San Francisco Circumcision Ban - Page 12

posts from hell · 06-13-2011, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeafCaroline

Ok, just did some research....12,000 women out of 150 million in America per year will get cervical cancer. 1 in 8 American women will get breast cancer, that's about 17,750,000 women. If using someone's logic above that we are justified in cutting off pieces of newborn babies' penises to prevent cervical cancer, shouldn't we be justified cutting off daughters' breasts to ward off chances of getting breast cancer?

Not that I personally advocate this but just showing how illogical some logical arguments can be.

Now you've said it. Ruined my eye-candy future.

**saywhatkid** · 06-13-2011, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeafCaroline

Ok, just did some research....12,000 women out of 150 million in America per year will get cervical cancer. 1 in 8 American women will get breast cancer, that's about 17,750,000 women. If using someone's logic above that we are justified in cutting off pieces of newborn babies' penises to prevent cervical cancer, shouldn't we be justified cutting off daughters' breasts to ward off chances of getting breast cancer?

Not that I personally advocate this but just showing how illogical some logical arguments can be.

I have heard of women from high-risk families that have their non-cancerous breasts removed. I forget when this was a big story.

DeafCaroline · 06-13-2011, 04:40 PM

Yeah, I had heard about that too.

AlleyCat · 06-13-2011, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saywhatkid

I have heard of women from high-risk families that have their non-cancerous breasts removed. I forget when this was a big story.

I've heard the same. It's so high risk for my sister and I, that on her last gyn visit, that very suggestion was made to her.

jillio · 06-13-2011, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeafCaroline

Ok, just did some research....12,000 women out of 150 million in America per year will get cervical cancer. 1 in 8 American women will get breast cancer, that's about 17,750,000 women. If using someone's logic above that we are justified in cutting off pieces of newborn babies' penises to prevent cervical cancer, shouldn't we be justified cutting off daughters' breasts to ward off chances of getting breast cancer?

Not that I personally advocate this but just showing how illogical some logical arguments can be.

Excellent question.

jillio · 06-13-2011, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlleyCat

I've heard the same. It's so high risk for my sister and I, that on her last gyn visit, that very suggestion was made to her.

My mother, my maternal grandmother, and both of my maternal great aunts died of breast cancer. My mother's sister (my aunt) has had a double mastectomy and is currently in remission. Her daughter (my age within 1 month) has had a double mastectomy as of 2 years ago and is currently in remission. My uncle (the baby of the family) was diagnosed with prostate cancer; until then I did not know that the same gene if responsible in certain types of breast and prostate cancers.

It is not a matter of if, but when, given my risk factor. I have considered preventive surgery, but decided that with my awareness of the need for early detection, and the success rates being seen from early detection, that drastic a move was just a bit overboard.

AlleyCat · 06-13-2011, 05:17 PM

I'm sorry for your losses.

My mother, her sister, and their mother, all have had breast cancer. The sister has had it recur three times. My mother is in remission. My grandmother has passed, but not from breast cancer. So my sister and I are next in line. I just hope we are good with early detection.

**deafskeptic** · 06-13-2011, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

My mother, my maternal grandmother, and both of my maternal great aunts died of breast cancer. My mother's sister (my aunt) has had a double mastectomy and is currently in remission. Her daughter (my age within 1 month) has had a double mastectomy as of 2 years ago and is currently in remission. My uncle (the baby of the family) was diagnosed with prostate cancer; until then I did not know that the same gene if responsible in certain types of breast and prostate cancers.

It is not a matter of if, but when, given my risk factor. I have considered preventive surgery, but decided that with my awareness of the need for early detection, and the success rates being seen from early detection, that drastic a move was just a bit overboard.

I'm thinking the same thing. My mother survived but only because it was detected early. She did have to have one of her breasts removed though. My dad says she's cured of it.

I wonder if my great uncle Claude Grove died of prostate cancer. I never knew him. I will have to ask my mother about my great uncle. He was my grandmother Price's brother. My grandmother Price and her sister (my great aunt Helen) both died of this disease.

**deafskeptic** · 06-13-2011, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlleyCat

I'm sorry for your losses.

My mother, her sister, and their mother, all have had breast cancer. The sister has had it recur three times. My mother is in remission. My grandmother has passed, but not from breast cancer. So my sister and I are next in line. I just hope we are good with early detection.

