Position statements on infant circumcision: Difference between revisions
m AUSC:QLD |
m using template OBGYN |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| 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 | ||
| 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: | ||
| 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 | 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}} | ||
| 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 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 | |title=Non-therapeutic male circumcision (NTMC) of children — practical guidance for doctors | ||
|trans-title= | |trans-title= | ||
|language=English | |language=English | ||
| 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 == | ||
| Line 395: | Line 397: | ||
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= | ||
| Line 440: | Line 442: | ||
|accessdate=2020-06-25 | |accessdate=2020-06-25 | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
See [[Netherlands]] | |||
{{SEEALSO}} | {{SEEALSO}} | ||
* [[Circumcision study flaws]] | * [[Circumcision study flaws]] | ||
* [[Financial incentive]] | |||
{{LINKS}} | {{LINKS}} | ||