Category: Science

We can’t question because it’s for the children.

Speaking about the need for critical thinking in media, here’s another scare story [emphasis mine]:

At least 82 children have died in recent years as a result of playing the “choking” game, a bizarre but increasingly common practice, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The game, which involves intentionally trying to choke oneself to create a brief high, has been around for years, but it appears to be spreading. …

The deaths identified by the C.D.C. are based on media reports of the game over the past decade, but more than 60 of the deaths have occurred since 2005. The agency says the number of deaths is probably understated, and other experts agree, noting that choking game deaths, which involve accidental strangulation with a rope or belt, often look like suicides.

Anecdotes do not necessarily equal statistics. Did this data comes from a C.D.C. press release? And it’s also plausible that deaths ruled a choking game accident are actually suicides.

I’m not suggesting that kids engaging in this type of activity isn’t serious or that there isn’t a cause for concern. I never heard of this as a kid, but I know others who did. I’m also smart enough to realize that kids are incredibly short-sighted and possess under-developed skills at considering consequences. But going into speculative hysteria will not protect kids.

From the C.D.C. press release the journalist clearly used as the source, two teen deaths linked to the choking game:

Case 1. In February 2006, an adolescent boy aged 13 years came home from school in a good mood and had dinner with his family. He then went to his bedroom to do his homework. Approximately 1 hour later, his mother went to check on him and discovered him slumped in a corner with a belt around his neck. His face was blue. The mother began cardiopulmonary resuscitation while one of the other children called an ambulance. The boy died at a local hospital 1 hour later. No suicide note was found. The county medical examiner ruled that the death resulted from accidental asphyxiation by hanging. In the weeks following his death, multiple teens told the director of a local counseling agency that the choking game had been played at local parties.

Case 2. In April 2005, an adolescent girl aged 13 years was found dead, hanging from a belt and shoelace made into a noose on the door of her bedroom closet, after her brother went to her room to see why she had not come down for breakfast. No suicide note was found. The medical examiner determined that the teen had died at 9:30 p.m. the previous night. After the teen’s death, the family learned that the girl had confided in a cousin that she recently had played the choking game in the locker room at school and that a group of girls at her school had been suspended for playing the choking game.

Both deaths involve speculation. I’m comfortable that the conclusion from case 2 is an educated guess with a high probability of accuracy. I’m not so sure about case 1. It has signals that may be reasonably interpreted as the choking game, but are those signals enough to merit inclusion as a statistic? Even the more solid case 2 raises that question.

Reporting with journalistic caution seems the most appropriate choice here. Reading through the press release and the article suggests only that the latter is a regurgitation of the former. The ability to organize an argument into a concise package is not journalism.

Around the Web: Vigorous Nodding Edition

John Cole assesses the Senate’s asinine behavior in passing the anti-liberty FISA bill with telecom immunity and pursuing the NFL over Spygate perfectly:

There is a very real and perverse possibility that the NFL will face tougher sanctions for spying on practice squads and covering it up than the telecoms and this President will face for spying on the citizenry and lying about it.

That the Democrats caved so easily on the former is another reason to ignore them as a party of leadership.

Next, Jacob Sullum dissects the problem with too many science journalists and editors:

Any journalist who doesn’t feel comfortable going beyond what appears in a medical journal to put a study’s findings in context and offer caveats where appropriate has no business writing about science. Reporters can’t be experts on everything, but they can ask smart questions and seek informed comments regarding a study’s potential weaknesses. If news organizations refuse to do so on the grounds that the study was peer reviewed and therefore must be faultless, they might as well just reprint researchers’ press releases. Which is pretty much what they do, all too often.

This is essentially every bit of “journalism” in America regarding circumcision over the last 125 2½ years. For example.

Finally, Colman McCarthy wrote in yesterday’s Washington Post on the current steroids brouhaha in Congress:

This is the second time members of Congress have posed as drug-busters cleaning up the great American pastime. Except that drug use — whether involving legal or illegal drugs — already is the American pastime, and it is far bigger than baseball.