Me too!

Aleser · 06-13-2011, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

My mother, my maternal grandmother, and both of my maternal great aunts died of breast cancer. My mother's sister (my aunt) has had a double mastectomy and is currently in remission. Her daughter (my age within 1 month) has had a double mastectomy as of 2 years ago and is currently in remission. My uncle (the baby of the family) was diagnosed with prostate cancer; until then I did not know that the same gene if responsible in certain types of breast and prostate cancers.

It is not a matter of if, but when, given my risk factor. I have considered preventive surgery, but decided that with my awareness of the need for early detection, and the success rates being seen from early detection, that drastic a move was just a bit overboard.

Have you actually been tested for the gene mutations? Without a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation diagnosis, there is absolutely no way to know you have inherited the genes or will develop BC.

If you -do- get a BRCA1/BRCA2 diagnosis, depending on which type you have it might significantly skew your feelings about prophylactic surgery and its benefits. At the very least, it can help get your insurance to shell out for more sensitive testing like MRIs (important especially if you're still in your 40s or so).

jillio · 06-13-2011, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlleyCat

I'm sorry for your losses.

My mother, her sister, and their mother, all have had breast cancer. The sister has had it recur three times. My mother is in remission. My grandmother has passed, but not from breast cancer. So my sister and I are next in line. I just hope we are good with early detection.

Wow! Our history is so similar!

jillio · 06-13-2011, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aleser

Have you actually been tested for the gene mutations? Without a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation diagnosis, there is absolutely no way to know you have inherited the genes or will develop BC.

If you -do- get a BRCA1/BRCA2 diagnosis, depending on which type you have it might significantly skew your feelings about prophylactic surgery and its benefits. At the very least, it can help get your insurance to shell out for more sensitive testing like MRIs (important especially if you're still in your 40s or so).

No, I haven't. My insurance currently does not cover the genetic testing, and it is very expensive the last I checked on it. I have, however, had MRIs done every 3 years on top of the yearly mammogram.

My health history follows my paternal patterns more closely than my maternal patterns, and I have always taken that as an indication of a strong possibility not having inherited the gene.

netrox · 06-13-2011, 11:21 PM

To be honest, I think it stinks that the media heavily hype on genetic vulnerabilities because it's NOT really that significant when you look at the whole picture. Remember, we ALL will die of something and most people with so called "genetic mutations" will die of something else, not the disease that may be encouraged by the genetic mutation. We don't need to worry ourselves too much about them. Studies seem to show over and over that our lifestyle and our diet seem to make a huge difference, probably due to the popular theory that epigenetics are heavily influenced by them.

And remember, sometimes even if you get diseases BECAUSE of genetics, it often makes little or no difference even if you're treated. You'll die of something, period. :/ That's why they're now trying new tests to see if you have some kind of genetic information that will RESPOND to a drug treatment and that's a smart move IMO. It's a waste of money and you don't need to die with toxic side effects when you have genes that will NOT respond to treatment.

Aleser · 06-14-2011, 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by netrox

To be honest, I think it stinks that the media heavily hype on genetic vulnerabilities because it's NOT really that significant when you look at the whole picture. Remember, we ALL will die of something and most people with so called "genetic mutations" will die of something else, not the disease that may be encouraged by the genetic mutation. We don't need to worry ourselves too much about them. Studies seem to show over and over that our lifestyle and our diet seem to make a huge difference, probably due to the popular theory that epigenetics are heavily influenced by them.

And remember, sometimes even if you get diseases BECAUSE of genetics, it often makes little or no difference even if you're treated. You'll die of something, period. :/ That's why they're now trying new tests to see if you have some kind of genetic information that will RESPOND to a drug treatment and that's a smart move IMO. It's a waste of money and you don't need to die with toxic side effects when you have genes that will NOT respond to treatment.

While that may be true for a variety of polygenic diseases with unclear inheritance, that is not the case with the BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations. About 65% of women with a BRCA1 mutation will develop breast cancer, and 35-45% of them will develop ovarian cancer. About 40-55% of women with BRCA2 mutations will develop breast cancer, and about 20% of them will develop ovarian cancer.

BRCA1 mutation is linked to a specific type of breast cancer called "triple negative" breast cancer, breast cancer which does not respond to the current BC drugs which target specific kinds of receptors (progesterone, estrogen, and her2).

