Royal Australasian College of Physicians: Difference between revisions
m added RACP 2022 and Meddings comment |
m →RACP 2022 statement: typo |
||
| (16 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{WikipediaQuote | {{WikipediaQuote | ||
| URL=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Australasian_College_of_Physicians | | URL=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Australasian_College_of_Physicians | ||
| | | title=Royal Australasian College of Physicians | ||
}} | }} | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
The RACP | The RACP had declined to recommend non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] of boys in its now replaced 2010 statement.<ref name="racp2010">{{REFdocument | ||
|title=Circumcision of Infant Males | |title=Circumcision of Infant Males | ||
|url= | |url= | ||
|contribution= | |contribution= | ||
|last= | |last=Anonymous | ||
|first= | |first= | ||
|publisher=The Royal Australasian College of Physicians | |publisher=The Royal Australasian College of Physicians | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
== RACP 2022 statement == | == RACP 2022 statement == | ||
There really was nothing wrong with the 2010 RACP statement on circumcision of infant males that required change. The RACP evidently had a change of policy that it would promote [[circumcision]] to the Australasian public at the cost of additional [[pain]], [[trauma]], and loss of [[Foreskin#Physiological_functions| physiological function]] to infant boys in [[Australia]] and [[New Zealand]]. | |||
The current RACP statement on circumcision of infant males<ref name="RACP2022">{{REFdocument | The current RACP statement on circumcision of infant males<ref name="RACP2022">{{REFdocument | ||
|url=https://www.racp.edu.au//docs/default-source/advocacy-library/racp-circumcision-of-infant-males-position-statement.pdf | |url=https://www.racp.edu.au//docs/default-source/advocacy-library/racp-circumcision-of-infant-males-position-statement.pdf | ||
|title=Circumcision of Infant Males | |title=Circumcision of Infant Males | ||
|date=2022-12 | |date=2022-12 | ||
|last=[[RACP]] | |last=[[RACP]] | ||
|format=PDF | |||
|accessdate=2023-06-07 | |accessdate=2023-06-07 | ||
}}</ref> as of December 2022 states: | }}</ref> as of December 2022 states: | ||
| Line 48: | Line 51: | ||
}} | }} | ||
Thus, the RACP recognizes that circumcision of male children is medically unnecessary in general. They do not, however, recognize the child's right to be protected against an arbitrary choice by the parents for this circumcision, as [[Jonathan Meddings]] commented in January 2023.<ref>{{REFweb | Thus, the RACP recognizes that [[circumcision]] of male children is medically unnecessary in general. They do not, however, recognize the child's right to be protected against an arbitrary choice by the parents for this circumcision, as [[Jonathan Meddings]] commented in January 2023.<ref>{{REFweb | ||
|url=https://jonathanmeddings.medium.com/the-racp-has-updated-its-position-on-circumcision-and-it-isnt-good-dbcb70ff20d5 | |url=https://jonathanmeddings.medium.com/the-racp-has-updated-its-position-on-circumcision-and-it-isnt-good-dbcb70ff20d5 | ||
|title=The RACP has updated its position on circumcision | |title=The RACP has updated its position on circumcision | ||
| Line 59: | Line 62: | ||
}}</ref> So the RACP clearly does '''not''' protect children from not required surgery. | }}</ref> So the RACP clearly does '''not''' protect children from not required surgery. | ||
The RACP is a [[medical trade association]] so it has a duty to promote the business of its physician members, which includes medically-unnecessary, non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] of infant boys. The 2022 statement, ''Circumcision of Infant Males'', fulfills its duty to promote circumcision. The statement is typical of other promotional [[Medical_trade_association#Statements_regarding_male_circumcision| statements regarding male circumcision]] from medical trade associations and has the usual omissions. Notably, the statement omits mention of the death of a boy in Perth the previous year and the statement by Dr. Duncan-Smith of the Australian Medical Association should be done only for a medical indication.<ref>{{REFnews | |||
|url=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10293843/Circumcision-warning-two-year-old-dies-brother-bleeds-Western-Australia.html | |||
|title=Parents are warned against circumcising their children after a toddler, 2, died 'of a reaction to anaesthetic' and his baby brother almost bled out | |||
|last=Wondracz | |||
|first=Aidan | |||
|init=A | |||
|publisher=Daily Mail | |||
|date=2021-12-09 | |||
|accessdate=2023-11-17 | |||
}}</ref> | |||
In a glaring display of medical ineptitude, the 2022 RACP statement cited the 2012 [[American Academy of Pediatrics]] statement, which had expired five years before in 2017 and no longer was an official statement. One should also be aware of the citation of papers by circumcision promoter [[Brian Morris]]. | |||
The RACP evidently wanted to do what it could to increase the revenue of its members from infant [[circumcision]] and to shift responsibilty for the certain injury from the surgeon to the parents. | |||
{{SEEALSO}} | {{SEEALSO}} | ||
* [[Australia]] | * [[Australia]] | ||
* [[Circumcision Info Australia]] | * [[Circumcision Info Australia]] | ||
* [[Circumcision study flaws]] | |||
* [[New Zealand]] | * [[New Zealand]] | ||
{{LINKS}} | {{LINKS}} | ||
* | * {{URLwebsite|https://www.racp.edu.au/|2023-11-17}} | ||
{{REF}} | {{REF}} | ||