# I'm impressed by Planned parenthood



## MommytoB (Jan 18, 2006)

It actually states that in most cases circumcision has 'no health benefit ' and is only done culturally.

To bad other doctors couldn't say that .


----------



## Minky (Jun 28, 2005)

That's ironic.


----------



## eightyferrettoes (May 22, 2005)

Ironic how?


----------



## Minky (Jun 28, 2005)

Planned Parenthood defending the rights of babies for once is ironic.


----------



## eightyferrettoes (May 22, 2005)

Aaaaahhhhh.

oooooohhhhh.

Yeeeeeeeahhhhh. :hogtiedbyuseragreement:


----------



## eightyferrettoes (May 22, 2005)

Though, I gotta say, you know, PP also does stuff that isn't related to that dreadful-word-which-shall-not-be-mentioned-at-MDC, and they do it on a sliding fee scale, so I'm glad they're getting word out to folks who might lack the resources to hang out at mama message boards.

Or pay for fancy private physicians or health insurance.

Planned Parenthood rocks my socks.


----------



## Minky (Jun 28, 2005)

Yep, but they're all about the mom's rights to "choose" various things, not the baby's so this is surprising too me.


----------



## Revamp (May 12, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Minky*
Yep, but they're all about the mom's rights to "choose" various things, not the baby's so this is surprising too me.

A baby and a zygote are seen as different things by them, I recognise that that is not a view which you share but it is understandable that they would defend a child from a permanent operation upon their genitals.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

This makes me like PP even more. You know, they test for STDS, give pap smears and birth control; it's not all about the a-word.


----------



## Fi. (May 3, 2005)

Minky does this mean I can slam your employer because they do one thing I don't agree with? Great









Planned Parenthood is all about the rights of BORN people, so I'm not really too surprised they're straight up about circumcision. They're also very careful to dispell myths - like men thinking they don't need to use condoms because they're cut (yep, some guys do think that!) about STDs/pregnancy which is great.

People forget the name is PLANNED Parenthood - meaning they want you to become a parent when you PLAN it, not if it just happens. They offer free or low cost birth control to help prevent unplanned pregnancies. Not all of them even offer the OMG A WORD - the one I worked at (and will work at again) only offers STD testing, birth control, and regular gyn exams. STD testing was free, BC was 10 dollars a packet (0 if you were under 18), and gyn exams were low cost or free based on income.


----------



## Revamp (May 12, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Fi.*
- like men thinking they don't need to use condoms because they're cut (yep, some guys do think that!)

I fear that more and more are going to believe that what with those studies...


----------



## Minky (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Fi.*
Minky does this mean I can slam your employer because they do one thing I don't agree with? Great









Planned Parenthood is all about the rights of BORN people, so I'm not really too surprised they're straight up about circumcision. They're also very careful to dispell myths - like men thinking they don't need to use condoms because they're cut (yep, some guys do think that!) about STDs/pregnancy which is great.

People forget the name is PLANNED Parenthood - meaning they want you to become a parent when you PLAN it, not if it just happens. They offer free or low cost birth control to help prevent unplanned pregnancies. Not all of them even offer the OMG A WORD - the one I worked at (and will work at again) only offers STD testing, birth control, and regular gyn exams. STD testing was free, BC was 10 dollars a packet (0 if you were under 18), and gyn exams were low cost or free based on income.

I wasn't slamming them, all of those things you listed are about the mother's right's though, the mother's right to choose birth contro, the mothe'rs right to choose to have pap smears, the mother's right to choose that thing we can't talk about on here. I just didn't see them as having anything to do with baby's or baby's right.s.

I may not agree with something they provide, and personlly wouldn't choose any of their services, I'm personally against alot of forms of birth control for myself but not for others, and I personally choose not to get preventative treatments for disease so I only see a doctor when I have a problem. But out of those things only the one we can't talk about offends me religoussly. I just see all of them about being about the mom and not the child.


----------



## Ilaria (Jan 14, 2002)

Yet another reason to love and support PP!!


----------



## maxmama (May 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Minky*
I wasn't slamming them, all of those things you listed are about the mother's right's though, the mother's right to choose birth contro, the mothe'rs right to choose to have pap smears, the mother's right to choose that thing we can't talk about on here. I just didn't see them as having anything to do with baby's or baby's right.s.

I may not agree with something they provide, and personlly wouldn't choose any of their services, I'm personally against alot of forms of birth control for myself but not for others, and I personally choose not to get preventative treatments for disease so I only see a doctor when I have a problem. But out of those things only the one we can't talk about offends me religoussly. I just see all of them about being about the mom and not the child.

Well, to some of those of us who work in reproductive health care, it's the woman's right, as women are occasionally considered to be people other than mothers.


----------



## Minky (Jun 28, 2005)

I don't mind being called "just a mother" but you have missed my point. Birth control, gynocological treatments, and STD treatments are all for women. None of those treatments have anything to do with the rights of children. Thats why it surprised me that Planned Parenthood would have an opinion about anything involving the care of babies.

Excuse me if they routineley make recommendations for babies, I don't go to doctors in general including Planned Parenthood so I don't know.


----------



## Amylcd (Jun 16, 2005)

Quote:

Yet another reason to love and support PP!!
Yep


----------



## mamamillet (May 21, 2004)

Quote:

I wasn't slamming them, all of those things you listed are about the mother's right's though, the mother's right to choose birth contro, the mothe'rs right to choose to have pap smears, the mother's right to choose that thing we can't talk about on here. I just didn't see them as having anything to do with baby's or baby's right.s.

I may not agree with something they provide, and personlly wouldn't choose any of their services, I'm personally against alot of forms of birth control for myself but not for others, and I personally choose not to get preventative treatments for disease so I only see a doctor when I have a problem. But out of those things only the one we can't talk about offends me religoussly. I just see all of them about being about the mom and not the child.
A woman's right to birth control affects a child's right to be born wanted. Planned Parenthood spekas to the notion that all children should be wanted children.

Quote:

Birth control, gynocological treatments, and STD treatments are all for women. None of those treatments have anything to do with the rights of children.
Again, I disagree. Children have the right to be born to healthy women wanting to have a child. PP helps to meet that right.


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

YAY, Planned Parenthood!!!









IMO what is good for women is also good for the children. And remember 1/2 of those children will be women one day.


----------



## Sijae (May 5, 2006)

uke There's a reason it's not named here. A good one. I for one find it absolutely sick that anyone would support an organization that does that. That's why it's not mentioned here - it is so offensive to so many. I suppose when they say "he who must not be named" in harry potter they aren't really mentioning voldemort? Come on, you're all having the discussion whether you avoid the word or not and it should get pulled.

Laura


----------



## veganf (Dec 12, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MommytoB*
It actually states that in most cases circumcision has 'no health benefit ' and is only done culturally.

To bad other doctors couldn't say that .









Another reason I like Planned Parenthood. Good for them.

- Krista


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sijae*







uke There's a reason it's not named here. A good one. I for one find it absolutely sick that anyone would support an organization that does that. That's why it's not mentioned here - it is so offensive to so many. I suppose when they say "he who must not be named" in harry potter they aren't really mentioning voldemort? Come on, you're all having the discussion whether you avoid the word or not and it should get pulled.

