The front page stories at LP.org today are almost all about health care: Press releases Libertarians respond to Obama press conference and Doctors demand Obama apology as well as blog posts Americans oppose Obama takeover of medicine, Dem governors: Obama health care scheme is a massive “unfunded mandate”, and Barr: Democrats’ government takeover of medicine a ‘monstrosity’, and a poll: What is the worst thing we’ve found out — so far — about the Democrats’ government-run health care plan?
Wayne Root, the 2008 Libertarian VP candidate, announced candidate for the 2012 Presidential nomination, and likely 2010 candidate for party national chair, weighs in with a blog post, The Audacity of Obama’s Lies Health Care Lies, while another 2012 candidate, Tom Knapp, has this post at Kn@ppster.
Speaking of Root, his new book, Conscience of a Libertarian, and his publicity tour in its support, get prominent mention in another LP.org blog post, Libertarians are coming to bookstores and TVs near you.
OMG!LMAO!
I can’t believe you guys are talking about this “Winky” and “cocks”.
i though tI was going to get a political conversion,this is better.
Anyways I did have a question.On the LP site it has a poll concerning some of the outrageous things in this HR3200 bill.And I have combed through that bill trying to find their claim about a section 440.Does anyone know what they are talking?i was able to verify the other things but not that one.Or am I just clueless?
=)
With hospital experience for many years there are a lot of misconception being said here. The death rate from circumcision is way out of line. It is amazing how this topic is mostly discussed out of a lot of medical issues that are being overlooked and more serious. It is scary to think that some of the people who think on this small of scale are the one who votes.
Back to original topic, two new health care blog entries at lp.org:
http://www.lp.org/blogs/donny-ferguson/cnn-five-freedoms-youd-lose-to-obamas-health-care-scheme
and
http://www.lp.org/blogs/donny-ferguson/government-care-in-action-oregon-recommends-suicide-for-patients
Government care in action: Oregon recommends suicide for patients
posted by Donny Ferguson on Jul 24, 2009
Patients turning to Oregon’s state-run health program for assistant were denied treatment and urged to consider suicide instead.
53-year-old Randy Stroup of Dexter, Ore., looking for assistance to pay for his prostate cancer treatment, turned to the state-run Oregon Health Plan. Plan administrators responded with a letter informing Stroup the goverment would not cover his treatment, but it would pay for physician-assisted suicide.
“It dropped my chin to the floor,” Stroup told FOX News. “[How could they] not pay for medication that would help my life, and yet offer to pay to end my life?”
The letter, which follows guidelines set by Oregon’s state legislature, has been sent to other cancer patients, urging them to consider suicide rather than compete with other patients for the limited pool of taxpayer money.
The Obama health care takeover currently being written in the House includes a section requiring the sick and elderly to attend meetings on “end of life planning.”
lol, ok. Thread jack in full effect so I’ll go with it.
Unlike most people I can compare before and after.
I was born in the USSR where circumcision was not routine, and immigrated to the US at age 8.
I was then put in a school in Brooklyn where Lubavitcher Hassidic Jews taught English, Hebrew and Jewish religion/customs. They convinced me to get circumcised. Even though it was actually my decision, afterwards I noticed some loss in sensation in playing with it and would not have made the same choice again.
For whatever that is worth…
Stefan A. Bailis is a well known radical circumcision promoter
“Circumcision in the newborn period is normally done under safe local anesthesia”
As stated above, infant circumcision is rarely done under anesthesia and research show the percentage of circumcisions done under analgesia is falling rapidly.
“has a life-time of health benefits with low risk.”
In fact, the risk is considerable. The risk of death is the most considerable and more than 200 infants die every year from the procedure. There is also a considerable risk of MRSA infections which can be exceedingly difficult to treat and can be deadly. The risk of one of these infections is 12.2 times the risk of HIV.
“In infancy: prevention of UTIs, in young children: ”
The incidence of UTI infections is within 1% between circumcised and uncircumcised boys. That is statistical insignificance and can easily be attributed to other conditions such as prematurity. Premature infants are at higher risk of UTI infections regardless of their circumcision status.
“prevention of foreskin infections.”
These infections are the exact same infections girls contract and respond equally to the same exact medications.
