Circumcision instrument: Difference between revisions
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) Revise text. |
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) m →Change in medical view: Revise text. |
||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
The [[Mogen]] clamp was introduced in 1954 and is the newest of the three instruments. It was invented by a rabbi and is based on the design of the traditional Jewish barzell, so it may be favored by [[Mohel| mohellim]] for the performance of [[ritual circumcision]]. The Mogen instrument claims to protect the glans penis during circumcision, however, in actual practice it has been possible to slice off part of the [[glans penis]]. There have been some very substantial awards for damages that have caused the company to go into bankruptcy and suspend production of the Mogen clamp. | The [[Mogen]] clamp was introduced in 1954 and is the newest of the three instruments. It was invented by a rabbi and is based on the design of the traditional Jewish barzell, so it may be favored by [[Mohel| mohellim]] for the performance of [[ritual circumcision]]. The Mogen instrument claims to protect the glans penis during circumcision, however, in actual practice it has been possible to slice off part of the [[glans penis]]. There have been some very substantial awards for damages that have caused the company to go into bankruptcy and suspend production of the Mogen clamp. | ||
==Change in medical view== | ==Change in medical view== | ||
One should note that these circumcision instruments were all developed more than seventy years ago and are relics of the last century. At that time medical opinion favored infant circumcision, which was then alleged to prevent various diseases. | One should note that these circumcision instruments were all developed more than seventy years ago and are relics of the last century. At that time medical opinion favored infant [[circumcision]], which was then alleged to prevent various diseases. | ||
Medical opinion has shifted dramatically since then. [[Circumcision]] is no longer viewed as an effective preventer of disease. Instead, circumcision of male minors is now viewed as a harmful, unnecessary, unethical, violation of the patient's [[human rights]], and [[genital mutilation]], which causes a loss of functional penile tissue and irreversible loss of protective, immunological, sexual, and sensory functions. Medical science now knows that [[circumcised]] boys have three times more penile issues than [[foreskinned]] boys.<ref name=fendereski2024">{{REFjournal | Medical opinion has shifted dramatically since then. [[Circumcision]] is no longer viewed as an effective preventer of disease. Instead, circumcision of male minors is now viewed as a harmful, unnecessary, unethical, violation of the patient's [[human rights]], and [[genital mutilation]], which causes a loss of functional penile tissue and irreversible loss of protective, immunological, sexual, and sensory functions. Medical science now knows that [[circumcised]] boys have three times more penile issues than [[foreskinned]] boys.<ref name=fendereski2024">{{REFjournal | ||