So much for that idea . . .

[voluptuary_manque]

Rabid San Franciscans dope-slapped by judge over anti-circumcision proposal.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

It was kinda stupid in the first place. I mean even if it had passed, all the mothers would have to do is take a little trip outside the city limits to give birth.

And from what I remember, San Francisco proper is not all that big.

And while I don't agree with the procedure, I believe the way to go about it is to discuss it with the doctor, not have it legislated. All the mother and father have to say is one word "NO!".

 

[3113]

That certainly tosses it off the ballot, but I'm not sure if it's going to hold up on appeal. How can it be argued as a "medical procedure" given that it's not a necessary--i.e. this isn't like saying the parents can't correct something medically wrong with the baby.

If it's not necessary, if it's arguably more like body modification than a medical procedure, then don't laws that say that no one under a certain age can be tattooed or get certain piercings apply? And even if it can be argued to be a medical procedure, well, states can pass laws against late term abortions, most certainly a medical procedure, even a necessary one...why can't a city pass a law against circumcision, arguably a "medical decision" that isn't necessary?

Understand, I'm not arguing that circumcision should be banned, I'm just trying to understand the logic of this ruling. First, why can't a medical procedure be banned? Second, if someone can successful argue that medical procedures should not be banned, can circumcision be argued as a medical procedure given that it's not medically necessary? Also given that it's done by a Mohel, a non-physician?

 

[SpunkySarah]

This shouldn't be legislated, but the procedure is not necessary. The AMA has said this is elective surgery.

Religious reasons - whatever. Medical? No way.

 

[Boxlicker101]

That certainly tosses it off the ballot, but I'm not sure if it's going to hold up on appeal. How can it be argued as a "medical procedure" given that it's not a necessary--i.e. this isn't like saying the parents can't correct something medically wrong with the baby.

If it's not necessary, if it's arguably more like body modification than a medical procedure, then don't laws that say that no one under a certain age can be tattooed or get certain piercings apply? And even if it can be argued to be a medical procedure, well, states can pass laws against late term abortions, most certainly a medical procedure, even a necessary one...why can't a city pass a law against circumcision, arguably a "medical decision" that isn't necessary?

Understand, I'm not arguing that circumcision should be banned, I'm just trying to understand the logic of this ruling. First, why can't a medical procedure be banned? Second, if someone can successful argue that medical procedures should not be banned, can circumcision be argued as a medical procedure given that it's not medically necessary? Also given that it's done by a Mohel, a non-physician?

That was essentially what the court ruled. The state has preempted this kind of legislation, so a city cannot prohibit it. The state could pass a law against circumcisions at the time of birth, but that is extremely likely.

Non-physicians perform other medical procedures. Did you ever hear of a midwife?

 

[Liar]

That was essentially what the court ruled. The state has preempted this kind of legislation, so a city cannot prohibit it. The state could pass a law against circumcisions at the time of birth, but that is extremely likely.

Non-physicians perform other medical procedures. Did you ever hear of a midwife?

Aren't midwives licensed medical professionals?

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Aren't midwives licensed medical professionals?

Yes, but they are not surgeons or OB-GYNs...they have no medical degree, yet they are allowed to assist in the birth and cut the cord, a surgical procedure.

 

[LettersFromTatyana]

Midwives may not be doctors, but the type of midwife that opens a birth center or has an independent practice is usually a nurse midwife (CNM). The CNMs I saw for my daughter's birth had something like five years of post-bachelor's schooling (nursing school plus midwifery school), and at least five years of experience as OB/GYN nurses. That's why they are allowed not only to assist at a birth, but often be the only medical professionals present.

Besides, there's nothing surgical about a normal birth, including cutting the cord. And I don't think most women like to think about the experience of giving birth as "a procedure."

Out of curiosity, what is the training for a non-physician Mohel? Are they regulated and licensed?

 

[elfin_odalisque]

Oh guys! Being on the other chromosome curve, I still understand the justification of male circumcision.

It's not really religious but just health science for first century Palestine tribes, like avoiding shellfish and pork, ways of killing cattle and sheep and not mixing dairy products with meat.

Female so-called 'circumcision' is a barbaric removal of the clitoris and a stitching of the vagina. This must be stopped throughout the world and few countries, including the loonies in San Francisco, are paying attention to the global mutilation of women.

Removal of the foreskin has no harmful effect on a male and, in fact, avoids later problems of disease when the foreskin won't fully retract and invasive surgery is required.

Like much religio-health advice in the Torah and the Qu'uran, the male circumcision advice holds good nowadays.

Just to add, a friend of mine says she likes dating Jewish boys because they last longer because . . . Just guess!

 

[LucyH]

don't laws that say that no one under a certain age can be tattooed or get certain piercings apply?

I believe parents can give permission. I've seen really little kids with pierced ears.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Uh-huh. Both my nieces got their ears pierced at birth. My BIL claimed it was an Italian thing.

 

[estragon]

I have heard the proposition debated. Those circumcised in later life claim the intensity of their orgasms were diminished post-surgery, whereas i have heard ladies who have had men, both cut and uncut, claim that the cut types lasted longer and gave them more time to do their multi-orgasmic thing.