Laura

No that's NOT the reason. The reason is that people on both ends of the spectrum can't keep it nice when abortion does come up, period. It can be discussed here just not debated. Although posts like yours will surely get this thread pulled.

Oh and again WAY TO GO PP!!!!!


----------



## Sijae (May 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sheacoby*
Although posts like yours will surely get this thread pulled.

I certainly hope so


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

Well that's really mature of you.









Again before this thread gets closed. Thanks PP for spreading the truth about circumcision!!!!!


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MommytoB*
It actually states that in most cases circumcision has 'no health benefit ' and is only done culturally.

To bad other doctors couldn't say that .

Don't ALL major health organizations say it? Why the special props for PP? I could see the point of this if it weren't for the fact that no major medical organization recommends routine infant circ.

I mean, this could be the one area where I agree with PP, so that is probably cause for celebration







, I just don't see them stepping outside of what is mainstream here.


----------



## Revamp (May 12, 2006)

Seconded, say what you want about the rest of their activities (and people tend to) but this is a brilliant step forwards, that we can all agree on.


----------



## Ilaria (Jan 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sijae*







uke There's a reason it's not named here. A good one. I for one find it absolutely sick that anyone would support an organization that does that. That's why it's not mentioned here - it is so offensive to so many.

Not exactly. The reason why it cannot be mentioned is because some people cannot carry on a discussion about that topic in a mature fashion.


----------



## Lula's Mom (Oct 29, 2003)

I see your point and I agree with you, Minky.

I am glad that PP speaks out against circumcision though. The more the merrier.


----------



## Revamp (May 12, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Lula's Mom*
I am glad that PP speaks out against circumcision though. The more the merrier.

Exactly!


----------



## RiverSky (Jun 26, 2005)

: How Entertaining!

Do we have a cheerleader icon? Go PP Go!


----------



## Ann-Marita (Sep 20, 2003)

Yea, PP!

PP has been with me through some major turning points in my life - becoming sexually active, finding the right birth control for me, and finding out that I was pregnant (a planned pregnancy).

I think telling it like it is for circ is right in line with their telling it like it is with other information (some of which some people in this country don't want others to hear about).


----------



## Fi. (May 3, 2005)

Quote:

None of those treatments have anything to do with the rights of children. Thats why it surprised me that Planned Parenthood would have an opinion about anything involving the care of babies.
Planned Parenthood deals with the rights of born people, period. Men and women alike. Men are also allowed to partake in the free STD testing and are treated with the same respect as women. So again, I'm not surprised a men's rights issue has come up.

Quote:

Don't ALL major health organizations say it? Why the special props for PP?
Last time I checked anytime a well known American orginization speaks out against it we give them props.


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ann-Marita*
I think telling it like it is for circ is right in line with their telling it like it is with other information

I'm surprised this is an organization so many at MDC would support:
http://ppfa.org/pp2/portal/files/por...060518-hpv.xml

Quote:

"The HPV vaccine should be a top public health priority for the FDA. It is common sense, good medicine and a groundbreaking step forward in the fight against cancer."


----------



## hookahgirl (May 22, 2005)

There are many people who go to PP who dont have access to other org.s that tell you about anti-circ, and why circ is bad. That is why it is so awesome that other places are getting into this movement, and reaching all types of people!
Every type of org. needs to get with it, spread the word and dispel myths.


----------



## hunnybumm (Nov 1, 2003)

Really wish this thread would just stay on topic...

It is ALWAYS wonderful to hear of an orginzation, medical office, person, whatever, speak out against circ. Reguardless of what PPs other beliefs are, they are stating that there is no health benefit. They are spreading the truth which is more than I can say for most medical doctors, orginizations, medical establishments, etc. in my area.

So lets stay on forum topic about circ (or lack there of) and leave the rest to the other forums.


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

I have no probem saying that they are right on the issue of circ. though, the Natl. organization should work to educate some of the local groups:
http://www.planned.org/site/PageServ...S_circumcision

Many posters said this was another reason that PP is great, I was just pointing out that they aren't terribly "NFL".


----------



## Fi. (May 3, 2005)

Quote:

"The HPV vaccine should be a top public health priority for the FDA. It is common sense, good medicine and a groundbreaking step forward in the fight against cancer."
And? I'm not against teens and adults deciding they want a vaccine against an STD before becoming sexually active.

I don't get it, all of the world health orgs are FOR vaccines but yet we still support them when they release anti-circ info. Why is this different?


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Fi.*

I don't get it, all of the world health orgs are FOR vaccines but yet we still support them when they release anti-circ info. Why is this different?

Yes, we say something along the lines of "for once they are doing something right"" not "they are the greatest thing since sliced bread".


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

I actually don't agree with PP about the HPV vax but I do agree with their stance on many other issue. So I'd say well they mixed the ,ark on the HPV vax but they are doing a lot of other things right. But I'm not at all surprised on their stance in regards to HPV vax and I would actually be pleasantly shocked if they were against it.


----------



## cravenab00 (May 25, 2005)

yeah Planned parenthood for spreading the truth about circumcision!!! It may just prompt someone to do more reasearch.

And for what its worth, I think Planned Parenthood is an important organization, because many, many, MANY young women, cannot talk to their mothers about GYN issues and birth control (that was me) and they provide free or very low cost services.
I would much rather someone become a mother when they are ready


----------



## Sijae (May 5, 2006)

I just don't think it's appropriate to applaud PP for saying the same thing the AAP says. It's too little, too late. They aren't really saying don't do it. They aren't really saying it's barbaric, they aren't really saying it's mutilation. Just that it's not necessary and it's cultural. Come on!

And in regards to maturity, I don't think it's immature to stick up for ones values. That's what being an intactivist is all about, what being a lactavist is all about. It's why I tell people who ask how great it was to have a homebirth and an unassisted birth and why I tell people that I think vaccinating is dangerous.

This is a circumcision forum and I think it's really crappy to have the abortion argument rear it's ugly head here. It can't be discussed reasonably because it's an unreasonable topic. So yeah there are a lot of off topic replies in this thread but if you note I wasn't the first one to bring up the abortion link to PP and even if the discussion was staying on topic to the original post I would still think it's ridiculous for people to get so excited about a very watered down statement about circ from PP - an organization that goes against everything I believe in not only regarding abortion but about a lot of other health issues.

Why is it not ok for me to voice my opinions? I didn't attack any one person here or flame anyone or say anything more inflammatory than anything else previously posted. Although I will note that I DID get flamed personally. Kind of a double standard isn't it?

Laura


----------



## PatchyMama (Dec 6, 2002)

for PP. They councel a lot of young people ... people who dont really know what the AAP says about anything.


----------



## tayndrewsmama (May 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sijae*
This is a circumcision forum and I think it's really crappy to have the abortion argument rear it's ugly head here. It can't be discussed reasonably because it's an unreasonable topic.

Well, I don't think it got ugly until you made it that way. It was posted in the circ forum 'cause that's what the comment is about, CIRCUMCISION, NOT ABOUT ABORTION.








to PP! As far as comments about the AAP and their recommendations, perhaps they should relay that information to their "frontline" people that are actually performing the circumcisions. Until the pediatric profession as a whole practices what they preach, I don't care what they say.


