17,052
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Non-US statements: Add citation.
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 |last=McCracken |first=G.H. |url=http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/UTI/mccracken/ |title=Options in antimicrobial management of urinary tract infections in infants and children |journal=Pediatr Infect Dis J |volume=8 |issue=8 |date=1989-08 |pages=552-5 |accessdate=2020-07-31}}</ref> so circumcision is not required.
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 that the health insurance plans do not pay for non-therapeutic circumcision and hospitals do not allow the performance of the non-therapeutic amputation in [[Canada]].
It appears that the CPS is was seeking to do more circumcisions so its members can make more money.
* {{REFjournal