I tend to follow the conclusions of experts. In this case, the American Academy of Pediatrics. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/585 …
-
-
Those 'experts' who were roundly condemned by doctors from around the world for saying 'it's a parents choice'? Ignoring the rights of the child? Performing cosmetic, non medically-indicated surgery is ethically wrong.pic.twitter.com/2hJyHRTslq
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
"After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions."
1 reply 3 retweets 7 likes -
Royal Australasian College of Physicians http://www.racp.edu.au/index.cfm?objectid=B5610716-9E3E-6C97-A8D87880FD002E3B … "After extensive review of literature, the Paediatrics & Child Health Division of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians has concluded that there is no medical reason for routine newborn male circumcision."
4 replies 2 retweets 4 likes -
The AAP actually does not say anything contrary to that. It is entirely an elective procedure and is not considered medically necessary. But, at the same time, preventative health benefits are recognized, risks are low & procedure is well tolerated.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
It's NOT being elected by the owner of the penis. It is totally unethical to perform any irreversible surgery on a healthy child without medical indication.
1 reply 3 retweets 2 likes -
Well, you see, the substitute decision maker (generally, the parent) can make decisions that are in the child’s best interests. In this case, the decision maker can elect to have the child circumcised or not.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
1/ Amputating a boy’s foreskin without a physical, clinical condition for which foreskin amputation is the most appropriate treatment violates the specific, longstanding policy of the AAP’s Committee on Bioethics...
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Wow. It’s like there is no specific policy paper on circumcision from the AAP.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
That's correct. Their last circumcision policy paper expired, so currently they do not have one in effect.
#i22 replies 0 retweets 1 like
@AmerAcadPeds 2012 circ policy statement contradicts - and suggests pediatricians may violate - the earlier position taken by its #bioethics committee. There's simply no good reason why the rule for amputating foreskin should be different from the rule for other amputations #i2
-
-
Replying to @cooney21 @IntactByDefault and
“[W]hen parents decide on circumcision, the health issues are only one small piece of the puzzle.” The benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision. However, to outright prohibit it would be an unjustifiable infringement of freedom of conscience and religion.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tim4hire @IntactByDefault and
Freedom of religion is an individual right. Like the right to bodily integrity. Freedom of religion is not a license to mutilate another person's body. If it were, those who deem the infliction of FGM on another to be a religious obligation could claim a right to do so.
#i21 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.