I had to go to the doctor recently for a suspected hernia. My regular GP was on holiday, and I was somewhat surprised when this very pleasant young lady walked into the room asking what she could do for me.
While she was in that "area", I took the opportunity to express my extreme disappointment and life long distress at having been circumcised. This is more or less how the conversation went:
Her: "I am sorry you are not happy with your circumcision. Was it botched?"
" I would not call it botched, but all circumcisions cause so much damage, both physicaly and psychologicaly. I am not looking for sympathy. I just want to see the procedure stopped.
Her: "Well, we try to give parents balanced information".
"But the penis in question belongs to the baby, not the parents. It should be his choice."
Her: "From studies in Africa it appears that there is a slight reduction in the acquisition of STDs, but not enough to warrant circumcision. Consistent use of condoms would be much better"
"There are many who would refute those studies. The U.S. has the highest rate of infant circumcision and also the highest rate of HIV in the developed world. If you hacked pieces off your daughter, or even your dog, you would likely end up in jail".
Her: "You are probably right!"
I would have loved to have an in depth conversation with her, but they only allot 10 minutes to a visit, and unfortunately I will probably never see her again. But what disappointed me was that this is Canada. RIC is not that common here any more, and she is young and up to date. Where does this "balanced information" come from? I would like to think that smart young doctors like her would actively discourage parents from circumcising their sons.