Posted on 11/10/2001 1:14:03 PM PST by intacto
It is not a new medical theory. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) first said in 1971 that there are no valid medical indications for infant male circumcision. While the wording of the AAP policy statements has changed slightly over the last 30 years, at no time since 1971 has the AAP ever recommended that infant boys should be circumcised for medical reasons.
The current AAP policy statement does not say there are no potential medical benefits of infant circumcision. It says that the potential medical benefits are small and there are also potential medical risks associated with the surgery. The general consensus of the medical community is that the medical benefits of non-therapeutic infant circumcision are small and fairly well balanced with the medical risks.
However doctors do not normally perform surgery on infants and children unless the medical benefits of the procedure far outweigh the medical risks and harms. That standard is not met for non-therapeutic infant male circumcision.
I think it represents a covert anti-religious bias, which in these times is pretty much par for the course in the AMA.
Male circumcision is only a religious requirement for Muslim and Jewish men. It is not a religious requirement for Christians. In my opinion there should be a clear distinction made between male circumcision for religious reasons by Muslim and Jewish people and male circumcision for non-religious reasons done by physicians. What does religion have to do with Medicaid funding of non-therapeutic male circumcision by medical doctors?
As with any other surgical procedure there is a finite risk of complications from infant male circumcision. The rate of complications from circumcision reported in medical literature varies, but it is generally thought to be somewhere between 0.2% and 2%. The most common complications are minor bleeding and infections, but some complications are more severe. The more serious complications include wound separation, skin bridges, meatal stenosis, amputation of the glans and, very rarely, death.
The ridged band structure of the foreskin contains a higher concentration of specialized nerves than other parts of the penis. The ridged band is almost always cut off when a boy is circumcised. In my opinion removing the ridged band of specialized nerves without a valid medical indication causes harm.
HAHAHAHA! Mutilated. What a scream!
How do you feel about flossing? That's a bizarre ritual some say. What about dental hygiene? Bathing?
You claim there are NO medical benfits for circumcision?
Would you ban ear-piercing? Tatooing? Liposcution? Cosmetic plastic surgery?
Do you agree with the Taliban that no man should shave his beard?
At what level of medical benefit does a practise pass from "bizarre religious ritual" to a reasonable prophylatic practise, in your view?
Where is the line , in your view, between cosmetic or hygienic procedures and minor surgeries, and bizarre religious rituals?
Are you the kind of old-time religious zealot who says bathtubs should be banned?
Male circumcision is only a religious requirement for Muslim and Jewish males. It is not a religious requirement for Christians. The Book of Acts chapter 15 in the New Testament is very clear on that point of Christian doctrine.
Is that why no national professional medical organization in the world now recommends that infant boys should be circumcised? The Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons, Australian College of Paediatrics, Australian Medical Association, British Medical Association, Canadian Paediatric Society, American Academy of Pediatrics, and American Medical Association all say that infant male circumcision is not medically necessary.
I have recently become aware from several news articles, as well as from my own knowledge from gay family members that gay men tend to dislike circumcision.
And many straight men also dislike infant male circumcision once they learn that the procedure is not medically necessary.
An underhanded political campaign against circumcision seems to me to be under way.
Is that how you characterize the campaign against female circumcision? One form of female circumcision called sunna circumcision is very similar to male circumcision. Sunna circumcision surgically removes the prepuce (or hood) of a girl’s clitoris. Male circumcision surgically removes the prepuce (or hood) of a boy’s penis. What is the ethical difference between surgically removing the prepuce of a girl’s clitoris and surgically removing the prepuce of a boy’s penis?
I think parents and physicans should be free to make their own decisions regarding this practice without pressure from gender-lefty, PC buttinskys with covert agendas.
Do you also think that parents should be free to make their own decision regarding sunna circumcision of their daughters?
Physicians have legal and ethical duties to do what is in the best interest of the child not what someone else wants to have done for social or cultural reasons. How can cutting off a normal healthy part of a child’s genitals without a valid medical indication ever be in the best interest of a boy or a girl?
Hair cutting, finger and toe nail trimming, flossing and brushing teeth, and bathing are not permanent body modifications like body piercing, tattooing, scarification, etc. Hair and nails grow back, but a boy’s foreskin does not grow back once it is cut off.
Do you feel that parents should be allowed to make other permanent modifications to their child’s body such as genital piercing, tattoos, or sunna circumcision (surgically removing the prepuce or hood of a girl’s clitoris)?
You claim there are NO medical benefits for circumcision?
The potential medical benefits of infant male circumcision are small and are fairly well balanced with the medical risks and harms, but only if one does not place any value in the ridged band of specialized tissue that is cut off when a boy is circumcised. If one places any value in the normal male anatomy and a male’s right to his own bodily integrity, the harms of non-therapeutic infant male circumcision far outweigh any so-called potential medical benefits.
An invasive medical procedure becomes a reasonable prophylactic practice when the medical benefits far outweigh the medical risks and harms. That standard is not met for non-therapeutic infant male circumcision. That is way Medicaid should not pay for the procedure.
The most important risk factor for HIV infection and other sexually transmitted diseases is personal sexual behavior not circumcision status.
American Medical Association – "Regardless of these findings (of possibly decreased susceptibility to certain sexually transmissible diseases, including HIV), behavioral factors are far more important risk factors for acquisition of HIV and other sexually transmissible diseases than circumcision status, and circumcision cannot be responsibly viewed as ‘protecting’ against such infections." Neonatal Circumcision
Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons – "Personal sexual behavior patterns will determine whether sexually transmitted infections with human papilloma virus, herpes simplex virus and the human immune deficiency virus are contracted. Routine or infant male circumcision is not justified in Australia to protect males from contracting diseases that some may acquire through their ignoring the recognized precautions to be taken during their sexually active life." Guidelines for Circumcision
American Academy of Pediatrics – "However, behavioral factors appear to be far more important risk factors in the acquisition of HIV infection than circumcision status." Circumcision Policy Statement (RE9850)
Most likely. I had my son circumcized and I have YET to see all this so-called "harm" that these folks talk about. I guess you don't know you've been harmed until one of these "compassionate" types TELL you, right?
For anyone else interested in the other side, not just the typical, boring, stale propaganda of the anti-circ zealots, click on the link below.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.