16,686
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Recommendations of medical authorities: Add text and citations.
==Recommendations of medical authorities==
* [[George Hill | Hill]] (2007) said:
<blockquote>
Male circumcision is harmful because it excises healthy tissue and permanently impairs beneficial physiological functions. Male circumcision also causes psychological problems that tend to perpetuate the cycle of abuse. Male circumcision is a costly diversion of medical resources away from beneficial services. Male circumcision violates legal rights, human rights, and ethical standards. Finally, we must remember that males are the more vulnerable and sensitive of the two genders and, therefore, deserve the greater degree of protection from traumatic, invasive, injurious,and unnecessary surgery. For all of these reasons the non-therapeutic circumcision of boys should not be performed and the genital integrity of all children should be respected and protected.<ref name="hill2007">{{REFjournal
</blockquote>
* The [[Royal Dutch Medical Association ]] (KNMG) (2010) said:
<blockquote>
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. Contrary to popular belief, circumcision can cause complications – bleeding, infection, urethral stricture and panic attacks are particularly common. KNMG is therefore urging a strong policy of deterrence. KNMG is calling upon doctors to actively and insistently inform parents who are considering the procedure of the absence of medical benefits and the danger of complications.<ref>{{REFdocument
|accessdate=2021-11-08
}}</ref>
</blockquote>
* The [[Royal Australasian College of Physicians]] (2010) said:
<blockquote>
Ethical and human rights concerns have been raised regarding elective infant male
circumcision because it is recognised that the foreskin has a functional role, the operation
is non-therapeutic and the infant is unable to consent.
After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of
diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the
complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia
and New Zealand. However it is reasonable for parents to weigh the benefits and risks of
circumcision and to make the decision whether or not to circumcise their sons.<ref name="racp2010">{{REFdocument
|title=Circumcision of Infant Males
|url=https://www.racp.edu.au//docs/default-source/advocacy-library/circumcision-of-infant-males.pdf
|contribution=
|last=
|first=
|publisher=The Royal Australasian College of Physicians
|format=PDF
|date=2010-09-01
|accessdate=2021-11-08
}}</ref>
</blockquote>
* The [[American Academy of Pediatrics]] (AAP) has not re-affirmed its disastrous, failed 2012 Circumcision Policy Statement, which expired in 2017, so currently has no position on child circumcision.
* The [[Canadian Paediatric Society]] (2015) said:
<blockquote>
In most jurisdictions, authority is limited only to interventions deemed to be medically necessary. In cases in which medical necessity is not established or a proposed treatment is based on personal preference, interventions should be deferred until the individual concerned is able to make their own choices.<ref name="CPS2015">{{REFjournal
|last=Sorokin
|first=S. Todd
|init=ST
|author-link=
|last2=Finlay
|first2=JC
|author2-link=
|last3=Jeffries
|first3=AL
|author3-link=
|etal=yes
|title=Newborn male circumcision
|journal=Paediatr Child Health
|location=
|date=2015-08
|volume=20
|issue=6
|pages=311-20
|url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4578472/
|quote=
|pubmedID=26435672
|pubmedCID=4578472
|DOI=10.1093/pch/20.6.311
|accessdate=2019-10-27
}}
</ref>
</blockquote>
|quote=
}}
{{REF}}