I’m hoping that Roger Clemens polls the members of Waxman’s committee on their use of performance-enhancing drugs. Start with Viagra. Or Cialis, ready for action “when the moment is right” — say, a congressman stumbling home after a late-night floor vote on an earmark bill. Clemens might ask the members how many need shots of caffeine drugs to get themselves up and out every morning. He might ask the members how often they reach for another shot of Jack Daniels to enhance their performance while grubbing for bucks from lobbyists at fundraisers. And before leaving Capitol Hill, he should grill the allegedly clean-living baseball reporters on how many of them sit in the press box enhancing their bodies with alcohol, nicotine and caffeine drugs. And a blunt or two when night games go extra innings and deadline nerves need steadying.

My stance remains unchanged. McCarthy’s essay holds up a mirror to the hypocrisy of today’s moralizers, both inside and outside of government.

Liberty has age and gender restrictions.

This will probably be long; please humor me. Also, there are many issues of custody that I’m ignoring. I’m specifically focusing on how the Oregon Supreme Court addressed male genital cutting (i.e. circumcision) in its decision. Lest you decide from my last entry that I’m happy with the outcome, I’ll spoil the conclusion now and tell you that I am not. The decision is terrible in its dismissal of the clear violation of forced circumcision. I predict that the boy will eventually be circumcised, regardless of his wish. If he says no, the court will decide that the custodial father retains the “right” to impose elective surgery.

With that, the Court’s opinion in detail:

We allowed mother’s petition for review and on de novo review we now conclude that the trial court erred in failing to determine whether M desired the circumcision as father contended or opposed the circumcision as mother alleged. (1) Because we view that finding as a necessary predicate to determining whether mother alleged a change in circumstance sufficient to trigger a custody hearing, we reverse the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the trial court and remand the case to the trial court.

This seems so fundamental that I question how the Oregon Supreme Court can be blind to the issues surrounding circumcision. Obviously the proposed patient should be consulted. Indeed, barring medical need, his decision is all that matters. As we’ll see in a moment, all other considerations are extraneous. (Again, I am ignoring the custodial questions here.)

In the normal course, religious and medical decisions such as the one in this case, are considered private family matters determined by the parents or between parents and child, without resort to the courts. Unfortunately, however, these parties cannot or will not resolve this matter without court intervention.

As I’ve written before, normal and common have different meanings. They are not synonyms. The Court is correct that we commonly misbehave this way, but that is not normal. Just like having a foreskin is normal, while being circumcised is common.

Oregon does not allow parents the decision to cut the genitals of their daughters for any reason other than medical need. They cannot claim a deity’s commandment. They cannot claim a potential benefit. Without medical need, the state applies an absolute prohibition. As our society is built on individual rights, proxy consent must have strict rational bounds. Non-medical elective surgery is outside those bounds. Gender is not a valid basis for distinction.

Father also argued that the court lacked authority to grant mother’s motions because (1) granting the motions would violate father’s freedom of religion under the religion clauses of the United States and Oregon constitutions; …

The First Amendment’s protection of religious freedom is an individual right. By practicing your religion on the body of another, you have negated his individual right through substitution. That violates the spirit and letter of our Constitution. Any claim to the contrary is a mistaken display of ego.

… (4) the circumcision was medically advisable independent of the religious reasons for it; …

Doubtful. I’ll explain more on this in a moment.

… and (5) although M’s wishes were “legally irrelevant,” …

A child does not possess the option to fully exercise his (her) rights while still a minor. That is a reasonable acknowledgement that minors do not possess the mental ability to comprehend their actions. That does not mean they are the property of their parents until reaching the age of majority.

We would not permit parents to surgically amputate a child’s finger without medical need. There is no valid distinction that the foreskin from the same protection given to the pinky. Or the labia and clitoris. The father’s claim here is absurd bordering on obscene. The Court should’ve rejected it.

[M’s urologist Dr.]Ellen also stated that there was evidence of “glandular adhesions” on M’s penis that should have disappeared by age three, and that that fact alone was cause for recommendation for the procedure.

Again, this is normal versus common. It is normal for the foreskin to adhere to the glans at birth. This adhesion commonly breaks by an early age, but it is possible for the adhesions to remain into the teen years. The presence of adhesions does not automatically indicate medical need, just as an absence of adhesions does not automatically indicate medical health.

