Canadian Paediatric Society: Difference between revisions

(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)

Line 9:

== Issues with the 2016 circumcision position statement ==

The ~~2015~~ statement clearly was heavily influenced by the now thoroughly discredited and expired (2017) [[American Academy of Pediatrics]] 2012 Circumcision Policy Statement. Furthermore, it bizarrely includes a reference to a paper on [[urinary tract infection]] by circumcision promoters [[Brian J. Morris]] and [[Thomas E. Wiswell]]. The statement touts circumcision to prevent [[HIV]] infection, however a massive population study in Canada found that circumcision status has no effect on prevention of HIV infection.<ref name="mayan2021">{{REFjournal

The 2016 statement exhibits [[medical trade association]] [[bias]] in favor of increased [[financial incentive]] for the fellows of the trade association and clearly was heavily influenced by the now thoroughly discredited and expired (2017) [[American Academy of Pediatrics]] 2012 Circumcision Policy Statement. Furthermore, it bizarrely includes a reference to a paper on [[urinary tract infection]] by circumcision promoters [[Brian J. Morris]] and [[Thomas E. Wiswell]].

The statement touts circumcision to prevent [[HIV]] infection, however a massive population study in [[Canada]] found that circumcision status has no effect on prevention of HIV infection.<ref name="mayan2021">{{REFjournal

|last=Mayan

|first=Madhur

Line 48:

Line 50:

}}</ref>

The statement seems designed to promote non-therapeutic unnecessary child circumcision in [[Canada]] in violation of the child's [https://justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art7.html Section 7] ~~rights~~ under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The CPS seems unwilling to recognise and protect the legal rights of its child patients.

The statement seems designed to promote non-therapeutic unnecessary child circumcision in [[Canada]] in violation of the child's [https://justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art7.html Section 7] right to <i>security of the person</i> under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Circumcision assaults the person of the child by excising functional tissue. The CPS has stated that the foreskin is <i>not</i> redundant tissue.<ref name="andersen2025">{{REFjournal

|last=Andersen-Giberson

|init=D

|author-link=Dale Andersen

|url=https://cdd.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/cdd/article/view/39786/36016

|title=Circumcision and forced disability: Routine male neonatal circumcision and the consequences of amputation within a critical disability studies framework

|journal=Critical Disability Discourses

|date=2025-12

|volume=10

|issue=2

|pages=1-37

|URL=https://cdd.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/cdd/article/view/39786/36016

|DOI=https://doi.org/10.25071/1918-6215.39786

|accessdate=2026-03-12

|quote=In a critical disability studies framework, it is argued that the act of amputating healthy erogenous tissue and the consequences of that amputation cause disability, particularly from a counter-hegemonic lens.

|format=PDF

|accessdate=2026-03-13

}}

</ref> The CPS seems unwilling to recognise and protect the legal rights of its child patients. The CPS seems more interested in the financial well-being of its fellows than in the health and well-being of the male infants of [[Canada]].

The 2016 statement fails to discuss the function of the [[foreskin]], the [[amputation]] of which has a disabling effect on various protective and sexual functions.<ref name="andersen2025" />

The 2016 statement disrespects the First Nations people of Canada by failing to note that circumcision is not part of their culture.

The 2016 CPS statement of position on [[circumcision of the newborn]] was poorly drafted in 2016, has not improved with age, and is now outmoded by advances in medical science and [[human rights]], so it should be withdrawn.

The CPS would do well by reviewing the work of Canadian [[Dale Andersen| Dale Andersen-Ghiberson]], MSW, as it considers its replacement statement.<ref name="andersen2025" />

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 == Issues with the 2016 circumcision position statement ==
-The 2015 statement clearly was heavily influenced by the now thoroughly discredited and expired (2017) [[American Academy of Pediatrics]] 2012 Circumcision Policy Statement. Furthermore, it bizarrely includes a reference to a paper on [[urinary tract infection]] by circumcision promoters [[Brian J. Morris]] and [[Thomas E. Wiswell]]. The statement touts circumcision to prevent [[HIV]] infection, however a massive population study in Canada found that circumcision status has no effect on prevention of HIV infection.<ref name="mayan2021">{{REFjournal
+The 2016 statement exhibits [[medical trade association]] [[bias]] in favor of increased [[financial incentive]] for the fellows of the trade association and clearly was heavily influenced by the now thoroughly discredited and expired (2017) [[American Academy of Pediatrics]] 2012 Circumcision Policy Statement. Furthermore, it bizarrely includes a reference to a paper on [[urinary tract infection]] by circumcision promoters [[Brian J. Morris]] and [[Thomas E. Wiswell]].
+The statement touts circumcision to prevent [[HIV]] infection, however a massive population study in [[Canada]] found that circumcision status has no effect on prevention of HIV infection.<ref name="mayan2021">{{REFjournal
   |last=Mayan
   |first=Madhur
@@ Line 48: / Line 50: @@
 }}</ref>
-The statement seems designed to promote non-therapeutic unnecessary child circumcision in [[Canada]] in violation of the child's [https://justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art7.html Section 7] rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The CPS seems unwilling to recognise and protect the legal rights of its child patients.
+The statement seems designed to promote non-therapeutic unnecessary child circumcision in [[Canada]] in violation of the child's [https://justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art7.html Section 7] right to <i>security of the person</i> under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Circumcision assaults the person of the child by excising functional tissue. The CPS has stated that the foreskin is <i>not</i> redundant tissue.<ref name="andersen2025">{{REFjournal
+ |last=Andersen-Giberson
+ |init=D
+ |author-link=Dale Andersen
+ |url=https://cdd.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/cdd/article/view/39786/36016
+ |title=Circumcision and forced disability: Routine male neonatal circumcision and the consequences of amputation within a critical disability studies framework
+ |journal=Critical Disability Discourses
+ |date=2025-12
+ |volume=10
+ |issue=2
+ |pages=1-37
+ |URL=https://cdd.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/cdd/article/view/39786/36016
+ |DOI=https://doi.org/10.25071/1918-6215.39786
+ |accessdate=2026-03-12
+ |quote=In a critical disability studies framework, it is argued that the act of amputating healthy erogenous tissue and the consequences of that amputation cause disability, particularly from a counter-hegemonic lens.
+ |format=PDF
+ |accessdate=2026-03-13
+}}
+</ref> The CPS seems unwilling to recognise and protect the legal rights of its child patients. The CPS seems more interested in the financial well-being of its fellows than in the health and well-being of the male infants of [[Canada]].
+The 2016 statement fails to discuss the function of the [[foreskin]], the [[amputation]] of which has a disabling effect on various protective and sexual functions.<ref name="andersen2025" />
+The 2016 statement disrespects the First Nations people of Canada by failing to note that circumcision is not part of their culture.
+The 2016 CPS statement of position on [[circumcision of the newborn]] was poorly drafted in 2016, has not improved with age, and is now outmoded by advances in medical science and [[human rights]], so it should be withdrawn.
+The CPS would do well by reviewing the work of Canadian [[Dale Andersen| Dale Andersen-Ghiberson]], MSW, as it considers its replacement statement.<ref name="andersen2025" />
 {{PUB}}