15,498
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
EMLA
,→Not approved for circumcision in newborns
== Not approved for circumcision in newborns ==
In July 2013, the German Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM) revoked the ''indication'' of the anesthetic ointment EMLA EMLA® for [[circumcision ]] of newborns.<ref>{{REFweb
|url=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zirkumzision#Schmerzen_und_postoperative_Beschwerden
|title=Zirkumzision #Schmerzen und postoperative Beschwerden
|date=2013-08-19
|accessdate=2015-02-09
}}</ref> EMLA EMLA® has never had an ''approval'' for newborn [[circumcision]], as the BfArM confirmed on March 7, 2013 to a medical member of [[Beschneidungsforum.de]]. The never-existing approval is evident from the technical information and instructions for use for EMLA EMLA® and the drug law. The indications are under 4.1 of a technical and user information. Newborn circumcision was never performed there in Germany.<ref name="Wakankar 2014-02-19">{{REFweb
|url=https://www.beschneidungsforum.de/thread/2353-buchver%C3%B6ffentlichung-mit-einem-beitrag-von-j%C3%A9r%C3%B4me-segal-herausgeber-prof-matthia/?postID=27541#post27541
|title=Die Beschneidung von Jungen, ein trauriges Vermächtnis
}}</ref>
The German manufacturer of the EMLA EMLA® ointment now confirms (at the latest since 2018) in the leaflet:
{{Citation
|Author=Aspen Germany GmbH
[...]
'''Do not use EMLA EMLA® on the following skin areas:'''
* Cuts, abrasions or wounds other than leg ulcers.
* in areas with a rash or eczema.
=== Legal consequences ===
The [[German Circumcision Act]] of 2012 implemented a so-called [[Mohel]] clause in paragraph 2, which states that up to the end of the sixth month of life, a boy can also be [[circumcised]] by a non-medical practitioner, as long as he is "trained" for this form of genital mutilation. The [[Circumcision Debate]] of that time impressively proves that Jewish [[Mohel]]s and other Jewish advocates of [[circumcision]] for boys repeatedly referred to the EMLA EMLA® ointment as an adequate pain treatment.
The clear definition now available, that EMLA ointment may not be used at all in this case, leads at least paragraph 2 of the [[German Circumcision Act]] ad absurdum. It should be even easier for the German Federal Constitutional Court, once it has to decide on the constitutionality of [[§ 1631d BGB]], to put an end to this "fault of the rule of law".<ref>{{REFnews