally think it needs more that a slight balance in risk vs benefit. And certainly middle-schoolesque rumours about what "chicks dig man" don't make it.

[Malthus]

Germans 

I think you have not understood the argument made by the German court. It was not about whether the procedure may be medically beneficial or carry risks, which is what the American Academy of Pediatrics cares about. It was about whether parents should have the right to subject their children this medical procedure. The principles in question were not medical, but rather about the rights of the children and the parents. So I don't see why the American Academy of Pediatrics changing the policy on the procedure has any relevance for the previous case in Germany.

Are you saying that in Germany it was irrelevant whether the procedure was beneficial or not?

[merithyn]

You seem to be indicating that the default position is to allow involuntary body modifications and that prohibiting circumcision would be an exception that must be defended. The opposite is true. Allowing circumcision is the exception and the onus is on proponents to make the case that it should be allowed.

That case could be made, but I personally think it needs more that a slight balance in risk vs benefit. And certainly middle-schoolesque rumours about what "chicks dig man" don't make it.

In the US, the default is to be circumsized. And because of that, most chicks in the US do prefer circumsized men.

[Barrister]

Certainly. The issue is whether the shrillness, the moral outrage, is justified and proportional to the alleged "problem".

In the large majority of modern cases of those attempting some sort of prohibition, it isn't.

Porn? Video Games? Drugs? Wearing of religious symbols? And now this.

You seem to be indicating that the default position is to allow involuntary body modifications and that prohibiting circumcision would be an exception that must be defended. The opposite is true. Allowing circumcision is the exception and the onus is on proponents to make the case that it should be allowed.

That case could be made, but I personally think it needs more that a slight balance in risk vs benefit. And certainly middle-schoolesque rumours about what "chicks dig man" don't make it.

Except circumcision has been performed for thousands of years, and been the norm in north america for what - 70 years?  Surely then the onus should be on those who want to ban the procedure.

That being said...

discussions of onus and burden of proof is a really shitty way to debate an issue.  Even in court, where we have strict rules on onus and burden of proof, they are shitty ways to frame an issue, and judges are rarely satisfied by an assertion of "the other side has not satisfied their onus".  A judge wants to do what is right, period.  That's not to say that the onus and burden of proof are ignored, but if it is at all close the issue of whose onus it is will not decide the matter.

[Barrister]

You seem to be indicating that the default position is to allow involuntary body modifications and that prohibiting circumcision would be an exception that must be defended. The opposite is true. Allowing circumcision is the exception and the onus is on proponents to make the case that it should be allowed.

That case could be made, but I personally think it needs more that a slight balance in risk vs benefit. And certainly middle-schoolesque rumours about what "chicks dig man" don't make it.

In the US, the default is to be circumsized.

True for our generation, perhaps even your boys generation, but I think that may not be the case for my boys.  While it wasn't hard to get them circumcised, we had to go out and make the inquiries - the default would have been nothing.

[Malthus]

Certainly. The issue is whether the shrillness, the moral outrage, is justified and proportional to the alleged "problem".

In the large majority of modern cases of those attempting some sort of prohibition, it isn't.

Porn? Video Games? Drugs? Wearing of religious symbols? And now this.

You seem to be indicating that the default position is to allow involuntary body modifications and that prohibiting circumcision would be an exception that must be defended. The opposite is true. Allowing circumcision is the exception and the onus is on proponents to make the case that it should be allowed.

That case could be made, but I personally think it needs more that a slight balance in risk vs benefit. And certainly middle-schoolesque rumours about what "chicks dig man" don't make it.

The default position where someone is attempting to lay down a law as to what others can or cannot do is always that the onus is on them to justify it. In what universe is this not true?

In short, to demonstrate that the "involuntary body modifications" in issue are a big deal, worthy of condemnation by the state. Worthy of generating moral outrage at those who dare to commit them. Presumably, clipping an infant's toenails ought not to result in police action, while removing an eyeball should, if it cannot be justified. Circumcision is simply not a big enough deal to support moral outrage. 

Once the matter is proved to be a Big Deal, the onus shifts for those wishing to do it, to demostrate that benefits outweigh risks. Which in the case of circumcision they do.

[Neil]

Germans 

I think you have not understood the argument made by the German court. It was not about whether the procedure may be medically beneficial or carry risks, which is what the American Academy of Pediatrics cares about. It was about whether parents should have the right to subject their children this medical procedure. The principles in question were not medical, but rather about the rights of the children and the parents. So I don't see why the American Academy of Pediatrics changing the policy on the procedure has any relevance for the previous case in Germany.

Are you saying that in Germany it was irrelevant whether the procedure was beneficial or not?

Well, it was primarily about their hatred of Jews, and secondly their hatred of Muslims.  I don't see the German government rushing to put doctors who correct cross-eyed children in jail.

[derspiess]

True for our generation, perhaps even your boys generation, but I think that may not be the case for my boys.  While it wasn't hard to get them circumcised, we had to go out and make the inquiries - the default would have been nothing.

In our hospital we were asked to make a decision one way or the other.  My wife didn't understand the question and I emphatically answered "yes."  We had already discussed it & the wife agreed that it should be done.  But the nurse apparently thought I was trying to leave my wife in the dark, so she gives me a nasty look and then goes into this detailed explanation about the procedure.  Wife finally waves her off & says "yes, I agree with him-- please stop talking."

[HVC]

"yes, I agree with him-- please stop talking."

I like your wife

[Maximus]

Except circumcision has been performed for thousands of years, and been the norm in north america for what - 70 years?  Surely then the onus should be on those who want to ban the procedure.

I don't see how that's relevant. It appears to be an appeal to tradition.

discussions of onus and burden of proof is a really shitty way to debate an issue.  Even in court, where we have strict rules on onus and burden of proof, they are shitty ways to frame an issue, and judges are rarely satisfied by an assertion of "the other side has not satisfied their onus".  A judge wants to do what is right, period.  That's not to say that the onus and burden of proof are ignored, but if it is at all close the issue of whose onus it is will not decide the matter.

Fair enough although I think we're discussing the normative value not the legal. However the question is when there isn't strong indicators one way or the other which way does it fall? It seems to me that chopping off body parts is something that we prohibit by default unless good reason can be shown to allow it.

[Zanza]

Are you saying that in Germany it was irrelevant whether the procedure was beneficial or not?

No, what I am saying is that the decision was not about whether it was medically beneficial or not.

The doctor that was indicted himself acknowledged that there was no medical indication for the procedure so that was never contested. It was clear from the start that the only reason this circumcision was done was the religion of the parents. 

The defence was about him being mistaken about the wrongful nature of the act. It was granted by the way as the question whether parents do or do not have the right to ask for a circumcision of their sons is controversial in German legal literature.

Here is the decision, if you are interested: http://www.justiz.nrw.de/nrwe/lgs/koeln/lg_koeln/j2012/151_Ns_169_11_Urteil_20120507.html

[Barrister]

Fair enough although I think we're discussing the normative value not the legal. However the question is when there isn't strong indicators one way or the other which way does it fall? It seems to me that chopping off body parts is something that we prohibit by default unless good reason can be shown to allow it.

The amount of "good reason" would seem to be proportional to the size of the "body part" wouldn't you think?

[Valmy]

I don't see how that's relevant. It appears to be an appeal to tradition.

Um ok what people actually do is not relevent to formation of public policy in your mind?  Care to explain that one because that sounds counter to common-sense.