15,062
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
{{Incomplete}}
Add category.
'''Circumcision study flaws''' are numerous. The medical literature relating to circumcision is influenced by the authors' religious and cultural views.<ref>{{REFweb
|url=https://circumcision.org/cultural-and-medical-bias/
# Psychosocial factors, including [[Sexual effects of circumcision| sexual correlates of circumcision]], should be studied.<ref name="bossio2014" />
To carry out the recommendations of the authors it would be necessary to violate the [[human rights]] of more boys who would be permanently injured by non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] and the loss of the multi-functional [[foreskin]].
==Statements from medical trade associations==
The [https://www.aafp.org/home.html American Academy of Family Physicians] continues to promote non-therapeutic male circumcision. The AAFP report is based on the now discredited 2012 AAP statement. It touts prevention of [[urinary tract infection ]] (UTI), but fails to advise that UTI is easily treatable with antibiotics if it should occur. The AAFP gives no information on the multiple functions and value of the foreskin. It fails to state that circumcision of the newborn is a medically-unnecessary, non-therapeutic amputation of a valuable body part that leaves a life-long injury and impairment of function.
* {{REFweb
{{REF}}
[[Category:Literature]]
[[Category:From Intactipedia]]
[[Category:From IntactWiki]]