Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Muslim and Jewish groups denounce German circumcision ruling


Recommended Posts

Except that it says the circumcized boys will need to be admitted to the hospital. It also uses the modification "before the age of 1". What about over the entire lifetime? What about the other benefits of being circumcizes. Lower cancer rates? Lower HIV and STI rates? Why is infection before the age of 1 the only stat looked at?

The 20-30 boys with complications, however, will usually just have some bleeding, which can be treated at home. Here's the paper they lifted and twisted those facts from:

http://www.cirp.org/...ements/ama2000/

Basically the AMA does not promote or call for a ban on circumcision. If it was as dangerous as you say, they'd be calling for a ban on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just talking about the argument not the act.

The act is what it is. I'm all toque'd and happy with that; I stay warmer in the winter. There are medical reasons as to why to get it cut off...there's religious and cultural reason as well. There's also the same for not cutting it off. At the end of the day though...it just doesn't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't this you earlier in the thread?

The parents are given the medical benefits and pros and cons by the doctor before the procedure. Then they decide. There are medical benefits to the procedure that have nothing to do with religion and the doctors consider it a normal and safe procedure.

If you think the doctors are ignorant (they are the ones giving the choice to the parents ) then by all means take it up with them.

You should retract this statement .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The medical reasons that you are referring to for cutting it off, aren't actually reasons that any medical professional would say are necessary. The only real medical necessity, i suppose, is when there is a pressing medical necessity to remove the foreskin....but then again, gangrene is also a pressing medical necessity to remove a limb as well....however, we don't go around suggesting that the benefits/reasons/advantages of removing our limbs is so we don't get gangrene.

At the end of the day, and what the majority of people are trying to avoid, is this is a religious/cultural/cosmetic issue. But, they seem to not want to get into that area, because it would mean that they don't have a medical leg to stand on...which they in fact don't in order to argue that circumcisions should be done, primarily, for medical reasonings. That, as i've shown, is not a medically necessary or supported argument.

The sooner people start talking about this in terms of trying to rationalize this through their religious colored glasses, the sooner we can debate the issues surrounding religious freedom versus the right of self-determination, and the right of individual informed consent and choice...which I think is the more interesting conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No that's not really what I was talking about. I was more talking about that there are medical reasons for it to come off. I don't think that means it should come off as a preventative measure but I also don't think it's a big deal if it is.

I'm also against ear piercing until a certain age but I also don't think it's that big of a deal either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against it unless it's a medical necessity. Which is uncommon but does happen.

Regarding religion, if someone wants a circumcision for religious reasons, then fair enough. Just wait until the kid is old enough to make a decision himself.

Pretty sure everything I posted has been covered already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing here that I can add that has not already been beautifully articulated-- and scientifically supported-- by Sharpshooter and Scorpio Ego, but I just wanted to say, you guys are my ???? heroes.

I cannot imagine why any free-thinking, intelligent person would be pro-circumcision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against it unless it's a medical necessity. Which is uncommon but does happen.

Regarding religion, if someone wants a circumcision for religious reasons, then fair enough. Just wait until the kid is old enough to make a decision himself.

Pretty sure everything I posted has been covered already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic focuses on the circumcision of newborns.

How will you know if circumcision is right for your son?

Circumcision is not usually medically needed. The Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) does not recommend circumcision as a routine procedure for newborn males. When making this policy, the CPS looked at the possible benefits, risks, and costs of the procedure.

1

When you make this decision, it may help you to think about your personal and cultural preferences. For example, you may want to consider your religious and family traditions while you weigh the pros and cons of the surgery. It is your decision whether to keep your son's penis natural or have your son circumcised.

In BC the College of Physicians and Surgeons has formally advised doctors not to perform the operation.

September 2009

Circumcision (Infant Male)

RESOURCE MANUAL

Until recently, only public health and religious views were taken into consideration in the debate over infant male circumcision. However, our understanding of medical practice must change as research findings become available. The College is issuing this guide for physicians regarding routine infant male circumcision in light of evidence?based medicine and contemporary principles in ethics, law and human rights.

Infant male circumcision was once considered a preventive health measure and was therefore adopted extensively in Western counties.
Current understanding of the benefits, risks and potential harm of this procedure, however, no longer supports this practice for prophylactic health benefit.
Routine infant male circumcision performed on a healthy infant is now considered a non-therapeutic and medically unnecessary intervention
.
From a religious standpoint, infant male circumcision is acknowledged to be an important ritual and an integral part of Jewish and Islamic religions. Male circumcision is also practiced in other parts of the world as a rite of puberty.

A wider societal discussion on infant male circumcision is warranted based on a current understanding of bioethics that takes ito account the non-therapeutic nature of the procedure as well as the high importance it plays in religious and traditional customs. This paper provides a discussion on current medical perspectives as well as relevant legal, human rights, and ethical considerations. ...

(
)

...
routine removal of normal tissue in a healthy infant, is not recommended
.

...
proxy consent by parents is now being questioned
. Many believe it should be limited to consent for diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions, and that
it is not relevant for non-therapeutic procedures
.

... an infant has rights that include
security of person, life, freedom and
bodily integrity
....
  • 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 outweigh the potential risks.

  • Provide objective medical information about the risk of complications and potential harm in infant male circumcision.

  • Discuss the new ethical considerations of infant's rights and proxy consent in a non-therapeutic procedure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good article. It says the health benefits are now 'insufficient evidence'

That piece is some good political theater. Its not a view that is shared outside of BC

All the doctors perform the operation. None say its mandatory. They wouldnt perform it if they thought it was unsafe.

Im sure you can find an article in Finland next or some medical opinon from the most progressive hospital in San Francisco , but its not the general consensus.

The above is. Unless Wiki failed to update it in the last 30 days or whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good article. It says the health benefits are now 'insufficient evidence'

That piece is some good political theater. Its not a view that is shared outside of BC

All the doctors perform the operation. None say its mandatory. They wouldnt perform it if they thought it was unsafe.

Im sure you can find an article in Finland next or some medical opinon from the most progressive hospital in San Francisco , but its not the general consensus.

The above is. Unless Wiki failed to update it in the last 30 days or whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like the doctors? They all will perform the procedure. I guess they are idiots? It doesn't make any common sense to me. And trust me, I am a 'free thinker' .

This is the thing. We who are sitting here typing are NOT the doctors, not the parents deciding, but we think we have this big say in it. We know better somehow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...