# Doctors recommending that disabled/sick/special needs children be circumcised



## carriebft (Mar 10, 2007)

Alright, I am lumping these all together but I do not mean to. I know they are all separate categories at times...

But basically, in another conversation, the topic of doctors recommending circumcision for children who are immunocompromised and special needs came up. The gist of it was that doctors recommended the circumcision because of the increased risk of infections (which could kill the child with immune problems) and also the mental risks associated with circumcision at an older age. Also the boy might not have the capability of washing himself (or perhaps not the mental ability to remember/be able to do it)

This conversation sparked a question for me...have we forgotten this group of boys? Is it common that circumcision is recommended for boys like this?

What can we do about it?

What points are there to bring up?

What research do we have out there for circumcision for boys with downs and the like?

Just want to at least start a convo on this so the issue is out there.

For our nonUS members: what would doctors in your country say?


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

The only reason this isn't met with outrage is the fact that RIC is still so "normal" here.

I wonder if there would be an outrage in Europe if Drs. were routinely advising RIC of disabled or special needs individuals.

-Angela


----------



## carriebft (Mar 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
The only reason this isn't met with outrage is the fact that RIC is still so "normal" here.

I wonder if there would be an outrage in Europe if Drs. were routinely advising RIC of disabled or special needs individuals.

-Angela

I am VERY curious about that as well. I hope some of our nonamerican members will weigh in.

Finlands circumcision numbers are so low, i cannot imagine special needs children are being cut. I wonder if there has ever been writing on the subject.


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

I don't believe that would be a reasonable recommendation unless the doctors would be willing to make the same recommendation for special needs girls. A mentally handicapped girl might also forget to clean btwn her folds. I still can't imagine drs suggesting that we should remove her labia, though.


----------



## christifav (Nov 10, 2005)

This reminds me of sterilizing the mentally ill or the family that had their daughters ovaries removed so she would not grow and become cumbersome to care for.

Ok, people with special needs still poop, right? Someone needs to clean that crap up, so why can't they clean the smegma, too?

Since when does having a special need mean you don't have the same rights as an able-bodied person? They are not horses, they are PEOPLE. (I'm not advocating cruelty to horses, I'm just saying that too many people view those with disabilities as animals, not human.)


----------



## carriebft (Mar 10, 2007)

Another issue that was brought up: can a person with mental retardation (these were the words used- borderline "retarded"-- so I do not mean to be offensive to anyone; please let me know if you prefer other words to be used in this discussion) learn to retract and replace the foreskin?

Isn't this kind of like the question of elderly as well?


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

I would think that an individual who takes care of their own personal care could take care of a penis. Someone who needs help with those things, would obviously need help.

But again. No one has ever suggested (that I've heard) removing labia on disabled females. And that is certainly more complicated to clean than any penis.

-Angela


----------



## carriebft (Mar 10, 2007)

Maybe I will email the DOC and see what they have to say on this issue as well. I know that NOCIRC has a specific pamphlet on caring for the elderly...maybe something for this situation as well would be warranted? I will email them as well.


----------



## wytchywoman (Nov 14, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *carriebft* 
Another issue that was brought up: can a person with mental retardation (these were the words used- borderline "retarded"-- so I do not mean to be offensive to anyone; please let me know if you prefer other words to be used in this discussion) learn to retract and replace the foreskin?

Isn't this kind of like the question of elderly as well?

That depends on their level of functioning. I would think that if you could teach the person to brush their teeth, wash their hair and scrub behind their ears then you could teach them to retract, rinse and replace. Quite simple really. As for the arguement of circing an immunocompromised kid to prevent infection, foreskin actually does prevent infections by providing a barrier to the opening of the urethra in much the same way that a hymen and the labia act as a barrier for a vagina. It is one of the bodies defense mechanisms to keep bacteria and dirt and whatnot away from that opening. Secondly, isn't a kid who's had surgery at higher than normal risk for infection anyways? So their line of reasoning says that in order to prevent infection they need to perform an act that will put the child at greater risk of infection.







:
Once again, stupid dr's astound me.


