17,052
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
On the contrary, the Dutch Council on Public Health and Care does not agree with the Royal Dutch Medical Organisation and states that they wrongly do not distinguish between male and female circumcision and that they do not take into account freedom of religion and the right of parents to raise their children according their own beliefs or convictions.<ref>{{REFweb
|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111203065953/http://rvz.net/nieuws/bericht/de-ene-besnijdenis-is-de-andere-niet-reactie-op-knmg-standpunt-jongensbesn
|title=De ene besnijdenis is de andere niet. Reactie op KNMG standpunt jongensbesnijdenis {{!}} RVZ - Raad voor Volksgezondheid & Zorg
|date=2011-12-03
|website=web.archive.org
|access-date=2019-06-14
}}</ref>
<!-- Somerville argues that because of a lack of credible information about male circumcision in some societies, the ability for the caregiver to grant informed consent on behalf of their child is compromised. This may be especially true of caregivers from a religious or cultural tradition that is particularly biased towards or against circumcising infants.<ref name="somerville">Somerville M. ''The Ethical Canary: Science, Society and the Human Spirit.'' Toronto: Penguin, 2000: pp. 202-19. (ISBN 0-670-89971-2)</ref> -->
}}</ref>
Benatar and Benatar (2003) argue that "it is far from obvious that circumcision reduces sexual pleasure," and that "it is far from clear that non-circumcision leaves open a future person’s options in every regard." They continue: "It does preserve the option of future circumcised or uncircumcised status. But it makes other options far more difficult to exercise. Transforming from the uncircumcised to the circumcised state will have psychological and other costs for an adult that are absent for a child. ... Nor are these costs “negligible”, [...]. At the very least, they are not more negligible than the risks and costs of circumcision."<ref>{{REFjournal
|url=http://bioethics.net/journal/pdf/3_2_LT_w01_Benetar.pdf
|format=PDF
|first=David
|last=Benatar
|last2=Benatar
|first2=Michael
|title=How not to argue about circumcision
|journal=American Journal of Bioethics
|volume=3
|issue=2
|date=2003
|pages=W1–W9
|DOI=10.1162/152651603102387820
|pubmedID=14635630
|url-status=dead
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20070616011136/http://bioethics.net/journal/pdf/3_2_LT_w01_Benetar.pdf
|archivedate=2007-06-16
Delete garbage.
The [[Royal Dutch Medical Association]] (''Koninklijke Nederlandsche Maatschappij tot bevordering der Geneeskunst'') (KNMG) and several Dutch specialist medical societies published a statement of position regarding circumcision of male children on 27 May 2010. The KNMG argues against circumcising male minors due to lack of evidence the procedure is useful or necessary, its associated risks, and violate the child's autonomy.<ref name="knmg.artsennet.nl2"/> They recommend deferring circumcision until the child is old enough to decide for himself.<ref name="knmg.artsennet.nl2" /> The Royal Dutch Medical Association questions why the ethics regarding male genital alterations should be viewed any differently from female genital alterations, when there are mild forms of female genital alterations (like pricking the [[clitoral hood]] without removing any tissue or removing the clitoral hood altogether). They have expressed opposition to both male circumcision and all forms of female circumcision, however they do not advocate a prohibition of male circumcision and prefer that circumcisions be done by doctors instead of illegal, underground circumcisers .<ref name="knmg.artsennet.nl2"/>
=== Scandinavia ===
The expired American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) position statement on male circumcision (2012) has attracted significant critical comment, including from the AAP itself.
In a dissenting paper, Frisch ''et al ''. (2013) point out "Circumcision fails to meet the criteria to serve as a preventive measure for UTI [...] As a preventive measure for penile cancer, circumcision also fails to meet the criteria for preventive medicine [...] circumcision for HIV protection in Western countries fails to meet the criteria for preventive medicine [...] Circumcision fails to meet the commonly accepted criteria for the justification of preventive medical procedures in children."
Frisch ''et all al''. conclude that "The AAP report2 lacks a serious discussion of the central ethical dilemma with, on 1 side, parents’ right to act in the best interest of the child on the basis of cultural, religious, and health-related beliefs and wishes and, on the other side, infant boys’ basic right to physical integrity in the absence of compelling reasons for surgery. Physical integrity is 1 of the most fundamental and inalienable rights a child has. Physicians and their professional organizations have a professional duty to protect this right, irrespective of the gender of the child."
Van Howe & Svoboda (2013) criticize their statement because it failed to include important points, in accurately analyzed and interpret current medical literature, and made unsupported conclusions.<ref>{{REFjournal
}}</ref>
Frisch ''et al''. (2013) pointed out the difference of the AAP's statements in comparison to other Western countries, such as Canada, Australia, and various European countries.<ref name=":03">{{REFjournal
|last=Frisch
|first=M.
}}</ref>
Canning (2002) commented that "[i]f circumcision becomes less commonly performed in North America [...] the legal system may no longer be able to ignore the conflict between the practice of circumcision and the legal and ethical duties of medical specialists."<ref name="Canning">{{REFjournal
|last=Canning
|DOI=10.1016/S0022-5347(05)64535-1
|pubmedID=12356070
}}</ref>
|language=nl-BE
|access-date=2019-06-14
}}</ref>
==HIV in southern and eastern Africa==
{{Main|Circumcision and HIV}}