For a long time now doctors have accepted that routine neonatal circumcision is unnecessary. Doctors have never been forced to do one and have always had the option to refuse.
Rationalizations are easier to believe in when a whole group of people are sharing the same view. There seems to be less of a need to do a reality check. For this reason, sometimes groups can be more irrational than individuals.
It seems easier for circumcisors to change their excuses than to change their behaviour. When one rationalization is exposed, it quickly mutates. Rationalizations can make a complete cycle. "Babies cannot feel pain" becomes "they cannot feel much pain in the penis". When the baby screams its because "he got a fright, but he still cannot feel pain".
So numerous are claimed possible benefits, that despite all of them being proved false, there is possibility that which so many claims floating around, at least one might be true. Von Daniken in 'Chariots of the Gods' argued (dishonestly, he knew it wasn't true )that so many people have claimed to have seen flying saucers, that at least one of them must be true.
It has been said that mental arrogance is the only form of stupidity. Mental arrogance is refusal to explore an issue. If you cannot change your mind, why have one?
Some doctors may believe the foreskin is an accident of evolution and remove it on that rationale. This myth would be eliminated by doctors learning about the structure and function of the foreskin when in medical school. This information is readily available on the net. Who would consider to have the greater wisdom, the wisdom of the human body which is a product of hundreds of millions of years of evolution or egos who are capable of believing babies cannot feel.
For about a century most mutilations were done with painkiller, with the claim babies don't pain. Its no accident that this false belief was very popular. It performed several useful purposes. People often don't like to feel they are deliberately hurting someone else. This rationalization helps to protect their ego. They can inflict as much pain as they want on another person and it doesn't matter, because the other person cannot feel anything.
Believing a false belief such as this which conflicts with their own inner emotional intelligence and any wisdom they possess seems likely to cause some inner conflict. Inner emotional conflict may contribute to doctors having more than their fair share of anxiety, alcoholism and drug abuse.
Doctors who curcimcise vary from ones do it ocassionally and reluctantly to others who specialise in it and perform numerous mutilations for any reason whatsover, and everything in between.
In order to become a surgeon, it is essential that the natural revulsion to cutting people is suppressed. The system trains medical students to become more insensitive in this regard. This makes it easier to perform surgery, but has downsides, like making them more indifferent to unnecessary surgery.
Medical students may also be taught that feelings are not important, and that they are irrational. Feelings are very important in any discussion. People who deny their feelings may disguise them as logic. The person who denies having feelings can be the most irrational of all.
Its quite common for naive medical students to be coerced into involving with controversial procedures like circumcision (or shock treatment etc.), early in their training. (Who would like their baby circumcised by a first timer?) As they then literally have blood on their hands, it makes it more difficult to oppose that controversial procedure at a later date.
The more sensitive students who don't believe in circumcision will drop out or transfer to another course. Other students who get weeded out are those that question the system.
Something routine becomes mechanical, unconscious. With every circumcision, the more desensitized the circumcisor becomes. Performing infant circumcisions is an abberation and traumatic to the doer. Circumcisers are traumatised. Remember a psychopath looks like a normal person. With every incident, their ego is reinforced and all their rationalizations are strengthened.
Circumcisors seem to typically be involuntary-circumcised themselves. It would be interesting to know how many circumcising doctors were not involuntarily circumcised. It is likely to be very few. I have never heard of a woman performing a male circumcision. Some people would say that a circumcisor is 'acting out' by taking out his own pain on others.
If a circumcisor woke up one day with the full realization of what he had been doing all those years, he would be in considerable emotional pain. He needs to be continually vigilant about keeping these feelings down. The best way to do this is to keep circumcising, convince others to allow it and believe in more and more preposterous claims of the benefits.
When you have an event of great cruelty the most simple and likely explanation is that person A enjoyed hurting person B.
Lets look at:
A doesn't realise he is hurting B.
This is the common line that is used to justify a circumcisor's behaviour.
I have a lot of trouble with the idea that anyone could be so stupid that
they think they can cut of a part of another person's body, without causing intense pain.
I don't think any doctor is so stupid that they don't realise that intense
pain can be felt when painkiller wears off.
Hence reason D is replaced by reason B.
A doesn't enjoy hurting B, but he does it for the money.
Doing something just for the money, when it is unneeded is a cruel act in itself.
People who "rip off" other people (illegally or llegally, but unethically)
are being abusive.
A doctor who understands that a circumcision is not needed and does it for the money is a bastard.
A doesn't enjoy hurting B, but he does it because other people tell him too.
Doctors like saying that I don't like doing mutilations, but they do it because
the parents ask them. This makes no sense. A doctor can always refuse a
a neonatal circumcision. Are doctors who say they are reluctant to circumcise,
equally reluctant to collect the fee? Of course not, so that claim is nonsense.
A doctor might try to be neutral and try to be neither for or against circumcision. He might circumcise not, depending on the parent's wishes. I don't think this works. You either circumcize or your don't.
Any ethical doctor who understands the AAP statement will refuse to circumcise. One doctor deters parents by saying "I can torture your child if you like." Any doctor who mutilates because the parents who want their kid to look like their Dad, or women prefer cut penises or any other silly reason is as silly as the reason given.
In Australia many doctors are refusing to circumcise simply because of a parental request. Its likely in the USA far more doctors are thinking "well the parents want it (even though they don't understand the consequences and I don't either) and its money."
A doesn't enjoy hurting B, but he does it for other reasons. Othe reasons include pressure fom the hospital he works in or pressure from colleagues etc. All these reasons are selfish and are nothing to do with the well being of the child.
A doesn't enjoy hurting B, but he does it because he thinks its for B's own good. Circumcisors in this group may appear more ethical than the others, but are not quite off the hook. The alleged medical reasons are highly irrational when considered closely.From a selfish point of view, circumcision is very rational. The circumcisor gets fast money and considerable ego gratification. These reasons are nothing to do with the child though.