Difference between revisions of "Position statements on infant circumcision"
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) m (→United States of America: Repair broken link.) |
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) (→Australia: Fix broken link.) |
||
| Line 99: | Line 99: | ||
The Royal Australasian College of Physicians stated in 2010 that the foreskin "exists to protect the glans" and that it is a "primary sensory part of the penis, containing some of the most sensitive areas of the penis."<ref>{{REFweb | The Royal Australasian College of Physicians stated in 2010 that the foreskin "exists to protect the glans" and that it is a "primary sensory part of the penis, containing some of the most sensitive areas of the penis."<ref>{{REFweb | ||
|quote= | |quote= | ||
| − | |url= | + | |url=https://www.racp.edu.au//docs/default-source/advocacy-library/circumcision-of-infant-males.pdf? |
|title=Circumcision of infant males | |title=Circumcision of infant males | ||
|last= | |last= | ||
|first= | |first= | ||
|publisher=[[RACP]] | |publisher=[[RACP]] | ||
| − | |date= | + | |date=2010-09 |
| − | |accessdate= | + | |accessdate=2020-06-25 |
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
| Line 127: | Line 127: | ||
|date=1996 | |date=1996 | ||
|location=Herston, QLD | |location=Herston, QLD | ||
| − | |accessdate= | + | |accessdate=2020-06-25 |
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
}} | }} | ||
| + | |||
| + | See [[Australia]] | ||
== Netherlands == | == Netherlands == | ||
Revision as of 15:40, 25 June 2020
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, and are in agreement that there are no proven benefits.
The trend of opinion on routine male circumcision is overwhelmingly negative in industrialized nations. No respected medical board in the world recommends circumcision for infants, not even in the name of HIV prevention. They must all point to the risks, and they must all state that there is no convincing evidence that the benefits outweigh these risks. To do otherwise would be to take an unfounded position against the best medical authorities of the West.
United States of America
| “ | The British Medical Association has a longstanding recommendation that circumcision should be performed only for medical reasons... Recent policy statements issued by professional societies representing Australian, Canadian, and American pediatricians do not recommend routine circumcision of male newborns. – American Medical Association (official website)[1] |
| “ | ...benefits are not sufficient for the American Academy of Pediatrics to recommend that all infant boys be circumcised. – American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) (official website)[2] |
| “ | ...the association between having a sexually transmitted disease (STD) - excluding human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and being circumcised are inconclusive... most of the studies [of the effect of circumcision on HIV] ...have been conducted in developing countries, particularly those in Africa. Because of the challenges with maintaining good hygiene and access to condoms, these results are probably not generalizable to the U.S. population – American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) (official website)[3] |
Canada
| “ | Current understanding of the benefits, risks and potential harm of this procedure no longer supports this practice for prophylactic health benefit. Routine infant male circumcision performed on a healthy infant is now considered a non-therapeutic and medically unnecessary intervention. – College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia |
| “ | [We] do not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns.
Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed. – The Canadian Paediatric Society[4] |
Britain
| “ | 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. – The British Medical Association |
Australia
The Royal Australasian College of Physicians stated in 2010 that the foreskin "exists to protect the glans" and that it is a "primary sensory part of the penis, containing some of the most sensitive areas of the penis."[5]
According to the Australasian Academy of Paediatric Surgeons:
| “ | The Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons does not support the routine circumcision of male neonates, infants or children in Australia. It is considered to be inappropriate and unnecessary as a routine to remove the prepuce, based on the current evidence available.
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.– J. Fred Leditshke[6] |
See Australia
Netherlands
In the Netherlands, the Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) issued a statement in 2010 stating that "The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organizations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity." Circumcision can cause complications, including infection and bleeding, and are asking doctors to insistently inform parents that the procedure lacks medical benefits and has a danger of complications. In addition to there not being any convincing evidence that circumcision is necessary or useful for hygiene or prevention, circumcision is not justifiable and is reasonable to put off until an age where any risk is relevant, and the boy can decide himself about possible intervention, or opt for available alternatives. They went on to say "There are good reasons for a legal prohibition of non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors, as exists for female genital mutilation."[7]
References
- ↑
(2000). Report 10 of the Council on Scientific Affairs (I-99): Neonatal Circumcision
, American Medical Association. Retrieved 25 June 2020. - ↑
Where We Stand: Circumcision
, American Academy of Pediatrics. Retrieved 23 March 2011. - ↑
Circumcision: Position Paper on Neonatal Circumcision. Board Approved: August 2007 Reaffirmed
, AAFP. Retrieved 2 May 2011. - ↑
Neonatal circumcision revisited. Fetus and Newborn Committee, Canadian Paediatric Society. CMAJ. March 1996; 154(6): 769-80. PMID.
- ↑ (September 2010).
Circumcision of infant males
, RACP. Retrieved 25 June 2020. - ↑ (1996).
Guidelines for Circumcision
, Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons. Retrieved 25 June 2020. - ↑ (2010).
Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors
. Retrieved 1 September 2011.
Quote:The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organisations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity.
