Difference between revisions of "Circumcision study flaws"

From IntactiWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Non-US statements: Add text.)
(→‎Non-US statements: Add text.)
Line 60: Line 60:
  
  
−
The [https://www.racp.edu.au Royal Australasian College of Physicians] (2010) released a 28-page updated position statement on non-therapeutic circumcision of boys in September 2010. This statement is deeply flawed and outmoded in 2020. The statement accepts at face value the false, now disproved,<ref name="boyle-hill2011">{{REFjournal
+
The [https://www.racp.edu.au Royal Australasian College of Physicians] (2010) released a 28-page updated position statement on non-therapeutic circumcision of boys in September 2010. This statement is deeply flawed and outmoded in 2020. It seems to be designed to protect the physicians' income from performing non-therapeutic circumcision. The statement accepts at face value the false, now disproved,<ref name="boyle-hill2011">{{REFjournal
 
  |last=Boyle
 
  |last=Boyle
 
  |first=Gregory J.
 
  |first=Gregory J.
Line 79: Line 79:
 
  |DOI=
 
  |DOI=
 
  |accessdate=2020-07-31
 
  |accessdate=2020-07-31
−
}}</ref> claims that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV by 60 percent. The statement shows only limited understanding of the functions of the foreskin. While it recognizes the protective function, it does not recognize the immunological function or sexual function, and shows only limited understanding of the erogenous function. The RACP places parental preference above child human rights. Nevertheless, public hospitals in [[Australia]] have discontinued provision of non-therapeutic circumcisions and it is reported that only 4 percent of Australian boys currently are being circumcised. The RACP needs to update this backward-looking, outmoded statement.
+
}}</ref> claims that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV by 60 percent. The statement shows only limited understanding of the functions of the foreskin. While it recognizes the protective function, it does not recognize the immunological function or sexual function, and shows only limited understanding of the erogenous function. The RACP places parental preference above child human rights. Nevertheless, public hospitals in [[Australia]] have banned performance of non-therapeutic circumcisions<ref>{{REFnews
 +
|title=Cosmetic circumcision banned
 +
|url=http://www.cirp.org/news/theadvertiser2007-11-12/
 +
|last=Pengelley
 +
|first=Jill
 +
|coauthors=
 +
|publisher=The Advertiser
 +
|website=
 +
|date=2007-12-09
 +
|accessdate=2019-11-06
 +
|quote=CIRCUMCISION will be banned in the state's public hospitals unless it is for medical reasons.
 +
}}</ref> and it is reported that only 4 percent of Australian boys currently are being circumcised.<ref>{{REFweb
 +
|url=http://www.circinfo.org/news_2018.html#fall
 +
|title=Foreskins rule! Australians rush to abandon circumcision
 +
|trans-title=
 +
|language=
 +
|last=
 +
|first=
 +
|author-link=
 +
|publisher=Circumcision Information Australia
 +
|website=
 +
|date=2018
 +
|accessdate=2020-03-31
 +
|format=
 +
|quote=
 +
}}</ref> The RACP needs to update this backward-looking, outmoded statement.
  
 
* {{REFweb
 
* {{REFweb

Revision as of 12:20, 31 July 2020

Construction Site

This article is work in progress and not yet part of the free encyclopedia IntactiWiki.

 

The Circumcision study flaws are numerous. The medical literature relating to circumcision is influenced by religious and cultural views of many authors. Moreover the circumcision status of the author impacts his views.[1]


Polarity

The medical literature regarding male circumcision is highly polarized. Foreskinned doctors tend to write papers hostile to circumcision, while circumcised doctors tend to write papers in favor of circumcision.[1]

Statements from medical trade associations

Medical trade associations exist to protect and advance the financial and business interests of their fellows (members). A few medical trade associations have issued statements regarding non-therapeutic circumcision of children. Such statements usually have an inherent conflict of interest between the best interests of the fellows' financial well-being and the well-being of male children.

One should draw a distinction between non-US statements and US statements.

Non-US statements

The Royal Dutch Medical Association {KNMG) published a statement regarding the non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors in 2010. The Netherlands is a nation where human rights are respected,[2] so it should be no surprise that the statement emphasizes the protection of the human rights of male minors and the reduction in the number of non-therapeutic circumcisions of children as much as possible. It finds no medical purpose for child non-therapeutic circumcision.


The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (2010) released a 28-page updated position statement on non-therapeutic circumcision of boys in September 2010. This statement is deeply flawed and outmoded in 2020. It seems to be designed to protect the physicians' income from performing non-therapeutic circumcision. The statement accepts at face value the false, now disproved,[3] claims that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV by 60 percent. The statement shows only limited understanding of the functions of the foreskin. While it recognizes the protective function, it does not recognize the immunological function or sexual function, and shows only limited understanding of the erogenous function. The RACP places parental preference above child human rights. Nevertheless, public hospitals in Australia have banned performance of non-therapeutic circumcisions[4] and it is reported that only 4 percent of Australian boys currently are being circumcised.[5] The RACP needs to update this backward-looking, outmoded statement.


The British Medical Association 28-page statement (2019) focuses on legal and ethical advice to its fellows to help keep them out of trouble in a regulatory environment that is unfriendly to practitioners of non-therapeutic male circumcision. It has little to say about the medical aspects of non-therapeutic circumcision.

References

  1. ↑ a b REFjournal Hill, G.. The case against circumcision. J Mens Health Gend. 20 August 2007; 4(3): 318-323.
  2. ↑ REFweb Smith, Jacqueline (1998). Male Circumcision and the Rights of the Child, CIRP, Netherlands Institute of Human Rights. Retrieved 4 February 2020.
  3. ↑ REFjournal Boyle, Gregory J., Hill, George. Sub-Saharan African randomised clinical trials into male circumcision and HIV transmission: Methodological, ethical and legal concerns. J Law Med. December 2011; 19(2): 316-334. PMID. Retrieved 31 July 2020.
  4. ↑ REFnews Pengelley, Jill (9 December 2007)."Cosmetic circumcision banned", The Advertiser. Retrieved 6 November 2019.
    Quote: CIRCUMCISION will be banned in the state's public hospitals unless it is for medical reasons.
  5. ↑ REFweb (2018). Foreskins rule! Australians rush to abandon circumcision, Circumcision Information Australia. Retrieved 31 March 2020.
Retrieved from "https://en.intactiwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Circumcision_study_flaws&oldid=15619"