Position statements on infant circumcision - Revision history

WikiAdmin: using template OBGYN

2024-10-05T10:29:04Z

using template OBGYN

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:29, 5 October 2024
Line 197:		Line 197:
	===American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists===		===American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists===

	Obstetricians are doctors for female patients. They deliver babies so they get the first opportunity to profit from doing circumcision of a baby boy. Although males are outside of the scope of practice of ~~Ob-Gyn~~, ~~Although~~ its embarrassingly bad statement regarding non-therapeutic infant male circumcision now has been deleted from its website, ACOG still prints and sells promotional pamphlets to its member physicians.		Obstetricians are doctors for female patients. They deliver babies so they get the first opportunity to profit from doing circumcision of a baby boy. Although males are outside of the scope of practice of {{OBGYN}}, although its embarrassingly bad statement regarding non-therapeutic infant male circumcision now has been deleted from its website, ACOG still prints and sells promotional pamphlets to its member physicians.

	* {{REFweb \|url=https://www.acog.org/store/products/patient-education/pamphlets/labor-delivery-and-postpartum-care/newborn-male-circumcision \|title=Newborn Male Circumcision \|last \|first= \|accessdate=2020-06-26}}		* {{REFweb \|url=https://www.acog.org/store/products/patient-education/pamphlets/labor-delivery-and-postpartum-care/newborn-male-circumcision \|title=Newborn Male Circumcision \|last \|first= \|accessdate=2020-06-26}}

WikiModEn2: Add link in SEEALSO section.

2023-05-13T21:42:32Z

Add link in SEEALSO section.

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:42, 13 May 2023
Line 447:		Line 447:
	{{SEEALSO}}		{{SEEALSO}}
	* [[Circumcision study flaws]]		* [[Circumcision study flaws]]
			* [[Financial incentive]]

	{{LINKS}}		{{LINKS}}

WikiModEn2: /* Netherlands */

2023-05-12T20:52:57Z

Netherlands

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:52, 12 May 2023
Line 442:		Line 442:
	\|accessdate=2020-06-25		\|accessdate=2020-06-25
	}}</ref>		}}</ref>

			See [[Netherlands]]

	{{SEEALSO}}		{{SEEALSO}}

WikiModEn2: /* The trade associations pact */ Wikiy.

2023-05-12T20:20:05Z

The trade associations pact: Wikiy.

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:20, 12 May 2023
Line 34:		Line 34:
	===The trade associations pact===		===The trade associations pact===

	The circumcision policies of American medical trade associations are currently in chaos.		The circumcision policies of American [[medical trade association\| medical trade associations]] are currently in chaos.

	The three trade associations, whose member profit by carrying out non-therapeutic circumcision of boys formed a pact in 2007 to create a circumcision statement that would protect [[third-party payment]] for non-therapeutic circumcision. The three trade associations are:		The three trade associations, whose member profit by carrying out non-therapeutic circumcision of boys formed a pact in 2007 to create a circumcision statement that would protect [[third-party payment]] for non-therapeutic circumcision. The three trade associations are:

WikiModEn2: /* Britain */ Add link.

2023-04-15T11:44:56Z

Britain: Add link.

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:44, 15 April 2023
Line 383:		Line 383:

	The [https://www.gmc-uk.org/ General Medical Council] has disciplined several medical doctors who performed male circumcision unethically or improperly.		The [https://www.gmc-uk.org/ General Medical Council] has disciplined several medical doctors who performed male circumcision unethically or improperly.

			See [[United Kingdom]].

	== Australia ==		== Australia ==

WikiAdmin: wikify AUA

2023-04-11T07:29:22Z

wikify AUA

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:29, 11 April 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Perhaps the most shocking fact is that circumcision continues to be practiced in the [[United States]] even though no official western medical organization in the world recommends it. The Royal Dutch Medical Society, The British Medical Association, the Canadian Pediatric Society, and the Royal Australian College of Physicians have all made official policy statements against circumcision.		Perhaps the most shocking fact is that circumcision continues to be practiced in the [[United States]] even though no official western medical organization in the world recommends it. The Royal Dutch Medical Society, The British Medical Association, the Canadian Pediatric Society, and the Royal Australian College of Physicians have all made official policy statements against circumcision.

	The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Urological Association all do not recommend circumcision, but deceptively claim "potential" benefits. (The word ''potential'' means to exist in possibility, but ''not'' in actuality,<ref>{{REFweb		The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the [[American Urological Association]] all do not recommend circumcision, but deceptively claim "potential" benefits. (The word ''potential'' means to exist in possibility, but ''not'' in actuality,<ref>{{REFweb
	\|url=https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/potential		\|url=https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/potential
	\|title=Potential		\|title=Potential

WikiModEn2: Wikify.

2022-11-21T20:53:50Z

Wikify.

