Me llegó por e-mail éste interesante artículo. Y el comentario que viene aquí al inicio, es cortesía de Gabriela O. M.
"Comparto completamente lo que dice este artículo, pues de hecho es la misma conclusion a la que yo ya había llegado hace mucho tiempo: Que hay una profunda patología e inclusive una perversión sexual en los doctores que circuncidan a los bebés sin sentir nada ante los alaridos que da el pequeño indefenso, pues solo asi me puedo explicar el hecho de que no sientan nada, e inclusive hagan bromas cuando los bebes se desgañitan a veces hasta vomitar, al sentir el terrible dolor de la tortura a la que están siendo sometidos.
Pienso que dicho bloqueo proviene de haber pasado por la misma experiencia cuando ellos mismos eran bebés indefensos y que ese dolor que yace enterrado en las profundidades de su psique, no solo produce que se bloqueen ante el dolor de los bebés que como él mismo médico en su momento, están siendo sometidos a esa tortura, sino que en casos extremos, el mutilar a otros bebés tan indefensos como ellos mismos lo estuvieran a tan tierna edad, se convierte en una compulsión destinada a impedir que el dolor salga a la superficie y más que nada, como una forma extrema de venganza y de darle salida a la ira interna y oculta que ellos mismos sienten.... pero que son incapaces de expresar de una manera consciente, pues para poder hacerlo necesitarían enfrentar la realidad de su propio dolor.
Los pretextos que la ciencia médica esgrime actualmente tienen el mismo objetivo de mantener ese dolor enterrado en las profundidades de la psique con las justificaciones más absurdas. A los estudiantes de medicina no se les enseña jamás el verdadero valor a nivel puramente científico y anatómico del prepucio, pues el hecho de saber que el prepucio contiene más de 20,000 terminaciones nerviosas que lo convierten en la parte más sensible de toda la anatomía masculina, que se pierden irremediablemente para siempre al mutilarlo, no necesitaría de más de dos dedos de lógica elemental para entender que la mutilación del mismo implica la pérdida de un 70%-80% de la sensibilidad sexual del hombre... y eso debería de ser más que suficiente como argumento para convencer a cualquier médico... a cualquier hombre de hecho, de que la circuncisión es no solo una falta de ética profesional y una violación al sagrado juramento hipocrático de no hacer daño, sino un acto de locura... pues a qué hombre le gustaría perder su sensibilidad o saber que ya la ha perdido en gran medida y que su vida sexual tendrá un lapso de vida mil veces más corto que el de un hombre que jamás fue mutilado?
Yo creo que este dolor es lo que yace bajo el estado de negación que sienten tantos padres cuando se menciona este tema y que prefieren pasarle la estafeta del dolor oculto a sus propios hijos varones, antes que enfrentar la dolorosa realidad que les fúera impuesta a ellos mismos a tan solo unas horas de haber nacido".
"The Darker Regions of the Human Mind"
Some Statements About Circumcisers
From "The Unkindest Cut of All,"
by John M. Foley, MD
Fact, July 1966, Ralph Ginzburg, Publisher
[Quoted with permission]
by John M. Foley, MD
Fact, July 1966, Ralph Ginzburg, Publisher
[Quoted with permission]
[W]hy anyone would want circumcision made compulsory may seem puzzling.
One answer, of course, is that if circumcision were made compulsory, the circumciser would be protected whenever he happens to cripple or kill the little boy he operates on--a "complication" that is not so very uncommon. Another answer, I think, must be sought in the darker regions of the human mind, because circumcision is simply an unmitigated fraud. It is nothing but wanton and unnecessary mutilation. The annual 2 million assembly-line circumcisions in this country are a monument to the gullibility and stupidity of the American public.
For 60 years, a powerful and articulate minority in our profession has tried to enforce a taboo against any objective discussion of the merits or demerits of circumcision ... To question its value has become all but unthinkable. The medical literature is virtually closed except to those who drool over the operation's alleged advantages.
William Keith C. Morgan, M.D., ... has written in the Journal of the American Medical Associa-tion[:] ... "Why is the operation of circumcision practiced? One might as well attempt to explain the rites of voodoo!" ... Peter Van Zante, M.D., ... writes in the Medical Tribune: "Circumcision of a helpless child is a crime." Elsewhere he has said: "Circumcision is cruel and mutilating and actually should be outlawed." In 1920, a British physician named G. S. Thompson, who had once circumcised himself, later concluded that circumcision was nothing more nor less than "a barbarous and unnecessary mutilation" (British Medical Journal, 1920).
Efforts to justify circumcision have been made since the very beginnings of history. The desire to mutilate came first; the "reasons" came later.
This process of rationalization has culminated in the supposed relationship between the husband's foreskin and cancer of the genitals--one of the greatest hoaxes in the history of medicine.
Circumcision provides a convenient and socially acceptable outlet for the perverted component of the circumciser's libido. I have had personal experience with the psychopathology that underlies the wish to circumcise. The pitiful wails of the suffering infant are all too often the background for lewd and obscene commentary by the obstetrician to his audience of nurses. Several years ago I saw an infant born with multiple deformities. He could not live more than a few months at most, but to add to his miseries, this unfortunate bit of humanity had to undergo a thorough circumcision.
I have seen two medical students fight over the privilege of doing circumcisions on the newborn, although these same students showed neither interest nor aptitude for opening boils or doing other surgical tasks.
In 1951, I witnessed an autopsy on an infant who had died from an infected circumcision--a death rendered even more tragic because the mother had tried to persuade the obstetrician to spare her infant the ordeal.
Dr. Alexander Schaffer, a noted pediatrician, tells with horror of a case in which an infant was being delivered as a frank breech (buttocks first). Before delivering the baby, and just as the penis came into view, the obstetrician seized it and circumcised it. That obstetrician, I would say, may be capable ... But sexually I say he is a monster. And I say that one of the reasons why circumcision is so common in this country stems from the sadism of the crypto-pervert.
[P]sychiatrists have long been agreed that circumcision is basically a punitive act.
[T]hey [those who want all males circumcised] suffer from "foreskin envy." Cut off a man's tonsils and it does not affect his feelings about his neighbor's tonsils, but cut off his foreskin and his neighbor's foreskin becomes an object of envy and hatred. The circumcised have always behaved as if their circumcision were a stigma of inferiority. Jew, Moor, and Turk forced circumcision on servants, slaves, and whole nations of conquered people.
Because the motivations of the foreskin- phobes are so irrational, these people are hard to combat. The introduction of routine circumcision as a "medical" measure at the turn of the century aroused vigorous opposition within the profession. Dr. Warren Stone Bickham, an eminent surgeon, declared that circumcision was a disgrace and a discredit to the surgeon responsible. Nevertheless by 1920 the opposition had dwindled, and the fanatical circumcisers were in possession of the field. The opponents of circumcision failed because they did not understand the motives of the circumcisers and therefore could not grapple with them.
Only the circumcised refer to the foreskin as a "useless appendage."
[Has anyone done a study on circumcisers? What kind of person trains himself (or herself) and maneuvers himself (or herself) into a position where he (or she) can get paid to cut healthy erotogenic tissue -- living flesh -- from the genitals of unwilling, unconsenting children and babies -- or, for that matter, from willing, consenting adults?]