----------



## pdx.mothernurture (May 27, 2004)

I haven't read the entire thread, but without delving into the tabboo topic too deeply, I'll say this: There is a societal consensus, currently, that a born child is a person. Personhood prior to birth is controversial/a matter of personal beliefs and politics. It seems reasonable that a PC organization such as Planned Parenthood would oppose non-medically indicated circumcision of children while still supporting a woman's RTC.

That being said, I think if anything this thread should be edited rather than pulled, and those who have a problem with other aspects of PP (rather than their anti-circ stance, which is what the OP is about and is completely relevant and appropriate for this board) should take it to PM or another forum that allows discussion of you-know-what.

Jen


----------



## gentlebirthmothr (Jul 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A&A*
This makes me like PP even more. You know, they test for STDS, give pap smears and birth control; it's not all about the a-word.

a&a,








:


----------



## pdx.mothernurture (May 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Peppermint*
I'm surprised this is an organization so many at MDC would support:
http://ppfa.org/pp2/portal/files/por...060518-hpv.xml

I am ALL FOR the HPV vaccine being an option for adolecents/teens or anyone who is or who is considering becoming sexually active. I don't think it should be given to infants or children without their consent, as they are not at risk for the virus and are unable to weigh the risks/benefits for themselves.

You can support the development of an HPV (or HIV ...woundn't that be fabulous) vaccine without necessarily advocating for routine immunization.

My body, my risk, my choice; Your body, your risk, your choice.

---

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sijae*
This is a circumcision forum and I think it's really crappy to have the abortion argument rear it's ugly head here.

Laura,

I think it's too bad that those who take issue with a PP stance/service NOT related to the topic of this thread felt the need to sabatoge it by bringing up a banned topic...now, apparently blatantly. I think it's a manipulative attempt to get the thread pulled, and is particularly disingenuous. I hope the moderators see through it and edit out the unrelated attacks on PP rather than deleting the thread---which is very much relevevant to this board---entirely.

Jen


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sijae*







uke There's a reason it's not named here. A good one.


It's not necessarily because it's offensive to some people; it's because the arguments get so heated so quickly and usually descend into name-calling.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Peppermint*
I mean, this could be the one area where I agree with PP, so that is probably cause for celebration







, I just don't see them stepping outside of what is mainstream here.


The AAP is so wishy-washy on circ, saying that there aren't enough benefits nor drawbacks for them to make a claim one way or the other. This is PP definitely taking a stand---which does draw them out of the mainstream.


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pdx.mothernurture*

That being said, I think if anything this thread should be edited rather than pulled, and those who have a problem with other aspects of PP (rather than their anti-circ stance, which is what the OP is about and is completely relevant and appropriate for this board) should take it to PM or another forum that allows discussion of you-know-what.

Jen

Jen- should only the posts who DISAGREE with other aspects of PP be edited/removed, or should it be all of those posts which were off-topic to the circ. discussion? There are a lot of people talking about the reasons PP rocks, which have nothing to do with circ. either.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Peppermint*
I'm surprised this is an organization so many at MDC would support:

You're pulling a straw-man argument here. (Trying to fight what isn't the fight.) PP speaks out against circ. Go PP. The end.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Peppermint*
There are a lot of people talking about the reasons PP rocks, which have nothing to do with circ. either.


Those statements could be inferred to mean that PP rocks on this particular issue.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sijae*
I just don't think it's appropriate to applaud PP for saying the same thing the AAP says.

Again, it's NOT what the AAP says!!! The AAP basically says, "We can't decide." So, they don't support it, but they don't not support it, either. This is PP NOT supporting circ.


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

BTW- for the sake of clarification- is this the "statement" we are talking about here or is there something else?
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2...rcumcision.xml

Anything that starts out with
"We can't advise you what to do. This is a very personal decision for parents to make."

Even if they go on to say that it has no medical benefits seems far from something to get all excited about, at least for me.


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A&A*
You're pulling a straw-man argument here. (Trying to fight what isn't the fight.) PP speaks out against circ. Go PP. The end.

Nope, that was in direct response to someone saying
"I think telling it like it is for circ is right in line with their telling it like it is with other information"

It would've been a strawman if that was my immediate reaction to the OP, instead, it was a simple response to the above statement.

I did say that this would be one of the few times I would agree with PP on anything. My issue is with the folks saying that this is just one more "great" things about PP,, IMO, it is one of the only great things about PP.


----------



## trmpetplaya (May 30, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Peppermint*
BTW- for the sake of clarification- is this the "statement" we are talking about here or is there something else?
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2...rcumcision.xml

Anything that starts out with
"We can't advise you what to do. This is a very personal decision for parents to make."

Even if they go on to say that it has no medical benefits seems far from something to get all excited about, at least for me.









:

It would be nice if someone would be decisive about it one of these days... saying that it's the parent's decision is so wish-washy. Why isn't it the parent's right (or rather - "very personal decision") to decide to circ their baby girls, huh? I would have been thrown in jail if I'd circ'd dd, but if she was a boy nobody would blink an eye unless I DIDN'T circ....









love and peace.


----------



## Ann-Marita (Sep 20, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hunnybumm*
Really wish this thread would just stay on topic...









:


----------



## lilsishomemade (Feb 12, 2005)

what makes me happy about this is that for some parents who don't have insurance and can go to great peds, it can be hard becoming educated on what circ is all about, if that's what everyone around them does. PP helps a lot of parents who have no where else to go. This helps reach out to them, also. I've been to the free clinic. They're not exactly all about education. The quality of care is very much different. I look forward to the day that EVERYONE can get exceptional health care, regardless of their income.


----------



## Fi. (May 3, 2005)

Quote:

Even if they go on to say that it has no medical benefits seems far from something to get all excited about, at least for me.
Did you read the rest of the response? There was not ONE word about the "benefits" which impressed me.


----------



## Revamp (May 12, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *trmpetplaya*
I would have been thrown in jail if I'd circ'd dd, but if she was a boy nobody would blink an eye unless I DIDN'T circ....









Seconded.

I do wish they had taken a far stronger stance but...Well...This is something.


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Fi.*
Did you read the rest of the response? There was not ONE word about the "benefits" which impressed me.

Yes, I said it in what you quoted from me, NO medical benefit, however, it is nothing even close to their stance on FGM, which is interesting for such a "progressive" organization.


----------



## Fi. (May 3, 2005)

Hello, welcome to America. NO ONE'S stance against male circumcision is as strong as their stance against female circumcison with the exception of NOCIRC and the likes.


----------



## tayndrewsmama (May 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Fi.*
Hello, welcome to America. NO ONE'S stance against male circumcision is as strong as their stance against female circumcison with the exception of NOCIRC and the likes.

Isn't that sad?









I have to remember that freedom is for nearly everything, including stupidity and ignorance.


----------



## Islay (Apr 29, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lilsishomemade*
I look forward to the day that EVERYONE can get exceptional health care, regardless of their income.

Campaign for a national health sevice, such as we are very fortunate to have in England. Everyone, regardless of income, has access to the best medical care - free at the point of source.

Christopher


----------



## tayndrewsmama (May 25, 2004)

I am not sure what I think of that. My sister studied at Cambridge last year and she had to go to the hospital and was horrified at the filthy conditions of the hospital. I have heard this from others as well. Obviously that is heresay, but it is from individuals that I trust very much.