However, the SF statute had plenty of problems. And yes, it is elective surgery.

There was talk some time ago about circumcised men not being as likely to transmit humanpapillomavirus as uncircumcised men, but that may just be obsolete scientific fable.

However, as to the Far West, there is the story of the first Mohel (pronounced moyl) in Arizona Territory, long before Statehood. No rabbi would travel to the wilderness, where so few Jewish families were to be found, and where Apaches and rattlesnakes roamed at large.

So a young Jewish woman, a midwife, undertook the necessary task, traveling miles on muleback and in the few stagecoaches to be found. For more than twenty-five years she traveled over desert and mountain, through blizzard and sandstorm, bringing her necessary services to the bedsides of the mothers and dealing with the sons of the pioneers.

When she finally retired, her many clients gave her a banquet at a prominent San Francisco hotel. The frontier had long closed, the wilderness was traversed by rail and auto, cities were long-established where only desert had been when Molly Cohen first came to the Territory.

After the dinner and the speechifying, her first client, now a man no longer young, rose to present her with a magnificent silver bowl.

On the side was engraved: "To Molly Cohen, pioneer. A Miss is as good as a Moyl."

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Then there's my sister's story about the moyl who saved all the foreskins he'd cut over a long career and when he was going to retire, gave them to his brother the leatherworker.

"Solly, I want you should make me something out of these to remember my long career."

Solomon nodded and promised Abraham that he'd do his best and when the day came for Abie to retire, he presented him with a fine, beautifully tooled wallet. Abraham was visibly upset. He thought that considering how long he'd worked the results should be something more than a mere billfold.

Solomon threw his hands in the air. "Abie," he exclaimed, "you don't understand. It just looks like a wallet. You rub it, it turns into a suitcase!"

 

[LettersFromTatyana]

Then there's my sister's story about the moyl who saved all the foreskins he'd cut over a long career and when he was going to retire, gave them to his brother the leatherworker.

Sadly, not far from the truth. Hospitals don't throw that skin away; they sell it to companies that use it for skin grafts, product testing, and cosmetics.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Sadly, not far from the truth. Hospitals don't throw that skin away; they sell it to companies that use it for skin grafts, product testing, and cosmetics.

Do you have at least one credible source for this? It is not only unethical for hospitals to sell biological hazardous materials, it's against most states laws. The only sources I can find for this outrageous claim are blogs of questionable origin. Anyone got a real new source?

 

[LettersFromTatyana]

Do you have at least one credible source for this? It is not only unethical for hospitals to sell biological hazardous materials, it's against most states laws. The only sources I can find for this outrageous claim are blogs of questionable origin. Anyone got a real new source?

Which part are you asking about? What cells from foreskins are used for, or the procurement and sale of foreskins?


What it's used for is easily googlable, especially if you use terms like neonatal fibroblasts or neonatal foreskin (you may need to include human, since rats turn up). As for sources, this one popped up. Note that many companies use cells derived from very old sources, so we aren't always talking new foreskins.

Alternatively, you can just find sites for the labs that are selling them (like this one), or detailing their own procurement procedures (like this one).


As for the procurement and sale, to be technically correct, I should have said that hospitals, with the consent of parents, sell foreskins. I assume the sale is ethical according to whatever standards hospitals and biotech researchers use.

But in my mind, since the sale doesn't have the consent of the child, it is morally questionable. I can't help but think this is one step away from Henrietta Lacks. Ms. Lacks never gave her consent for her cells to be used; John Doe's parents give consent for cells derived from his foreskin to be used for decades, but John Doe doesn't have the option of ever giving his consent.

And as for it being illegal or hazardous to sell to medical or biotechnology labs . . . I'm not sure where that information is coming from. How do you think medical research is done?

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Ah, one paper, one lab and a wiki page that anyone can edit.

A hospital pf medical facility must have the donors permission first, before they are used, sold or otherwise distributed for purposes of research. Why do you think there are donor card you carry, if you wish to donate body parts when you die.

I'll bet most mother don't know about the form that is placed in front of them while they are screaming their lungs out about donating their male child's foreskin. If they did how many do you think would sign such a document?

On the other hand...so what.

 

[LettersFromTatyana]

Ah, one paper, one lab and a wiki page that anyone can edit.

Yeah . . . because that's all I bothered to include. It's no big secret. Entire companies are built around foreskin products (like Dermagraft). Doubting this is like doubting companies use cells from umbilical cords; go to google scholar and type in "human foreskin," and you'll get more than 20,000 hits.

A hospital pf medical facility must have the donors permission first, before they are used, sold or otherwise distributed for purposes of research. Why do you think there are donor card you carry, if you wish to donate body parts when you die.

I'll bet most mother don't know about the form that is placed in front of them while they are screaming their lungs out about donating their male child's foreskin. If they did how many do you think would sign such a document?

On the other hand...so what.

It's perfectly legal, but it strikes me as ethically dubious, due to the consent issue of the child involved. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter what you or I think; the only person whose opinion matters is days (hours?) old.