[Frankly Speaking]

Hot off the presses! This is the newest official policy statement from a medical fraternity and it is a zinger! It is probably the strongest statement against circumcision of all. I suspect it is a response the the death of the child in August, 2002. Read and rejoice!

http://www.cpsbc.bc.ca/policymanual/c/c13.htm

Frank

 

[LavenderMae]

That was actually good!

 

[A&A]

But what about this?

"Beneficence (duty to benefit)

Item 1. Consider first the well-being of the patient.
Item 14. Recommend only those diagnostic and therapeutic procedures that you consider to be beneficial to your patient and not others….

For Consideration: Medical evidence is that the benefits of routine infant male circumcision do not outweigh the risks of complications from the procedure. Best interests also take into account the infant's social circumstances. "

SOCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES? That still leaves a lot of wiggle room for the "look like Daddy" argument, etc.

 

[MonicaS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by A&A But what about this? "Beneficence (duty to benefit) Item 1. Consider first the well-being of the patient. Item 14. Recommend only those diagnostic and therapeutic procedures that you consider to be beneficial to your patient and not others…. For Consideration: Medical evidence is that the benefits of routine infant male circumcision do not outweigh the risks of complications from the procedure. Best interests also take into account the infant's social circumstances. " SOCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES? That still leaves a lot of wiggle room for the "look like Daddy" argument, etc.

ITA, I don't like that statement.

The rest was pretty promising.

 

[Quirky]

Yeah, they actually acknowledge that the foreskin is functioning erogenous tissue - that's way ahead of what any American medical society will tell you! I just ordered the ACOG brochure on circ and although it does make it clear that circ isn't medically necessary nowhere in there does it say what the foreskin actually does and why a man might want one! It talks about the "low" rates of complications but doesn't mention that circumcision has a 100% complication rate - the loss of the foreskin!

Canada definitely seems further along than the US, where we're all about parental "choice." Not to mention social conformity.

 

[Frankly Speaking]

Yes, I don't like the social circumstances either but the overall tone is to tell doctors to quit doing this procedure. Already it is difficult to find a doctor in some parts of Canada to do a circumcision, mostly in the eastern provinces and this is moving it all of the way to the west coast. Combined with the very strong statement of the CPS/Saskatchewan, I believe it will have a strong influence. Don't forget that the Saskatchewan statement has reduced the circumcision rate by 1/3 in just a couple of years. I expect this statement to have the same effect. The August 2002 death by circumcision of a Vancouver boy will empower this statement. I also think the effect will jump the border to some degree. I already believe the AAP is wrestling with this issue as evidenced in the inclusion of intactivist Edward Wallerstein on the Circumcision Taskforce. We may be pleasantly surprised by their next statement.

Frank

 

[Stardust27]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frankly Speaking I also think the effect will jump the border to some degree. I already believe the AAP is wrestling with this issue as evidenced in the inclusion of intactivist Edward Wallerstein on the Circumcision Taskforce. We may be pleasantly surprised by their next statement.

I believe that was Ronald Goldman. If I remember correctly, Edward Wallerstein has died several years ago. (Not that I would mind his ghost haunting the Taskforce meetings...

)

Stardust

 

[Frankly Speaking]

LOL! You're exactly right. Please excuse me . . . It's not alzheimers, it's just "some-timers" :LOL

Frank

 

[Tinijocaro]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frankly Speaking I also think the effect will jump the border to some degree. I already believe the AAP is wrestling with this issue as evidenced in the inclusion of intactivist Edward Wallerstein on the Circumcision Taskforce. We may be pleasantly surprised by their next statement. Frank

Yes- aren't they just about due for a new statement? Wasn't the last one in 1999? So much has changed since then- any idea when a new one will come out?

Jackie

 

[Frankly Speaking]

There doesn't seem to be a schedule but in general it seems they put out a new one about every 10 years with an update about every 5 years. There was one in 1992 that was an update of the 1989 statement. I think the last one was also an update so we may be due for a full reconsideration and restatement. I suspect that's why they brought Ron Goldman on board.

Frank