Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Circumcision study flaws

148 bytes removed, 21:52, 15 May 2023
Statements from medical trade associations: Wikify.
== Statements from medical trade associations ==
[[Medical trade association| Medical trade associations ]] exist to protect and advance the professional, financial , business, and business legal interests of their fellows (members). A few medical trade associations, whose members perform non-therapeutic circumcision, have issued statements regarding non-therapeutic circumcision of children. Circumcision policy statements frequently exclude discussions of [[Sexual effects of circumcision| sexual]], [[Psychological issues of male circumcision| psychological]], [[human rights]], ethical, and [[Circumcision legal commentary| legal ]] issues, and the [[Foreskin| anatomy and functions of the foreskin]].<ref name="goldman2004">{{REFjournal
|last=Goldman
|first=Ronald
}}</ref>
This statement has very serious omissions that [[bias ]] it in favor of circumcision. The description of the [[foreskin]] omits important information, including its innervation, its protective functions, its immunological functions, and its sexual functions. The statement claims "potential" benefits, which exist only in someone's imagination.
The CPS statement revives the claims made by circumcision promoter [[Thomas E. Wiswell]]'s discredited studies from the 1980s in an apparent attempt to restart the [[Urinary_tract_infection#The_UTI_scare| UTI scare]]. It fails to mention that UTIS are easily treated with antibiotics.<ref name="McCracken 1989">{{REFjournal
The conclusion states that circumcision may be beneficial "for some boys", but fails to state which boys the CPS thinks would benefit by circumcision.
The statement seems amateurish. It seems to have been drafted by a committee of people who had no special knowledge or understanding of the human foreskin, circumcision, or the literature. It seems divorced from the reality in [[Canada]] that the health insurance plans do not pay for non-therapeutic circumcision and most hospitals do not allow the performance of the non-therapeutic [[amputation]].
It appears that the CPS was seeking to do promote more circumcisions so its members can make more money.
* {{REFjournal
=== USA ===
{{Box|Boxtext=<big><b>All AAP policy statements expire after five years unless reaffirmed. This policy received overwhelming critical comment, so it was not reaffirmed. It Policy expired on 31 August 2017, however the AAP did not officially announce the expiration until November 2022. Currently, the AAP does ''not'' have a circumcision policy and has not had one since 2017.</b></big>}}
[[File:Flag_of_USA.svg|thumb|150px|Flag of the United States of America (USA)]]
The United States are unique because the American medical industry has been promoting the practice of non-therapeutic circumcision since the late 19th Century.<ref>{{GollaherDL 1994}}</ref> As a result of the centuries-old promotion almost all American males were circumcised soon after birth from the 1930s through the 1980s.<ref name="laumann1996">{{REFjournal
* [[Financial incentive]]
* [[Position statements on infant circumcision]]
* [[Trauma]]
{{REF}}
15,498
edits

Navigation menu