Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Circumcision study flaws

8 bytes added, 19:42, 15 June 2022
m
wikify
== Statements from medical trade associations ==
Medical trade associations exist to protect and advance the financial and business 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, psychological, [[human rights]], ethical, and legal issues, and the anatomy and functions of the foreskin.<ref name="goldman2004">{{REFjournal
|last=Goldman
|first=Ronald
=== Australasia ===
[[File:Flag_of_Australia.svg|thumb|150px|Flag of Australia]]
The [https://www.racp.edu.au Royal Australasian College of Physicians] (2010) released a 28-page updated position statement on non-therapeutic circumcision of boys in September 2010. This statement is deeply flawed and outmoded in 2020. It seems to be designed to protect the physicians' income from performing non-therapeutic circumcision. The statement accepts at face value the false, now disproved,<ref name="boyle-hill2011">{{BoyleGJ HillG 2011}}</ref> claims that circumcision reduces the risk of [[HIV]] by 60 percent. The statement shows only limited understanding of the functions of the foreskin. While it recognizes the protective function, it does not recognize the immunological function or sexual function, and shows only limited understanding of the erogenous function. The RACP places parental preference above child [[human rights]]. Nevertheless, public hospitals in [[Australia]] have banned performance of non-therapeutic circumcisions<ref>{{REFnews
|title=Cosmetic circumcision banned
|url=http://www.cirp.org/news/theadvertiser2007-11-12/
administrator, administrators, Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators
22,208
edits

Navigation menu