Yee Haw! It finally happened!

[Frankly Speaking]

The movement has just taken one giant step!


http://www.circumstitions.com/News9.html#stowell



Frank

[frogertgrl]

I just read this on the homepage for Mothering and I'm so joyous! May this be only the beginning of the truth spoken about this heinous crime.

Yee haw!

[Xenogenesis]

This is big news!

[Sara29]

So happy to read that!!!!!
Sara

[Arduinna]

This has brought tears to my eyes, thanks for letting us know.

[LavenderMae]

WOOOOOOHOOOOO!!!! I read about this the other day and I meant to post it here but I forgot. I had tears in my eyes while I read it too!

[Kylix]

Kylix

[lise brit]

I was so excited to read this. Since circumcision is a big money maker in the US, I firmly believe the best way to convince doctors and hospitals not to do this is to hit them where it hurts - namely in the pocketbook. No amount of scientific studies will convince them, but the threat of a lawsuit will. The only bad thing about a settlement is that it does not create any legal precedence, but it's a great step in the right direction.

Unfortunately I could not help reading the article underneath the Stowell case citing the soon to be released USAID study. So the fight goes on...

Lise Brit

Christian and Sebastian's mommy

[Frankly Speaking]

Anybody still think we are not making a difference?

Then read this:

http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/sask2002/


"Physicians might be tempted to take some solace from these data which suggest that College complaints and lawsuits related to infant male circumcision are relatively infrequent. However before becoming too complacent in the matter, we would recommend that physicians take heed of a profound rise in activity by citizen groups that very vigorously oppose infant male circumcision, and characterize it as unwarranted mutilating surgery.

In many countries including Canada, these citizen groups are gaining a higher profile and more credibility among the general public. They are bringing to light new evidence that the male prepuce may play an important physiological and psychological role in adult male function, which has to date been largely ignored in any consideration of harm associated with infant male circumcision. As a consequence of the public awareness raised by these groups, a growing number of adult males and/or their parents are now expressing strong resentment against physicians who performed infant male circumcision many years ago at their request. The retroactive anger toward these physicians is generally based upon arguments that parents were given woefully inadequate information about potential adverse impact on adult male function, and inadequate information about normal infant penile development and hygiene.

Whether this growing backlash against physicians does or does not generate lawsuits, it is certainly making life somewhat unpleasant for physicians who are perceived by their former patients as having been much too casual in their decision to perform infant male circumcision.

While the College's primary mandate is public protection, we do encourage physicians to give careful thought to the downstream risks they may incur by taking an inappropriately casual approach to infant male circumcision driven exclusively by parental preference without valid medical indication for the procedure."




Frank