Canadian Paediatric Society: Difference between revisions

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 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

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 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. Circumcision assaults the person of the child by excising functional tissue. 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 best interests of its fellows than in the health and well-being of the male infants of [[Canada]].

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.

@@ 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 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
+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 50: / 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. Circumcision assaults the person of the child by excising functional tissue. 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 best interests of its fellows than in the health and well-being of the male infants of [[Canada]].
+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.
 {{PUB}}