5 ms·

This is very common in Latin American cultures. In Mexico, they literally do it at the hospital before you leave. (They don't do this in the U.S., but a good po

This is very common in Latin American cultures. In Mexico, they literally do it at the hospital before you leave. (They don't do this in the U.S., but a good portion of Latin Americans - I'd wager majority - will get it done at six months.)

grandalf 9y ago
While I would not do it to an infant, it's not a sex organ and will restore to fully healed/closed status if left alone for a few weeks, so it's hard to compare this to removing part of a sex organ that will not re-grow.
- RightMillennial 9y ago
  Please, it's a little bit of skin. As with any other trivial procedure, as long as it is properly performed there are no adverse side effects.
  - logfromblammo 9y ago
    The same argument could be used to support giving all infants face tattoos at the hospital.
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  In for a penny; in for a pound. The principle is the same. The hospital should not be doing so much as trimming a fingernail of any patient incapable of giving informed consent, in the absence of a true medical necessity. In the case of the ear-piercings, it is likely that the local cultural landscape is such that if the procedure is not performed in a sterile and controlled environment, by professional medical personnel, at the hospital, it would be done by amateurs at home. The medical necessity there may be the significant probability of botched, infected piercings. As a public health strategy, it isn't bad. Do the piercings at the hospital for two generations, and then ramp up the out-of-pocket cost for it, while vilifying it with a PR campaign. Babies should still not be having their ears pierced, though. That is certainly of lesser severity than cutting off and throwing away more significant bits of the baby, leaving a permanent, visible scar there, but it is on the same spectrum. You are performing unnecessary procedures on a patient that cannot give consent.
  - amscanne 9y ago
    > The principle is the same. The hospital should not be doing so much as trimming a fingernail of any patient incapable of giving informed consent, in the absence of a true medical necessity. Do you have a child? Would you not trim their fingernails? Obviously you would, because you consent on their behalf. Same deal with the piercing; the Hospital obviously doesn't do it without the parents' consent.

grandalf 9y ago

While I would not do it to an infant, it's not a sex organ and will restore to fully healed/closed status if left alone for a few weeks, so it's hard to compare this to removing part of a sex organ that will not re-grow.

RightMillennial 9y ago
Please, it's a little bit of skin. As with any other trivial procedure, as long as it is properly performed there are no adverse side effects.
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  The same argument could be used to support giving all infants face tattoos at the hospital.
logfromblammo 9y ago
In for a penny; in for a pound. The principle is the same. The hospital should not be doing so much as trimming a fingernail of any patient incapable of giving informed consent, in the absence of a true medical necessity. In the case of the ear-piercings, it is likely that the local cultural landscape is such that if the procedure is not performed in a sterile and controlled environment, by professional medical personnel, at the hospital, it would be done by amateurs at home. The medical necessity there may be the significant probability of botched, infected piercings. As a public health strategy, it isn't bad. Do the piercings at the hospital for two generations, and then ramp up the out-of-pocket cost for it, while vilifying it with a PR campaign. Babies should still not be having their ears pierced, though. That is certainly of lesser severity than cutting off and throwing away more significant bits of the baby, leaving a permanent, visible scar there, but it is on the same spectrum. You are performing unnecessary procedures on a patient that cannot give consent.
- amscanne 9y ago
  > The principle is the same. The hospital should not be doing so much as trimming a fingernail of any patient incapable of giving informed consent, in the absence of a true medical necessity. Do you have a child? Would you not trim their fingernails? Obviously you would, because you consent on their behalf. Same deal with the piercing; the Hospital obviously doesn't do it without the parents' consent.