Over the years here I have made the occasional observation that the anti-circumcision movement is just nuttily obsessed and full of dubious claims. It really qualifies as an anti-science movement - its arguments are so drenched with emotion and hyperbole, and many of its advocates simply sound neurotic. Whether it is anti science that mainly attracts the Left or the Right (see my previous post) I am not 100% sure - Left leaning, I would have thought.
So it's interesting to see this article in Slate listing in some detail how the internet has become dominated by this fringe crowd; and how many of their arguments are proved wrong and wrong again by proper studies, but they don't care. It bears a remarkable resemblance to the climate change "skpetic" movement in this respect, despite that being a definite Right wing phenomena.
And have a look at how many comments the Slate article is attracting - more than 5,000, I think!
I also see that the argument about whether it should be available in Australian public hospitals again as a mere preventative measure is about to hot up too, according to this story.
As to my attitude to the matter: I thought I read somewhere years ago that some American doctors thought it was most safely done a few months after birth, and that local anaesthetic could be used then. It seems clear that the health benefits of it are much more significant than once thought, and (obviously) the procedure has caused no unhappiness to the vast bulk of the routinely snipped prior to it going out of fashion. I think it is looking quite reasonable to do it as a preventative health measure, and it should at least be available at public hospitals for those parents who want it for that reason alone.
No comments:
Post a Comment