Topic: Episode #327

[Old Hoplite]

There are too many methodological issues with studies like these to make me sanguine about sanctioning permanently scarring surgery on infants. Did they look at education and condoms as alternative means?

I'm am not trying to defend circumcision, nor am I decrying it.  I am merely pointing out that male circumcision is a benign procedure that does not generally effect the health or later sex life of the boy, whereas no one can claim that FGM is in anyway benign and it is a false parallel to equate circumcision with FGM. 

[Trinoc]

There are too many methodological issues with studies like these to make me sanguine about sanctioning permanently scarring surgery on infants. Did they look at education and condoms as alternative means?

I'm am not trying to defend circumcision, nor am I decrying it.  I am merely pointing out that male circumcision is a benign procedure that does not generally effect the health or later sex life of the boy, whereas no one can claim that FGM is in anyway benign and it is a false parallel to equate circumcision with FGM.

That is a fair point, but far too often I hear the "it's not as bad as FGM" as an excuse not to do anything about MGM at all. We can and do tackle more than one problem at a time. It would presumably be illegal to have a child tattooed for religious or any other reasons, so why should surgery without a medical need be any different?

[seaotter]

Cosmetic work done before the age of reasoned consent bugs me.

[Nurse_Curtis]

Re: Reiki doesn't work.

Just felt compelled to finally join the forum after years of listening when I heard about the nurses using Reiki.  I am a practicing Registered Psychiatric Nurse in Canada and wanted to share my perspective:

A nurse engaging and encouraging a pseudo-scientific "treatment" is truly a scary thought.  A patient generally trusts a nurse as having some expertise, and for an self-respecting nurse to abuse that trust really disgusts me!

That said....
http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,38670.msg9097393.html#msg9097393

PS:  On the last SGU episode about nurses using reiki,  this is how I view it as a skeptic from a mental health perspective.  No matter what a person defines as the spirit aspect of themselves (and this does NOT imply anything supernatural on its own), I do see a therapeutic value is them participating in it.  I may personally believe it is ridiculous (and in acute psych, I have seen some strange ones).  But no matter how irrational it is, if it gives them some comfort, I have NO issues facilitating it. (I will NEVER suggest them though!)  I won't pray or conduct any supernatural or pseudo-scientific practice, but if it is not contraindicated for the client (ie, with psychotic individuals, I would not feel right engaging in something that is "magical" or not based in reality), I will help them out!  Maybe it's placebo, maybe it is comforting out of habit, maybe it is just having someone spend time and acknowledge that they are who they are and can chose their own destiny.  Some of my favorites are things like yoga, meditation, art, music, dance... I am sure I can think of more but I just finished a long day! 

So it isn't exactly so simple, I have no ethical issues with facilitating a client in something like Reiki, and while I will likely present them with reality in as respectful and compassionate way as possible, (offer options that have some research based evidence to support them) But if they insist it will "work" I wouldn't stop them unless of course it could cause them harm.  I mean, I see it in a similar way as a family coming to pray with a client.  There have only been one or two situations I can recall where I felt it was necessary to intervene for the well-being of the client.  TRUST ME, being raised Roman Catholic and now finding myself comfortably labeled as "fiercely agnostic", the first time a client asked for assistance getting to a chapel and assisting them so they could attend mass was a challenge to say the least.  But seeing that the client did feel some comfort from doing it, which as a psychiatric nurse an important aspect of one's self (Mind, body and spirit), I was able to resolve any lingering ethical issues I had with it.

I am VERY careful to always assess what the potential risk versus gain for the client for any religious of pseudo-scientific practice is, and I WILL stop if I feel it is appropriate (but due to personal freedom, consulting with a psychiatrist to CYA is always wise!). 

Goji berry juice?  I saw a client who has severe anxiety swore it worked better than a benzodiazepine.  I advised he tried both, but he refused.  So the drink did help him calm himself!  Magical berry juice or the power of the mind....  Either way, a settled client is a safe one!  I KNOW a benzo is going to do the trick, but untill they become a risk to themselves and have to be forced to receive medication, I will try just about anything that is less invasive first if it is reasonable to do so!

EDIT:  I would be honored to have anyone in the medical profession, even more so psychiatry to critique my position on this.  I practice is always changing and I certainly am not concrete in my understanding of mental health from a nursing/therapist perspective.  BRING IT ON!!! 

Nurse Curtis

[jawmo]

Re: Reiki doesn't work.