----------



## maxmama (May 5, 2006)

I got care in the national health system while living in Ireland, and it was fine -- and cheap. British health outcomes are a damn sight better than ours, regardless of the creature comforts of the NHS.


----------



## Revamp (May 12, 2006)

Our National Health Service is in something of a state at the moment but that is mostly due to being left in the hands of people who (ideologically speaking) would prefer it never to have existed. If you want a handy comparison then imagine a CIRCList member being asked to run NOHARMM for a few years. It is almost that bad.

But it did wipe out British RIC in one smooth sweep: we were not prepared to utilise tax payer's money to fund an operation of no medical benefit and thus it was not provided and the rates nose dived into non-existance.


----------



## Islay (Apr 29, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tayndrewsmama*
I am not sure what I think of that. My sister studied at Cambridge last year and she had to go to the hospital and was horrified at the filthy conditions of the hospital. I have heard this from others as well. Obviously that is heresay, but it is from individuals that I trust very much.









I rather doubt that the conditions were 'filthy'; it would simply not be tolerated. But there will always be a few hospitals which fail to meet the stringent standards laid down, usually because of their age and a lack of local government funding for rebuilding. When this occurs, it is met with public and press outcry.

In the East Kent area where I live I can think of two such hospitals, both established in the 18th century. One has been been renovated and partially rebuilt to a standard I'm sure your sister would approve of; the other was closed down and demolished. In the same area we also have three hospitals built to state-of-the-art standards.

The NHS is not perfect, what massive national institution is? Nevertheless it provides an exceptional service for which we bless our good fortune.

Christopher


----------



## Fi. (May 3, 2005)

Quote:

Everyone, regardless of income, has access to the best medical care
Really? I was treated very poorly in an English hospital on two seperate occations. In fact, I couldn't even get the problem sorted out until I was back in America and I was miserable for almost the rest of my vacation.


----------



## jessjgh1 (Nov 4, 2004)

I don't really see anything special about their statement....

Cultural circ IS what we do in US-- and the statemetn, from what I can see, says that cultural circ is okay.

Am I missing something?

Jessica


----------



## maxmama (May 5, 2006)

Aren't you an American, though? Just like the American health care system isn't really set up for others to access, why would the British?


----------



## Fi. (May 3, 2005)

It's set up for anyone to use - it's whether or not you'll owe them money that's the issue. Same as the American one. The doctors just didn't know what they were doing, plain and simple. They ordered an unnecessary, incredibly painful test when I've had the condition my entire life and could tell them exactly what was wrong. What they were testing for wasn't even closely related to the symptoms I had and no appropriate tests were run (or treatment given) for what I DID have.

I didn't realise that not being a citizen (despite being the mother of one) meant you got poor health care. People who don't live here can still get decent health care, they just have to pay an insane amount of money for it - or get traveler's insurance, whereas there I HAD insurance and it didn't even matter.


----------



## maxmama (May 5, 2006)

The US health care system is incredibly twisted and difficult to access in many cases.


----------



## Minky (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sijae*







uke There's a reason it's not named here. A good one. I for one find it absolutely sick that anyone would support an organization that does that. That's why it's not mentioned here - it is so offensive to so many. I suppose when they say "he who must not be named" in harry potter they aren't really mentioning voldemort? Come on, you're all having the discussion whether you avoid the word or not and it should get pulled.

Laura


Well we discuss whether to boycott a breast pump maker that also makes the plastibell. Or whether to boycott a company that does foreskin testing. I was thinking back to what I said yesterday, that I only have a problem with one thing that Planned Parenthood does and maybe I was wrong to say that, and I am offended by the whole company.

And whoever said babies have the right to be born to a "healthy" woman does that make me a bad momma if I don't have every gynecological test or pregnancy related test that the doctor wants to give me? I think that I, not PP or any other doctor, know what's healthy and safe for my child and it is more than often the natural way not some medical test.


----------



## Minky (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Fi.*
And? I'm not against teens and adults deciding they want a vaccine against an STD before becoming sexually active.

I don't get it, all of the world health orgs are FOR vaccines but yet we still support them when they release anti-circ info. Why is this different?

Ok I will agree with this completely. I won't choose to get the vax, but believe other's should have the right to.


----------



## Minky (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Fi.*
Really? I was treated very poorly in an English hospital on two seperate occations. In fact, I couldn't even get the problem sorted out until I was back in America and I was miserable for almost the rest of my vacation.

I too was in a public hospital overseas and felt like I was back in the 1950's or something.

HOW-EVER...

If I had been a citizen, not a dollar to my name, I still could have gone in and got on a waiting list for treatment, while in the US healthcare isn't considered a right.


----------



## LadyMarmalade (May 22, 2005)

My experience has been the opposite - I wouldn't ever go near an American hospital. Ever. I much prefer the NHS system. I've never received anything but the best care possible, and cleanest conditions imaginable.


----------



## Minky (Jun 28, 2005)

It wasn't really unclean but it seemed primitive, older facilities, long wait times. I reallky haven't been in enough hospital's to tell you if it's better or worse than an American hospital, i'm just saying that no sysem is perfect.


----------



## Ilaria (Jan 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maxmama*
The US health care system is incredibly twisted and difficult to access in many cases.

Exactly. Yes, they might have pretty , new hospitals with TVs in private rooms, but the care is the same you receive in any country with a universal health care system, except you don't go to your grave with medical bills or get a health insurance co. rich in the meantime.


----------



## Revamp (May 12, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Minky*
It wasn't really unclean but it seemed primitive, older facilities, long wait times. I reallky haven't been in enough hospital's to tell you if it's better or worse than an American hospital, i'm just saying that no sysem is perfect.

You have to understand that these things are done on a local basis, that area may simply have had some incompetant local politicians for a while and as a consequence was slightly regressive.

That example was poor and I agree there are very bad parts to it but overall it is an immensely superior system to America's, permitting for swift treatment of minor problems before they metamorphosise into major ones. All at no cost at point of entry or via brutal insurance rates that punish those in most need.


----------



## Ruthla (Jun 2, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PatchyMama*







for PP. They counsel a lot of young people ... people who dont really know what the AAP says about anything.









:
Many parents think that circ is "that thing you do to baby boys" and don't even know enough to question it. Here's an organization that works with many people before they become parents, and they're outright saying that circ has no medical benefits.


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ruthla*







:
Many parents think that circ is "that thing you do to baby boys" and don't even know enough to question it. Here's an organization that works with many people before they become parents, and they're outright saying that circ has no medical benefits.

Here is what I am wondering, I asked above if the link I gave was to the "statement" we are discussing. It was a Q&A on their website, then I posted a local PP website with a much worse statement, has Natl. PP made some real stand other than a Q&A on their website, is this something that has come down through and is actually being said in PPs across the country? Do they have hand outs that they give to patients expecting a baby boy? I'd really like to know more about this "statement".


