hello everyone just had a quick question on y'all to opinion on circumcision and also the reasoning on why it is done to us I'm from the states so pretty much everyone here has it done to them I was just curious what was the reasoning
Looking at this from a European perspective here is the main remarks I would make:
‘The States’ was founded and grew economically through people selling products and services to people, irrespective of whether they needed them or not. The medical profession is no exception to this: drug companies and distributors need to thrive, medical equipment manufacturers and suppliers need to produce everyday items, and also to continue to produce ever more complex technology to treat a broader range of conditions in a more successful manner.
In simple terms: doctors, specialists, nurses and all other support staff are employed and the funding for their salaries needs to be obtained from patients. Again stated simply, relatively empty hospitals and surgical urologists with no one to carry out circumcisions on is bad for business - less and less goes into the ‘funding pot’ to pay for the salaries of clinicians and support staff and the upkeep of buildings and premises where medical professionals work.
So purely looking at circumcision: right across the European continent very few counties have males that are routinely circumcised - in fact I cannot think of one. However, obviously there is a growing number of males who are routinely circumcised in Europe, but these are exclusively related to religious and cultural beliefs.
In the USA I am sure the ‘balance’ of medical opinion would be that it is safer / and/or healthier for a male to be circumcised, and leaving this aside for a moment, some opinion would suggest that males should be left to make this kind of decision for themselves. In that, an individual’s body does not belong to anyone else, and therefore the only person who should ‘rightfully’ make this decision is the individual themselves when they are of an age to understand fully both sides of the argument for and against circumcision.
In the UK where I am I regularly hear of males being circumcised as adults, but this is limited to problems associated with conditions such as Phimosis. Yet doctors suggest that circumcision is the best form of treatment, and even prefer this when alternative approaches can elevate the need for surgery.
I was one such male, and I went to see a surgical urologist at my local hospital (long story short here: most patients in the UK do not pay for their medical treatment, this is funded via taxation and the provision of a national health service - “The NHS”) who said he would carry out a circumcision, giving no explanation as to why this would be the only successful course of treatment. I already knew that for men who choose elective circumcision that there are varying degrees of skin that is removed - from relative conservative approaches, to quite radical where all the foreskin and frenulum is removed. I asked to what degree of circumcision would I receive and in a foreign (The NHS employs many people from abroad, from regular doctors, specialists and even cleaners) accent the urologist said “no, no no” - this I took I had no choice that circumcision only meant one thing to the urologist and he was certainly not prepared to discuss with me what that entailed.
Also in the UK there are voluntary organisations who provide an independent source of information on what the reasons are for not getting a circumcision carried out, I contacted them and said that the problems I had with my penile skin could be treated without the need for circumcision, so I went to a Dermatologist and got the medication I need and 8 years later I still have a fully functioning and relatively health foreskin.