You should read the replies to Lisa's comment. Should we circumcise baby girls to make your job more convenient? The idea that all boys should be routinely circumcised and have their genitals physically altered just in case they end up as invalid old men is ridiculous. You would never consider this for females. And you should be ashamed of yourself for condoning and advocating for the genital cutting of males just to make part of your chosen profession that much more convenient.
If a man is too disabled to clean his dick then he is probably too disabled to wipe his arse. I'd imagine you would have to help with that too and this may be humiliating for him. The idea that we are going to start amputating flesh from people's genitalia so that just in case they wind up being an invalid one day it may be less humiliating for them just shows how twisted your priorites have become.
The fact is that you don't care about a men's rights to intact genitals and you obviously have no real understanding of the penis and the role of the foreskin as valuable erogenous protective tissue. This is just another example of how the USA has totally lost the plot.
And btw, from one 'uncircumcised' person to another, I think it makes more sense to describe our genital state as *intact*.
A common problem where? I don't really understand what you're talking about. Most of the world's countries are genitally intact and I have never heard of 60 year old men needing to be circumcised "because it's closing up". This sounds ridiculous to me.
Even if what you said is true, which I highly doubt, there are other treatments for phimosis which are less drastic than circumcision. And most of the time they are effective. Even if circumcision was somehow medically necessary for an older man then let them opt for it at 60. They can give consent, they can be put under general anaesthetic and given post-op pain medications; they can even choose the method and type of circumcision! None of these options are available to an infant.
Additionally, a man who gets circumcised at 60 has had the benefit of intact genitalia for most of his life. A baby who is circumcised is denied forever the natural sexual experience.
Your textbook is obviously not a good source of information on this subject. "Penile cancer is one of the rarest cancers - rarer even than breast cancer in men - and figures for it are hard to come by. Circumcised men
get penile cancer at about the same tiny rate as intact men. Early
studies that seemed to show a correlation had not been corrected for
age; penile cancer is a disease of old men, and the old men with cancer
in the studies had simply been born at a time when circumcision was less
customary than when the younger men without cancer were born. When men
of the same ages were compared, the correlation vanished." Quoted from http://www.circumstitions.com/Cancer.html I would encourage you to check out the page.
If you are seriously interested in the subjects of health and disease then you need a more accurate understanding of reality than the contemporary western alopathic medical paradigm can provide.
Considering what you said in a previous post about circumcision and anaesthesia, I do not understand how there could be a doctor in your ward or whatever who not only performs circumcisions on infants but also does so without anaesthetic. You and the other nurses involved should be making a formal complaint about this. It is your moral and ethical and professional duty.