This type of breast cancer tends to arrive earlier than the typical breast cancer diagnosis, is generally extremely aggressive, and has very few treatments. Even with surgery when possible, radiation, and targeted treatments like iniparib, survival for this type of breast cancer is in the range of months to a year or two much of the time.

Certain treatments, ranging from oral contraception to complete oophorectomy, combined with a double mastectomy can increase survival dramatically when someone is diagnosed with a BRCA mutation. Especially in the case of BRCA1, waiting until you develop the cancer is often waiting too long as there are no highly (or even moderately) effective treatments for the cancer it is associated with.

People with a family history of BC -should- have the opportunity to get tested in light of this fact: there is a demonstrated increase in survival if you know you have the BRCA mutation, versus finding it out upon diagnosis- either because you get screened more often, or because you opt for prophylactic surgery. It saddens me greatly that many insurance companies do not cover this, especially in light of the much higher costs of treating a cancer once it actually develops.

jillio · 06-14-2011, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aleser

While that may be true for a variety of polygenic diseases with unclear inheritance, that is not the case with the BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations. About 65% of women with a BRCA1 mutation will develop breast cancer, and 35-45% of them will develop ovarian cancer. About 40-55% of women with BRCA2 mutations will develop breast cancer, and about 20% of them will develop ovarian cancer.

BRCA1 mutation is linked to a specific type of breast cancer called "triple negative" breast cancer, breast cancer which does not respond to the current BC drugs which target specific kinds of receptors (progesterone, estrogen, and her2).

This type of breast cancer tends to arrive earlier than the typical breast cancer diagnosis, is generally extremely aggressive, and has very few treatments. Even with surgery when possible, radiation, and targeted treatments like iniparib, survival for this type of breast cancer is in the range of months to a year or two much of the time.

Certain treatments, ranging from oral contraception to complete oophorectomy, combined with a double mastectomy can increase survival dramatically when someone is diagnosed with a BRCA mutation. Especially in the case of BRCA1, waiting until you develop the cancer is often waiting too long as there are no highly (or even moderately) effective treatments for the cancer it is associated with.

People with a family history of BC -should- have the opportunity to get tested in light of this fact: there is a demonstrated increase in survival if you know you have the BRCA mutation, versus finding it out upon diagnosis- either because you get screened more often, or because you opt for prophylactic surgery. It saddens me greatly that many insurance companies do not cover this, especially in light of the much higher costs of treating a cancer once it actually develops.

With health care reform and a focus moving more toward preventive medicine, this could very well be a reality in the very near future.

yizuman · 06-15-2011, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Washington, DC – Congressman Brad Sherman announced today that he will be introducing the Religious and Parental Rights Defense Act of 2011, a bill to prevent San Francisco and other municipalities from banning the circumcision of males under the age of 18.
Sherman’s new bill is in reaction to a measure that has qualified for the November 2011 ballot in San Francisco that would make the performance of circumcisions on males under 18 a misdemeanor—with a possible $1,000 fine and one-year prison term.

“Male circumcision has been practiced for thousands of years and is a deeply important ceremony for two major religions,” said Sherman. “Circumcision is obligatory for Jewish-born males -- it must be performed on the eighth day after birth and is only postponed in the case of threat to the life or health of the child. Muslim parents also circumcise their male children.”

Sherman expressed concern over the motivation of the provision. “To infringe the religious rights of so many Americans, San Francisco should have some compelling medical reason; however, the medical literature actually shows clear benefits of male circumcision.”

According to a United Nation AIDS agency study, male circumcision offers a 60 percent reduction in HIV risk and the benefits are life-long.

“I agree with the American Academy of Pediatrics that parents should clearly have the right to freely decide whether circumcision is in the best interests of their male children,” said Sherman. “In fact, American parents have chosen circumcision for over 75 percent of male children.”

“Congress has a legitimate interest in making sure that a practice that appears to reduce disease and health care costs remains available to parents,” Sherman said. “And, nothing in my bill prohibits statewide law ensuring that male circumcision occurs in a hygienic manner.”

“Congress has historically legislated to protect the free exercise of religious rights from state and local intrusions,” Sherman said. “In 2000, Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, designed to protect religious institutions from unduly burdensome local zoning laws.”

