Standpunkte zur Beschneidung von Säuglingen

Die vielleicht schockierendste Tatsache ist, dass die Beschneidung in den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika weiterhin praktiziert wird, obwohl keine offizielle westliche medizinische Organisation dies empfiehlt. Die Royal Dutch Medical Society, die British Medical Association, die Canadian Pediatric Society und das Royal Australian College of Physicians haben alle offizielle Grundsatzerklärungen gegen die Beschneidung abgegeben.

Die American Academy of Pediatrics, die American Medical Association, die American Academy of Family Physicians und die American Urological Association empfehlen alle keine Beschneidung, behaupten aber trügerisch „potenzielle“ Vorteile. (Das Wort „potentiell“ bedeutet, in der Möglichkeit zu existieren, aber „nicht“ in Wirklichkeit, also ist ein „potentieller“ Vorteil ein imaginärer Vorteil.)

Der Meinungstrend zur nicht-therapeutischen männlichen Beschneidung ist in den Industrienationen überwiegend negativ. Keine angesehene Ärztekammer der Welt empfiehlt die Beschneidung von Säuglingen, nicht einmal im Namen der HIV-Prävention. Sie alle müssen auf die Risiken hinweisen, und sie müssen alle erklären, dass es keine überzeugenden Beweise dafür gibt, dass der Nutzen diese Risiken überwiegt. Andernfalls würde man eine unbegründete Position gegen die besten medizinischen Autoritäten des Westens beziehen.

Inhaltsverzeichnis

USA

American Medical Association

”

Die British Medical Association hat eine langjährige Empfehlung, dass die Beschneidung nur aus medizinischen Gründen durchgeführt werden sollte ... Jüngste Grundsatzerklärungen von Berufsverbänden, die australische, kanadische und amerikanische Kinderärzte vertreten, empfehlen keine routinemäßige Beschneidung männlicher Neugeborener. – American Medical Association (Offizielle Website)

(Dieser Artikel wurde noch nicht aus dem Englischen übersetzt oder enthält noch englische Textpassagen. Bitte beziehe dich vorerst auf die Informationen im englischen Artikel. Klicke dazu in der IntactiWiki-Navigation im Abschnitt "In anderen Sprachen" auf "English".)

Der Berufsgenossenschaftspakt

Die Beschneidungspolitik der amerikanischen Ärzteverbände befindet sich derzeit im Chaos.

Die drei Wirtschaftsverbände, deren Mitglieder von der Durchführung der nichttherapeutischen Beschneidung von Jungen profitieren, schlossen 2007 einen Pakt, um eine Beschneidungserklärung zu erstellen, die Zahlungen Dritter für die nichttherapeutische Beschneidung schützen würde. Die drei Fachverbände sind:

• American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)
• American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP)
• American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)

American Academy of Pediatrics

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) would take the lead and create a task force to draft a new statement. It would have representatives from AAFP and ACOG. The monetary intent of the AAP, ACOG, and AAFP is made clear by the appointment of medical insurance specialist Steven Wegner, M.D., J.D., representing the AAP Committee on Child Health Financing, to the task force.

The AAP released its two-part statement in 2012 and it was immediately endorsed by ACOG and AAFP, who put up similar statements on their websites.

The statement immediately received scathing, withering critical comment from many sources, including Doctors Opposing Circumcision, an association of European doctors, and others.

The AAP standard policy is for their policy statement to expire after five years unless re-affirmed. The AAP circumcision policy statement expired in September 2017 but has not been re-affirmed, so the AAP now has no official position on circumcision, although it continues to quote from the expired statement.

The other two trade association have statements that are based on the expired AAP statement. Are they still representative of the opinion of those trade associations? No one knows.

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

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.

• Newborn Male Circumcision. Abgerufen 26. Juni 2020.

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.

• Neonatal Circumcision. Abgerufen 25. Juni 2020.

Canada

College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia

”

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. – College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia

Canadian Paediatric Society

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

1975

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".

1996

The 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.

2015

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

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.

Canadian Urological Association

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

”

Canadian Urological Association guideline on the care of the normal foreskin and neonatal circumcision in Canadian infants (abridged version) Given the socioeconomic, educational status, and health demographics of our population, universal neonatal circumcision cannot be justified based on the current evidence available. – Sumit Dave

See Canada

Britain

The British Medical Association updated its guidance for physicians in 2019.

”	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. – The British Medical Association

The National Health Service performs circumcision only for medical reasons. It does not offer non-therapeutic circumcision.

The General Medical Council has disciplined several medical doctors who performed male circumcision unethically or improperly.

Australia

Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons

According to the Australasian Academy of Paediatric Surgeons:

”

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. – J. Fred Leditshke

Royal Australasian College of Physicians

The 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."

See Australia

Netherlands

Royal Dutch Medical Association

In the Netherlands, the 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."

Siehe auch

• Circumcision study flaws

Weblinks

• (März 2016). Medical Organization Statements, www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org, Doctors Opposing Circumcision. Abgerufen 26. Juni 2020.
  Zitat: 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.