Baby boys.
Specifically through the form of male circumcision.
In 2010 the American Academy of Pediatrics declared male circumcision a purely cosmetic process arguing that the medical benefits do not outweigh the costs.
During the process, doctors believed babies entered a euphoric state, making the process painless to the child. This process, however, does provoke pain for the child and typically sends the baby into a state of shock.
Despite this pain, the push for circumcision is provoked by economical benefits to doctors instead of medical benefits to the patients, thus urging parents to research all options before taking action, simply because it is the norm.
You are so right. The info on this is astounding. This is a great site for more info, if you haven't researched for long
ReplyDeleteintactamerica.org
You might also want to check out the following:
ReplyDeleteCanadian Paediatric Society
"Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed."
http://www.caringforkids.cps.ca/pregnancy&babies/circumcision.htm
"Circumcision is a 'non-therapeutic' procedure, which means it is not medically necessary."
"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.
RACP Policy Statement on Circumcision
"After extensive review of the 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."
(almost all the men responsible for this statement will be circumcised themselves, as the male circumcision rate in Australia in 1950 was about 90%. "Routine" circumcision is now *banned* in public hospitals in Australia in all states except one.)
British Medical Association: The law and ethics of male circumcision - guidance for doctors
"to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate."
Drops in male circumcision:
USA: from 90% to 57%
Canada: from 48% to 32%
UK: from 35% to about 5% (about 1% among non-Muslims)
Australia: 90% to 12.6% ("routine" circumcision has recently been *banned* in public hospitals in all states except one, so the rate will now be a lot lower)
New Zealand: 95% to below 3% (mostly Samoans and Tongans)
South America and Europe: never above 5%
It's worth remembering that no-one except for Muslim and Jewish people would even be having this discussion if it weren't for the fact that 19th century doctors thought that :
a) masturbation caused various physical and mental problems (including epilepsy, convulsions, paralysis, tuberculosis etc), and
b) circumcision stopped masturbation.
Both of those sound ridiculous today I know, but if you don't believe me, then check out this link:
A Short History of Circumcision in North America In the Physicians' Own Words
"In 2010 the American Academy of Pediatrics declared male circumcision a purely cosmetic process arguing that the medical benefits do not outweigh the costs."
ReplyDeleteSorry but I can't find the AAP saying that on its website. So far as I know, the AAP is still adjusting its collective bottom on the fence, wrestling with the fanatical circumcisers and the weight of custom on the one hand, and the fact that cutting normal healthy non-renewable body parts from non-consenting people is anomalous and unethical on the other. (And since only boys are legally cut, it's also discriminatory and unconstitutional.)
Another site to visit, solidly pro-intact, but not hysterically so, is The Intactivism Pages
Thanks for the additional websites! I'll pass these along to my roommate who is also studying the subject.
ReplyDelete