Well thank god circumcision isn't harmful or discriminatory. That is like asking a soldier if it hurts to get shot without body armor. Use anestesia, end of story.
FGM and Vaginal piercings.. Yuk. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/fgm-women-vaginal-piercings-classed-5356141
I was thinking that maybe they do not use anesthesia because the risk of an allergic reaction (anaphylaxis) might be more risky to the infant??? Not sure though, I would have to do a little research to find out just why they don't use anesthesia on a newborn for a circumcision, because I can't believe that it's not at least a bit painful. - - - Updated - - - Interesting but I don't think that is anywhere near the same thing as FGM, although silly thing to do yourself if you ask me.
I just looked at an article. It seems to state that local anesthesia doesn't really work because it doesn't penetrate deep enough into the nerves. There is a video showing a live circumcision though, so I can't really post that here. It is rather graphic. I don't know how true that is either though. Some doctors do believe that some types of local anesthesia can be effective. It seems like it's very controversial issue, just like circumcision itself. I have to say, though, that after watching the video and the poor little baby crying, I would probably be hesitant to have a child circumcised. It does seem rather cruel. Poor little thing. I don't think it should be banned, but I believe the medical community should use an anesthetic. I wonder why they wouldn't use an injection. Sure that would hurt too, but only for a second or two and then the area would be numb for the actual procedure.
anesthesia CAN be used when circumcizing an infant. and it should be the law. no anesthesia? no circumcision. and as far as the Hasidic Jewish practise of actually SUCKING the blood from a sliced penis, that should be a felony/child abuse.
Yes, that is disgusting and completely unnecessary, IMO. Don't forget, YOU are not a doctor and you really don't know what you are talking about as far as anesthesia. There are probably risks involved in administering anesthesia, and that is probably why they don't normally use it.
that is sick and agree, needs to be considered a sex crime and they need to go on the list..... you just know it was a pedophile that came up with that one .
It is terribly disturbing. Who would allow someone to suck on their baby's penis? I think it is a very OLD tradition, but still . . . what kind of person would DO such a thing?
A mohel does not usually use anesthetic, because his anesthetic is the speed with which he does the circumcision. There are new Jewish legal rulings on this issue that permit anaesthetic, but mohelim do not always take advantage of this ruling. http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/15332/which-one-is-better-doctor-or-mohel/ As a mohel, my personal preference is to prep the baby before the b’ris with a topical anesthetic gel (20 percent Benzocaine) to numb the area. Because the actual b’ris takes place a few minutes later, the anesthesia has sufficient time to take its desired effect prior to the circumcision procedure. As an additional step to assure long-lasting effects of the anesthesia, at the b’ris I also apply a bandage dressing to the wound that is treated with a mild 5 percent Lidocaine topical anesthetic. In my experience, this method results in a calm baby and, yes, calm parents. http://matzav.com/anesthesia-for-a-bris
Yes, it's almost analogous to the freedom to abort your unborn child, if I draw such a comparison here. (because I realize many circumcision proponents reading this are opponents of Abortion)
this is so because there is no reason to perform this procedure to an infant, unless medically necessary
I don't like the idea of surgery being performed on children, simply for religious reasons. can we also do it for simply secular reasons?
when will our politicians have the courage to start mandating anesthesia for all infant circumcisions?
Oh please, that's not even the real issue. The real issue here is that a part of a baby's genitalia is being irreparably cut off, a part that has sexual feeling and is integral to natural sexual function, being done without the child's permission, something that will last the rest of their adult life. While I would find the lack of anesthesia on a baby during a painful procedure barbaric, I really couldn't care less when this is put in comparison to what that "procedure" is actually removing.
hey, i just think this is a decision that a person should make for themselves when they become adults what is wrong with that? if anything it would have increased religious meaning if an 18 year old boy walked into the dr office to request the operation for religious reasons circumcising an infant forecloses this important gesture of religious commitment.
on what basis do you accept the parents right to cut off hunks of a childs body based upon their own religious belief? how is this principle different than female genital mutilation? or foot binding hey if adults want to make their own decision, fair enough but why not let every adult make their own decision why is it necessary for parents to decide this for children? religious freedom reaches its boundary when you impose your views on others and deciding to cut a hunk of flesh off your child seems to me is a decision that crosses the boundary of religious free expression
