Difference between revisions of "Adamant father syndrome"
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) |
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) (→Denial of loss: Add text.) |
||
| Line 132: | Line 132: | ||
==Denial of loss== | ==Denial of loss== | ||
| + | Denial of loss is a second reason that some fathers adamantly insist that any son be circumcised. This reason is not incompatible with the first reason and may coexist in the same individual. | ||
| − | Persons who have suffered the loss of a body part must grieve their loss | + | Persons who have suffered the loss of a body part must grieve their loss.<ref>{{REFjournal |
| + | |last=Maguire | ||
| + | |first=Peter | ||
| + | |author-link= | ||
| + | |last2=Parkes | ||
| + | |first2=Colin Murray | ||
| + | |author2-link= | ||
| + | |etal=no | ||
| + | |title=Coping With Loss: Surgery and Loss of Body Parts | ||
| + | |trans-title= | ||
| + | |language=English | ||
| + | |journal=BMJ | ||
| + | |location= | ||
| + | |date=1998-04-04 | ||
| + | |volume=316 | ||
| + | |issue=7137 | ||
| + | |pages=1086-08 | ||
| + | |url=http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/maguire/ | ||
| + | |archived= | ||
| + | |quote= | ||
| + | |pubmedID=9552917 | ||
| + | |pubmedCID=1112908 | ||
| + | |DOI=10.1136/bmj.316.7137.1086 | ||
| + | |accessdate=2020-07-29 | ||
| + | }}</ref> Failure to grieve one's loss may leave one permanently stuck in the first stage of grief which is denial of loss. Men who have failed to grieve the loss of their foreskin and its functions may not want an intact boy with a foreskin around to remind them of what they have lost, so such an individual may adamantly insist that any son be circumcised. | ||
{{SEEALSO}} | {{SEEALSO}} | ||
Revision as of 20:00, 29 July 2020
Adamant father syndrome is the term used to describe the behavior manifested by many circumcised men when they become fathers. The "adamant father" typically insists that any son born be circumcised even though there is no medical reason for it and it is contrary to current medical advice.[1] [2]
According to Brown & Brown (1987)[3] and Rediger & Muller (2013),[4] the circumcision status of the father is the most important determining factor in whether a boy is circumcised after birth.
Contents
The compulsion to repeat the traumɑ
Goldman (1999) reports that circumcision is trauma and that trauma tends to repeat itself:
The behavioural re-enactment of the trauma is a compulsion for some trauma victims. Circumcision of infants may be regarded as an example of re-enacting the trauma of one's own circumcision. A survey of randomly selected primary care physicians showed that circumcision was more often supported by doctors who were older, male and circumcised.[5]
To illustrate the compulsion to repeat the trauma, Denniston (2000) tells the story of the intern who was in the hospital nursery circumcising newborn boys in the middle of the nightː
For instance, a medical colleague informed me that, a few years ago, the night nurse on duty in an American hospital telephoned a senior resident in the middle of the night. She said to him in alarm, “You had better come down to the nursery right now. One of the interns is circumcising babies.” When he arrived on the floor, he found the intern circumcising a newborn infant. The resident said, “Don’t you think that, before you perform circumcisions, you had better get some training? Aren’t you concerned that you might be removing too much skin?” The intern looked at him, and replied, “No more than they took off me!”* Sadly this young man had failed to recover from his own trauma. Like many victims, he did not realise that, since the trauma of circumcision should not have been inflicted on him, he certainly should not be inflicting circumcision on other human beinɡ.[6]
Hill (2012) commented:
The best way to stop the cycle of trauma is to stop circumcising infants. Non-traumatized intact infants usually do not grow up to become circumcisers, so the cycle of trauma would end.[2]
Denial of loss
Denial of loss is a second reason that some fathers adamantly insist that any son be circumcised. This reason is not incompatible with the first reason and may coexist in the same individual.
Persons who have suffered the loss of a body part must grieve their loss.[7] Failure to grieve one's loss may leave one permanently stuck in the first stage of grief which is denial of loss. Men who have failed to grieve the loss of their foreskin and its functions may not want an intact boy with a foreskin around to remind them of what they have lost, so such an individual may adamantly insist that any son be circumcised.
See also
External links
Young, Hugh.. Adamant fathers, and others
. Retrieved 11 November 2019.
References
- ↑
Bigelow, Jim (1992): Chapter 10, Psychological Factors Related to Infant Circumcision
, in: The Joy of Uncircumcising!. George C. Denniston,Frederick Mansfield Hodges,Marilyn Fayre Milos (ed.). Hourglass Book Publishing, Inc. Pp. 89-112. ISBN 0-934061-22-X. Retrieved 11 November 2019. - ↑ a b Hill, George (2012).
Circumcision & Human Behavior
. Retrieved 11 November 2019. - ↑
Brown, Mark S., Brown, Cheryl A.. Circumcision Decision: Prominence of Social Concerns. Pediatrics. August 1987; 80(2): 215-219. PMID. Retrieved 10 November 2019.
- ↑ Rediger, Chris, Muller, Andries J.. Parents' rationale for male circumcision. Can Fam Physician. February 2013; 59(2): e110-e115. PMID. PMC. Retrieved 10 November 2019.
- ↑ Goldman, Ronald. The psychological impact of circumcision. BJU Int. 1999; 83 Suppl 1: 93-103. PMID. Retrieved 11 November 2019.
- ↑ Denniston, George C. (2000):
Tyranny of the Victims: An Analysis of Circumcision Advocacy
, in: Male and Female Circumcisionː Medical, Legal, and Ethical Considerations in Pediatric Practice. Springer. Pp. 221-40. Retrieved 29 July 2020. - ↑ Maguire, Peter, Parkes, Colin Murray. Coping With Loss: Surgery and Loss of Body Parts. BMJ. 4 April 1998; 316(7137): 1086-08. PMID. PMC. DOI. Retrieved 29 July 2020.
