>> ^hpqp:

Cosmetic/aesthetic (non-medical) procedures that modify a person's body should be that person's informed decision/choice, and no one else's. How hard is it to grasp such a simple ethical concept?


It's not a simple ethical concept at all because it is not simply a modification to a person's body. From the Wiki Bioethics of Circumcision Page:

The practice of medicine has long respected an adult's right to self-determination in health care decision-making. This principle has been operationalized through the doctrine of informed consent. The process of informed consent obligates the physician to explain any procedure or treatment and to enumerate the risks, benefits, and alternatives for the patient to make an informed choice. For infants and young children who lack the capacity to decide for themselves, a surrogate, generally a parent, must make such choices.

– American Academy of Pediatrics: Circumcision Policy Statement

Parents have a right to make decisions for their children that they believe will improve their children's future. They're not just doing it because they think it looks nice. Here are the issues that most parents consider:

1) They belong to a group where this is the norm and they want their child to fit in socially. By doing it while the child is still a baby they ensure that the child will have no recollection of the procedure. Furthermore, the child is obviously not sexually active yet. Delaying the procedure until age of consent (which I assume you define as sometime after puberty) guarantees that the person will have to abstain from sexual actions while healing takes place and that they'll have full memories of both the procedure and the subsequent recovery pain.

2) Circumcision will guarantee that the child does not ever have to deal with an infected foreskin. Although proper cleaning can help prevent such an infection in non-circumcised males, only circumcision guarantees (100%) the child will never have to deal with it. The medical research waffles a lot on the reduction of penile cancer and AIDS transmission rates, but the medical consensus is still that circumcision may help in both of these areas.

Given these two facts--and the lack of any conclusive evidence that the procedure is harmful--I see no reason to deny parent's the right to choose to have the practice done on their own child. If they think it will benefit their child, then they should feel free to do so.

Does that answer your question?

So then she refers ALL her patients to "real" doctors?

>> ^bareboards2:

I'm not sure what you mean, but I am 99.9999% sure it was meant to be sarcastic.
My best friend for the past 20 years is a homeopathic physician. I know for a fact she refers patients to "regular" doctors.
She is, as I originally said, a responsible alternative health practitioner.
So yeah. It happens.
And this vid is hysterically funny.
>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^bareboards2:
Responsible alternative health practitioners understand that there is a time for allopathic medicine.
And this is hysterical.

Yea: Always.

I'm not sure what you mean, but I am 99.9999% sure it was meant to be sarcastic.

My best friend for the past 20 years is a homeopathic physician. I know for a fact she refers patients to "regular" doctors.

She is, as I originally said, a responsible alternative health practitioner.

So yeah. It happens.

And this vid is hysterically funny.

>> ^rottenseed:

>> ^bareboards2:
Responsible alternative health practitioners understand that there is a time for allopathic medicine.
And this is hysterical.

Yea: Always.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Lord Jesus Christ, physician, teacher, searching for a way to promote the hidden strength that all humans have.
Then, an accidental overdose of holy radiation altered his body chemistry.
And now when Christ grows angry or outraged, a startling metamorphosis occurs.


Oh well done, well done indeed.

Lord Jesus Christ, physician, teacher, searching for a way to promote the hidden strength that all humans have.

Then, an accidental overdose of holy radiation altered his body chemistry.

And now when Christ grows angry or outraged, a startling metamorphosis occurs.

This is bullshit

40-50 people dying a year of MDMA? Lies:
http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/dll/jhmdusscmarch19.htm

"Not only are MDMA related cases a small percentage of all drug-related emergency room visits, but a large percentage of MDMA cases are not life-threatening. In a recent study conducted by the physicians in the Emergency Department of Bellevue, (Rella, Int J Med Toxicol 2000; 3(5): 28) regional hospital ecstasy cases phoned into the New York City poison control center were analyzed. There were 191 cases reported during the years 1993 to 1999 inclusive. This is a rate of fewer than thirty cases per year. 139 cases (73%) were mild and experienced minor or no toxicity. The most commonly reported symptoms were increased heart rate (22%), agitation (19%), and nausea and vomiting (12%). In these seven years, only one ecstasy-related death was reported, which was due to hyperthermia, or overheating. Ecstasy is simply not the "killer drug" the media would like us to believe."

Just 8% contained MDMA, WTF? I find that very hard to believe. In the Netherlands levels have been monitored for years and in the worst year only 50% contained MDMA.

Also CCP, I think this guy means mCCP

I like how Olbermann included Barak Obama in his condemnation for when he said to "bring a gun" to a political fight, and how he called those who oppose him "enemies". Oh - no wait - he didn't do that. Obama, Pelosi, Ried, Fiengold, Gibbs, and the thousands of other left-wing guys who routinely engage in hate speech got a free pass. He picked one example from his side. Real 'balance' there Olbie. Name the names on your side besides yourself. Matthews, Maddow, Garafalo, Barr, Bahar, Moore, and a hundred others. Feh - physician heal thyself.

