Mängel bei Beschneidungsstudien: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen

The [https://www.knmg.nl Royal Dutch Medical Association] {KNMG) published a statement regarding the non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] of male minors in 2010. The Netherlands is a nation where [[human rights]] are respected,<ref name="smith1998">{{REFweb

}}</ref> so it should be no surprise that the statement emphasizes the protection of the [[human rights]] of male minors and the reduction in the number of non-therapeutic circumcisions of children as much as possible. It finds no medical purpose for child non-therapeutic circumcision.

  |publisher=Royal Dutch Medical Association

The United States are unique because the American medical industry has been promoting the practice of non-therapeutic circumcision since the late 19th Century.<ref>{{GollaherDL 1994}}</ref> As a result of the centuries-old promotion almost all American males were circumcised soon after birth from the 1930s through the 1980s.<ref name="laumann1996">{{REFjournal

}}</ref> As a result, many Americans have never seen a human [[foreskin]] and most are profoundly ignorant of its anatomy, functions, and care.

With such an environment the medical industry has been able to develop its circumcision business into a colossus that exceeds an estimated $3 billion per year.<ref name="bollinger2012">{{REFweb

  |quote=As they saying goes, follow the money. Now you know why neither the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, or the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists haven’t condemned this unnecessary surgery, and why their physician members are quick to recommend the procedure to expectant parents.

}}</ref> Non-therapeutic circumcision of boys has become the proverbial ''Goose That Lays Golden Eggs'',<ref>{{REFweb

}}</ref> so there is intense interest in keeping the Goose alive. [[Third-party payment]] is frequently available in the United States.

Several state Medicaid programs stopped paying for non-therapeutic circumcision in the early in the 21st Century. It is believed that this caused alarm in the circumcision industry. Shortly after ''The Lancet'' published two reports on [[HIV trials in Africa|randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from sub-Saharan Africa]],<ref name="bailey2007">{{RCT Bailey et al 2007}}</ref><ref name="gray2007">{{RCT Gray et al 2007}}</ref> it was announced in 2007 that the [[American Academy of Pediatrics]] (AAP) would take the lead, in association with the [[American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists| American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists]] (ACOG) and the [[American Academy of Family Physicians]] {AAFP}, these being the three trade associations (stakeholders) whose members perform most of the non-therapeutic circumcisions, in developing a new circumcision policy for America.<ref>{{REFjournal

The new policy was finally published in an unusual two-part article in the September 2012 issue of ''Pediatrics''. It immediately received an unrelenting and on-going storm of adverse critical comment:

  |trans-title=

  |language=English

  |quote=How can you approve a report that extols the benefits of removing the foreskin, a normal body part, without one single word devoted to the function of that body part, or why it’s there in the first place?

  |quote=Cultural bias reflecting the normality of nontherapeutic male circumcision in the United States seems obvious. The conclusions of the AAP Technical Report and Policy Statement are far from those reached by physicians in most other Western countries.

  |quote=Some readers will be unaware that the AAP is not a dispassionate scientific research body, but rather a trade association for pediatricians. Those among its members and stakeholders who perform NTCs stand to profit from the procedure, to the collective annual tune of $1.25 billion according to one (albeit not impartial) estimate. Given the yawning potential for a financial conflict of interest, then, there needs to be a very strong, independent medical case for circumcision; and the AAP had better be able to show that it is both the safest and most cost effective means of promoting infant health. Both of these propositions fail,however, as I will continue to show in what follows.

  |journal=Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal

The AAP has a long-standing policy that its published policies and statements expire after five years unless re-affirmed. The AAP has ''not'' re-affirmed the statements below so they expired on 31 August 2017. The AAP now has ''no'' official position on non-therapeutic circumcision of boys.

The [https://www.acog.org American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists] (ACOG) endorsed the 2012 AAP statement even before it had been published. It promptly put its own statement on its website citing the now expired AAP statement and subtly promoting non-therapeutic male circumcision to expectant mothers. It still cites the AAP statement although that statement expired in 2017.

The [https://www.aafp.org/home.html American Academy of Family Physicians] continues to promote non-therapeutic male circumcision. The AAFP report is based on the now discredited 2012 AAP statement. It touts prevention of [[urinary tract infection]] (UTI), but fails to advise that UTI is easily treatable with antibiotics if it should occur. The AAFP gives no information on the multiple functions and value of the foreskin. It fails to state that circumcision of the newborn is a medically-unnecessary, non-therapeutic [[amputation]] of a valuable body part that leaves a life-long injury and impairment of function.

[[Doctors Opposing Circumcision]] is a non-profit, educational organization. It does not earn money from performing non-therapeutic circumcision and is not biased by [[financial incentive]]. DOC rejects all of the self-serving statements from the medical trade associations and endorses a statement by the non-profit [[International Coalition for Genital Integrity]] (ICGI).

  |trans-title=

  |language=English

  |quote=Benefits to the infant boy from possessing an intact penis include: protection of the patient’s legal right to bodily integrity, conservation of the protective foreskin, avoidance of postsurgical complications, avoidance of persistent pain and trauma, shielding of the [[urethra]] from feces and E. coli, improved protection from ''Staphylococcus aureus'' infection in the newborn nursery (especially the increasingly present methicillin-resistant type), ease of breastfeeding initiation, with the multiple health and developmental benefits it provides, and provision of normal moisture and emollients to the [[mucosa]] of the glans penis and inner foreskin. Intact infants do not require care of a circumcision wound in the perinatal period, and do not have heightened pain responses. Financial benefits include earlier post-birth hospital discharge and a reduction of healthcare costs.