[ ARC forum 2 ]
Proof of the pudding . . .
As an answer to: I do find such inquiries quite curious for this reason written by Jim at 17 Nov 2002 06:20:34:
> The only explanation I really needed was that she was successful at treating what I wanted treated. I trusted her, and the treatment was successful.
Which illuminates the point that we are not by any means critical of doctors or surgeons as a genera, most being perfectly ethical, but rather that there are some situations, circumcision being one of them, where some doctors are either less than competent, or are enticed by the allure of "easy" income at the expense of the uneducated (which may in this respect, include quite a wide slice of society).
> I'm sure Paul that you have treated many a problem which was never suffered by you personally. Am I right?
I would most certainly hope to suffer very few indeed of the things I see, 
if only as I hope to be running around for not just the next few days, but a fairly long time!
> Am I also correct in assuming that you don't always need to see the patient in order to make a diagnosis of a rather simple problem? I have keen recollection of treatments by my childhood doctor that did not require a visit to town to see him.
Swings and roundabouts here. The legal situation being what is is, one can no longer afford to make any judgement in any case where there is the slightest possibility of something serious, without a direct examination. 
That said, and contingent on the accrual of much experience, there are situations where a problem is clearly an exhibition of a previously known and readily controlled condition, or a quite straightforward matter where serious possibilities can be excluded to the necessary degree of safety, where personal examination may be deferred or avoided (presuming the advice proves promptly and completely effective) if it inconvenient.
A favourite example of mine, of the latter situation, is a call detailing a young girl who wakes in the middle of the night in extreme distress and utter panic due to severe vulval irritation. Particularly since I have the experience of this within my own family, I am able with confidence to advise on cause and remedy without further trouble (and something which threatens to get me out when I am asleep, most certainly is trouble)! 
> This entire line of curiosity is just plain ridiculous when one considers the facts. Guy presents problem. Jim advises solution. Guy employs advice and solves problem. What else is necessary to know?
Quite so.
> It is also interesting how one individual can spend some much wasted time using phony name after name, and approach after approach to seek an answer that no one really seems to need.
Now Jim, may I say yet again that it is not necessary to surmise that there is but one and only one troll in existence, or on this forum, and that his mane is - whatever AJ's name actually happens to be. Indeed, in this regard, is it not just a little bit of "tit for tat" or "Getting your own medicine" considering the obsession you have exhibited to determine AJ's "real identity"? 
True, "Rad", possibly "Greg", "GW" and most certainly "Tara" do appear to have an uncanny proclivity to parrot AJ's mantras verbatim, but have you not considered the alternate explanation - that they are simply not very creative people - which is after all, a pretty much universal discriminant of the circumcision fetishists when you get down to the basics of the matter, isn't it now? 