German court rules circumcision is 'bodily harm'

offtopicb.jpg
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...c-84ed55e0300b_story.html?tid=pm_national_pop

CHICAGO — The nation’s most influential pediatricians group says the health benefits of circumcision in newborn boys outweigh any risks and insurance companies should pay for it.

In its latest policy statement on circumcision, a procedure that has been declining nationwide, the American Academy of Pediatrics moves closer to an endorsement but says the decision should be up to parents.

“It’s not a verdict from on high,” said policy co-author Dr. Andrew Freedman. “There’s not a one-size-fits-all-answer.” But from a medical standpoint, circumcision’s benefits in reducing risk of disease outweigh its small risks, said Freedman, a pediatric urologist in Los Angeles.

Recent research bolstering evidence that circumcision reduces chances of infection with HIV and other sexually spread diseases, urinary tract infections and penis cancer influenced the academy to update their 13-year-old policy.

Their old stance said potential medical benefits were not sufficient to warrant recommending routinely circumcising newborn boys. The new one says, “The benefits of newborn male circumcision justify access to this procedure for those families who choose it.” The academy also says pain relief stronger than a sugar-coated pacifier is essential, usually an injection to numb the area.

The federal Centers for Disease Control and Convention has estimated circumcision costs range from about $200 to $600 nationwide. Coverage varies among insurers and several states have stopped Medicaid funding for circumcisions.

The new policy was published online Monday in Pediatrics. It comes amid ongoing debate over whether circumcision is medically necessary or a cosmetic procedure that critics say amounts to genital mutilation. Activists favoring a circumcision ban made headway in putting it to a vote last year in San Francisco but a judge later knocked the measure off the city ballot, ruling that regulating medical procedures is up to the state, not city officials.

In Germany, Jewish and Muslim leaders have protested a regional court ruling in June that said circumcision amounts to bodily harm.

Meantime, a recent study projected that declining U.S. circumcision rates could add more than $4 billion in health care costs in coming years because of increased illness and infections.

Circumcision involves removing foreskin at the tip of the penis. The procedure can reduce germs that can grow underneath the foreskin, and complications, including bleeding and infection, are rare, the academy says.

Despite the U.S. decline, about half of baby boys nationwide still undergo circumcision, or roughly 1 million each year. The country’s overall rate is much higher than in other developed nations, but U.S. rates vary by region and are higher in areas where it is a cultural or religious tradition, including among Jews and Muslims.

Psychologist Ronald Goldman, director of an anti-circumcision group, the Circumcision Resource Center, said studies show circumcision causes loss of sexual satisfaction — a claim the academy said is not supported by the research it reviewed — and can be psychologically harming. Goldman contends medical studies showing benefits are flawed and that the academy’s new position is “out of step” with medical groups in other developed countries.

The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists took part in the research review that led to the new policy and has endorsed it. Circumcisions in hospitals are typically performed by obstetricians or pediatricians.

The CDC also participated in the review, and will consider the academy’s updated policy in preparing its own recommendations, a CDC spokesman said. The agency has a fact sheet summarizing circumcision’s potential health benefits and risks but no formal guidelines.

The American Medical Association and American Academy of Family Physicians have neutral policies similar to the pediatrics academy’s previous position.

Philadelphia social worker Shannon Coyne examined medical research on circumcision before her son was born last September and had a tough time making a decision. She learned that a relative’s boy needed reconstructive surgery after a botched circumcision, and that another’s son who wasn’t circumcised developed urinary infections.

Coyne said she and her husband ultimately decided against circumcision, because she didn’t want her baby to have what she considers cosmetic surgery without being able to consent.

Her advice to other parents is “just make an informed decision. Do your research, be open-minded.”

Some 18 states have eliminated Medicaid coverage for circumcision, a trend that could contribute to rising health care costs to treat infections if circumcision rates continue to decline, according to a study published Aug. 20 in Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine.

Dr. Aaron Tobian, a Johns Hopkins University assistant professor who co-authored the study, said the academy’s updated policy “is a very good step.
Click to expand...

Interesting decision in light of the thread topic.
 
Morbius said:
Wearing a condom is still the best way of preventing STDs by far. It's far less drastic too.
Click to expand...