Nail on the head. Hitchens, Harris, Maher, et al are the cranky sub-culture of atheism. I've discussed a myriad of issues with people of many different perspectives - religous or otherwise - and it cannot be argued that there are people in all camps who are the loud, noisy, pushy, somewhat 'out there' advocates for whatever cause or other.

I see a lot of folks trying to say that is OK. Clearly that is a defensive reaction spurred primarily by personal bias. If the shoe was on the other foot, and some "Fundie" preacher was saying the same stuff about Theism, then I very much doubt that guys like Crackers would be so quick to be apologists for it.

Bmacs27 said it well. When having a discussion, it is important to try and be respectful even if you disagree. It's tough to do that when one of the participants is openly hostile, beligerent, and unwilling to listen to other points of view AKA Harris. People who are religious commit this error all the time, and are rightfully called to the carpet on it. If a person really is religious, how can it possibly be said that God would approve of them entering a discussion with that sort of mindset and outlook? Likewise - how can you take an atheist seriously when he carps about the 'bad behavior' of people of faith, and yet behaves like an uncultured boor every time he opens his mouth?

Physicians - heal thyselves.

Too often, I've found that atheists have this smug superior attitude towards people who are religious and im kinda fed up with it. It's no different from the smug superior people who think they're going to heaven and I'm not. I've known too many people who are religious who are decent good people who aren't fundie whackos who take a hard religious line. The vast majority of religious people are decent people just trying to make a living and do NOT suspend logic when confronted with a reasonable argument and/or proof.

Amen. That's where the 'cranky atheist subculture' really just goes off the tracks. Like most folks with a biased axe to grind, they cherry-pick isolated, unrepresentative examples out of large populations and portray them as the norm. It is the same bull that MSNBC and FOX infotainers routinely pollute discourse with.

I have an extremely awesome Doctor. I'm going to tell you about him.

He's an old country doctor who decided to move back to civilization to be close to his grandchildren before he dies. He doesn't accept any insurance, he charges $40 for an office visit, he has a deal worked out with a lab to give his patients extremely reasonable lab fees (for MOST lab work he can charge $30), he was a young doctor in vietnam, he's old and experienced enough to know how to do things without a lot of bells and whistles and very very conservatively, he tries his best to only prescribe generic medications (if any at all if he can avoid it because he despises what the pharmaceutical companies have become), for the $40 which comes out of your pocket - he will not overbook his schedule and spend a significant amount of time with you so you can both understand your health and your lifestyle and how those are related, if you are very sick and do not have $40 or can not afford any needed lab work - he will do what he can to work with you.

I asked him once about his odd practices and he guffawed at me and said that the insurance companies "dick me over first, so they can dick him over next". apparently, he thinks making an industry gambling on whether or not people will get ill is a terrible scam and then making the gambler, the bookie is a fucking fraud. he thinks socialized medicine won't work in this country, not because it's inherently evil but because "the people who make the plans don't do shit but give rimjobs to the people who have all the money, and the people who have all the money are only concerned with getting more of it".

so i kind of think this is an excellent way of doing things. i know it's a libertarian way of doing things. and doesn't help me if i need to go to the hospital. but if i can afford preventative care, have a physician to talk to me like i'm a human being about my lifestyle how to control it and how that translates into good health, and i can afford to go to the doctor when i get sick instead of letting it turn into pneumonia, then my chances of needing the hospital drop dramatically.

in short, i fucking looooove this man. i think he should teach med school and imbue his students with his experience, confidence, reason and utter lack of greed.

I've always thought that the drugs we use to treat ADD and ADHD are some of the main factors in the increasing number of ADD and ADHD patients. As it turns out the parents of these children really don't want anything other than their children, who are simply acting like children, to calm down. Those parents think that ADD/ADHD medicat...ions do that, so they demand those medications from their physicians.

The problem is, as most of the comments so far seem to understand, that ADD/ADHD medications are stimulants. Children who actually have sensation receptor problems seem hyperactive because they must speak loudly, and slap things instead of touching them, just to receive the same sensation that a child without ADD/ADHD does. Stimulate the child that actually has ADD/ADHD and the treatment is successful in a high percentage of cases, but stimulate the child who actually does not have ADD/ADHD then you have only increased the supposed hyperactivity of that child.

This reminded me of a book I read recently, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. It said that physicians can legally take tissue samples from you, without your consent, any time you visit them. Even today.

Massive spread of light pollution does affect animals, migration patterns, etc. But I won't go into the details here. But.. I am familiar with such issues being involved in Astronomy, optics, etc. A friend is also a president, and physician in a major medical society within the US. They have solid science backing such things and how light pollution can affect people and animals in negative ways.

Sure light pollution can't be rid off 100%. The 9/11 memorial isn't on 24/7 every day, so that isn't a major problem either. We're talking in a practical sense, not in an absolute sense. Most cases of light pollution is quite simple to solve. Use a full cut-off fixture. You can cut down the lumens of the bulb. Saving yourself a great deal in cost for both electricity and the fixture. Rather than blasting wasted watts into the sky, focus it where you need it, Right down the the ground. A rather simple concept really.

If only every state would take it into consideration, it would save taxpayers huge sums of money in public electricity bills. Some states in the US, and some other nations, have adopted such policies/laws and it has shown it's effectiveness. There is often resistance to such change. We always see it from one sector. The lighting industry. They throw a lot of money to prevent states from making sensible decisions to save taxpayers cash. Often presenting bogus science, or no-name experts. Unfortunately for them in our area, we have an army of professors from big name local educational institutions to call upon. Not everyone is so lucky however. Still, it is sometimes hard to bear fruit as politicians tend to be more likely to listen to money before science.

So my point is about light pollution awareness in general. Most people aren't even aware of it, so I took the opportunity to mention it in this context as you can actually see the affect it can happen on wildlife. In the case for the 9/11 monument, I'm not concerned about it. It is a memorial that is not on 24/7. If the lights were, then it certainly could become an issue.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^honkeytonk73:
.... and light pollution supposedly causes no harm ....

A) Who says that?
B) Where is the harm in this instance? The lights were switched off for 20 minutes 5x to allow the birds to reorient. So, what, we wasted maybe 45 minutes of their time?

The NAACP did not call the entire tea party racist.

This is the same kind of thing where Obama says his health care plan will not have "death panels" and yet at then in a few weeks he recess appoints a guy to be in charge of rationing health care. I will dissassemble the weasel-speak of the NAACP, if I may...

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/07/16/tea.party.resolution/

Instead of joining us to repudiate racism, Tea Party leaders have attempted a tit for tat and demanded that we condemn the New Black Panther Party for reported hate speech.

This statement implies that the Tea Party has not repudiated racism. This is a blatant falsehood. When racism shows up, the national movement has condemned it. They do so repeatedly.

http://thenationalteapartyfederation.com/press_room.html

"The Federation does not and will not tolerate any form of racism, violence or hate speech... We believe to our core that racism and hate speech have no place in civil political discourse and debate..."

So Jealous & the NAACP are full of crap. The Tea Party does condemn racism. That doesn't stop left wing astroturf from showing up to promulgate it, nor does it stop racist hanger-ons who just show up. But the accusation that the Tea Party does not reject racism is patently false.

"And the New Black Panther Party is not a member of the NAACP. What we are asking the Tea Party to eschew is not the racism of some outside organization, but the bigotry within."

So - because the NBP aren't members of the NAACP means that their racism is OK and not worth condeming? A lot of the people who are accused of being racists aren't members of the Tea party officially (show me the proof) - so by his logic that makes them OK, right? This is a hypocritical double-standard of the worst kind and for the NAACP to make this argument makes them the lowest form of race hucksters.

With increased influence comes increased responsibility

Physician - heal thyself.

In fact her response has been to claim there are no racist elements in the tea party.

in the first place, Palin isn't a representative of the Tea Party as far as I am aware. She agrees with their positions, but is not a spokesperson. Second, she's right. The OFFICIAL position of the Tea Party - their mission statements and their objectives - have absolutely no racist element to them whatsoever. Period. End of story. As shown above - their official position is to condemn racism and racists.

What is happening here is the NAACP & left wing kooks are using the actions of a small fraction of extremist hanger-ons to try and condemn a larger movement. It is disingenous, false, and slimy. To use such tactics makes THEM the racists - not the tea party - because they are deliberately (and falsely) using race to advance their cause. The tea party does not do this, which is why they make the charges of reverse racism at the NAACP. And the charge has merit because the NAACP is the one running around looking at the world through race colored lenses.

I recommend his book "The Death of Common Sense." I see "defensive medicine" practiced on a daily basis. It's pervasive and physicians are compelled to do it, despite knowing it's unnecessary. They know it sometimes puts patients at greater risk from unnecessary invasive procedures. The threat of lawsuits DOES NOT MAKE MEDICINE MORE SAFE. It just makes physicians feel vulnerable and depressed.

>> ^kronosposeidon:

The title is a bit misleading, because the child didn't have sex reassignment surgery, or a "sex change," as most people term it. I don't think any ethical physician would perform sex reassignment surgery on a child. This child would be considered transgendered.
I know the whole transgender/homosexuality subject is tricky at times. My younger brother also used to wrap towels around his head and call himself "Lindy" when he was just three or four years old. He also used to have some toys that were gender normative for girls. If you haven't guessed by now, he's gay, and he's happy being a gay man. He doesn't want to be a woman. That's why doctors would never perform sex reassignment surgery on a child, because it's way too soon for them to properly judge what they really want to be. Hell, a lot of transgendered adults aren't sure what they want to be exactly. That's why many of them are refused for sex reassignment surgery.
I grew up in Omaha, and even though it's a fairly large city (750,000 in the greater Omaha area), I bet from this report that most people will be able to figure out who this kid is anyway. It's a big small town, you might say. I wish her the best.

Yea, my "brother" did the same things. The sad thing is, I was an only child. So yea, I played with dolls, didn't have a strong father figure in my life to take notes from. The fact of the matter is, I didn't have a real sexuality before puberty. I wasn't a sexual being. I was asexual. Whatever I did was driven by learned behavior and not by hormonal directives. So, now I'm a straight male, and I'm glad my mom didn't stifle my "different" behavior, but I wasn't decidedly a female because of these things.