As the boy ages, the presence of adhesions merely raises the question of whether penile functioning is being restricted. If he can urinate successfully and normal erections are not hindered, there is no reason to hurry nature. If he cannot urinate successfully and/or normal erections are hindered, that is medical need requiring intervention. (Such intervention does not automatically mean circumcision.)

It matters that this case began three years ago when M was 9. There is a difference between 9 and 12. Also, irregular readhesions will occur if the foreskin is forcibly separated from the glans before the adhesion naturally breaks. This is common among the children of parents who are ignorant of proper care of the normal (i.e. intact) penis.

Under no circumstances is it normal to break this adhesion at birth on a healthy foreskin and penis, as the bond must be forcibly broken to circumcise. The results can be bad, beyond the guarantee of scarring and loss of erogenous tissue.

Ellen averred that circumcision is a safe procedure, that there would be some minor discomfort for about three days that would not prevent M from carrying on normal activities, and that M’s circumcision would greatly reduce M’s risk of penile cancer and certain infections.

It is a safe procedure that causes injury to every male circumcised, as evidenced by the scarring, and occasionally leads to more serious complications, up to and including death. Who is the best judge of whether or not this inherent risk is acceptable in the complete absence of medical need?

The doctor’s statement that circumcision would cause minor discomfort and a short healing period should be noted. The actual post-operative constraints from adult circumcision are little different, contrary to the scare tactics generally offered as an excuse to push the surgery onto children. This doesn’t have a direct connection to this case, but Dr. Ellen is using standard arguments to treat a specific case, so it warrants mentioning.

Of course, no circumcision advocate’s argument would be complete without the grand reliance on potential benefits against extremely minor risks. Remember, too, that those risks are almost universally based on behavior (e.g. smoking, promiscuity, lack of hygiene) rather than anatomy.

We agree with the trial court that the authority of the custodial parent to make medical decisions for his or her child, including decisions involving elective procedures and decisions that may involve medical risks, is implicit in both our case law and Oregon statutes.

Once again, Oregon already has a statue to forbid parents from imposing genital cutting on their daughters for any of the reasons the Court accepts here for male children. That is wrong. It violates Section 1 of the Oregon Constitution:

Section 1. Natural rights inherent
in people. We declare that all men, when they form a social compact are equal in right: …

I’m having trouble understanding any exception to that which excludes only the genitals of male minors. I don’t doubt that the law allows it, but where it does, the law is a ass.

Mother, joined by amicus curiae Doctors Opposing Circumcision (DOC), asserts that there is no more important decision to make for a male child than to require that the child undergo permanent modification to his body, and argues that an evidentiary hearing is required to find out whether M objects to the circumcision. She also contends that an evidentiary hearing is required so that she may present evidence regarding the harmful effects and permanent nature of circumcision. Indeed, mother and DOC assert that, because of the significant medical risks associated with circumcision, M should not be circumcised even if he states that he wants to undergo the procedure.

I agree with the last sentence, although I have written that I will not object in this individual case if M specifically wishes to be circumcised. But the primary logic in that paragraph is so fundamental that every lower court that ignored it should be ashamed. Individual rights, individual rights, individual rights, individual rights. This is not complicated. I’m not an attorney and I can grasp that. No individual is another’s property. It’s elementary, despite attempts to make it appear more complicated and nuanced. Male children are treated as such, but that does not make it legitimate. History will not be kind on our long dalliance with barbarism.

In response, father, joined by amicus curiae American Jewish Congress, American Jewish Committee, Anti-Defamation League, and Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America (collectively, AJC), argues that the trial court did not need to hold an evidentiary hearing, because M’s attitude about whether he wants the circumcision is not legally significant. Father asserts that a child is not the decision-maker on such questions, any more than an infant who is circumcised. If the legislature had wanted a male child to have a say in whether he is circumcised, he contends, it could have adopted a statute to that effect, as it has done in other statutes such as ORS 109.610 (giving minors the right to consent to treatment for venereal disease without parental consent). Father also contends that the health risks associated with male circumcision are de minimus. In any case, father maintains that the affidavits he supplied to the trial court demonstrate that M does want to be circumcised.

Not legally significant. Again, what if a parent wanted to cut off a child’s finger? The child’s opinion would be legally significant then. There is no valid reason for an exception on the genitals of male children. It doesn’t matter if the child is 17 minutes or 17 years old.