In addition to that:

i) Urinary tract infections and penile cancer are both extremely rare in men and urinary tract infections aren't serious anyway. So using those as if they were a compelling reason to routinely cut off parts of a helpless infant's genitals for cultural reasons is disgusting grasping at straws.

ii) Boys a few days old, or at any age at which they are far too young to give informed consent to anything much, are not at risk of being infected with STDs from putting their penis inside someone who is infected. Even someone who believes that boys are almost always sexually abused in infancy should realise that's not what happens (and anyone who believes that should be trying to stop it, not advocating for all boys to have part of their genitals cut off).

The medical argument doesn't hold up, simple as that. It's an attempt to prop up a purely cultural custom stemming from a hysterical fear and hatred of masturbation and incorrect beliefs about what would make masturbation impossible.
 
It's not a medical issue anyway as such, it's an ethical one, something that violates human rights and can cause so much psychological harm to people cannot be considered to be in alignment with the Hippocratic oath. Just shows that those doctors (not that they can be considered as such) will do anything for money.
 
Last edited:
male genital mutilation - with added STDs

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cision-ritual-causes-fatal-HERPES-babies.html

A controversial Jewish circumcision practice in which the blood of a baby's cut penis is sucked by a religious leader has been condemned after the deaths of two infants.

The 'metzitzah b'peh' performed by ultra Orthodox Jews sees the eight-day old baby have a traditional circumcision but the 'mohel' then places his mouth around the wound and sucks up the blood.

But the practice - intended to prevent infection - has sparked controversy in recent years after the death of two infants and the cntraction of herpes in at least 11 others between November 2000 and December 2011.
Click to expand...

Aside from the fact that ritual circumcision in itself is pretty retarded this is beyond messed up. I'm also surprised that a person putting a baby's penis in his mouth as part of a silly ritual isn't getting locked up for that in itself let alone cutting a bit of it off.

In theory anyone can start a religion... though people tend to fall for them more if they've been around for a long time and their parent's/community can indoctrinate them into the beliefs from a young age. But I do wonder - if someone were to start a new religion and decide that one of the silly ceremonies involved doing something to a child's sexual organs then surely the authorities would be a bit interested...

(in b4 'daily fail', 'muslamics do it too' :eek: etc...)
 
You do realise this story is over a year old and has been thoroughly discussed in numerous other circumcision threads, in which I'm pretty sure you have taken part in?
 
dowie said:
In theory anyone can start a religion... though people tend to fall for them more if they've been around for a long time and their parent's/community can indoctrinate them into the beliefs from a young age. But I do wonder - if someone were to start a new religion and decide that one of the silly ceremonies involved doing something to a child's sexual organs then surely the authorities would be a bit interested...
Click to expand...

It sorta makes sense from a really idiotic point of view. However I suspect he should probably know better and refusing to accept reality shouldn't preclude you from deserved punishment.

However before we start throwing our stones, we should first ask why is before the age of consent circumcision legal in the UK and are we going to do anything about that?
 
dowie said:
They already do... Rabbis will perform circumcision...

stranger still - these weirdo Rabbi types will actually suck on the baby's penis afterwards... 100 deaths a year in the USA as a result... from contracting diseases following the procedure - even herpes....

not being funny but if someone were to invent a religion that involved mutilating then sucking the genitals of children then I think the police would be asking some serious questions... but its ok for Jews because they've been at it for thousands of years

This really needs to be banned in the UK too.
Click to expand...

dowie said:
this seems like acceptable behavior in a modern society:

sick.jpg


frabz_Another_infant_boy_got_herpes_No_no_it_was.jpg



Oh yeah - forgot to mention - anesthetic not often considered...
Click to expand...

I guess discussing it once wasn't enough, maybe someone has an agenda.....
 
Craterloads said:
I guess discussing it once wasn't enough, maybe someone has an agenda.....
Click to expand...

maybe :confused: - of course I have an agenda.. namely, in this case, poking fun at retarded things people do in the name of religion

you also seemingly have an agenda, one governed by the belief system you were indoctrinated into

FWIW it was a story that happened to be posted on someone's facebook newsfeed today - I'm well aware its a year old... though since we've recently had a thread titled 'female genital mutilation' why not post this too...

In other news - over the next couple of weeks there will probably be a conspiracy theory thread, an 'US govt doing bad things' thread, a thread about 'muslamics' etc... :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom