Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Circumcision study flaws

1,081 bytes added, 18:32, 1 August 2020
Non-US statements: Add text.
The [http://www.cua.org/en Canadian Urological Association] (2018) issued a 1924-page guideline on the care of the normal foreskin and neonatal circumcision. The statement is very comprehensive and covers treatment of various diseases and deformities as well as discussing non-therapeutic circumicision circumcision of boys in Canada. Our comments are restricted to the discussion of circumcision.  While the discussion of the medical evidence is very good, the authors were unaware of the methodological and statistical errors in the three African RCTs, so they gave the RCTs excessive and undeserved weight. Although the authors recognized the loss of sensation caused by circumcision, they seemed to lack understanding of the full range of sexual injury caused by circumcision. They apparently had no knowledge of the psychological impact as that is not discussed at all. The authors show no understanding that an infant is a person with [[human rights]], that non-therapeutic circumcision violate those rights, or that the practice may be unethical or unlawful under the ''right to security of the person'' granted by Article Seven of the [http://www.efc.ca/pages/law/charter/charter.text.html Canadian Charter or Rights and Freedoms].  While the authors properly conclude that non-therapeutic circumcision of children is "not justifed", they fail to recognize the full extent of the inherent harm and injury.
* {{REFjournal
15,954
edits

Navigation menu