The father is an attorney. I have no doubt he is aware of the law against female genital cutting. Firing up the Way Back machine to yesterday, the legislature’s silence on an issue is not the end of the discussion. Whenever the law and the constitution are in conflict, the constitution must wins. In other words, the law loses, legislatures be damned. Oversight does not grant legitimacy. The constitution guarantees equal protection. The law discriminates based on gender. The law is a ass.

For what it’s worth, I doubt the males who suffer complications from the inherent risks of circumcision do not consider them trivial. He can never guarantee that M will not suffer a complication. As such, we’re back to medical need. It is not necessary. Therefore, it is unacceptable to impose it. That is the only debate.

Finally, father and AJC argue that father has a constitutionally protected right to circumcise his son. They maintain that American Jews must be free to practice circumcision because it is and has been one of the most fundamental and sacred parts of the Jewish tradition. Father concludes that, if this court requires the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing, we would usurp the role of the custodial parent and violate the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Lifting religious text above a constitution founded on principles of liberty is the way of theocracy. Worse, picking only the preferred requirements of a religious text is the worst possible intellectual dishonesty.

Slavery is in the Bible. We do not allow it. Polygamy is in the Bible. We do not allow it. Vigilante justice is in the Bible. We do not allow it.

And what of other religious texts? Do we start allowing any act that involves one person violating the rights of another, as long as it’s printed in an old book that many people value? Tradition, sacred or not, is a claim made when principles contradict the desired outcome.

We conclude that, although circumcision is an invasive medical procedure that results in permanent physical alteration of a body part and has attendant medical risks, the decision to have a male child circumcised for medical or religious reasons is one that is commonly and historically made by parents in the United States.

What kind of mental gymnastics must one engage in to marry the pre- and post-comma statements into one argument? Liberty demands that we stop at the comma when there is no medical need. Regardless of need, nothing after the comma is valid.

If, however, the trial court finds that M opposes the circumcision, it must then determine whether M’s opposition to the circumcision will affect father’s ability to properly care for M. And, if necessary, the trial court then can determine whether it is in M’s best interests to retain the existing custody arrangement, whether other conditions should be imposed on father’s continued custody of M, or change custody from father to mother.

The qualification here leads me to believe this victory will be pyrrhic. Sure, the court is acknowledging that someone should’ve asked the boy¹ for his opinion on what happens to his body. But it is not saying that the court must deny the father’s desire to circumcise his son. Even if the boy says he does not want his genitals surgically cut², the standard becomes whether or not forced genital cutting on the boy will impair the father’s ability to continue raising his son. The Court is actively embracing the stupidity that, if he doesn’t want it, he may still be treated like property. The Court considers permanent genital modification on a child no different in legitimacy than his father telling him he has to eat Brussels sprouts rather than chocolate. Our society is insane.

¹ His age is irrelevant. We can’t ask infants, but we should. Since they can’t give an answer, the only course of action is no action. Until he can ask for an “invasive medical procedure that results in permanent physical alteration of a body part and has attendant medical risks,” do nothing while he is healthy.

² Some argue that a hospital circumcision is invalid as a Jewish rite because the surgery must be performed by a mohel.

Subjective evaluations require only the individual.

The mindlessness of both research and reporting about circumcision is exhausting. I fear this story is going to be the new gold standard for the smug dismissal of any challenge to pro-circumcision advocacy. Consider:

Circumcision does not reduce sexual satisfaction and so there should be no reservations about using this method as a way to combat HIV, a study says.

Nearly 5,000 Ugandan men were recruited for the study. Half were circumcised, half had yet to undergo surgery.

There was little difference between the two groups when they were asked to rate performance and satisfaction, the journal BJU International reports.

Ehhhhhhhhhhhhh. The ways this is going to be abused by those who’d rather cheer their reality-free position than think their way into an honest conclusion that recognizes medicine and ethics…

Sexual satisfaction is a subjective measure, unique to each person. Collective judgments are irrelevant.

The men in the study are adults volunteering for the surgery. Don’t read more into it than that.

These results do not change the medical and ethical issues surrounding infant circumcision.

There is a difference in the skin of a freshly healed circumcision and a circumcision that occurred in infancy many decades ago. The former is still pink and moist. The latter is keratinized and tough. This is not open to debate.

