Canadian Paediatric Society: Difference between revisions
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) →Issues with the 2016 circumcision position statement: Revise text and add citation. |
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
|accessdate=2026-03-13 | |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 | </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 | 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has not improved with age, and is now outmoded by advances in medical science and [[human rights]], so it should be withdrawn.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 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has not improved with age, and is now outmoded by advances in medical science and [[human rights]], so it should be withdrawn. | ||
Latest revision as of 13:50, 14 March 2026
The Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) is the medical trade association for Canadian paediatricians. The CPS head office is located at 100-2305 St. Laurent Blvd., Ottawa, ON, Canada K1G 4J8.
The CPS is governed by an elected Board of Directors representing each province and territory.
The CPS publishes Paediatrics & Child Health, Canada's only paediatrics journal.
The CPS publishes policy statements on various matters relating to paediatric health and well-being. It has published three major statements on male circumcision.
Issues with the 2016 circumcision position statement
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.[1]
The statement seems designed to promote non-therapeutic unnecessary child circumcision in Canada in violation of the child's Section 7 right to security of the person 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 not redundant tissue.[2] 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.[2]
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-Ghiberson, MSW, as it considers its replacement statement.[2]
Swyer PR, Boston RW, Murdock A, Paré C, Rees E, Segal S, Sinclair JC. FN 75 Circumcision in the newborn period. CPS News Bull Suppl. 1975; 8(2): 1-2. Retrieved 27 October 2019.
- Outerbridge E. Neonatal circumcision revisited. Can Med Assoc J. 15 March 1996; 154(6): 769-80. PMID. PMC. Retrieved 27 October 2019.
- Sorokin ST, Finlay, JC, Jeffries, AL, et al. Newborn male circumcision. Paediatr Child Health. August 2015; 20(6): 311-20. PMID. PMC. DOI. Retrieved 27 October 2019.
See also
References
- ↑ Mayan, Madhur, Hamilton, Robert J., Juurlink, David N., Austin, Peter C., Jarvi, Keith A.. Circumcision and Risk of HIV Among Males From Ontario, Canada. J Urol. 8 June 2023; PMID. DOI. Retrieved 2 October 2021.
Quote:We found that circumcision was not independently associated with the risk of acquiring HIV among men from Ontario, Canada.
- ↑ a b c Andersen-Giberson D. Circumcision and forced disability: Routine male neonatal circumcision and the consequences of amputation within a critical disability studies framework
. Critical Disability Discourses. December 2025; 10(2): 1-37. DOI. Retrieved 13 March 2026.
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.
External links
Official website. Retrieved 8 June 2023
