Dr Pommy wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 8:51 am Hi all!

I have finished Urology article on "Pediatric Circumcision: Does all kids need to do so?"
In case, anyone are interested in, you can visit link below

https://thaiuroincambodia.com/2020/10/0 ... kids-need/

Be well and healthy all

Kuroneko wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 10:26 am Pros and cons concerning male circumcision

Newborn circumcision remains an area of controversy. Social, cultural, aesthetic and religious pressures form the most common reasons for non-therapeutic circumcision. Although penile cancer and UTIs are reduced compared with uncircumcised males, the incidence of such illness is so low that circumcision cannot be justified as prophylaxis. The role of the foreskin in HIV transmission in developed countries is unclear, and safe sexual practice remains the cornerstone of prevention. There remains a lack of knowledge regarding what constitutes the normal foreskin both among parents and among primary care providers. This lack of knowledge results in a burden of costs to our health care system in the form of unnecessary urological referrals, expansion of wait times and circumcisions. Routine circumcision of all infants is not justified from a health or cost-benefit perspective.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2422979/

Painful Cuts: The Case for Infant Circumcision Is Weakening A popular U.S. tradition is becoming harder to justify.

From a medical perspective, the cumulative evidence appears to arrive at somewhat of a stalemate. Summarized crudely, circumcision's health benefits are too small to recommend, mandate, or routinize the procedure, yet the medical risks are too small to forbid it. Thus, The American Academy of Pediatrics’ official policy states: “Although health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns, the benefits of circumcision are sufficient to justify access to this procedure for families choosing it.” Families, for their part, are choosing it less often, particularly in the industrial world.

The ethical argument for circumcision is even more difficult to sustain than the medical one, since removing a healthy, functional bodily tissue surgically without consent or medical necessity is quite intuitively seen as a violation of basic individual rights.

Recently, a team of more than 90 medicine, law, ethics, and human rights scholars with expertise in genital cutting authored an international consensus statement on the ethical issues related to circumcision. They write:

“Under most conditions, cutting any person’s genitals without their informed consent is a serious violation of their right to bodily integrity. As such, it is morally impermissible unless the person is nonautonomous (incapable of the consent), and the cutting is medically necessary … a common understanding is that an intervention to alter a bodily state is medically necessary when (1) the bodily state poses a serious, time-sensitive threat to the person’s well-being, typically due to a functional impairment in an associated somatic process, and (2) the intervention, as performed without delay, is the least harmful feasible means of changing the bodily state to one that alleviates the threat."

Clearly, neonatal circumcision fails to satisfy either criterion.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... -weakening

Brian Earp, Associate Director of the Yale-Hastings Program in Ethics and Health Policy at Yale University
In sum, the best evidence suggests that in most cases in the U.S., the potential health benefits gained from neonatal circumcision can be achieved through non-surgical means or through performing the procedure, consensually, later. Neonatal circumcision involves the permanent removal of a healthy, functional bodily tissue without consent or medical necessity, which leaves the procedure standing on thin and slippery (and rapidly melting) ethical ice. No wonder that, increasingly, parents of boys are thinking twice before they choose to cut once.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... -weakening

The case against circumcision
January 2The Journal of Men&#39 s Health & Gender 4(3) DOI: 10.1016/j.jmhg.2007.06.005

In 2004, 57% of boys born in the United States received a medically-unnecessary, non-thera-peutic circumcision at great cost before leav-ing the maternity hospital [1], although there are no medical indications for this amputative operation [2,3]. Alleged advantages rest on claimed, but unproved, prophylactic preven-tion of disease later in life. Complications and risks, however, are clear and immediate. Such circumcisions are not good medical practice and are injurious to the infant [4]. Because the US is the greatest offender, this paper will focus on circumcision as practiced in the US and will explore the
multitude of reasons why circumcision should not be performed and why false claims of benefits are made.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... rcumcision

camboguy6 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 9:12 am TL:DR - Waste of time of an article written by a grade school kid. Painful to read. No helpful information.

Dr Pommy wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 8:51 am Hi all!

I have finished Urology article on "Pediatric Circumcision: Does all kids need to do so?"
In case, anyone are interested in, you can visit link below

https://thaiuroincambodia.com/2020/10/0 ... kids-need/

Be well and healthy all

Chad Sexington wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 10:21 am Are CEO Ok with this guy touting for the business of mutilating kids for cash?