Par for circumcision advocacy reporting, the article immediately restates that (volunteer, adult) circumcision may reduce the risk of female-to-male HIV infection. It leaves out most of that specificity, of course. Consider what the journalist reports on how (voluntary, adult) circumcision may achieve this result.

Specific cells in the foreskin may be potential targets for HIV infection, while the skin under the foreskin may become less sensitive and less likely to bleed – reducing risk of infection – following circumcision.

In any other academic pursuit, such obvious contradictions would be called out and the position advocated on faulty thinking would be dismissed. These two claims conflict. (Voluntary, adult) circumcision doesn’t affect sexual satisfaction, but it might reduce sensitivity. So which is it?

Still, we must focus on circumcision as an individual procedure. The study found the following:

Some 98.4% of the circumcised men reported satisfaction, compared to 99.9% in the control group.

And so on, with the reported caveat that these differences aren’t clinically significant. That doesn’t matter for the individual.

I don’t have the numbers, so I’ll use assumptions based on what’s reported. I’ll assume 5,000 adult men volunteering for the study, with 2,500 in each group. So, of 2,500 voluntarily circumcised adult males, 2,460 are happy with the results. That leaves 40 men who are not satisfied. For those 40 men, they can claim “oops” and have that suffice. If the study’s findings hold for infant circumcision, which I doubt on a one-to-one comparison, “oops” is not sufficient to justify the implied harm done to those 40 males circumcised as infants at the decree of their parents.

Switch the gender. Would we accept this journalism?

Via Kevin, M.D., a doctor snapped a picture of his patient’s penis during surgery:

A Mayo Clinic Hospital surgeon in training used a cellphone to photograph a patient’s genitals during surgery and now may face disciplinary action and a patient’s attorney.

The doctor took the picture while installing a catheter in preparation of gallbladder surgery on the patient because the patient has “Hot Rod” tattooed on his penis. Obviously this is unprofessional conduct by the doctor and, in my opinion, deserves termination. But that’s just more “people are stupid” fodder. I’m more annoyed by a lack of maturity in the “journalism” surrounding the story:

After Hansen showed the photo to other members of the surgical staff, one phoned a Republic reporter on Monday and left an anonymous message about the incident.

Compare that to this sentence, also from the article:

Hansen told Dubowik that when he attached a catheter to the patient’s member, he had shot a picture.

Is it so complicated to use the accurate anatomical name for the body part? Is that low standard of maturity really too much to expect from a journalist and/or editor? Yes, member is a common euphemism for penis, but journalism should be above stupidity better suited to making a schoolboy snicker. Otherwise, I might believe that “members of the surgical staff” is meant to be hilarious.

(Not Really) Newsflash: UNAIDS lies.

This story should make me angry. I suppose it does, but I’m so numbed to the incredible pile of garbage people distribute in defense of their agenda that I have a harder time bringing forth an outburst than I’d like.

The United Nations’ top AIDS scientists plan to acknowledge this week that they have long overestimated both the size and the course of the epidemic, which they now believe has been slowing for nearly a decade, according to U.N. documents prepared for the announcement.

AIDS remains a devastating public health crisis in the most heavily affected areas of sub-Saharan Africa. But the far-reaching revisions amount to at least a partial acknowledgment of criticisms long leveled by outside researchers who disputed the U.N. portrayal of an ever-expanding global epidemic.

The latest estimates, due to be released publicly Tuesday, put the number of annual new HIV infections at 2.5 million, a cut of more than 40 percent from last year’s estimate, documents show. The worldwide total of people infected with HIV — estimated a year ago at nearly 40 million and rising — now will be reported as 33 million.

Having millions fewer people with a lethal contagious disease is good news. Some researchers, however, contend that persistent overestimates in the widely quoted U.N. reports have long skewed funding decisions and obscured potential lessons about how to slow the spread of HIV. Critics have also said that U.N. officials overstated the extent of the epidemic to help gather political and financial support for combating AIDS.

Good intentions are enough, remember. There is no need to worry about effectiveness, even in the reality of limited resources. There’s certainly no need to worry about uncomfortable details. If the method promotes what is good, it is worthwhile. Or so goes the logic of UNAIDS and the United Nations.