“In adults: prevention of ulcerative STDs and HIV. ”
There are studies on both sides of STDs and certainly no concensus about whether circumcision has any effect. Recent studies on HIV are a fraud. If circumcision were as effective as claimed, there would be no HIV in the United States as the vectors of transmission would be sufficiently broken that it could not survive. Compare the claims to the polio epidemic that was defeated by the Salk vaccine that eliminated polio in a single generation with a 70% efficacy rate.
“Parents have legal right–and responsibility–to make choices on behalf of minor children–religion, vaccinations, circumcision, etc.”
I guess you would say parents have a legal right to make this same decision for their female children then? The 1996 FGM law ended this right of course but should it extend to males? Apparently so! Read the “Equal Protection Clause” in the 14th Ammendment to The US Constitution and you will see it does not allow this sexual discrimination. Of course, it has not been tested yet but I see it coming sometime after 2014 when these boys will be reaching majority and can pursue a case on their own.
“Relatively few medical acts are legally prohibited.”
This is true but Routine Infant Male Circumcision is an exception to the rule. It is simply social surgery and deserves to be addressed by the law.
“Female genital mutilation is one example of an illegal act. Unlike male circumcision, which has many benefits and relatively minor risks, female genital mutilation has no health benefits but does have high risks.”
That is debatable. Research has shown that female circumcision has a prophylactic effect on HIV acquisition and other benefits. I’m man enough to question such benefits but the jury is still out on these. I do not believe the benefits (if they actually exist) are sufficient to allow the practice.
“Circumcision rate in the US is highly dependent on ethnicity. Approx. 80-90%of Whites and Blacks choose it, but only 20-30% of Latinos choose it. Overall rate is about 75%, but much lower on West Coast due to heavy Latino population.”
This is an old mantra of the pro-circumcision crowd. “You don’t want to be like those people, do you?” In fact, the circumcision rate reported by The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Centers for Health Statistics do not include ethnic groups other than whites and blacks. That is because they started reporting when other ethnic groups were not a significant portion of The US population and for continuity, this practice continues to today. If ethnic groups were included in the statistics, the circumcision rate would fall approximately another 4% to around 52%.
“I’d argue that it is more libertarian for parents to make the circumcision decision on behalf of their sons than for government bureaucrats to dictate such decisions.”
Then, parents should be allowed to make the same decision on behalf of their daughters? Of course, we see the violation here but we are culturally blinded on the issue of infant male circumcision.
“Beware of anti-circumcision propaganda! The American Urological Association has a favorable opinion of circumcision, as does the World Health Organization.”
Yes, and beware of the pro-circumcision propaganda as well. The American Urological Association stands apart from the balance of the world’s medical associations. The WHO has not made a definitive statement but are considering a decision and statement based on the fraudulent circumcision/studies coming out of Africa.
“Two good websites I would suggest are: http://www.circinfo.net/ and http://www.medicirc.org/”
I guess you would suggest those. They are owned by radical circumcision promoters and are chock-a-block full of myth, misinformation and out right lies to support infant male circumcision. An unbiased source is http://www.cirp.org, a library of medical studies and writings that address both sides of the issue, both pro and con.
.
I’m amazed at the myths and deceptions presented here about male circumcision. Let’s clear some of them up.
Very Lame wrote: “circumcision makes the risk less for serious health issues, this is a fact.”
Actually, circumcision makes for some very serious health issues, not avert them. For instance, more than 200 babies die each year in The US from the circucmcision procedure while there is no case on record of a child dying because he was not circumcised. Research shows that the healthcare costs of circumcised boys exceeds that of uncircumcised boys by a wide margin. There are numerous court cases of botched circumcisions. The most recent was a verdict and award in Georgia for $2.3 million.
This Procedure is a Lame Topic wrote: “Well we could leave it up to the person when they become an adult, but then to do the proceedure as an adult is a lot more painful, so it is best done when it is a baby.”