----------



## Fi. (May 3, 2005)

Quote:

Do they have hand outs that they give to patients expecting a baby boy? I'd really like to know more about this "statement".
Possibly if it's requested. PP generally only gives out what you ask for. And most don't do prenatal care - those who do generally only do it up to 28 weeks. However I do remember that we did refer women to the website to read more about pregnancy issues and options *shrug*


----------



## Revamp (May 12, 2006)

Hmm... Well do you know what sort of advice they would give on this issue if asked?


----------



## Fi. (May 3, 2005)

Quote:

Hmm... Well do you know what sort of advice they would give on this issue if asked?
Honestly they'd probably say it's your decision but there's no medical benefit and it's only done for cosmetics/cultural reasons. I'm sure there are crappy clinicians out there who promote it - but in general it seems to be more progressive clinicians working there.


----------



## Revamp (May 12, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Fi.*
Honestly they'd probably say it's your decision but there's no medical benefit and it's only done for cosmetics/cultural reasons. I'm sure there are crappy clinicians out there who promote it - but in general it seems to be more progressive clinicians working there.

Seems sound to me.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Revamp*
Hmm... Well do you know what sort of advice they would give on this issue if asked?

Good question. I guess we could all walk into our local PP's and ask them as an experiment.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

So, I finally got around to looking at the website myself, and here's the full Q &A:

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2...rcumcision.xml

A lot more wishy-washy then the OP led me to believe. "Penises with foreskins require a little extra care" "Some boys do need to be circumcised later," UGH. Really nothing to be proud of there, I'm sorry to say.


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A&A*
So, I finally got around to looking at the website myself, and here's the full Q &A:

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2...rcumcision.xml

A lot more wishy-washy then the OP led me to believe. "Penises with foreskins require a little extra care" "Some boys do need to be circumcised later," UGH. Really nothing to be proud of there, I'm sorry to say.









I kept wondering what everyone else here was reading. I admit my distrust of PP made me go seek out exactly what the OP was talking about, and I was not impressed, but I think other's blind trust of PP made them jump to some conclusion that this was great.


----------



## Revamp (May 12, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A&A*
Good question. I guess we could all walk into our local PP's and ask them as an experiment.

I can not, what with not living in America.

Those who do certainly should though! Please do so and give us the response given, perhaps even just phone them up to ask.

As for their actual Q&A stance, well, ugh, not what I had hoped for but this:

"Today, routine circumcision is considered elective surgery without medical benefits."

was very good. Although what do they mean about intact penises requiring more care? Last time I checked they do not need to be wrapped up in bloody gauze or have vaseline applied to them to stop the faeces of their diapers giving them penile infections...


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

Oh well I actually think their Q&A about circ is quite lacking and still spreading myths about circ.







:

Another bad quote from the Q&A on PP:

Quote:

and he must be taught to pull back and wash under the foreskin. Until he can do this for himself, you can gently pull back the foreskin for him and wash under it during bathing.


----------



## Revamp (May 12, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sheacoby*
Oh well I actually think their Q&A about circ is quite lacking and still spreading myths about circ.







:

Another bad quote from the Q&A on PP:

Well it did help combat that retraction myth and say this: "Although rare, complications include excessive bleeding, infection, scarring, and damage to the penis."

And its comment about some requiring circumcisions later on in life was, techically, correct. If its wording had been something more along the lines of "A tiny, minute and virtually negligible number might need it in later life" then I would be happier.

Try emailing them, I already have and a concentrated effort might have some effect.

Oh and please give them a call and pretend to ask for advice on the issue!


----------



## Sijae (May 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Peppermint*







I kept wondering what everyone else here was reading. I admit my distrust of PP made me go seek out exactly what the OP was talking about, and I was not impressed, but I think other's blind trust of PP made them jump to some conclusion that this was great.









:







:


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Revamp*
And its comment about some requiring circumcisions later on in life was, techically, correct.

In the US., boys tend to "need" later circumcisions more often than those in lower-circing countries, such as those in Europe. (Because US. docs are ignorant about the foreskin.) So PP is perpetuating those myths. The actual number of boys/men NEEDING a circ is SO tiny that it really doesn't need to be mentioned at all.

And to those I was arguing with previously on this thread, mea culpa.


----------



## Revamp (May 12, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A&A*
In the US., boys tend to "need" later circumcisions more often than those in lower-circing countries, such as those in Europe. (Because US. docs are ignorant about the foreskin.) So PP is perpetuating those myths. The actual number of boys/men NEEDING a circ is SO tiny that it really doesn't need to be mentioned at all.

And to those I was arguing with previously on this thread, mea culpa.

Hence the word technically...


----------



## Sijae (May 5, 2006)

Quote:

Circumcision is a minor surgical procedure in which the foreskin (a fold of skin which covers the glans or head of the penis) is removed. The surgery takes little time and is usually done at the hospital or in the doctor's office within the first week of life.
Why is it done?

Religious reasons--practiced by both Jews and Muslims.
Hygiene--some people believe that the circumcised penis is easier to clean.
Social reasons--so father and son's penis look alike.
Possible medical benefits--circumcision may help prevent urinary tract infections and cancer of the penis (though very rare).
Sexual performance--NOT affected one way or the other by circumcision.

http://www.planned.org/site/PageServ...S_circumcision

Quote:

From the teen PP website:

Q "Im not circumcised and I wanted to know what the difference was between being circumcised and not being circumcised. Which is better?"

A "Either way is normal and healthy - there is no "better" or "worse" option."

http://www.teenwire.com/ask/2004/as-...rcumcision.php
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Care Instructions

It's healthy and normal to be cut or uncut, but the two kinds of penises work a little bit differently.

Cutting to the Chase

Whether a boy is circumcised or not is no big deal. Every penis is a little bit different, and being cut or uncut is one of those things that makes every guy unique - there's no "right" way to be.

http://www.teenwire.com/infocus/2006...rcumcision.php
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, what's the big deal about circumcision? Circumcision is the removal of the foreskin - the retractable tube of skin that covers and protects the head (glans) of the penis....It's a known fact - bodies and penises come in different shapes and sizes. So, even if your penis looks different than other guys you know, remember, it's normal to be cut, and it's normal to be uncut!

http://www.teenwire.com/infocus/2002...rcumcision.php
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Circumcision

Are you cut or not? And most importantly, so what? Circumcision (or removal of the foreskin) is generally done shortly after birth. About 60 percent of boys in America are circumcised at birth (which means that 40 percent are not circumcised), making both cut and uncut penises almost equally common. They both work the same way; they just look a little different. But guys who have uncircumcised penises need to pull the foreskin back when they urinate, put on a condom, and wash themselves

http://www.teenwire.com/infocus/2001...010301p092.php

I'm so glad PP is teaching all those teenagers who "have no where else to go" all about healthy intactness and encouraging non-circumcising. I guess I was wrong about PP, they really are pure gold.








:


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

Laura, I'll never agree with you about PP being evil for the services they provide but I do believe you are right about this issue. I am very disappointed. They are NOT giving out the truth about circ.







The info that you just quoted is really bad and full of crap.







:


----------



## Revamp (May 12, 2006)

They are certainly not evil, that is the sort of classification that should be reserved for organisations such as NAMBLA and the Gilgal Society. Their line over this issue is a good deal weaker than I would have hope for though.