Of course HIV is terrible. Yes, we should work to promote effective strategies. But the desire to do good does not justify misrepresentation. We have to have this conversation? This doesn’t discredit, or at least render questionable, everything else the organization claims?

Remember this the next time someone from UNAIDS or the United Nations advocates male circumcision. It can’t even get the ethics of properly representing the problem correct. Who should trust them to get the ethics of genital cutting correct?

Just as frustrating, despite the clear indication that some renewed questioning is justified, the media is comfortable repeating the preferred story line:

Rates are lower in East Africa and much lower in West Africa. Researchers say that the prevalence of circumcision, which slows the spread of HIV, and regional variations in sexual behavior are the biggest factors determining the severity of the AIDS epidemic in different countries and even within countries.

The studies looked at voluntary, adult circumcision. That’s more accurate than a blanket statement about male circumcision. Isn’t the point of this report that details matter? Why ignore the most important scientific and ethical aspect of the recent studies in reporting them? (Unfortunately that’s rhetorical because I know the answer is about cognitive dissonance.)

To the point, researchers said that nearly 40 million people are infected with HIV. That’s not true. But we should believe them about circumcision without clarification on correlation and causation? Why? Statistics from the countries involved in the reporter’s claim are messier than advertised. (See here.) Also, it’s reasonable to assert that education had a far more effective benefit for all study participants than voluntary, adult circumcision had. (See here.)

Still, it’s supposed to be okay to take everything – lumped together without questioning – and trust that something will work if we try them all. I don’t particularly care about anyone pursuing that intellectually lazy path. People should have the right to make stupid decisions about their lives. But I demand that we follow all parameters involved when we make decisions for another. Particularly, voluntary and adult must never be forgotten.

Luckily, I have a forum to grind my axe.

Via Kevin, M.D. I read a recap from a doctor who had to amputate a patient’s finger. It’s an interesting enough story, but something caught my eye in the middle of the story.

… there’s a deeply ingrained taboo that prohibits me from causing permanent damage.

If you read Rolling Doughnut, you won’t be surprised at what immediately popped into my mind. I wonder what this doctor thinks about unnecessary infant circumcision? Based on experience, I guess the answer. I find it, precisely as guessed, here, from three years ago (about a topic I discussed last year):

Note to anti-circumcision trolls: I will ruthlessly delete or negatively alter your screeds about how awful regluar circumcision is, etc. I fully support circumcision done under normal hygenic circumstances. If you desire to grind your axe, do so elsewhere.

I wouldn’t have posted on the entry if I’d seen it in 2004, but I’ve been called an anti-circumcision troll a few times. It’s always a misguided smear offered at the end of a debate by the advocate of routine infant circumcision when his or her only fair response would be to admit defeat in defending the indefensible. The desire to excuse the unnecessary cutting of children is too deep for that, of course.

Wishful thinking about all the possible horrors the child will presumably no longer face – which he most likely wouldn’t have faced anyway, without circumcision, and almost never to an extent requiring surgery – are irrelevant, as are claims about the religious validity of this unnecessary surgery. If anyone should get this, it should be a doctor. Unfortunately, that too often flops in practice. From the 2004 entry, GruntDoc stated this about infant circumcision:

… I believe it is painful to the infant. So is falling down, hitting the coffee table, slamming a finger in a car door. Since I have never read about an infant describing his circumcision, it’s one of those things I think is best done as soon as possible (ask any adult who’s had a circ: it’s like chickenpox, the younger you have it the better off you are).

One painful incident is not like the others in his example.

It’s anti-intellectual to claim that not remembering pain is relevant to the discussion. The surgery is medically unnecessary; no further excuse-seeking is justified. If we factor in the child’s ability to not remember the pain as valid, we may excuse any number of surgical interventions with a potential to prevent future disease. Just look at the prevalence of breast cancer in males. Should we think of the good that can be done for those few men if we remove the breast tissue from the majority of newborn males? They won’t remember it! The thought is absurd, of course. Circumcision is the same. But circumcision advocacy isn’t about facts in context.

