Circumcision is NOT medically-necessary, unless of course, you live in sub-Sahara African where HIV is rampant and condoms are rarely used. This is really the only place where a cracked foreskin may make a person more vulnerable to blood-borne pathogens. Otherwise, circumcision is a cosmetic procedure where parents (or just the mother) makes a decision that they want their son's penis to look like it's wearing a helmet, instead of sporting a turtle neck sweater.
Why do you think that millions of years of evolution has left the foreskin intact? The foreskin protects the ultra-sensitive tissue on the head of the penis, just the way an eyelid protects the eyes, or the labia protects the delicate female genitalia. Cancer of the penis is extremely rare and does involve the foreskin, but to remove the foreskin of all boys to prevent penile cancer does not make sense. Breast cancer is more prevalent, but not one is suggesting we remove all breast to prevent it.
I offer parents the choice, but I make them read both the pro and con regarding circumcision. And, I support whatever decision that make without any judgements, eye-rolling, etc. If they want their child circumcised, I have someone else in my office do it. I made a personal decision four decades ago, that I would not do circs. If we had boys wait until they were, say twelve, and ask them if they would like a piece of their penis removed, I suspect we would have few takers.
This is a hot topic, my friends, with lots of opinions. Please remember that the vast majority of men on this planet are uncircumcised....just the way God made them. Even Jews are actively questioning the rationale of this 3000 year old religious, tribal covenant.View Thread
Not all people with a BMI that labels them as obese, are obese by choice, such as over-eating and under-exercising. Many have true endocine issues, problems with mobility, or are taking medications such as steroids that cause excess weight gain. To lump all obese people into one category and charge them more for insurance would be like charging men more than women, or straight people more than gays.
Yes, obesity is a healthy risk, but unless there are mechanisms in place to help those with weight issues (many insurances will not even pay for a nutritionist, etc.), then it is going to be a nightmare in sorting out those with metabolic obesity versus behavioral -- those who eat donuts all day.
If you want to start with risky behavior, start with SMOKING or tobacco use. You can charge them more, since there are not medical reasons (other than tobacco addiction - a "soft" diagnosis, for sure), to smoke.
What about the people who don't use seatbelts? Should they pay more? Or, those engaged in other risky behaviors?
Don't punish the obese.....find a strategy to help them. Everyone is different and treatments must be individualized.View Thread