Standpunkte zur Beschneidung von Säuglingen: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen

  |quote=The 2012 Circumcision Policy Statement was created by a team put together for the specific purpose of protecting the goose that lays golden eggs for the American medical industry. None of the members had any specific expertise in circumcision and their document suggests they knew little or nothing about the anatomy and utility of the human foreskin. They claimed to have studied voluminous literature, but ignored older and more useful studies, and cherry-picked the medical oeuvre.

  |trans-title=

  |language=English

Obstetricians are doctors for female patients. They deliver babies so they get the first opportunity to profit from doing circumcision of a baby boy. Although males are outside of the scope of practice of Ob-Gyn, Although its embarrassingly bad statement regarding non-therapeutic infant male circumcision now has been deleted from its website, ACOG still prints and sells promotional pamphlets to its member physicians.

* {{REFweb |url=https://www.acog.org/store/products/patient-education/pamphlets/labor-delivery-and-postpartum-care/newborn-male-circumcision |title=Newborn Male Circumcision |last |first= |accessdate=2020-06-26}}

===American Academy of Family Physicians===

Many family physicians profit from providing non-therapeutic circumcision on infants. The AAFP continues to provide its egregiously inaccurate, misleading policy statement (based on the former discredited 2012 AAP policy) on its website.

  |last=

  |first=

== Canada ==

===College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia===

  |Text=Current understanding of the benefits, risks and potential harm of this procedure no longer supports this practice for prophylactic health benefit. Routine infant male circumcision performed on a healthy infant is now considered a non-therapeutic and medically unnecessary intervention.

===Canadian Paediatric Society===

The [[Canadian Paediatric Society]] has issued three statements on non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision. Not one supports the practice.

The Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) took a position against non-therapeutic circumcision of boys in 1975, declaring it to have "no medical indication" and to be an "obsolete operation".<ref name="cps1975">{{REFjournal

The [https://www.cps.ca/ Canadian Paediatric Society] (1996) stated:

[We] do not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns. Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed.<ref>{{REFjournal

}}</ref></blockquote>

The CPS again considered non-therapeutic infant circumcision in 2015. The CPS stated:

<blockquote>While there may be a benefit for some boys in high-risk populations and circumstances where the procedure could be considered for disease reduction or treatment, the Canadian Paediatric Society does not recommend the routine circumcision of every newborn male.<ref name="cps2015">{{REFjournal

The [[Canadian Urological Association]] issued its statement on circumcision in February 2018.

  |Titel=Canadian Urological Association guideline on the care of the normal foreskin and neonatal circumcision in Canadian infants (abridged version)

  |Text=Given the socioeconomic, educational status, and health demographics of our population, universal neonatal circumcision cannot be justified based on the current evidence available.  

See [[Canada]]

  |Text=The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefits from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it.

  |trans-title=

  |language=English

  |quote=Doctors can refuse to perform NTMC if they do not believe it is in the overall best interests of a child.  Doctors are under no obligation to comply with a request to circumcise a child. In these circumstances, doctors should explain this to the child and his parents, and, if appropriate, explain their right to seek a second opinion.  

The [https://www.nhs.uk/ National Health Service] performs circumcision only for medical reasons. It does not offer non-therapeutic circumcision.<ref name="nhs2018">{{REFweb

The [https://www.gmc-uk.org/ General Medical Council] has disciplined several medical doctors who performed male circumcision unethically or improperly.

== Australia ==

===Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons===

According to the [http://www.anzaps.org/paediatric/home Australasian Academy of Paediatric Surgeons]:

  |Text=The Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons does not support the routine circumcision of male neonates, infants or children in Australia. It is considered to be inappropriate and unnecessary as a routine to remove the prepuce, based on the current evidence available.

We do not support the removal of a normal part of the body, unless there are definite indications to justify the complications and risks which may arise. In particular, we are opposed to male children being subjected to a procedure, which had they been old enough to consider the advantages and disadvantages, may well have opted to reject the operation and retain their prepuce.

Neonatal male circumcision has no medical indication. It is a traumatic procedure performed without anaesthesia to remove a normal functional and protective prepuce. At birth, the prepuce has not separated from the underlying glans and must be forcibly torn apart to deliver the glans, prior to removal of the prepuce distal to the coronal groove.

  |last=

  |first=

===Royal Australasian College of Physicians===

The [https://www.racp.edu.au Royal Australasian College of Physicians] stated in 2010 that the foreskin "exists to protect the glans" and that it is a "primary sensory part of the penis, containing some of the most sensitive areas of the penis."<ref>{{REFweb

  |last=

  |first=

See [[Australia]]

== Netherlands ==

===Royal Dutch Medical Association===

In the Netherlands, the [https://www.knmg.nl/over-knmg/about-knmg/about-knmg.htm Royal Dutch Medical Association] (KNMG) issued a statement in 2010 stating that "The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organizations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity." Circumcision can cause complications, including infection and [[bleeding]], and are asking doctors to insistently inform parents that the procedure lacks medical benefits and has a danger of complications. In addition to there not being any convincing evidence that circumcision is necessary or useful for hygiene or prevention, circumcision is not justifiable and is reasonable to put off until an age where any risk is relevant, and the boy can decide himself about possible intervention, or opt for available alternatives. They went on to say "There are good reasons for a legal prohibition of non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors, as exists for female genital mutilation."<ref>{{REFweb

  |quote=The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organisations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity.

  |last=

  |first=

* [[Mängel der Beschneidungsstudie]]

  |quote=By contrast, U.S. medical associations – especially the American Academy of Pediatrics, the lead broker of this cultural practice for decades – have been strategically deferential to parental choice and tradition. The AAP has been equivocal on the medical evidence since declaring circumcision “unnecessary” in 1971 – then walking that disavowal back ever since. The AAP has consistently dangled the specter of unpleasant, even dangerous (but highly unlikely) outcomes for intact boys, while disingenuously leaving it up to frightened young parents to make an immediate ‘decision.’ The rare mention by the AAP of the [[human rights]] of the child to an intact body has been, at best, parenthetical, and at worst, disdainful and dismissive.