15,635
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Add link in SEEALSO section.
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
|url=https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/potential
|title=Potential
===The trade associations pact===
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:
|format=
|quote=
}}</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
|title=Commentary on American Academy of Pediatrics2012 Circumcision Policy Statement
|publisher=[[Doctors Opposing Circumcision(D.O.C.)]]
|website=www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org
|date=2013-04
====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
|last=Swyer
|init=PR
|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
|title=Non-therapeutic male circumcision (NTMC) of children – — practical guidance for doctors
|trans-title=
|language=English
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 ==
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.
|Author=J. Fred Leditshke
|Source=
|publisher=Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons
|date=1996
|location=Herston, {{AUSC|QLD}}
|accessdate=2020-06-25
}}</ref>
===Royal Dutch Medical Association===
In the Netherlands, the [https://www.knmg.nl/over-knmg/about-knmg/about-knmg.htm 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."<ref>{{REFweb
|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.
|url=https://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/knmg-non-therapeutic-circumcision-of-male-minors-27-05-2010.pdf
|accessdate=2020-06-25
}}</ref>
See [[Netherlands]]
{{SEEALSO}}
* [[Circumcision study flaws]]
* [[Financial incentive]]
{{LINKS}}
|url=https://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/for-professionals/medical-organization-statements/
|title=Medical Organization Statements
|publisher=[[Doctors Opposing Circumcision(D.O.C.)]]
|website=www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org
|date=2016-03