Just felt compelled to finally join the forum after years of listening when I heard about the nurses using Reiki.  I am a practicing Registered Psychiatric Nurse in Canada and wanted to share my perspective:

A nurse engaging and encouraging a pseudo-scientific "treatment" is truly a scary thought.  A patient generally trusts a nurse as having some expertise, and for an self-respecting nurse to abuse that trust really disgusts me!

That said....
http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,38670.msg9097393.html#msg9097393

PS:  On the last SGU episode about nurses using reiki,  this is how I view it as a skeptic from a mental health perspective.  No matter what a person defines as the spirit aspect of themselves (and this does NOT imply anything supernatural on its own), I do see a therapeutic value is them participating in it.  I may personally believe it is ridiculous (and in acute psych, I have seen some strange ones).  But no matter how irrational it is, if it gives them some comfort, I have NO issues facilitating it. (I will NEVER suggest them though!)  I won't pray or conduct any supernatural or pseudo-scientific practice, but if it is not contraindicated for the client (ie, with psychotic individuals, I would not feel right engaging in something that is "magical" or not based in reality), I will help them out!  Maybe it's placebo, maybe it is comforting out of habit, maybe it is just having someone spend time and acknowledge that they are who they are and can chose their own destiny.  Some of my favorites are things like yoga, meditation, art, music, dance... I am sure I can think of more but I just finished a long day! 

So it isn't exactly so simple, I have no ethical issues with facilitating a client in something like Reiki, and while I will likely present them with reality in as respectful and compassionate way as possible, (offer options that have some research based evidence to support them) But if they insist it will "work" I wouldn't stop them unless of course it could cause them harm.  I mean, I see it in a similar way as a family coming to pray with a client.  There have only been one or two situations I can recall where I felt it was necessary to intervene for the well-being of the client.  TRUST ME, being raised Roman Catholic and now finding myself comfortably labeled as "fiercely agnostic", the first time a client asked for assistance getting to a chapel and assisting them so they could attend mass was a challenge to say the least.  But seeing that the client did feel some comfort from doing it, which as a psychiatric nurse an important aspect of one's self (Mind, body and spirit), I was able to resolve any lingering ethical issues I had with it.

I am VERY careful to always assess what the potential risk versus gain for the client for any religious of pseudo-scientific practice is, and I WILL stop if I feel it is appropriate (but due to personal freedom, consulting with a psychiatrist to CYA is always wise!). 

Goji berry juice?  I saw a client who has severe anxiety swore it worked better than a benzodiazepine.  I advised he tried both, but he refused.  So the drink did help him calm himself!  Magical berry juice or the power of the mind....  Either way, a settled client is a safe one!  I KNOW a benzo is going to do the trick, but untill they become a risk to themselves and have to be forced to receive medication, I will try just about anything that is less invasive first if it is reasonable to do so!

EDIT:  I would be honored to have anyone in the medical profession, even more so psychiatry to critique my position on this.  I practice is always changing and I certainly am not concrete in my understanding of mental health from a nursing/therapist perspective.  BRING IT ON!!! 

Nurse Curtis

Well put, Nurse, and welcome! I am friends with a woman who performs Reiki on pre-op patients in the cardiac ward of a large hospital. It is an accepted part of the protocol, and evidently has a calming effect on people about to undergo major surgery.

She has also "done" Reiki on me several times, as have a couple of her students, and all I got out of it was a serious coughing fit from the sage one of them insisted on burning near my head. But unlike chiropractic, for example, it is totally noninvasive. Who's to say that if I were more receptive to the whole rigamarole I might not have benefited from Reiki?

On one level, yes, Reiki is a sham that can be performed by anyone with a shingle and a dream, with zero science to support it. It is essentially an elaborate progressive-relaxation technique, with an overlay of Eastern mystical bullshit to appeal to New Age types. On another level, it is a tool whereby people unaccustomed to progressive relaxation (or predisposed to woo) can feel a little bit better for a short while.

My problem with Reiki is with the practitioners who oversell the thing, which my friend does not. That's the snake-oil component that people contemplating Reiki -- as with other "alternative" therapies -- must always be wary of.

[Anders]

Cosmetic work done before the age of reasoned consent bugs me.

Exactly. Would it be ok to give a six-year old a boob job?

[Citizen Skeptic]

Cosmetic work done before the age of reasoned consent bugs me.

Exactly. Would it be ok to give a six-year old a boob job?

Is she going to be on a reality tv show about 6 year old beauty queens?

[Silly Llama]

There are too many methodological issues with studies like these to make me sanguine about sanctioning permanently scarring surgery on infants. Did they look at education and condoms as alternative means?

