Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Circumcision study flaws

8 bytes added, 12:10, 13 November 2021
m
wikify amputation
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 hospitals do not allow the performance of the non-therapeutic [[amputation]].
It appears that the CPS was seeking to do more circumcisions so its members can make more money.
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
administrator, administrators, Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators
22,335
edits

Navigation menu