“The Religious and Parental Rights Defense Act of 2011ensures that Jewish and Muslim families will continue to be able to enjoy the free exercise of their religious beliefs,” Sherman said.

Source: Sherman to Introduce Bill to Protect Male Circumcision | Congressman Brad Sherman, Representing the 27th District of California

See? Toldcha Religion will win out every single time. Try to make a law that goes against religion, even when it's unintentional, will make those that hold religious beliefs go absolutely nuts.

Yiz

Aleser · 06-15-2011, 04:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yizuman

Source: Sherman to Introduce Bill to Protect Male Circumcision | Congressman Brad Sherman, Representing the 27th District of California

See? Toldcha Religion will win out every single time. Try to make a law that goes against religion, even when it's unintentional, will make those that hold religious beliefs go absolutely nuts.

Yiz

The funny thing here is that not all Muslims believe that circumcision is good, much less a religious obligation. You can bet that if circumcision was a predominantly Muslim practice, and not also a Jewish one and one done by many Christian Americans, absolutely nobody would be defending it and everyone would decry it as "Muslims mutilating their children."

But these other groups (mostly Jewish) choose to exploit Muslims when their desires are temporarily somewhat in agreement, so that they can make it sound as though their cause is one that spans a community much larger than the Jewish community.

The reality is most boys in the US are not circumcised for religious reasons, but for a variety of half-assed "personal reasons".

If circumcision were actually a health practice, -health organizations would recommend it-. As it were, the closest that comes to happening is the WHO recommending circumcision as a viable aspect in multi-part HIV defense strategies in countries with extremely high HIV rates- in lack of living in mud-huts in Africa, I think Americans will be -just fine- if the government doesn't defend the "medical benefits" of this procedure.

**saywhatkid** · 06-15-2011, 06:59 AM

Well, I still feel that the government has no business telling people what to do in this case. If the reasoning behind this law is to prevent an unnecessary procedure, what is next; banning plastic surgery? breast augmentation?

**Beowulf** · 06-15-2011, 08:03 AM

peaceful parenting: Death From Circumcision

yizuman · 06-15-2011, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saywhatkid

Well, I still feel that the government has no business telling people what to do in this case. If the reasoning behind this law is to prevent an unnecessary procedure, what is next; banning plastic surgery? breast augmentation?

I don't think that would be a bad idea....

Yiz

**saywhatkid** · 06-15-2011, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yizuman

I don't think that would be a bad idea....

Most of your examples (I don't know the first pictured one) are famous people that went overboard with plastic surgery. I agree that there are risks associated with both surgeries I mentioned. I am asking if we should ban them. Do we need laws to protect people from making choices that may adversely affect them? Let the legislating begin:

Losing temper
Big Mac consumption
Ice cream over-indulgence
Not exercising at all
TV viewing all day
Not looking both ways before crossing road
Potato chips eating during NFL games

Do we REALLY need this?

kokonut · 06-15-2011, 10:12 AM

Same can be said about legislating what parents can or cannot do in making an informed decision about their children.

**Beowulf** · 06-15-2011, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Same can be said about legislating what parents can or cannot do in making an informed decision about their children.

"Informed" is the key word here. Most doctors and hospitals do not tell parents of the risks involved in treatment of their children.

Aleser · 06-15-2011, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beowulf

"Informed" is the key word here. Most doctors and hospitals do not tell parents of the risks involved in treatment of their children.

Not to mention, there's a lot of it-wont-happen-to-me thinking surrounding a newborn. Parents don't want to believe -their- child could be one of the children that die from circumcision.

**Beowulf** · 06-15-2011, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aleser

Not to mention, there's a lot of it-wont-happen-to-me thinking surrounding a newborn. Parents don't want to believe -their- child could be one of the children that die from circumcision.

Right. Don't forget that a baby needs only lose 1 ounce of blood to hemorrhage and 2.3 ounces to die as a result of blood loss. It can and does happen very quickly, as well.

kokonut · 06-15-2011, 01:07 PM

"Most doctors and hospitals do not tell....."

A matter of opinion and not necessarily a fact.

**Beowulf** · 06-15-2011, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

"Most doctors and hospitals do not tell....."

A matter of opinion and not necessarily a fact.