----------



## runes (Aug 5, 2004)

along the same lines of thinking, should girls with developmental disabilities be treated in some way so that they don't have to deal with menstruation?

i worked in a high school for students with special needs, and rest assured that girls with cognitive impairments are able to manage pads just fine. some of them may need supervision or verbal cueing.

i remember one day, one of my students came into my office and flopped down on the mats with a sad look on her face. after a bit of prodding, she revealed to me that she wasn't feeling well and had painful cramps as she had just gotten her period. i was able to teach her some stretches and breathing exercises to help her feel better. she was totally independent in managing pads and even knew when to use pads vs. pantiliners.

dealing with menstruation or retracting to clean an intact foreskin are activities of daily living that needs to be taught, and it should not be a big deal at all.


----------



## glongley (Jun 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *carriebft* 
Maybe I will email the DOC and see what they have to say on this issue as well. I know that NOCIRC has a specific pamphlet on caring for the elderly...maybe something for this situation as well would be warranted? I will email them as well.

The NOCIRC pamphlet #8 is on care of the geriatric/disabled population, so they have already recognized the need for this.

http://www.nocirc.org/publish/8pam.pdf

Gillian


----------



## carriebft (Mar 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *glongley* 
The NOCIRC pamphlet #8 is on care of the geriatric/disabled population, so they have already recognized the need for this.

http://www.nocirc.org/publish/8pam.pdf

Gillian

ah ok! i didnt realize it was for both...had been a while since glancing at it. excellent.


----------



## anubis (Oct 6, 2006)

This is one of the most ridiculous things I have heard in my life. Not one responsible doctor in Europe would suggest such. Oh, those troublesome disabled people, let's cut bits off them so that we don't have to take care of their basic hygiene/teach them to take care of it themselves. As long as the rate of infection is higher following surgery than in a normal, intact foreskin, I just think it's stupid.


----------



## carriebft (Mar 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kidspiration* 
along the same lines of thinking, should girls with developmental disabilities be treated in some way so that they don't have to deal with menstruation?

i worked in a high school for students with special needs, and rest assured that girls with cognitive impairments are able to manage pads just fine. some of them may need supervision or verbal cueing.

i remember one day, one of my students came into my office and flopped down on the mats with a sad look on her face. after a bit of prodding, she revealed to me that she wasn't feeling well and had painful cramps as she had just gotten her period. i was able to teach her some stretches and breathing exercises to help her feel better. she was totally independent in managing pads and even knew when to use pads vs. pantiliners.

dealing with menstruation or retracting to clean an intact foreskin are activities of daily living that needs to be taught, and it should not be a big deal at all.

Thank you for sharing this. I feel like talking about teaching a special needs female to use pads and comparing that to washing the foreskin- and adding in that help and cues may be needed- would be effective.

While the NOCIRC pamphlet does address some issues, I feel like others are not in there but could be useful-- more geared at worried parents than health care workers.


----------



## carriebft (Mar 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *anubis* 
This is one of the most ridiculous things I have heard in my life. Not one responsible doctor in Europe would suggest such. Oh, those troublesome disabled people, let's cut bits off them so that we don't have to take care of their basic hygiene/teach them to take care of it themselves. As long as the rate of infection is higher following surgery than in a normal, intact foreskin, I just think it's stupid.

It's so refreshing to hear European takes on things like this. Sometimes after all the American BS on this issue, I just need a little "WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!"

and

"YOU DO *WHAT* TO LITTLE BOYS???!!!"

Like at the MArch for Genital Integrity in Washginton...so many foreigners just thought the whole thing was a joke-- "wait, you are not really serious?! Americans don't _really_ do this to their sons, right???"

________________

Another thing I thought of-- some australian hospitals banned non medically necessary circumcisions recently. I wonder what their take on this kind of thing is?


----------



## fruitful womb (Nov 20, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wytchywoman* 
That depends on their level of functioning. I would think that if you could teach the person to brush their teeth, wash their hair and scrub behind their ears then you could teach them to retract, rinse and replace. Quite simple really. As for the argument of circing an immunocompromised kid to prevent infection, *foreskin actually does prevent infections by providing a barrier to the opening of the urethra in much the same way that a hymen and the labia act as a barrier for a vagina. It is one of the bodies defense mechanisms to keep bacteria and dirt and whatnot away from that opening.* Secondly, isn't a kid who's had surgery at higher than normal risk for infection anyways? So their line of reasoning says that in order to prevent infection they need to perform an act that will put the child at greater risk of infection.







