posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 07:54 AM
reply to post by Maslo
This is a ridiculous analogy.
Yet logically identical.
Braces are placed by a medical professional to correct a diagnosed pathology.
Incorrect. They are applied to correct a perceived pathology. Many applications of braces are medically unnecessary and are merely cosmetic.
Both procedures are done my medical professionals.
No medical professional will give you braces if you do not have a medical diagnosis that requires them.
According to the National Institutes of Health, most misaligned bites (technically known as malocclusions) are so minor that they do not require
treatment. Yet, currently, nearly 4 million children under the age of 18 in the U.S. and Canada are wearing some kind of braces. Their parents are
paying anywhere from $3,000 for a basic set to upwards of $10,000 for newer "invisible" braces.
How many of those sets of braces are truly necessary? No one's really sure. But Timothy Wheeler, DMD, PhD, professor and chair of the Department of
Orthodontics at the University of Florida, is trying to find out. He's in the midst of long-term research, funded by the National Institutes of
Health, on the timing of orthodontic intervention.
Wheeler says that the most common malocclusion -- affecting perhaps as many as 90 percent of children -- is overcrowding, usually of the bottom teeth.
"Mild crowding doesn't have to be addressed at all," he says. And more severe crowding may improve on its own when your child's jaw grows to its
full adult size. Even if it doesn't improve, there's generally no harm in waiting until the late teens or early 20s to begin treatment.
And crooked teeth are very often far more than simple cosmetic issue. Improper occlusion can lead to all kinds of dental problems down the
road. It is also required to have them while the child is growing up, so there is a reason to give them to children. There is no reason circumcision
cannot wait until adulthood.
Well, Dr. Wheeler disagrees with you. And not just Dr. Wheeler. A number of studies contradict these dogmatic teachings.
Unless having a foreskin is recongnised as a pathological condition, it cannot be compared to having crooked teeth in any way.
If the natural status of the teeth do not pose a medical problem that must be treated immediately - then why should parents be allowed to unilaterally
enforce such a procedure?
Further, the degree of pathology is a question, here. How many people really have dental issues that -require- braces to ensure proper function. How
many people have a foreskin that requires circumcision?
I would imagine the two figures are not nearly as different as you'd find convenient.
Of course - we are still drafting figures for both from research programs and cannot draw conclusions at the moment, but the point is just the
Where does a parent get off forcing a kid to wear braces while telling another parent that he/she can't circumcise a child?