Difference between revisions of "Circumcision study flaws"

From IntactiWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎US statements: Add citation.,)
Line 253: Line 253:
 
==US statements==
 
==US statements==
  
−
The United States is unique because the American medical industry has been promoting the practice of non-therapeutic circumcision since the late 19th Century. As a result of the centuries-old promotion almost all American males were circumcised soon after birth from the 1930s through the 1980s. Many Americans have never seen a human foreskin and most are profoundly ignorant of its care, purposes, and functions.
+
The United States is unique because the American medical industry has been promoting the practice of non-therapeutic circumcision since the late 19th Century. As a result of the centuries-old promotion almost all American males were circumcised soon after birth from the 1930s through the 1980s.<ref name="laumann1996">{{REFjournal
 +
|last=Laumann
 +
|first=Edward O.
 +
|author-link=
 +
|last2=Masi
 +
|first2=CM
 +
|author2-link=
 +
|last3=Zuckerman
 +
|first3=EW
 +
|author3-link=
 +
|etal=no
 +
|title=Circumcision in the United States
 +
|trans-title=
 +
|language=
 +
|journal=JAMA
 +
|location=
 +
|date=1997
 +
|volume=277
 +
|issue=13
 +
|pages=1052-7
 +
|url=http://www.cirp.org/library/general/laumann/
 +
|archived=
 +
|quote=
 +
|pubmedID=9091693
 +
|pubmedCID=
 +
|DOI=
 +
|accessdate=
 +
}}</ref> As a result, many Americans have never seen a human foreskin and most are profoundly ignorant of its care, purposes, and functions.
  
 
{{REF}}
 
{{REF}}

Revision as of 20:50, 1 August 2020

Construction Site

This article is work in progress and not yet part of the free encyclopedia IntactiWiki.

 

The Circumcision study flaws are numerous. The medical literature relating to circumcision is influenced by religious and cultural views of many authors. Moreover the circumcision status of male authors impacts their views.[1]


Polarity

The medical literature regarding male circumcision is highly polarized. Foreskinned doctors tend to write papers hostile to circumcision, while circumcised doctors tend to write papers in favor of circumcision.[1]

Statements from medical trade associations

Medical trade associations exist to protect and advance the financial and business interests of their fellows (members). A few medical trade associations have issued statements regarding non-therapeutic circumcision of children. Such statements usually have an inherent conflict of interest between the best interests of the fellows' financial well-being and the well-being of male children, so they tend to be biased in favor of protection of the physicians' financial incentive.

One should draw a distinction between non-US statements and US statements.

Non-US statements

The Royal Dutch Medical Association {KNMG) published a statement regarding the non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors in 2010. The Netherlands is a nation where human rights are respected,[2] so it should be no surprise that the statement emphasizes the protection of the human rights of male minors and the reduction in the number of non-therapeutic circumcisions of children as much as possible. It finds no medical purpose for child non-therapeutic circumcision.


The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (2010) released a 28-page updated position statement on non-therapeutic circumcision of boys in September 2010. This statement is deeply flawed and outmoded in 2020. It seems to be designed to protect the physicians' income from performing non-therapeutic circumcision. The statement accepts at face value the false, now disproved,[3] claims that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV by 60 percent. The statement shows only limited understanding of the functions of the foreskin. While it recognizes the protective function, it does not recognize the immunological function or sexual function, and shows only limited understanding of the erogenous function. The RACP places parental preference above child human rights. Nevertheless, public hospitals in Australia have banned performance of non-therapeutic circumcisions[4] and it is reported that only 4 percent of Australian boys currently are being circumcised.[5] The RACP needs to update this backward-looking, outmoded statement.


The Canadian Paediatric Society (2015) issued a new statement regarding non-therapeutic circumcision of boys. This statement was prompted by the three seriously flawed HIV studies of adult males in Africa, that have now been disproved,[3] and caused the retirement of the excellent previous 1996 statement.[6]

This statement has very serious omissions that bias it in favor of circumcision. The description of the foreskin omits important information, including its innervation, its protective functions, its immunological functions, and its sexual functions. The statement claims "potential" benefits, which exist only in someone's imagination.

