Newcomer here, wondering if someone could explain the circumcision argument to me?

thrway_1000 · 2012-06-05T20:10:04+00:00

Royal Australasian College of Physicians

After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand. (Page 5)

[download link to PDF file] http://www.racp.edu.au/index.cfm?objectid=65118B16-F145-8B74-236C86100E4E3E8E

British Medical Association

The medical evidence about its health impact is equivocal.

[..]

Nevertheless, normal anatomical and physiological characteristics of the infant foreskin have in the past been misinterpreted as being abnormal. The British Association of Paediatric Surgeons advises that there is rarely a clinical indication for circumcision.

[..]

The medical benefits previously claimed, however, have not been convincingly proven, and it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks. It is essential that doctors perform male circumcision only where this is demonstrably in the best interests of the child.

[..]

Best interests

-Doctors must act in the best interests of the patient.

-Even where they do not decide for themselves, the views that children express are important in determining what is in their best interests.

-The BMA does not believe that parental preference alone constitutes sufficient grounds for performing a surgical procedure on a child unable to express his own view. Parental preference must be weighed in terms of the child’s interests.

-The courts have confirmed that the child’s lifestyle and likely upbringing are relevant factors to take into account. The particular situation of the case needs to be considered.

-Parents must explain and justify requests for circumcision, in terms of the child’s interests.

http://www.bma.org.uk/ethics/consent_and_capacity/malecircumcision2006.jsp

Canadian Pediatric Society

Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed.

Validation: This recommendation is in keeping with previous statements on neonatal circumcision by the Canadian Paediatric Society and the American Academy of Pediatrics. The statement was reviewed by the Infectious Disease Committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society. The Board of Directors of the Canadian Paediatric Society has reviewed its content and approved it for publication.

http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/FN/fn96-01.htm

Koninklijke Nederlandsche Maatschappij tot bevordering der Geneeskunst (Royal Dutch Medical Society) or KNMG

This viewpoint by the KNMG is jointly endorsed by the following scientific associations:

The Netherlands Society of General Practitioners
The Netherlands Society of Youth Healthcare Physicians
The Netherlands Association of Paediatric Surgeons
The Netherlands Association of Plastic Surgeons
The Netherlands Association for Paediatric Medicine
The Netherlands Urology Association
The Netherlands Surgeons’ Association

There is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene. Partly in the light of the complications which can arise during or after circumcision, circumcision is not justifiable except on medical/therapeutic grounds. Insofar as there are medical benefits, such as a possibly reduced risk of HIV infection, it is reasonable to put off circumcision until the age at which such a risk is relevant and the boy himself can decide about the intervention, or can opt for any available alternatives.

[..]

Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors conflicts with the child’s right to autonomy and physical integrity.

[..]

Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is contrary to the rule that minors may only be exposed to medical treatments if illness or abnormalities are present, or if it can be convincingly demonstrated that the medical intervention is in the interest of the child, as in the case of vaccinations.

[..]

The fact that this is a medically non-essential intervention with a real risk of complications makes the quality of this advice particularly important.

[download link to PDF file] http://knmg.artsennet.nl/web/file?uuid=579e836d-ea83-410f-9889-feb7eda87cd5&owner=a8a9ce0e-f42b-47a5-960e-be08025b7b04&contentid=77976&elementid=771754

Also reported by BBC News

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15486834

National Coalition for Men, America

"Throughout the world, medical associations have found no medical justification for male circumcision. The British, Canadian, South African, Australian, Dutch, and New Zealand medical associations all found the purported medical benefits to be unfounded, and that the risks and complications outweigh any benefits. The Dutch and South African medical associations even declared infant male circumcision to be harmful, unethical, and a violation of a child's right to bodily integrity....... Religious, cultural, and parental rights end when it comes to someone else's bodily integrity. It's his body, and his choice."

