Are they really quacks?
Find a Conversation
|Sun, 08-08-2010 - 11:12am|
For all of of their professional credentials, skills and expertise, are doctors who routinely recommend and perform non therapeutic circumcisions on infant males; are they not in fact "quacks" in performing this procedure?
This is not to say that a doctor is a quack in the performance of all of his/her medical regimens, but rather the single procedure of performing routine neonatal circumcisions on infants with no medical indications to warrant the procedure is an act of quackery. Please keep in mind that the removal of normal, healthy (undiseased) bodily tissue is not a medical procedure or even a cosmetic surgery. Cosmetic procedures are performed to reconstruct, to repair or enhance bodily tissue therefore as RIC accomplishes none of these objectives it renders RIC an act of purposeful mutilation (not done of course with the intention to mutilate, but never the less accomplishes only that in the end)
The defintion of "quack" as given by one on-line dictionary is: "a pretender to medical skill", if RIC is not a medical procedure or a cosmetic surgery than just what is it? "unethical misuse of medical skills" perhaps?
Edited 8/10/2010 12:12 pm ET by rob08