The CPS statement revives the claims made by circumcision promoter Thomas E. Wiswell's discredited studies from the 1980s in an apparent attempt to restart the UTI scare. It fails to mention that UTIS are easily treated with antibiotics,[7] so circumcision is not required.

The conclusion states that circumcision may be beneficial "for some boys", but fails to state which boys the CPS thinks would benefit by circumcision.

The statement seems amateurish. It seems to have been drafted by a committee of people who had no special knowledge or understanding of the human foreskin, circumcision, or the literature. It seems divorced from the reality that the health insurance plans do not pay for non-therapeutic circumcision and hospitals do not allow the performance of the non-therapeutic amputation in Canada.

It appears that the CPS was seeking to do more circumcisions so its members can make more money.


The Canadian Urological Association (2018) issued a 24-page guideline on the care of the normal foreskin and neonatal circumcision. The statement is very comprehensive and covers treatment of various diseases and deformities as well as discussing non-therapeutic circumcision of boys in Canada. Our comments are restricted to the discussion of non-therapeutic circumcision.

While the discussion of the medical evidence is very good, the authors were unaware of the methodological and statistical errors in the three African RCTs,[3] so they gave the RCTs excessive and undeserved weight. Although the authors recognized the loss of sensation caused by circumcision, they seemed to lack understanding of the full range of sexual injury caused by circumcision. They apparently had no knowledge of the psychological impact as that is not discussed at all.

The authors show no understanding that an infant is a person with human rights, that non-therapeutic circumcision violate those rights, or that the practice may be unethical or unlawful under the right to security of the person granted by Article Seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

While the authors properly conclude that non-therapeutic circumcision of children is "not justifed", they fail to recognize the full extent of the inherent harm and injury.


The British Medical Association 28-page statement (2019) focuses on legal and ethical advice to its fellows to help keep them out of trouble in a legal and regulatory environment that is increasingly unfriendly to practitioners of non-therapeutic male circumcision. It has little to say about the medical aspects of non-therapeutic circumcision.

US statements

The United States is unique because the American medical industry has been promoting the practice of non-therapeutic circumcision since the late 19th Century. As a result of the centuries-old promotion almost all American males were circumcised soon after birth from the 1930s through the 1980s.[8] As a result, many Americans have never seen a human foreskin and most are profoundly ignorant of its care, purposes, and functions.

References

  1. ↑ a b REFjournal Hill, G.. The case against circumcision. J Mens Health Gend. 20 August 2007; 4(3): 318-323.
  2. ↑ REFweb Smith, Jacqueline (1998). Male Circumcision and the Rights of the Child, CIRP, Netherlands Institute of Human Rights. Retrieved 4 February 2020.
  3. ↑ a b c REFjournal Boyle, Gregory J., Hill, George. Sub-Saharan African randomised clinical trials into male circumcision and HIV transmission: Methodological, ethical and legal concerns. J Law Med. December 2011; 19(2): 316-334. PMID. Retrieved 31 July 2020.
  4. ↑ REFnews Pengelley, Jill (9 December 2007)."Cosmetic circumcision banned", The Advertiser. Retrieved 6 November 2019.
    Quote: CIRCUMCISION will be banned in the state's public hospitals unless it is for medical reasons.
  5. ↑ REFweb (2018). Foreskins rule! Australians rush to abandon circumcision, Circumcision Information Australia. Retrieved 31 March 2020.
  6. ↑ REFjournal Outerbridge, Eugene. Neonatal circumcision revisited. Can Med Assoc J. 15 March 1996; 154(6): 769-80. PMID. PMC.
  7. ↑ REFjournal McCracken, G.H.. Options in antimicrobial management of urinary tract infections in infants and children. Pediatr Infect Dis J. August 1989; 8(8): 552-5. Retrieved 31 July 2020.
  8. ↑ REFjournal Laumann, Edward O., Masi, CM, Zuckerman, EW. Circumcision in the United States. JAMA. 1997; 277(13): 1052-7. PMID.
Retrieved from "https://en.intactiwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Circumcision_study_flaws&oldid=15637"