----------



## pdx.mothernurture (May 27, 2004)

If we all want to call our local PPs, I'm more than willing to call mine and see what 'phone advice' they offer. When I gave it more thought, my guess is they'll ask if I'm receiving prenatal care somewhere and then suggest I talk to my ob/midwife.

The reason being, PP (at least our local one) doesn't offer prenatal care nor do they (from what I understand) treat pregnant women. Back when I had a few abnormal paps, and went through a phase where I was uninsured I was looking for somewhere that could do a pap and a colpo if necessary on a sliding scale/cheaply. We went round and round because I was pregnant at the time, and they had to check with their docs and I think they finally decided they could do a pap for me if I didn't have any other options.

Do some PPs provide prenatal care? For those PP clinics that don't, and only interact with pregnant women at the earliest stages of pregnancy when they're finding out/deciding how to proceed really offer information on newborn testing, vaccination, circumcision, etc?

Jen


----------



## Islay (Apr 29, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Fi.*
Really? I was treated very poorly in an English hospital on two seperate occations. In fact, I couldn't even get the problem sorted out until I was back in America and I was miserable for almost the rest of my vacation.

Yes, really. Even those who are not UK residents. In an emergency NO ONE is refused the best medical attention - even if it transpires that they cannot pay for it. Surely the same is true in America?

Understandably, non-emergencies _are_ treated differently for non-residents. You say you had medical insurance but it was no help. Why? Did they not pay up? If you were covered you would have received the same standard of care as any UK citizen. If that was the case and you were 'treated poorly' nonetheless, then it begs the question: "What does 'poorly' mean?" Did the doctors have access to your medical notes(?), because this could be significant. Was your problem the result of an accident, perhaps? I'm searching in the dark, here, for a plausible reason why you would have received such poor treatment. We have had friends to our home from America, Canada, Trinidad, Burma, New Zealand, France, Belgium and the Philippines (in no particular order). All, except a girl from Belgium on a school exchange and my wife's nationalised New Zealand brother, had cause to be treated for varying degrees of ailments/injuries at a hospital or attached clinic (not simply a doctor's surgery) during their stay. I have to say that all spoke glowingly of their care - not least because they were treated first, _then_ asked for details about their eligibilty.

Again, that isn't to say that there aren't exceptions - of course there are. I doubt that every hospital in any country can boast exemplary standards.

I'm sad that your experience was so disappointing.

Christopher


----------



## mamanurse (Jan 22, 2006)

I







Planned Parenthood!!!!

Been in trouble with the mods before.....so, for now, I'm just going to







:


----------



## Frankly Speaking (May 24, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sheacoby*
I actually don't agree with PP about the HPV vax but I do agree with their stance on many other issue. So I'd say well they mixed the ,ark on the HPV vax but they are doing a lot of other things right. But I'm not at all surprised on their stance in regards to HPV vax and I would actually be pleasantly shocked if they were against it.

I'm lost here and maybe you can explain your issue with the HPV vax. Here are a few facts that make it seem perfectly acceptable to me:

(1) Only 2% - 3% of the population will not develop a natural immunity to the virus.

(2) The vaccine will only be offered to those who are tested and have not developed a natural immunity.

(3) The vaccine has shown to be entirely safe and highly effective.

(4) Because of a cost of $350.00 - $450.00 for the vaccination, there is no chance of massive vaccination campaigns with this vaccine. Massive Vaccination campaigns would result in a cost up to $44,100.00 for each infection cured or prevented and that is not affordable.

I don't understand any resistance to the vaccine. Only persons who had been tested would be offered the vaccine and it would be their option to take or refuse it. It is not going to be pushed on children because of the cost. There are no known side effects that would have to be weighed against the possible outcome of cervical cancer. Where is the problem?

Frank


----------



## Fi. (May 3, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Islay*
Yes, really. Even those who are not UK residents. In an emergency NO ONE is refused the best medical attention

That's why I was in the ER twice with the same problem that wasn't resolved either time right? I wasn't even safe to fly home but I had to because they would not treat me. When I got back here I went straight to my doctor who was HORRIFIED that *ANY* doctor would leave me untreated.

Quote:

You say you had medical insurance but it was no help. Why? Did they not pay up? If you were covered you would have received the same standard of care as any UK citizen.
Meaning I offered it 150 times and they didn't care/didn't want to see it.

Quote:

"What does 'poorly' mean?" Did the doctors have access to your medical notes(?), because this could be significant.
Poorly means that when I offered them where to get my medical records they refused saying they could treat me based off of information they had. Mind you this was several doctors, not just one as I was in the ER *twice* within 3 days. I knew the exact problem I had, what tests needed to be ordered, and what medication would treat it. They ran a completely useless and incredibly painful test (THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH MY CONDITION), and I was given NO medication. I was told to come back in a third time if it happened again and then maybe we'd dicuss a dose of medication. You do not send someone who CANNOT BREATHE away from a hospital without medication - YOU JUST DON'T.

I used the NHS helpline as well which was completely useless. I was completely for an NHS until I actually expirienced one. People complain about the long waits in ERs in the US? They were worse there. And I was brought in by ambulance.


----------



## trmpetplaya (May 30, 2005)

Gross misinformation.... I especially don't like the "intact penises require a little EXTRA care" when it's really the other way around... and cut penises require a LOT more extra care.... having that lovely open wound in a diaper and all









love and peace.


----------



## tayndrewsmama (May 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Islay*
I rather doubt that the conditions were 'filthy'; it would simply not be tolerated. But there will always be a few hospitals which fail to meet the stringent standards laid down, usually because of their age and a lack of local government funding for rebuilding. When this occurs, it is met with public and press outcry.

In the East Kent area where I live I can think of two such hospitals, both established in the 18th century. One has been been renovated and partially rebuilt to a standard I'm sure your sister would approve of; the other was closed down and demolished. In the same area we also have three hospitals built to state-of-the-art standards.

The NHS is not perfect, what massive national institution is? Nevertheless it provides an exceptional service for which we bless our good fortune.

Christopher

Perhaps you have different standards of what "filthy" is. There was blood and vomit on the walls and the floor and the table dressing was dirty as well.


----------



## tayndrewsmama (May 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Fi.*
People complain about the long waits in ERs in the US? They were worse there. And I was brought in by ambulance.

My sister had to wait eight hours while she was bleeding and passing out.







:


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

Frank, I don't think any vaccines are safe and they sure the hell haven't been proven to be and in fact they all have some serious risks. That's just for starters. If you really want to know all the resons why I am against vaxes in general and the HPV vax come on over to the vaccination forum and start reading!
BTW, they are already recommending girls as young as 9 get the HPV vax, I think if you think they won't put it on the regular schedule for children in the next 5-10 years you are mistaken.


----------



## tayndrewsmama (May 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sheacoby*
BTW, they are already recommending girls as young as 9 get the HPV vax, I think if you think they won't put it on the regular schedule for children in the next 5-10 years you are mistaken.









Even a local news station here has already been reporting that they expect it to be "mandatory" in the next year or two.







:


----------



## CallMeMommy (Jun 15, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Frankly Speaking*
I'm lost here and maybe you can explain your issue with the HPV vax. Here are a few facts that make it seem perfectly acceptable to me:

(1) Only 2% - 3% of the population will not develop a natural immunity to the virus.

(2) The vaccine will only be offered to those who are tested and have not developed a natural immunity.

