[ ARC forum 2 ]
Written by Paul B. at 19 Apr 2003 08:04:18: Intellectual honesty revisited
As an answer to: Re: The dreaded BXO written by Rood at 19 Apr 2003 05:47:33:
Korydon, in this discussion, one needs to consider the balance that a doctor faces, in reconciling scruples against the need to earn a living. And as it occurs to me just now, think how much worse is the dilemma for a lawyer, who must surely realise almost a majority of the time, that his client is not only guilty, but thoroughly reprehensible.
Point is, a doctor attempts to do what is in the patient's interests, and much of the time, this is defined in terms of the patient's expectations. It is all very well, to attempt to "educate" the patient so that his (her) expectations can be corrected (of course, even here, "relativism" rears its ugly maw), but the point of contact is frequently far too late. You only need consider some of our regular - and irregular - contributors here to see exactly that. Where they have expectations, is is very frequently all one can do, to follow those expectations.
So there you are. Where a person, and more importantly, a society, understands the value of a part, then medical practice will alter to preserve that part, as happened with women's clitorides (and remember - it was not always so!).
> It only seems strange that there is so much confusion, particularly among doctors,
The doctors know. Perhaps not all, but many of them would most happily make the attempt to preserve sexual function, but the patient may see it the other way - "I want it off!". You know this already (from this forum) - you can attempt to explain that the foreskin is a valuable sexual apparatus, but the patient has never associated anything other than the glans, with sexual function, and the foreskin by this time is positively identified with his problem (whether or not it is in fact, a problem at all) and only a cut will satisfy that expectation.
> Or is there dissention in the ranks?
Yes, and no. You cannot blame a surgeon who is faced by people with a problem, who expect that problem to be instantly removed, and who exhibit great satisfaction when this is done, if he concludes that is the "right" way to treat something. People and even doctors, are notoriously short-sighted, and so it follows for smoking, drunk driving, abortion, lack of insurance of all kinds, and not to be forgotten, relationships. And it is this cavalier attitude as applied to the foreskin, that keeps circumcision - and the doctors who practice it - in existence.
I should by rights have included a detailed analysis of why complete solidarity amongst doctors cannot be expected and may even be counter-productive. You only have to look back - as you have in your other post - to times when the "accepted" thing was a hideous perversion, and I'm not just talking of circumcision. It is each doctor's privilege and duty to make his own mind up about how (s)he practices. Only by research, education and consensus can the practice progress.
Well, perhaps this does, perhaps it does not satisfy you!