You realize, of course, that you are saying that most doctors and hospitals DO inform the parents of risks in circumcisions.

Oceanbreeze · 06-15-2011, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saywhatkid

Most of your examples (I don't know the first pictured one) are famous people that went overboard with plastic surgery. I agree that there are risks associated with both surgeries I mentioned. I am asking if we should ban them. Do we need laws to protect people from making choices that may adversely affect them? Let the legislating begin:

Losing temper
Big Mac consumption
Ice cream over-indulgence
Not exercising at all
TV viewing all day
Not looking both ways before crossing road
Potato chips eating during NFL games

Do we REALLY need this?

No, but Beo makes a point about informed consent... See my next post.

Oceanbreeze · 06-15-2011, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beowulf

"Informed" is the key word here. Most doctors and hospitals do not tell parents of the risks involved in treatment of their children.

OK. Then, the solution is reasonably simple. Instead of banning the procedure ( which I believe is an infrigment on parental rights), we create a law that ensures that everyone must give INFORMED consent before procedures are done. This goes for any procedure; and not just circumcision. I believe that if we did this, then there could be a significant decrease in the number of elective procedures. As someone who's had a lot of procedures done (some elective; most not), I am ALL FOR informed consent! I just don't like the idea of a parent's right to decision making being trampled on by laws.

DeafCaroline · 06-15-2011, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oceanbreeze

OK. Then, the solution is reasonably simple. Instead of banning the procedure ( which I believe is an infrigment on parental rights), we create a law that ensures that everyone must give INFORMED consent before procedures are done. This goes for any procedure; and not just circumcision. I believe that if we did this, then there could be a significant decrease in the number of elective procedures.

This is a very smart suggestion! I like it.

06-15-2011, 06:59 AM	#348 (permalink)
saywhatkid Emerging from the sun Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: In space Posts: 7,242 Blog Entries: 2	Well, I still feel that the government has no business telling people what to do in this case. If the reasoning behind this law is to prevent an unnecessary procedure, what is next; banning plastic surgery? breast augmentation? Oceanbreeze likes this. __________________ "Be faithful in small things because it is in them that your strength lies." ~ Mother Teresa

06-15-2011, 10:12 AM	#352 (permalink)
kokonut Registered User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 15,348	Same can be said about legislating what parents can or cannot do in making an informed decision about their children. rockin'robin likes this. __________________ Before AD. After AD. "Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." -Thurgood Marshall, former Supreme Court Justice "... turns out they are telling the truth."

06-15-2011, 01:07 PM	#356 (permalink)
kokonut Registered User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 15,348	"Most doctors and hospitals do not tell....." A matter of opinion and not necessarily a fact. __________________ Before AD. After AD. "Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." -Thurgood Marshall, former Supreme Court Justice "... turns out they are telling the truth."

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

06-13-2011, 04:40 PM	#333 (permalink)
DeafCaroline Registered User Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,889	Yeah, I had heard about that too.

06-13-2011, 05:17 PM	#337 (permalink)
AlleyCat Registered User Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: In my time zone Posts: 10,795	I'm sorry for your losses. My mother, her sister, and their mother, all have had breast cancer. The sister has had it recur three times. My mother is in remission. My grandmother has passed, but not from breast cancer. So my sister and I are next in line. I just hope we are good with early detection.

06-13-2011, 11:21 PM	#343 (permalink)
netrox Registered User Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 4,780	To be honest, I think it stinks that the media heavily hype on genetic vulnerabilities because it's NOT really that significant when you look at the whole picture. Remember, we ALL will die of something and most people with so called "genetic mutations" will die of something else, not the disease that may be encouraged by the genetic mutation. We don't need to worry ourselves too much about them. Studies seem to show over and over that our lifestyle and our diet seem to make a huge difference, probably due to the popular theory that epigenetics are heavily influenced by them. And remember, sometimes even if you get diseases BECAUSE of genetics, it often makes little or no difference even if you're treated. You'll die of something, period. :/ That's why they're now trying new tests to see if you have some kind of genetic information that will RESPOND to a drug treatment and that's a smart move IMO. It's a waste of money and you don't need to die with toxic side effects when you have genes that will NOT respond to treatment.

06-15-2011, 08:03 AM	#349 (permalink)
Beowulf Premium Member Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 10,515	peaceful parenting: Death From Circumcision