(3) The vaccine has shown to be entirely safe and highly effective.

(4) Because of a cost of $350.00 - $450.00 for the vaccination, there is no chance of massive vaccination campaigns with this vaccine. Massive Vaccination campaigns would result in a cost up to $44,100.00 for each infection cured or prevented and that is not affordable.

I don't understand any resistance to the vaccine. Only persons who had been tested would be offered the vaccine and it would be their option to take or refuse it. It is not going to be pushed on children because of the cost. There are no known side effects that would have to be weighed against the possible outcome of cervical cancer. Where is the problem?

Frank

Reuters had a story saying the HPV vax would become mandatory for school entry in the next few years. The vax forum has a whole thread about it.


----------



## Islay (Apr 29, 2006)

Fi and tayndrewsmama, please let me have the name and location of these hospitals and the approximate date/s you were there. I will investigate.

Blood and vomit on the walls?? I would be outraged if I came across conditions like that!

Inordinate waiting times... yes, even in America. Though eight hours is _excessive_, particularly if you were bleeding.

Frankly, I'm incredulous. I could take you to _any_ hospital in Kent and you would be at worst, satisfied... and at best, impressed.

By the way, I fell downstairs two years ago and broke three ribs. A 999 call had an ambulance arriving in ten minutes. I was taken to the QEQM hospital in Margate and seen within five minutes. Half an hour later I was in x-ray.

I and my family have used NHS Direct several times since its inception and found their help exemplary.

_Please let me have the details of those hospitals._

Christopher


----------



## Fi. (May 3, 2005)

I was in Kingston at the time.


----------



## Ruthla (Jun 2, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Frankly Speaking*
I don't understand any resistance to the vaccine. ..... There are no *known* side effects that would have to be weighed against the possible outcome of cervical cancer. Where is the problem?

Just because the side effects aren't currently known doesn't mean they don't exist!


----------



## tayndrewsmama (May 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Islay*
Fi and tayndrewsmama, please let me have the name and location of these hospitals and the approximate date/s you were there. I will investigate.

I just left a message for my sister. If IRC, it occured two years ago now, I think in April and was likely at whatever hospital is nearest to Cambridge University. Maybe you know what hospital that is? As Fi. mentioned, I remember her having some rather invasive and unrelated testing too. She was in tears the whole time, and she called me from her cell phone!! This is someone who had worked at a hospital at home for atleast 5 YEARS before going abroad, so she has a pretty good knowledge of what's okay and not okay.

Okay, she just called back and said she doesn't remember the name of the hospital, so maybe you can figure it out easier that we can. She also laughed at the thought of the hospitals being nice there.


----------



## Islay (Apr 29, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tayndrewsmama*
I just left a message for my sister. If IRC, it occured two years ago now, I think in April and was likely at whatever hospital is nearest to Cambridge University. Maybe you know what hospital that is? As Fi. mentioned, I remember her having some rather invasive and unrelated testing too. She was in tears the whole time, and she called me from her cell phone!! This is someone who had worked at a hospital at home for atleast 5 YEARS before going abroad, so she has a pretty good knowledge of what's okay and not okay.

Okay, she just called back and said she doesn't remember the name of the hospital, so maybe you can figure it out easier that we can. She also laughed at the thought of the hospitals being nice there.

I'm disappointed she laughed. It was not appropriate. I sincerely regret your personal experiences, but to imply that English hospitals are not nice is foolish and palpably untrue.

Thank you for the hospital information. I will do what I can to investigate. If I can identify the hospitals it's imperative you write or e-mail with a serious and detailed complaint.

Christopher


----------



## Sijae (May 5, 2006)

Good Gosh, don't you think it's silly to be arguing about who has better hospitals? Hospitals are pretty aweful no matter where you go
















Laura


----------



## Islay (Apr 29, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sijae*
Good Gosh, don't you think it's silly to be arguing about who has better hospitals? Hospitals are pretty aweful no matter where you go
















Laura

I think it's pretty silly to suggest that one of this world's advanced nations has filthy hospitals. But, agreed, this is way off topic and perhaps it would be best to continue with PMs.

Christopher


----------



## Sijae (May 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Islay*
I think it's pretty silly to suggest that one of this world's advanced nations has filthy hospitals. But, agreed, this is way off topic and perhaps it would be best to continue with PMs.

Christopher

You missed my point, I think all hospitals are filthy regardless of how advanced they are.







BTW, it's kind of silly to come to a discussion board based in America where most participants are Americans and start touting the English system as far superior and not expect someone to object. I have to say my patriotism is starting to be aroused.







We have a crappy system but by golly it's our system









Laura


----------



## Islay (Apr 29, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sijae*
You missed my point, I think all hospitals are filthy regardless of how advanced they are.







BTW, it's kind of silly to come to a discussion board based in America where most participants are Americans and start touting the English system as far superior and not expect someone to object. I have to say my patriotism is starting to be aroused.







We have a crappy system but by golly it's our system









Laura

Ummm, Laura... I don't think I ever suggested that the English system is 'far superior'. This whole mini thread-within-a-thread began when I responded to someone who bemoaned the disparity in medical care in America: those who can afford it get the best, those who can't, don't (she said, in essence). I simply mentioned that campaigning for a national health system might work the oracle - and gave our National Health Service as an example, warts and all!

I was then greeted with remarks about filthy English hospitals and laughable care. Is it any wonder that my patriotic hackles were aroused, too?









By the way, I didn't miss your point. I grinned at your humour and returned to the defence of my country.









Christopher


----------



## Sijae (May 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Islay*
Ummm, Laura... I don't think I ever suggested that the English system is 'far superior'. This whole mini thread-within-a-thread began when I responded to someone who bemoaned the disparity in medical care in America: those who can afford it get the best, those who can't, don't (she said, in essence). I simply mentioned that campaigning for a national health system might work the oracle - and gave our National Health Service as an example, warts and all!

I was then greeted with remarks about filthy English hospitals and laughable care. Is it any wonder that my patriotic hackles were aroused, too?









By the way, I didn't miss your point. I grinned at your humour and returned to the defence of my country.









Christopher

LOL, you're right









Laura


----------



## jessjgh1 (Nov 4, 2004)

So back to original point. First post thought PP seemed pro-intact. Can we all agree that PP actual statement is biased towards pro-circ now that the whole statement has been posted- and other information on their website has been brough forward?

What's the most effective way to reach them?

I'm not skeptical of PP... but I'm skeptical of any statement regarding circumcision.... it took me about 1/2 a second to read the statement and see the word cultural and realize that the statement needed to be scrutinized.

Whatever our personal opinions are about PP, it is a fact that they serve a large number of women and men. In many communities they represent the only reproductive care that is available to people that don't have the money or insurance to go to a doctor.

If they are going to have information about circumcision on their websites, it better be accurate- and it is not. I would be surprised and angry if they would not, at the very least, be willing to change their wording to a more neutral/unbiased case-- and I can be hopeful that PP would decide to promote a more progressive pro-intact pov.

Jessica


----------



## Frankly Speaking (May 24, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sheacoby*
Frank, I don't think any vaccines are safe and they sure the hell haven't been proven to be and in fact they all have some serious risks. That's just for starters. If you really want to know all the resons why I am against vaxes in general and the HPV vax come on over to the vaccination forum and start reading!