Adult circumcision is done under general or local anesthesia with full after care pain management. Infant circumcision is usually done with no pain management or inadequate pain management as found in a study by The AMA. A study in 1998 found that only 23% of infants received any pain management and only 4% received adequate pain management. By 2006, the percentage receiving any pain management had fallen to 16%. They also found infant circumcision to be an incredibly painful procedure contrary to the myth that it is painful. In a study to evaluate the pain, the indicators of extreme pain were so clear that they ended the study before it was half way completed “On humanitarian grounds.”
MDH wrote: “I think circumsized penises are more aesthetically attractive. This should be a factor in the decision as well.”
Each person’s aesthetics are different. An infant’s aesthetic preferences can not be predicted so the decision should be left to him at a time he can state his preference.
Geoffery wrote: “In the UK this is standard hospital procedure no matter if you desire it or not.”
Actually, it is virtually impossible to get a child circumcised in The UK unless there is a pressing medical condition that can not be treated in a less intrusive manner.
Liibertarian girl wrote: “snip em , undone is yucky and hard to clean”
The ONLY difference in cleaning an uncircumcised penis is the fraction of a second to retract the foreskin. After that, it is exactly the same.
“Betty , I have two friends who did not circumcise . Both were good mothers , who kept the boys clean etc , etc . Both of ther kids had disgusting inflammatory infections more than 3 times that would not have happened with a snipped pee-pee.”
Actually, research shows that the risk of infection of the circumcision site far exceeds any risk of later infections. It is also clear that girls experience far more genital infections than boys regardless of circumcision status and girls are never surgically treated for these infections. Here’s a news flash: The bacterials, virals and fungals that infect boys are the same exact ones that infect girls. They can not discriminate or discern between male and female cells and the medications against them are equally effective in either sex. Amputation of body tissue in treatment of these infections on boys is done only because it is socially acceptable and is not socially acceptable for girls.
“they were painful and easily avoided .”
Yes, by competent medical care not involving surgery.
“i guess its a personal decision but i prefer the way they look snipped . thats my 2 cents”
Yes, it is a most personal and intimate decision and one that is regularly stolen from the only one it affects.
Don Francisco wrote: “Personally, I spent my youth running from the showers so I would not be mocked for being uncut.”
It’s a very different landscape for today’s boys. The infant circumcision rate is very near 50% so uncircumcised boys are not a minority anymore and there will be no mocking.
Stephan Balis deserves a separate answer and I will give him what he deserves.
Frank
@ 26 Gene writes: “Blog posts and polls hardly constitute “ramping up opposition”. Where are the talking points for state and county chairs? Where is a handly flyer for distribution? Has there been lobbying going on?”
There was a media release posted here some days ago on midwives that we can use for a start. I’ve got some other points to pitch later, but I have other obligations first. And maybe drink a beer.
MW
Circumcision in the newborn period is normally done under safe local anesthesia, takes just a few minutes, has a life-time of health benefits with low risk. In infancy: prevention of UTIs, in young children: prevention of foreskin infections. In adults: prevention of ulcerative STDs and HIV. Parents have legal right–and responsibility–to make choices on behalf of minor children–religion, vaccinations, circumcision, etc. Relatively few medical acts are legally prohibited. Female genital mutilation is one example of an illegal act. Unlike male circumcision, which has many benefits and relatively minor risks, female genital mutilation has no health benefits but does have high risks. Circumcision rate in the US is highly dependent on ethnicity. Approx. 80-90%of Whites and Blacks choose it, but only 20-30% of Latinos choose it. Overall rate is about 75%, but much lower on West Coast due to heavy Latino population. I’d argue that it is more libertarian for parents to make the circumcision decision on behalf of their sons than for government bureaucrats to dictate such decisions. Beware of anti-circumcision propaganda! The American Urological Association has a favorable opinion of circumcision, as does the World Health Organization.Two good websites I would suggest are: http://www.circinfo.net/ and http://www.medicirc.org/
Not cutting part of a baby’s body off ought to be a no-brainer for libertarians. If he doesn’t own his own body, what does he own?
Thomas L Knapp: “security of the person” “freedom from unlawful seizure”. Did it need a Constitutional amendment to federally outlaw cutting any part off a girl’s genitals for any reason except pressing medical need? (And I’m not talking about Africa: Blue Cross Blue Shield covered surgical FGC until 1977.)
mdh: Babies DO lose their “winkies” in botched circumcisions. They’re really small to start with. And it’s easy to make lesser mistakes that get enlarged when they grow up, like writing on a balloon.