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:53, 21 November 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Perhaps the most shocking fact is that circumcision continues to be practiced in the United States even though no official western medical organization in the world recommends it. The Royal Dutch Medical Society, The British Medical Association, the Canadian Pediatric Society, and the Royal Australian College of Physicians have all made official policy statements against circumcision.		Perhaps the most shocking fact is that circumcision continues to be practiced in the [[United States]] even though no official western medical organization in the world recommends it. The Royal Dutch Medical Society, The British Medical Association, the Canadian Pediatric Society, and the Royal Australian College of Physicians have all made official policy statements against circumcision.

	The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Urological Association all do not recommend circumcision, but deceptively claim "potential" benefits. (The word ''potential'' means to exist in possibility, but ''not'' in actuality,<ref>{{REFweb		The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Urological Association all do not recommend circumcision, but deceptively claim "potential" benefits. (The word ''potential'' means to exist in possibility, but ''not'' in actuality,<ref>{{REFweb
Line 355:		Line 355:
	\|Text=The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefits from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it.		\|Text=The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefits from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it.
	\|Author=The British Medical Association<ref>{{REFdocument		\|Author=The British Medical Association<ref>{{REFdocument
	\|title=Non-therapeutic male circumcision (NTMC) of children – practical guidance for doctors		\|title=Non-therapeutic male circumcision (NTMC) of children — practical guidance for doctors
	\|trans-title=		\|trans-title=
	\|language=English		\|language=English

WikiAdmin: wikify medical indication

2022-08-23T12:26:21Z

wikify medical indication

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:26, 23 August 2022
Line 226:		Line 226:
	====1975====		====1975====

	The Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) took a position against non-therapeutic circumcision of boys in 1975, declaring it to have "no medical indication" and to be an "obsolete operation".<ref name="cps1975">{{REFjournal		The Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) took a position against non-therapeutic circumcision of boys in 1975, declaring it to have "no [[medical indication]]" and to be an "obsolete operation".<ref name="cps1975">{{REFjournal
	\|last=Swyer		\|last=Swyer
	\|init=PR		\|init=PR
Line 395:		Line 395:
	We do not support the removal of a normal part of the body, unless there are definite indications to justify the complications and risks which may arise. In particular, we are opposed to male children being subjected to a procedure, which had they been old enough to consider the advantages and disadvantages, may well have opted to reject the operation and retain their prepuce.		We do not support the removal of a normal part of the body, unless there are definite indications to justify the complications and risks which may arise. In particular, we are opposed to male children being subjected to a procedure, which had they been old enough to consider the advantages and disadvantages, may well have opted to reject the operation and retain their prepuce.

	Neonatal male circumcision has no medical indication. It is a traumatic procedure performed without anaesthesia to remove a normal functional and protective prepuce. At birth, the prepuce has not separated from the underlying glans and must be forcibly torn apart to deliver the glans, prior to removal of the prepuce distal to the coronal groove.		Neonatal male circumcision has no [[medical indication]]. It is a traumatic procedure performed without anaesthesia to remove a normal functional and protective prepuce. At birth, the prepuce has not separated from the underlying glans and must be forcibly torn apart to deliver the glans, prior to removal of the prepuce distal to the coronal groove.
	\|Author=J. Fred Leditshke		\|Author=J. Fred Leditshke
	\|Source=		\|Source=

WikiAdmin: AUSC:QLD

2022-07-26T07:42:34Z

AUSC:QLD

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:42, 26 July 2022
Line 406:		Line 406:
	\|publisher=Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons		\|publisher=Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons
	\|date=1996		\|date=1996
	\|location=Herston, QLD		\|location=Herston, {{AUSC\|QLD}}
	\|accessdate=2020-06-25		\|accessdate=2020-06-25
	}}</ref>		}}</ref>

WikiAdmin: wikify DOC

2022-06-16T08:50:53Z

wikify DOC

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:50, 16 June 2022
Line 89:		Line 89:
	\|format=		\|format=
	\|quote=		\|quote=
	}}</ref> including [[Doctors Opposing Circumcision]],<ref>{{REFweb		}}</ref> including [[Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)]],<ref>{{REFweb
	\|url=https://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/commentary-on-american-academy-of-pediatrics-2012-circumcision-policy-statement.pdf		\|url=https://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/commentary-on-american-academy-of-pediatrics-2012-circumcision-policy-statement.pdf
	\|title=Commentary on American Academy of Pediatrics2012 Circumcision Policy Statement		\|title=Commentary on American Academy of Pediatrics2012 Circumcision Policy Statement
	\|publisher=Doctors Opposing Circumcision		\|publisher=[[Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)]]
	\|website=www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org		\|website=www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org
	\|date=2013-04		\|date=2013-04
Line 448:		Line 448:
	\|url=https://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/for-professionals/medical-organization-statements/		\|url=https://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/for-professionals/medical-organization-statements/
	\|title=Medical Organization Statements		\|title=Medical Organization Statements
	\|publisher=Doctors Opposing Circumcision		\|publisher=[[Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)]]
	\|website=www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org		\|website=www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org
	\|date=2016-03		\|date=2016-03