The circumcision as AIDS prevention tool myth has been debunked outside of USA --->

"Our conclusion is that such proposals ignore doubts about the robustness of the evidence from the African random-controlled trials as to the protective effect of circumcision and the practical value of circumcision as a means of HIV control; misrepresent the nature of Australia's HIV epidemic and exaggerate the relevance of the African random-controlled trials findings to it; underestimate the risks and harm of circumcision; and ignore questions of medical ethics and human rights. The notion of circumcision as a ‘surgical vaccine’ is criticised as polemical and unscientific..... Circumcision of infants or other minors has no place among HIV control measures in the Australian and New Zealand context; proposals such as these should be rejected." - Public Health Association of Australia

"That the relationship between circumcision and transmission of HIV is at the very least unclear is illustrated by the fact that the US combines a high prevalence of STDs and HIV infections with a high percentage of routine circumcisions. The Dutch situation is precisely the reverse: a low prevalence of HIV/AIDS combined with a relatively low number of circumcisions. As such, behavioural factors appear to play a far more important role than whether or not one has a foreskin." - Royal Dutch Medical Association

Source: both quotes published in Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health

The Journal of Law and Medicine also trashed those studies - claiming selection bias, inadequate blinding, problematic randomization, experimenter bias, lead time bias, supportive bias, participant expectation bias, time-out discrepancy, and lack of investigating of non-sexual HIV transmission among other confounding factors and problems.

wufoo2 · 2012-06-05T20:16:43+00:00

I think most medical professionals could benefit from this presentation, which is offered to medical schools as part of a "foreskin curriculum." Apparently many schools teach little about the foreskin other than to cut it off.

For professionals and nonprofessionals, the best reading out there is Dr. Fleiss' original article, and his follow-up.

Once you understand what the foreskin does, the claims about infections don't make sense. The foreskin protects the urethra from infection. Stripping it away exposes the meatus, often leading to meatal stenosis and more surgery.

If it's STI's you're referring to, there is no clear cause-effect relationship between circumcision and transmittable disease. There's this study or that study, many of which reach opposite conclusions. But the most telling fact is that after 60+ years of circumcising most American boys, the U.S. has no better track record against STIs (or HIV) than any other comparable population, including Europe, where circumcision is rare.

The phimosis/paraphimosis thing is a rare condition. What other potential malady do we treat with pre-emptive amputation? None.

thrway_1000 · 2012-06-05T20:10:27+00:00

Things she may want to consider:

May be some repeats - Circumcision Resource:

Videos:

Information About the Cons of Circumcision:

For Jewish Readers:

Jewish Alternative to Circumcision:

Brit Shalom

thrway_1000 · 2012-06-05T20:25:42+00:00

Honest_Fool · 2012-06-06T02:06:48+00:00

Well, one of the main arguments is that it is ethically dubious to perform a permanent, unnecessary, surgery without the consent of the person you are performing it on.

zyk0s · 2012-06-05T20:20:32+00:00

As a medical professional, you should also understand the silliness of unnecessary preventive surgery. You should also understand:

that the infections and conditions like paraphimosis are uncommon, and if circumcision may prevent these conditions, it can also correct them so there is no or very little harm in conducting it after a diagnostic.
that circumcision has in fact very little health benefits, and that the margins of improvements are very small. That holds true for UTI and HIV infection.
that circumcision is, like all surgeries, a risky procedure. There is a non-negligible risk of penile deformation and death of the infant. See somewhere in the sidebar for stats.
that the foreskin contains sensitive nerves, serves a protective and sexual function, and that its removal does lower sexual stimulation.
that circumcision is primarily a cosmetic surgery, not a medical one. It is the only cosmetic surgery, apart from maybe ear piercing if you want to consider that, which can be imposed on someone against their consent.
that circumcision is not reversible. There exist corrective surgeries, but the foreskin can never be truly recovered.

So why would anyone want to circumcise their child except for very selfish or completely misguided reasons?

rightsbot · 2012-06-05T20:00:18+00:00

Post text automatically copied here. (Why?) (Report a problem.)

Title	Newcomer here, wondering if someone could explain the circumcision argument to me?
Author	franchise2084
Upvotes	2
Comments	35
Date	June 5, 2012 7:58 PM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/umluy/newcomer_here_wondering_if_someone_could_explain/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/newcomer-here-wondering-if-someone-could-explain.1020378 https://theredarchive.com/post/1020378

Comments