As to his last point, I can direct anyone interested to men circumcised as adults who don’t think it’s better. They think they’ve made a tragically stupid mistake. I can also point anyone interested to men circumcised as adults who state that the pain was less than it’s made out to be by the fear-mongers. Are those examples subjective? Of course. But so is the nonsense that all men are happy with being circumcised as infants or that the subjective preference of parents for potential benefits is superior to the subjective preference of the male when there is no medical indication for intervention.

Also, forgive me if I don’t cheer the logic of defending the 100% guarantee of pain imposition on an infant who hasn’t consented, no matter how well forgotten, over the low-single-digit risk that the male would need circumcision later in life, with pain that would be better managed through more effective pain relief techniques. I sympathize with the pain men who need adult circumcision will feel, but life has risks. That’s part of the deal. And the men who merely choose it will get no sympathy because they clearly value whatever benefit they perceive more than avoiding the pain. Yet, I’m supposed to value both equally – to the detriment of infants – through crude analysis implying that delayed pain, however unlikely or unnecessary, is worse than pain now. I will not because I am not irrational. Those few who need or choose adult circumcision should not dictate what happens to healthy infants.

For example:

My main argument for it is hygeine. Yes, many many men take good care of themselves, but you only need to see a couple of men with severe balanitis or penile CA, and the argument gets better. I was once told by a urologist that after a slew of penile cancers / amps following WWI (hard to keep clean in a trench), circ became mainstream more as a preventive med thing than an act of religious faith.

Typically, we (allegedly) must also factor in that a few men will face some consequence from being intact as an excuse to circumcise. Those many many men who take good care of themselves are not to be rewarded for their common sense and ability with an intact body. They are to sacrifice for the good of the few who will be delinquent or incompetent in their hygiene. After all, parents can’t know in advance if their son will practice good hygiene, and they can’t teach him good hygiene. Why assume that he will figure it out? There’s only so much a parent can do. Obviously. Being the good parents they are, they should opt to have his genitals cut, even though it exposes him to the risk of surgery. They’re responsible in a way he could never be.

From GruntDoc’s entry about amputating a finger:

Only after telling myself several times that this was actually no longer a finger was I able to take the sharp implement and cut off most of a finger.

How similar is the descent from reason that permits a doctor to remove the healthy, functioning foreskin from his patient at the request of his patient’s parents?

Science is cool. Don’t reject it in favor of fear.

Via Jason Kuznicki at Positive Liberty, this interesting story:

A physicist and his biologist son destroyed a common virus using a superfast pulsing laser, without harming healthy cells. The discovery could lead to new treatments for viruses like HIV that have no cure.

“We have demonstrated a technique of using a laser to excite vibrations on the shield of a virus and damage it, so that it’s no longer functional,” said Kong-Thon Tsen, a professor of physics at Arizona State University. “We’re testing it on HIV and hepatitis right now.”

Knowledge is awesome.

Now, an obvious question. If it’s possible that this will work and cure HIV – still a long shot given the apparent early stage of this research – how is it reasonable for parents to circumcise a son today to reduce his risk of becoming infected with HIV after he becomes sexually active?

Many parents seem determined that we can’t presume there will be a cure/vaccine before their son becomes sexually active. The more rational position is that we can’t presume there will not be a cure/vaccine in the decade-and-a-half before he becomes sexually active. Science involves a never-ending process of learning more. Anyone who doubts it needs only to observe the drastic improvement in HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention in the last two decades.

Circumcision is not a now-or-never surgery at birth. If the boy is left intact, the overwhelming likelihood is still that he will not become HIV-positive. And that’s before a reminder that researchers only looked at circumcision’s possibility to reduce the risk of HIV in adult males undergoing voluntary circumcision. The effect on males from forced circumcision as an infant remains unstudied, although anecdotal evidence in the United States suggests that condoms would be a much wiser strategy. It’s more effective to teach him to protect himself than to surgically remove parts of his genitals.

I’m sure the Left wouldn’t politicize this office.

How far off the rails we’ve gone:

The Bush administration again has appointed a chief of family planning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services who has been critical of contraception.

Susan Orr, most recently an associate commissioner in the Administration for Children and Families, was appointed Monday to be acting deputy assistant secretary for population affairs. She will oversee $283 million in annual grants to provide low-income families and others with contraceptive services, counseling and preventive screenings.