:
Once again, stupid dr's astound me.

You've made excellent points!
Stupidity gets the best of dr.'s when they're infected with greed as well as pride. I feel so insulted when they try to use that on me. My children's Pediatrician will stumble when he talks to me about intact penises because I use terms he has never heard of., like synechtomy (sp?). I'll catch him just before he'll say, "They had to be circumcised for xyz reasons". I know he is going there, like when he said a child was ballooning I interrupted, "my ds thinks ballooning is fun!







" I totally refute anything out of the ordinary to make it seem very normal. He'll blush and nervously laugh and tell me, "I've never heard of that before." Kinda sad actually. Only in America,being a developed country and all,







: I'm so envious of other countries that do not circ their newborns. They're actually SMARTER than the money mongering dr's here. Disclaimer: not all US dr.s are like this. The good ones are usually the ones born from a country that do not circ newborns anyways. Or the ones that learned from other non-circing countries.

Dr.'s will keep finding excuses to circ until the day the majority realize the horror it really is. It'll stop when dr.s stop getting paid of course. *sigh, stomps off for more rubious tea*.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

I am really feeling deeply disturbed by this.

I am imagining being a mother with a special needs son and being bullied into this.

Somehow realizing what you'd done and WHY you'd done it seems even worse when your whole (misguided) reasoning is based on your child's disability.

Historically, such awful things have been done to our children who need the most protection. I'm sickened to think it's still happening.

-Angela


----------



## eepster (Sep 20, 2006)

This seems like a good subject to apply the _toe standard_ to.

How would a parent feel about removing the toes of a special needs child.

It would have many advantages to have the child toeless. One wouldn't have to teach them to cut their toe nails, b/c SN people often have issues with the fine motor skills needed to cut toe nails. It would prevent toe stubbing for those that have issues with gross motor skills. It would completely remove the possibilty of ingrown toe nails and toe nail fungus, for those with immune system problems. Most of all though what if the toe had to be removed later when the child is older and would remember.

If even after considering all those reasons to remove the toes one chooses to skip toe amputation for their child then it only stands to reason that the child should keep all their parts till they actually have a real problem.


----------



## savienu (May 26, 2007)

I have had people tell me who work in the special needs feel with physically and mentally girls and boys that she wished some of the boys were circ'd because it's "so hard" to keep them clean. I was still learning about circ at the time, so I didn't ask her what she did about the girls. Her special needs son is intact though. I mentioned him in the other thread, the 13 year old who has trouble washing his hair, but has no problem with the foreskin.


----------



## Mommiska (Jan 3, 2002)

I'm in Europe as well (Scotland), and you would never get anyone suggesting anything like that over here.

I actually spent 5 years working with special needs adults. One of them was male, 3 were female. All needed help with personal care. And you know what? Not one of them needed really invasive cleaning of their private parts. We helped them clean their bums after going to the bathroom, but with a bit of verbal prompting (and all 4 of these individuals would be considered very low functioning - probably ranging from about 2-4 year old levels), they managed.

I had no clue about intact/circed back then, but the one male was intact and he never had a problem with his penis in the 5 years I worked with him.

He did, however, have an ingrown toe nail once and he also had toe nail fungus. So perhaps it really should have been his toes that were chopped off at birth?







:







:


----------



## Daisyuk (May 15, 2005)

It does actually make one wonder exactly _what_ these "nurses" who are moaning about having to care for their patients are actually doing to them, doesn't it?

There have been a lot of problems with vulnerable person abuse, I can't help but wonder if these women are unnecessarily invading these men, just because they can. Why do they feel that they have to interfere with their genitals anyway?


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

I also don't understand what is meant by some boys/men not knowing how to cope with self-hygenine.

My uncirc'ed, un retracted ds is doing just fine after 7 years- I've never really taught him anything about penis care, tbh. It all seemed so uneccessary. He doesn't even know the meaning of 'retract'. Or 'smegma'.

What the hell is smegma, exactly, anyway??.......


----------



## savienu (May 26, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aussiemum* 

What the hell is smegma, exactly, anyway??.......

Evil stuff that causes infections in intact boys.







:

/sarcasm


----------



## cravenab00 (May 25, 2005)

this is a very real issue. DH is a nurse and works at a facility that houses moderate/severe to profoundly handicapped children and some adults. There are a handful that are intact, and DH has to educate the aides again, and again, and AGAIN on proper care. One aide that was new thought she new what she was doing and was retracting, scrubbing them with SOAP and then LEAVING the foreskin retracted, until someone else saw it, which was usually the next shift. And then when the poor man ended up with an infection (duh!) everyone was like, why cant they just circumcise him?









i will never EVER understand why people would rather suggest or demand surgery, than take 2 minutes to learn about intact care.


----------



## savienu (May 26, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cravenab00* 
this is a very real issue. DH is a nurse and works at a facility that houses moderate/severe to profoundly handicapped children and some adults. There are a handful that are intact, and DH has to educate the aides again, and again, and AGAIN on proper care. One aide that was new thought she new what she was doing and was retracting, scrubbing them with SOAP and then LEAVING the foreskin retracted, until someone else saw it, which was usually the next shift. And then when the poor man ended up with an infection (duh!) everyone was like, why cant they just circumcise him?










i will never EVER understand why people would rather suggest or demand surgery, than take 2 minutes to learn about intact care.

The stupid. It hurts.


----------



## Papai (Apr 9, 2007)

Why can't we just see what countries like Brazil and the UK do with their disabled and elderly?

The US is just mind-boggling sometimes.


----------



## MommytoB (Jan 18, 2006)

I think they are so scared of foreskin because they been victims of the circumcision surgery themselves along with females doctors who do the circumcision then end up circumcising their boys-then that is why they don't want to learn about foreskin -funrctions,protection and alternatives treatment if they did would mean a few things for them to have to face:

One facing that they were harmed for no reason and continued harming boys along with promoting the harming and destroying healthy functioning body part-I consider foreskin a body part.

Two Lost of Money of 3 extra billion dollars for doctors,along with insurance companies they get reimbursed for this,along with the lube industry will go down the drain into bankruptcy because when you have natural lube not likely you will need anymore,sex drugs would not be bought as much as they used to be.
Along with the companies that produces the tools for circumcision will be out of money.

But i think the most face the fear of admitting they did wrong and that's why they never want to learn the truth


----------



## carriebft (Mar 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Papai* 
Why can't we just see what countries like Brazil and the UK do with their disabled and elderly?

The US is just mind-boggling sometimes.

I have been thinking about this all night and this morning.

How do the American views on children and the elderly differ from other cultures? what part does circumcision play in this? Do we have less respect for children? the disabled? the elderly? or do we view their care as more of a burden than other societies?

Why can something like this happen here and not elsewhere? How can we change it here?

So many questions and I just have no answers







:


----------



## Claire and Boys (Mar 27, 2007)

I'd like to say that it would never happen over here (the UK) but I'm not really that sure. A friend of my mum's has a daughter who is around 40 now and was born with a chromosome defect. She has severe learning difficulties, is blind, cannot speak, etc. She needs 24/7 care and needs personal hygiene care as well. When she hit puberty the Drs here wanted to give her a constant dose of the Pill to prevent her from having periods so the parents would not have to deal with the cleaning. They refused as they felt it was wrong to pump her with hormones and they just dealt with it.


----------



## ScotchIrishMommy (Oct 16, 2004)

I really don't understand why these children are singled out - and just ONE healthy part of their body is singled out - for removal.

And what do they do about girls and their periods, for example ?


----------



## carriebft (Mar 10, 2007)

This is interesting to think about by way of comparison:

http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/20...ped1-0608.html

it is an article concerning whether or not parents should be permitted to allow cosmetic surgery on down's children.

Can these two ideas- changing the face of a child with down's and circumcision be related? that is, perhaps there is something deeper going on concerning normalcy....circ being what people feel is 'the norm' here in the USA.


----------



## Microsoap (Dec 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ScotchIrishMommy* 
I really don't understand why these children are singled out - and just ONE healthy part of their body is singled out - for removal.

And what do they do about girls and their periods, for example ?

Yeah, if you wanted to get over-the-top stupid, you could say the same about getting girls hysterectomies which would "benefit" them at birth, because when they're at that age where health checks are necessary, it probably wouldn't occur to them, and you have _no idea_ who will be caring for them in 30+ years. Same things about mastectomies.

Sound insane? Sound familiar?


----------



## LoveChild421 (Sep 10, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *carriebft* 
The gist of it was that doctors recommended the circumcision because of the increased risk of infections (which could kill the child with immune problems)

I wonder if Drs forget that circumcision itself carries a risk of infection, as any surgery does especially in immuno-compromised people. And MRSA super-staph is a hospital aquired infection (although there have been a few cases contracted outside of the hospital). Have any of you seen the picture of a baby who was circed and contracted super-staph on the Dr.s against Circ. website? I would link it but to me its too disturbing. I had a panic attack seeing that and knowing that all that had to be done to prevent it was to leave that poor baby alone.


----------



## urchin_grey (Sep 26, 2006)

That's rediculous.







: My DS is SN and there's no way I'm chopping anything off just because it might mean more work for me. Gah.


----------



## Mommiska (Jan 3, 2002)

To be honest, as the sister of an adopted SN brother - I think the proportion of special needs males who are intact is most likely much, much higher than the proportion of males in the general population.

No matter what some people might claim, it simply is not on the radar screen for most doctors (even in America) to start unnecessarily chopping body parts off children who are already struggling/are immuno-compromised/etc.

SN children who are clearly identified as such at birth (particularly ones with additional health problems which are/can be life threatening) are not going to be offered up by doctors as ideal candidates for elective cosmetic surgery. No matter what people say, doctors' aren't stupid and are well aware of the reality of malpractice suits.







:

Just imagine a doctor solicited unnecessary surgery on an immuno-compromised child, the child got a staff infection and died. The original immuno-compromised state is a contraindication for the circumcision. Any lawyer would have a field day and the settlement to the parents woudl be huge. Doctors know this.

While I think this is an important issue, and the fact that there are people out there who want to circumcise SN children shows an appalling lack of respect for the personhood of the SN individual, I do think this is red herring.

Pro-circs want to come up with any reason AT ALL to convince people that circumcision should be a parental choice, rather than a choice made by the owner of the penis in question (as the vast majority of penis owners are not going to chose to have anything cut off them!).

They are grasping at straws - this is the best they can come up with. It simply shows how weak their position is. I think this is important to point out and remember.


----------



## carriebft (Mar 10, 2007)

Quote:

Pro-circs want to come up with any reason AT ALL to convince people that circumcision should be a parental choice, rather than a choice made by the owner of the penis in question (as the vast majority of penis owners are not going to chose to have anything cut off them!).
I think this may be exactly what happened here.


----------



## Mommiska (Jan 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *carriebft* 
I think this may be exactly what happened here.











When thinking about seriously ill babies - parents need to make medical decisions for them. If a child needs his fingers or toes cut off for some genuine _medical_ reason, then parents can consent to that operation.

Most parents would consent to an operation to remove toes/fingers with great sorrow, and only after exhausting all other options, because they realise the difficulties a child will experience without fingers or toes.

But of course, NO ONE would argue that parents have a God-given right, as parents, to amputate their children's toes, just because 'they like the way it looks', there are 'potential medical benefits' - no hang nails/ingrown toenails/etc, or because Daddy had his toes/fingers amputated.

This is the red herring that pro-circs will throw out with respect to circ - 'I _had_ to circ my son, or he would suffer horrible pain/die/etc'.

But they'll only hand out unsubstantiated statistics/opinions - and they'll refuse to post any kind of medical research to back up their claims.

If you think about it, it doesn't make any sense at all. But this isn't a rational appeal - it's an emotional one. And it will hold more sway in the States, with people who don't understand the function of the foreskin, its role in keeping the penis clean/protected, as well as its role in normal sexual relations.

It's an emotional appeal, based on the idea that the foreskin has no value (which we all know to be untrue).

As I said before, we need to call this tactic what it is - desperation. This is the best pro-circs can come up with in the face of the overwhelming evidence of the harm caused by circumcision - which is a cosmetic surgery foisted on an unwilling and unconsenting individual in order to make _someone else_ feel good/better about themselves in some way.


----------



## kxsiven (Nov 2, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *carriebft* 
For our nonUS members: what would doctors in your country say?