I'm am not trying to defend circumcision, nor am I decrying it.  I am merely pointing out that male circumcision is a benign procedure that does not generally effect the health or later sex life of the boy, whereas no one can claim that FGM is in anyway benign and it is a false parallel to equate circumcision with FGM.

That is a fair point, but far too often I hear the "it's not as bad as FGM" as an excuse not to do anything about MGM at all. We can and do tackle more than one problem at a time. It would presumably be illegal to have a child tattooed for religious or any other reasons, so why should surgery without a medical need be any different?

Additionally it is very weasely to call circumcision "male genital mutilation", it frames the discussion with the conclusion built into the terms.  If you're actually interested in a reasoned discussion of the matter you'll have to stop that.  If you're just getting up on an ideological soapbox then go for it.

[seaotter]

I hate it when people are clear about their positions.

[vespine]

Probably my favorite hitchslap clip is about this topic, if you haven't seen it look up Christopher Hitchens goes after Rabbi Harold Kushner, i can't search YouTube at work. Just brilliant..

(click to show/hide)

I love how the MC tries to say "let's move on" but Hitch just goes for the throat.

[Chew]

This one?

Christopher Hitchens Goes After Rabbi Harold Kushner re: Circumcision

[Anders]

Angering Hitchens is like opening a bottle of shaken soda. Scorn and derision just gush forward in a seemingly never-ending stream.

As for not calling it Male Genital Mutilation - why not? Is it not mutilating the genitalia of males? What possible better word can there be for it?

[Old Hoplite]

Angering Hitchens is like opening a bottle of shaken soda. Scorn and derision just gush forward in a seemingly never-ending stream.

As for not calling it Male Genital Mutilation - why not? Is it not mutilating the genitalia of males? What possible better word can there be for it?

Uh yeah?  Circumcision.
After all we don't call ear piercing "auris organ mutilation".

Also Hitchen's argument is not correct,  http://sexuality.about.com/od/malesexualhealth/a/sexcircumcised2.htm
Studies show either no effect or improved sexual pleasure for both men and women when the man is circumcised.
Hitchen shows a raving angry whenever he is:
one: dealing with religion and
two: someone makes better points than he does. 
He then falls back on sarcasm and derision without addressing the argument.

[Trinoc]

Additionally it is very weasely to call circumcision "male genital mutilation", it frames the discussion with the conclusion built into the terms.  If you're actually interested in a reasoned discussion of the matter you'll have to stop that.  If you're just getting up on an ideological soapbox then go for it.

I'd say precisely the opposite. To call it circumcision and refuse to speak about what it really involves is to cloak it in euphemism.

It's an unnecessary surgical procedure, often carried out without even an anaesthetic, on the most vulnerable members of our society without any possibility for them to consent. In most parts of the world, genital mutilation (male or female) is carried out by medically unqualified people with little if any regard for hygiene, often in front of friends and family (and, naturally, priests), who see it as an opportunity for a party and a further assertion of the superiority of the followers of their particular god over the rest of humanity.

I am not going to hold back on the use of words which describe all forms of involuntary surgery without medical need as the barbarity they are.

(And I apologise to any true Barbarians, i.e. beard-wearing people of North African origin, whose ethnic designation we have appropriated in this way.)

[Old Hoplite]

Additionally it is very weasely to call circumcision "male genital mutilation", it frames the discussion with the conclusion built into the terms.  If you're actually interested in a reasoned discussion of the matter you'll have to stop that.  If you're just getting up on an ideological soapbox then go for it.

I'd say precisely the opposite. To call it circumcision and refuse to speak about what it really involves is to cloak it in euphemism.

It's an unnecessary surgical procedure, often carried out without even an anaesthetic, on the most vulnerable members of our society without any possibility for them to consent. In most parts of the world, genital mutilation (male or female) is carried out by medically unqualified people with little if any regard for hygiene, often in front of friends and family (and, naturally, priests), who see it as an opportunity for a party and a further assertion of the superiority of the followers of their particular god over the rest of humanity.

I am not going to hold back on the use of words which describe all forms of involuntary surgery without medical need as the barbarity they are.

(And I apologise to any true Barbarians, i.e. beard-wearing people of North African origin, whose ethnic designation we have appropriated in this way.)

Well, actually the word Barbarian orginal meaning was simply someone that did not speak Greek (later Latin). It is an example of Onomatopoeia. To the Greeks and later Romans barbarians sounds like "Bar bar bar".