Why do we need an Office of Population Affairs? Since when is it a right to have everyone else pay for you to have (mostly) consequence-free sex? I don’t recall seeing that in the Constitution as a federal power.

The furor, of course, will be about Orr’s presumed position on birth control versus abstinence, as she seems to be an ideal political bone to toss to the social conservative base, as if this will suddenly improve our nation’s morals.

Update: I do not want to remove this because it was here when I first posted the entry. But I can’t find a link to this alleged statement from Orr, via Think Progress. Until I can verify, the quote shouldn’t be here. See comments for more explanation. See this rundown at Think Progress, via John Cole. Particularly this (emphasis in original):

In a 2000 Weekly Standard article, Orr railed against requiring health insurance plans to cover contraceptives. “It’s not about choice,” said Orr. “It’s not about health care. It’s about making everyone collaborators with the culture of death.”

Wonderfully intellectual, no?

Something in Orr’s past intrigues, similar to her position above.

From the Washington Post article:

In a 2001 article in The Washington Post, Orr applauded a Bush proposal to stop requiring all health insurance plans for federal employees to cover a broad range of birth control. “We’re quite pleased, because fertility is not a disease,” said Orr, then an official with the Family Research Council.

I support the goal to stop requiring insurance to cover it, although I would aim for a full reversal rather than just for federal employees. Government should not mandate coverage for any particular service or product. Still, within her limited scope here, Orr gets a temporary pass.

However, she’s an intellectual joke if she wants to pander that fertility is not a disease, by which I think she means “it’s not worth covering under insurance”. There are more ways than just heterosexual, missionary-position intercourse to create a family, and none of them are any less moral or Godly. There are many people who need fertility services and want that coverage. The market should decide whether or not it’s covered.

Even if it’s just normal, boring contraceptive services, government has no justification for interference. Since people need and want these services, there is inevitably a market for it, at some price. Maybe that price isn’t conducive to a deal for some services, but that’s economics, not theology. Covering it shouldn’t be mandated, but it shouldn’t be prohibited, either, which is what I think social conservatives want.

This is the problem with the Bush administration specifically, and politics in general. It can’t ever do the right thing for no other reason than it’s the principled action. It can’t control itself from using its own subjective, selfish reasons. Occasionally it’ll hit the correct bullseye, but usually there are intended consequences that are incorrect. Shameful.

P.S. Think Progress bolds Orr’s “fertility is not a disease” comment without reflecting on the validity of such a mandate for insurance. That’s probably an indirect comment on what Think Progress believes about that validity, but I’m not familiar enough with the site to draw a definitive conclusion.

Stupid HIV Defense Quotes – A Contest

I have two competing quotes, but I can’t decide which is dumber. First, from the article I referenced in yesterday’s entry:

“It’s now the most proven, effective HIV prevention strategy we have for male heterosexuals, so it’s really important that we make this widely available,” said Robert C. Bailey, an epidemiologist at the University of Illinois at Chicago who oversaw the Kenyan trial in nearby Kisumu.

You might remember Mr. Bailey, as he’s made two appearances at Rolling Doughnut with the same basic quote. (I guess this makes him our returning champion.) His statement is egregious, since abstinence, monogamy, and condoms are undeniably more effective.

Next, from Archbishop Manase Buthelezi of the Lutheran Church in South Africa:

Virginity inspection helps protect our children from HIV-Aids.

I’m not really sure how, as it’s a ex post facto check, unless he’s relying on the shame of “failing” the inspection to discourage sex.

I’m voting for Bailey, because he’s more certain, so unthinking individuals will be less likely to dispute him. As evidence, read the article. You won’t find any dispute from the reporter to such a ridiculous claim. What do you think?

**********

To strengthen his position, Archbishop Buthelezi offered this:

“We have never heard of any maiden who died because of virginity inspection. But we have many young boys killed in mountains during circumcision. And there is no big noise about that.

“If there are people who want to stop virginity inspection they must do the same with circumcision. Virginity testing is about abstinence from sex, which we preach in church,” he said.

As you can predict, he doesn’t make this comparison to discuss how reprehensible both are, but how beneficial virginity inspection is. He glosses over circumcision deaths to defend church doctrine. And then he states that virginity inspection “brings back humanity and respect to our children.”

Maybe that should’ve been his entry.