This Procedure is a Lame Topic: “to do the proceedure as an adult is a lot more painful,” – and your evidence for that claim? The babies think it’s painful enough and they can’t see it coming.
“…so it is best done when it is a baby.” Why? It doesn’t have to be done at all.
Geoffrey: “In the UK this is standard hospital procedure no matter if you desire it or not.” Bass-ackward. It’s impossible to get a baby cut on the NHS without medical need. (Or religious “need”) And a recent columnist couldn’t find a doctor in Scotland who would do it at all.
libertariangirl: “I have two friends who did not circumcise . Both were good mothers , who kept the boys clean etc , etc . Both of ther kids had disgusting inflammatory infections more than 3 times.” Probably “keeping them clean” involved forcibly retracting their foreskins before they were ready, tearing them from the underlying glans where they are naturally attached for the first few years. This is disastrously common.
“my kid, my rules” Doesn’t sound very libertarian to me. Getting bits cut off is hardly normal among “rules”.
“i guess its a personal decision” Exactly: his body, his decision.
Don Francisco: now that the circumcision rate is approaching 50%, taunting is as likely to go one way as the other. I know I’d rather comfort a son by telling him that unlike the others, we hadn’t had part cut off his peepee, than that we had.
Personally, I spent my youth running from the showers so I would not be mocked for being uncut. As a child, I went through UTI and balanitis and that stuff, but I don’t know if I would do it to my kid. My girlfriend loves me, her brother’s not cut, and he told me circumcision is sinful and taboo in our culture.
Blog posts and polls hardly constitute “ramping up opposition”. Where are the talking points for state and county chairs? Where is a handly flyer for distribution? Has there been lobbying going on?
LG, you are correct about the possibility of infection.
And when you take the child to the hospital, a childrens services worker WILL come in and give you the evil eye, ask questions that have nothing to do with the infection, and attempt to get you on their case load.
Just one more thing to think about in our upside down world.
PEACE
and to add to your last paragraph ,
my kid , my rules , thankyou
Betty , I have two friends who did not circumcise . Both were good mothers , who kept the boys clean etc , etc . Both of ther kids had disgusting inflammatory infections more than 3 times that would not have happened with a snipped pee-pee.
they were painful and easily avoided .
i guess its a personal decision but i prefer the way they look snipped . thats my 2 cents
Libertariangirl – you would honestly chop a healthy, functional piece off of someone else’s genitals rather than teach them to take 5 seconds in the shower to rinse themselves off? Wow… 5 seconds isn’t exactly “hard to clean” *rolls eyes*
There’s is nothing “yucky” about an intact penis either assuming the man bathes on a regular basis – a circumcised penis that’s never washed gets pretty funky also, as I’m sure you would agree. Every single person I know in real life who’s been with both circumcised and intact men all prefer intact. Not to mention that the countries that are famous for their lovers all do not circumcise (Latin lovers? All natural, baby!).
Your personal preference should also not override that of your son and his future partners. The idea that it should is extremely un-Libertarian. His body, his choice.
snip em , undone is yucky and hard to clean
“I think circumsized penises are more aesthetically attractive. This should be a factor in the decision as well.”
Really? Not everyone finds a circumcision scar and dried-out glans more attractive – none of my friends, for example. What if the boy grows up to be with a woman or man who prefers the look of an intact (not circumcised) penis? Should his parents’ sexual and/or aesthetic preferences really be the deciding factor? Or should they perhaps wait and let him and his future partner decide?
It’s one thing if it’s medically necessary, but I can’t fathom how anyone can seriously argue that healthy parts of babies be amputated merely so their parents will find them more “attractive” or so that someday when they grow up they will be ever so slightly “safer” if they choose a risky lifestyle.
Why not instead teach your sons to be proud of their bodies the way they were made? Teach them that any man or woman who would reject them on the basis of what their penis looks like doesn’t deserve them! Teach them the reasons why risky choices are unwise instead of very possibly making a risky lifestyle more attractive by extremely partial “protection” from HIV! They would get the same “protection” from HIV by using a condom that breaks half the time as by being circumcised. A condom that broke half the time would be pulled from the shelves ASAP amid consumer complaints, and rightly so.
