22,310
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
* The [[Canadian Urological Association]] (CUA) considered the matter of circumcision and issued a statement in February 2018. The CUA concluded: <blockquote>"Given the socioeconomic, educational status, and health demographics of our population, universal neonatal circumcision cannot be justified based on the current evidence available.<ref name="cua2018">{{REFjournal
using UNI template
|pages=222-233
|location=New Haven
|publisher={{UNI|Yale University |Yale}} Press
|isbn=0-300-08377-7
|quote=
==Video==
{{UNI|Stanford University |SU}} has published a video of an actual non-therapeutic plastibell circumcision. The infant has received two injections of local anesthesia to deaden the dorsal nerves. The ventral nerves were not deadened so the infant still feels pain. One can his cries on the soundtrack.
* [https://med.stanford.edu/newborns/professional-education/circumcision/plastibell-technique.html Plastibell Technique]
}}</ref>
</blockquote>
* Andrew E. MacNeiiy, Head, Division of Pediatric Urology, Department of Urological Sciences, {{UNI|University of British Columbia|UBC}}, Vancouver, BC, (2008) said:
<blockquote>
Newborn circumcision remains an area of controversy. Social, cultural, aesthetic and religious pressures form the most common reasons for non-therapeutic circumcision. Although penile cancer and UTIs are reduced compared with uncircumcised males, the incidence of such illness is so low that circumcision cannot be justified as prophylaxis. The role of the foreskin in [[HIV]] transmission in developed countries is unclear, and safe sexual practice remains the cornerstone of prevention. There remains a lack of knowledge regarding what constitutes the normal foreskin both among parents and among primary care providers. This lack of knowledge results in a burden of costs to our health care system in the form of unnecessary urological referrals, expansion of wait times and circumcisions. Routine circumcision of all infants is not justified from a health or cost-benefit perspective.<ref>{{REFjournal
* The [[Royal Dutch Medical Association]] (KNMG) (2010) said:
<blockquote>
The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organisations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity. Contrary to popular belief, circumcision can cause complications – bleeding, infection, urethral stricture and panic attacks are particularly common. KNMG is therefore urging a strong policy of deterrence. KNMG is calling upon doctors to actively and insistently inform parents who are considering the procedure of the absence of medical benefits and the danger of complications.<ref>{{REFdocument
* The [[Royal Australasian College of Physicians]] (2010) said:
<blockquote>
Ethical and human rights concerns have been raised regarding elective infant male
* The [[Canadian Paediatric Society]] (CPS) (2015) said:
<blockquote>In most jurisdictions, authority is limited only to interventions deemed to be medically necessary. In cases in which medical necessity is not established or a proposed treatment is based on personal preference, interventions should be deferred until the individual concerned is able to make their own choices.<ref name="CPS2015">{{REFjournal
|last=Sorokin
|first=S. Todd
|accessdate=2019-10-27
}}
</ref></blockquote> * The [[Canadian Urological Association]] (CUA) considered the matter of circumcision and issued a statement in February 2018. The CUA concluded:
|last=Dave
|first=Sumit
|accessdate=2021-11-09
}}</ref></blockquote>
== Rights and ethics ==