Strength of Will, Always Burning

Strength of Will, Always Burning
Welcome to my Blog.

Here I will outline the current training I am under taking.

Sunday, October 21, 2012

Great reddit post on circumcision

The vast majority of medical organizations in the world with a policy on circumcision are outright against it. including:
Swedish Pediatric Society
(they outright call for a ban) Royal Dutch Medical Association
calls it a violation of human rights, and calls for a "strong policy of deterrence." this policy itself has been endorsed by several other organizations, including: 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, and
The Netherlands Surgeons’ Association.
They recently held a symposium
this past June to evaluate whether to ban it. one of the speakers is a man who did a recent study showing a decrease in sexual sensation in circumcised men, and an increase in sexual difficulties for them as well. British Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons
This procedure should be delayed to a later date when the child can make his own informed decision. Parental preference alone does not justify a non‐therapeutic procedure.... Advise parents that the current medical consensus is that routine infant male circumcision is not a recommended procedure; it is non‐therapeutic and has no medical prophylactic basis; it is a cosmetic surgical procedure; current evidence indicates that previously‐thought prophylactic public health benefits do not out‐weigh the potential risks..... Routine infant male circumcision does cause pain and permanent loss of healthy tissue. |
Australian Federation of Aids organizations
They state that circumcision has "no role" in the HIV epidemic. The German Association of Pediatricians
called for a ban recently. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan
has taken a position against it, saying it is harmful and will likely be considered illegal in the future, given the number of men who are angry that it was done to them and are becoming activists against it. The President of the Saskatchewan Medical Association has said the same (link above).
The Central Union for Child Welfare
“considers that circumcision of boys that violates the personal integrity of the boys is not acceptable unless it is done for medical reasons to treat an illness. The basis for the measures of a society must be an unconditional respect for the bodily integrity of an under-aged person… Circumcision can only be allowed to independent major persons, both women and men, after it has been ascertained that the person in question wants it of his or her own free will and he or she has not been subjected to pressure.” Swedish Association for Sexuality Education published this guide
that talks about circumcision, in a pretty negative way. not an official advocacy policy but it makes it fairly clear. it also mentions the frenulum is sexually sensitive, and helps prevent infection by blocking fluid from the urethra; the frenulum is often removed in an infant circumcision, yet easier to leave intact if an adult is circumcised. Royal College of Surgeons of England
"The one absolute indication for circumcision is scarring of the opening of the foreskin making it non- retractable (pathological phimosis). This is unusual before five years of age."..."The parents and, when competent, the child, must be made fully aware of the implications of this operation as it is a non-reversible procedure." |
British Medical Association
it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks. .... very similar arguments are also used to try and justify very harmful cultural procedures, such as female genital mutilation or ritual scarification. Furthermore, the harm of denying a person the opportunity to choose not to be circumcised must also be taken into account, together with the damage that can be done to the individual’s relationship with his parents and the medical profession if he feels harmed by the procedure. .... parental preference alone is not sufficient justification for performing a surgical procedure on a child. .... The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefit from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it. |
Australian Medical Association
Has a policy of discouraging it, ad says "The Australian College of Paediatrics should continue to discourage the practice of circumcision in newborns." Australian College of Paediatrics
"The possibility that routine circumcision may contravene human rights has been raised because circumcision is performed on a minor and is without proven medical benefit. Whether these legal concerns are valid will probably only be known if the matter is determined in a court of law .....Neonatal male circumcision has no medical indication. It is a traumatic procedure performed without anaesthesia to remove a normal and healthy prepuce."|
I love that statement about human rights. It says that the only way to determine the validity is to ask the courts. As if it's not the job of a medical organization to take a stand as well.
Royal Australasian College of Physicians
Some men strongly resent having been circumcised as infants. There has been increasing interest in this problem, evidenced by the number of surgical and non-surgical techniques for recreation of the foreskin.|
ON that note, {74% of Australian doctors overall believe circumcision should not be offered, and 51% consider it abuse](
). Circumcision used to be common in Australia, but the movement against it spread faster there than America, where rates continue to drop. A letter by the South African Medical Association
said this:
The matter was discussed by the members of the Human Rights, Law & Ethics Committee at their previous meeting and they agreed with the content of the letter by NOCIRC SA. The Committee stated that it was unethical and illegal to perform circumcision on infant boys in this instance. In particular, the Committee expressed serious concern that not enough scientifically-based evidence was available to confirm that circumcisions prevented HIV contraction and that the public at large was influenced by incorrect and misrepresented information. The Committee reiterated its view that it did not support circumcision to prevent HIV transmission. We trust that you will find this in order. Yours faithfully Ms Ulundi Behrtel|
Royal Australasian College of Surgeons
I like this one especially. It's a detailed evaluation of the arguments in favor of circumcision, They note that during one of the recent trials in Africa, the researchers claimed there was no loss of sexual satisfaction, when in fact there was. But the RACS called them out:
"Despite uncircumcised men reporting greater sexual satisfaction, which was statistically significant, Kigozi et al (2008) concluded that adult male circumcision does not adversely affect sexual satisfaction or clinically significant function in men." In general, they discuss how there's no evidence to support it.
The Norwegian Council of Medical Ethics
states that ritual circumcision of boys is not consistent with important principles of medical ethics, that it is without medical value, and should not be paid for with public funds. The Norwegian Children’s Ombudsman
is opposed as well. The Denmark National Council for Children is also opposed.
And recently, the politically appointed Health minister of Norway opposed a ban on circumcision, the fact that the ban was supported by the Norwegian Medical Association, the Norwegian Nurses Organization, the Norwegian Ombudsman for Children, and the University of Oslo.
this study
shows significant harms to men's sexual ability and satisfaction after circumcision. Here's a page
from an activist site that has a short list of some organizations as well, with a few other details. most I already listed though.