No medical organization in the world recommends infant circumcision – it is a cosmetic procedure when all is said and done. The fact that most intact men are happy and would never choose to be circumcised says volumes about the “Well, he’d never choose it later in life so we should choose it now when he can’t object!” argument. How about, “He’d never choose it later in life, so we shouldn’t choose it for him now when he can’t have a say in the matter.”
Unnecessary cosmetic surgery on infants should not be paid for with tax dollars or covered by insurance companies. Period. Some states and insurance companies have already come to that conclusion – hopefully many more will follow!
Bob,
Funny, I was thinking the same thing.
is anyone in touch with Kenny Kramer in NYC?
Based on the Seinfeld episode on the bris, I’d like to hear the REAL Kramer’s take. 😉
Top of the day gents,
It tis my understanding your LPUS has an expert on this subject by the name of Starchild(?) and I would be delighted to hear his opinion on the matter.
In the UK this is standard hospital procedure no matter if you desire it or not. I presume your choices on that side of the pond will be reduced as well when you have adopted our unfortunate system.
I think circumsized penises are more aesthetically attractive. This should be a factor in the decision as well.
Okay you guys! Sheesh and bunch of cock and bull stories.
BTW did you know the AMA wants to have home birth made illegal, or so I read.
Like John C, I’m happy with my circumcised cock —…
Well, my life hasn’t been the same since!
More seriously, my son was born at home. When he asked about it, I told him I couldn’t find a can opener so I could cut it off!
😉
PEACE
Well we could leave it up to the person when they become an adult, but then to do the proceedure as an adult is a lot more painful, so it is best done when it is a baby.
“circumcision makes the risk less for serious health issues, this is a fact.”
It makes the risk marginally less for some serious health issues that are a) very rare, such as penile cancer; or b) avoidable by other means, such as HIV.
Like John C, I’m happy with my circumcised cock — but the fact remains that it is rarely a medically necessary procedure, that the diseases it reduces risk for are generally adult diseases, and that therefore the decision could be and should be left to the owner of the penis to make when he becomes an adult.
It’s not unreasonable to describe circumcision for men in the same way as it is conventionally described for women (“genital mutilation”), or for that matter as sexual assault.
The only thing circumcision really has going for it is its longevity as a religious practice. If some new sect popped up claiming that God required them to cut body parts off their babies, the police or the county sheriff would have a perp walk set up most ricky tick and few would argue that it should be any other way.
I am happy with my circumcised cock. I don’t think any insurance paid for it though. I have receipts from all this medical stuff from when I was a baby. Apparently some people actually paid for medical care back then. I don’t know how my mom handled all those 8 dollar checkups and 3 dollar medicines.
circumcision makes the risk less for serious health issues, this is a fact.
gotcha:)
Dev, you’ve gotta consider context here.
Matt , never call it a winky , it makes me lose respect for you
Milnes, did you lose your winky to a botched circumcision?
Bob,
Setting aside the long odds of you being elected president, where in the Constitution do you find a presidential power to outlaw circumcision?
Unnecessary surgery. like circumcision maybe? This should be ILLEGAL as child abuse. The religious arguments are lame at best. Then compound this by charging “health” insurance? Outrageous. Absurd. If I am elected president this practice would be eliminated altogether. Sorry, pet peeve.
More on that same issue.
Some years ago I came across an article about Dr. David Eddy who is part of this news article. He is an M.D. and a Ph.D mathematician As I recall he studies medical studies. He has talked about evidence based medicine for years and evidence based medicine is what some in the Obama adminstration are trying to emphasize.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/medicine/trans1.htm
“Dr David Eddy: I’d say at least half of the practices that are currently being promoted – in the sense that physicians are recommending them to patients – at least half of those things, when you really look at the evidence, you don’t find sufficient evidence to justify that kind of active promotion.”
I did not hear, nor have I read Obama’s comments, but the fact is that a lot of unnecessary surgery is done in medicine and that is one of the many things driving up the costs of medicine in the U.S.
Regardless of what Obama says the LP needs to be specific about what we propose. Details are important.