4 ms·
"I understand that this procedure will remove healthy and functioning tissue from my son's penis, and involves similar risk as other prophylactic or cosmetic su
by bsanr2 7y ago
"I understand that this procedure will remove healthy and functioning tissue from my son's penis, and involves similar risk as other prophylactic or cosmetic surgeries, including infection, disfigurement, and death. I understand that the procedure may be performed without anaesthesia at the doctor's discretion. I understand that the doctor has recommended my son undergo circumcision because studies have shown a reduction in the risk for serious diseases in circumcised men; or else, that I have requested a circumcision be performed in observation of a deep and abiding religious or cultural belief which I reasonably believe my son will share when he would have been of age to consent himself."
Parents should have to sign a statement like this before it's performed. It should no longer be the default, and parents should understand that they don't have to be railroaded into the decision.
- jacobush 7y agoHm, what is unreasonable about this comment?
- stkdump 7y ago> the doctor has recommended my son undergo circumcision because studies have shown a reduction in the risk for serious diseases in circumcised men Source? Especially that this risk reduction outweighs the risks of the procedure is not proven as far as I know.
- deogeo 7y agoLooks like most medical organizations range from advising against circumcision, to considering making it illegal, with the notable exception of the US [1]. As for the protection against disease: "Male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection among heterosexual men in sub-Saharan Africa [..] The effectiveness of using circumcision to prevent HIV in the developed world is unclear;" [2] Since newborns are unlikely to have sex [3], there should be no harm in waiting until puberty, and getting the boy's input on what is an irreversible change. [1] http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/ http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision [3] C'mon man.
- zaroth 7y agoRequiring a family to wait until a boy is past puberty to consider a circumcision would be harmful, because the procedure is more difficult to perform, and poses a more difficult (and memorable) recovery period. Parents have autonomy to make medical decisions for their infant children, and many are forced to make significantly more difficult decisions than a routine circumcision. I was curious about the CIRP site you linked to and the policy statements they are referencing. I double checked just the first referenced policy statement, which is from the Australian College of Paediatrics. [1] Interestingly, they reference a statement from 1996 which is no longer the current position. Evidence for the medical benefits of circumcision have gotten stronger, and the procedure has gotten safer and more likely to be performed with anesthesia. The updated statement [2] while still not advocating for routine circumcision for all male children, is, in particular, missing the passage which CIRP specifically highlighted in the 1996 position. This calls into question whether CIRP is interested in presenting a factual list of current statements, or if they have a particular agenda they are attempting to serve in presenting cherry-picked out-dated statements with a specific viewpoint. [1] - http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/acp1996/ http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/acp1996/ [2] - https://www.racp.edu.au/docs/default-source/advocacy-library/circumcision-of-infant-males.pdf https://www.racp.edu.au/docs/default-source/advocacy-library...
- DanBC 7y agoThere is no medical benefit to circumcision. There is risk of harm. Parents do make medical choices -- these would be situations where there is a benefit to treatment and where there is medical consensus that the treatment is worthwhile. That's not the case for circumcision where most doctors agree it shouldn't be performed other than for actual medical reasons like phimosis.
- zaroth 7y ago> There is no medical benefit to circumcision. The WHO states, “There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%.”
- bsanr2 7y agoThe studies (showing risks in reduction of HIV and other STIs) are cited frequently by doctors and are controversial with people who take issue with circumcision. I personally find the conclusions of those studies suspect, but I'm not a doctor nor an expert, and this is the stance that many of them hold.
- notus 7y agohttps://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/ https://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/
- ohlookabird 7y ago> studies have shown a reduction in the risk for serious diseases in circumcised men What are those studies? It is very uncommon to cut off parts of children in Europe, Russia, South America and China (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_circumcision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_circumcision) and such serious deseases should be much more common there. So what are they? On this scale we should see a pattern.
- wazoox 7y agoCircumcision reduces susceptibility to AIDS by quite a large margin (60% in heterosexual relationships). I'm not sure about other diseases but there's probably an impact. https://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/ https://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/
- Waterluvian 7y agoI dunno what's up elsewhere but my doctor said that there is no longer any medical reason to do it and to avoid it if possible.