I'm sorry, that's just a gross generalization. This product is not even on the market yet so you can't say that it has serious risks. If you are against all vaccines regardless of what they are, so be it but don't be broad brushing this one until you have some evidence against it which I can't believe you have yet as it's only been used in research populations.

Quote:

BTW, they are already recommending girls as young as 9 get the HPV vax, I think if you think they won't put it on the regular schedule for children in the next 5-10 years you are mistaken.
I haven't seen that recommendation and I wonder about the source. I can clearly see routine testing of girls since one research project showed that 54.6% of girls were exposed to the virus as they passed through the birth canal. Of those, 2% to 3% will not develop a natural immunity to it and are at risk of developing cervical cancer and I think it is only prudent that the parents be aware of this so they can make the decision of whether their daughter should receive the vaccine for her protection. Actually two separate test administered 4 years apart would confirm whether or not she had developed a natural immunity and follow up tests would confirm that she hadn't caught an infection throughout her life. For the vast majority of the population, this strain of HPV is a totally benign infection. It's just for the 2 - 3% that it can become deadly.

As for the reports of it becoming mandatory, don't we have enough experience with circumcision to see the folly of that from news media sources?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ruthla*
Just because the side effects aren't currently known doesn't mean they don't exist!

That sounds suspicously like saying that although the benefits of circumcision aren't currently known, we can't say they will never exist and therefore, we should keep on circumcising all boys just in case a benefit does pop up. Cervical cancer is real, it is deadly and it is now preventable. Whatever problem might pop up with the vaccine, I don't suspect it will trump death.

Frank


----------



## trmpetplaya (May 30, 2005)

sorry.... still off topic....

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Frankly Speaking*
I'm sorry, that's just a gross generalization. This product is not even on the market yet so you can't say that it has serious risks. If you are against all vaccines regardless of what they are, so be it but don't be broad brushing this one until you have some evidence against it which I can't believe you have yet as it's only been used in research populations.

Well.... given the fact that there are currently NO vaccines in use (or that used to be in use) that do/did not have serious risks, why would we consider a new one to be any different? Are they using a completely different method with this particular vaccine? I'm just curious







I haven't checked out the thread or read up on this particular one yet.

On Topic -
Let's write letters to PP









love and peace.


----------



## Frankly Speaking (May 24, 2002)

All medications have some risk factor. Asprin can cause internal bleeding, many people have allergies like mine to penicillin which could kill me, my ex-GF's father died from anesthesia shock in surgery to get his tonsils removed. Should we ban asprin? Should all medications that can cause a dangerous allergic reaction in a small percentage of the population be taken off the market? Should surgeries be done without anesthesia because her father died from anesthesia? Should women die of cervical cancer because there might be some complication found at a later date? Just where do you stop?

Frank


----------



## SneakyPie (Jan 13, 2002)

Just to clarify about PP and their circumcision info -- it's usually for men, not for parents making decisions about babies. I know this only because I have worked for PP. NO pp in the US offers prenatal care nor does ANY pp do family practice/pediatrics -- again, I know this only because I worked at the one PP clinic in the land that did, and we had to shut down that side of our practice over two years ago. Individual PP affiliates don't make enough money to cover obstetrical liability insurance, is what it boils down to -- and most insurance companies refused to offer us policies anyway. PPFA would love to extend services nationally to women who are continuing their pregnancies, but US medical-practice costs being what they are and insurance companies being wimps, it's just not happening. We cried when we lost the ability to provide this care, and worst of all, the insurance company cut coverage without warning, forcing many of our clients into new care late in their pregnancies.

Information about circ that PP typically provides is regarding men (or adolescents) - that is, people who have already been circumcised (or not). So when someone suggested calling local PPs and asking what info they give out about infant circ -- well, they don't usually stock it because infant care is not within their scope of practice.

That said, obviously it's coming up at least somewhat because the vice-president of medical affairs is addressing it. Reading the page though I see that this is not an official PPFA statement of policy -- it's a health Q&A weekly article. The quotes from the TeenWire site are, I think, intended less to get young men thinking about their future sons and more to reassure them that they're not freaks, whether intact or cut.

I know this sounds maybe a little dramatic or even defensive. I guess I get my buttons pushed a little when people even hint that PP should be doing more involving the "parenthood" part of its name, because I worked at the clinic that *did* do more, and did that "more" for five years.


----------



## jessjgh1 (Nov 4, 2004)

Since the subtle hints are being ignored: Can we please take the O/T discussions elsewhere? Or start a new post for those that are interested.

I'm frankly surprised that people on this board cannot see the parallels between vaccinations and circumcision, but can we stay on topic? Or start your own thread?? I'd be interested in learning more about this... BUT not on this PP thread.

As for the suggestion that pp shoudl take on this issue or issue related to parenthood--- no they just need to correct their frickin website.

Jessica


----------



## Sijae (May 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SneakyPie*
The quotes from the TeenWire site are, I think, intended less to get young men thinking about their future sons and more to reassure them that they're not freaks, whether intact or cut.

If you tell a young man that it is NORMAL and no big deal to be circumcised then you are indeed planting the seed for him to circumcise without thought when he has a son. It's the same thing as telling a pregnant woman that it doesn't matter which way she chooses because it's personal preference. I can see you think PP is a fantastic organization and I couldn't disagree with you more on all levels. However, if we remove all other issues from the thread and focus simply on what is being said on PP websites about circumcised males and RIC, I don't see how you can defend their position.

Laura


----------



## Sharlla (Jul 14, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eightyferrettoes*
Though, I gotta say, you know, PP also does stuff that isn't related to that dreadful-word-which-shall-not-be-mentioned-at-MDC, and they do it on a sliding fee scale.

Not here, there is no state funding for PP in the state of MO, to even get a PG test is $26, so unless you have health insurance, it costs way too much to go there.


----------



## Revamp (May 12, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jessjgh1*
So back to original point. First post thought PP seemed pro-intact. Can we all agree that PP actual statement is biased towards pro-circ now that the whole statement has been posted- and other information on their website has been brough forward?

What's the most effective way to reach them?

I'm not skeptical of PP... but I'm skeptical of any statement regarding circumcision.... it took me about 1/2 a second to read the statement and see the word cultural and realize that the statement needed to be scrutinized.

Whatever our personal opinions are about PP, it is a fact that they serve a large number of women and men. In many communities they represent the only reproductive care that is available to people that don't have the money or insurance to go to a doctor.

If they are going to have information about circumcision on their websites, it better be accurate- and it is not. I would be surprised and angry if they would not, at the very least, be willing to change their wording to a more neutral/unbiased case-- and I can be hopeful that PP would decide to promote a more progressive pro-intact pov.

I emailed them.

IMO others should do the same, I am not keen on looking like a lone nutcase!


----------



## ColoradoMama (Nov 22, 2001)

Whew! That took a while to read this whole thread, and it's been interesting! I have my own personal issues with PP due to my personal experience, but it looks to me as if they have taken a first good step (albeit a baby step, but hey it's a start). Due to my issues, I have stayed away from all interaction with anything PP related, but I think with this I'll bite the bullet and send them an email.


----------