Not done. Absolutely NOT done. That would be concidered very much against human rights. Why not start to pull teeth out since maybe person doesn't remember to brush teeth?
Any case, if indeed a person is so disabled that he can't take(or remember)care of his personal hygiene, he will be under somekind of care/check up.


----------



## AstridS (Mar 9, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *carriebft* 

For our nonUS members: what would doctors in your country say?

This would never happen here! It would be concidered highly unethical to perform surgery on a disabled/sick/special needs child, just for the benefit of the caregivers.

And we have social medicine, so unnessecary surgery is not a source of income, it's an extra expence for the hospital and of course they are not interested in that.


----------



## lastrid (Jan 20, 2007)

While my 23 year old brother with downs is unfortunately circed, I'm pretty sure he would have no trouble keeping that area clean. He can brush his teeth and hair, dress himself, make food for himself, and use a key. The whole thing is idiotic. I was reading a thread about this yesterday on another popular debate board and it made me want to cry and scream. One mother was apparently taken in by this argument (maybe there's more to the story, I don't know) and circed her son with DS after leaving the prior three intact.







:


----------



## Bm31 (Jun 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AstridS* 
It would be concidered highly unethical to perform surgery on a disabled/sick/special needs child, just for the benefit of the caregivers.

It is unethical. I can't speak about it from the special needs child's perspective, but I've heard the "how awful it will be when they go to the nursing home" excuse from pro-circ's before.

I recently had the unfortunate necessity of putting my mother in a nursing home. I don't think it's anything out of the ordinary, and what finally struck me was how few men actually are there. The ratio has to be at least 10:1 women to men. In fact, I've only actually seen two men in several visits there. The one is old enough that he might be intact, but he appears highly functional and well groomed. I wouldn't doubt he cleans himself without much assistance. The other is actually a fairly young guy, though he is parapalegic. I have little doubt, given his age and being from this area (midwest), he is circ'd. The thing is, he's also highly obese. I'm sure he needs assistance cleaning his genitals and I doubt being circ'd makes it that much easier for the aides.

So I just don't get anyone who would circ. a child based on something they saw or heard in a nursing home. It's nothing but LAZINESS by those who are suppose to be doing their JOB. Really, just how much time and extra trouble does that one intact man cause when for every one of him there's ten women that are likely to need much more assistance??!!! The pro-circ's can find a way to make the foreskin a scapegoat in just about ANY situation.


----------



## trmpetplaya (May 30, 2005)

The other issue that is ignored when pro-circ folks come and start giving "medical" reasons for circumcision is that if a child truly DOES need a medical circumcision then it wouldn't be illegal to do it even if elective circumcision on minors wasn't permitted. If a baby girl or young girl was going to DIE or be seriously ill, etc if her labia remained intact then I'm sure the doctor would present this information to her parents and they would be allowed to make the decision to amputate. However, that choice wouldn't be presented until ALL other options were tried and had failed.

The same *should* be true wrt boys and circumcision if it wasn't accepted or legal. Instead, male circumcision (probably because it is legal as an elective procedure and culturally accepted in the US) is often presented FIRST before trying anything else (even if the other options are as non-invasive as an antibiotic or antifungal cream).

I have to say (back to the OP), having a period is WAY more work than having an intact penis. My intact dh agrees with me wholeheartedly about that







:

love and peace.


----------



## Daisyuk (May 15, 2005)

http://news.independent.co.uk/health/article3038485.ece

Looks like cutting healthy parts out of disabled people can happen here too, to aid the convenience of their carers (disguised as in the best interests of their child, of course). Looks like she's going to lose her appendix at the same time.

Slippery slope to forced sterilisation and eugenics here we come.








:


----------



## Claire and Boys (Mar 27, 2007)

another example of the same... disgusting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Treatment


----------



## Daisyuk (May 15, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Claire and Boys* 
another example of the same... disgusting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Treatment

That's the case that started some parents over here thinking they'd like to do the same. No-one would have even considered this if it hadn't been for all the publicity that case generated (almost all negative, admittedly), it has certainly never been done in the past. That's what scares me, we seem to be getting contaminated by American ideas....how long before genital mutilation crosses the atlantic too?







:

Perhaps it would be in the "best interests" of these children if they didn't exist at all. How long before we see parents applying to have them quietly put to sleep, after all, they wouldn't have to suffer any indignity at all then, would they.


----------

