Änderungen

{{Veraltet}} Perhaps the most shocking fact is that circumcision continues to be practiced in the United States even though no official western medical organization in the world recommends it. The Royal Dutch Medical Society, The British Medical Association, the Canadian Pediatric Society, and the Royal Australian College of Physicians have all made official policy statements against circumcision. The Die American Academy of Pediatrics, the die American Medical Association, the die American Academy of Family Physicians, and the und die American Urological Association all do not recommend circumcisionempfehlen alle keine Beschneidung, and are in agreement that there are no proven benefitsbehaupten aber trügerisch „potenzielle“ Vorteile. The trend of opinion on routine male circumcision is overwhelmingly negative (Das Wort „potentiell“ bedeutet, in industrialized nations. No respected medical board der Möglichkeit zu existieren, aber „nicht“ in the world recommends circumcision for infantsWirklichkeit, not even in the name of HIV prevention<ref>{{REFweb |url=https://medical-dictionary. They must all point to the risks, and they must all state that there is no convincing evidence that the benefits outweigh these risksthefreedictionary. To do otherwise would be to take an unfounded position against the best com/potential |title=Potential |publisher=The Free Dictionary by Farlex |website=https://medical authorities of the West-dictionary |date=2012 |accessdate=2020-06-26 |format= |quote=}}</ref> also ist ein „potentieller“ Vorteil ein imaginärer Vorteil.)

|Text=The Die British Medical Association has a longstanding recommendation that circumcision should be performed only for medical reasonshat eine langjährige Empfehlung, dass die Beschneidung nur aus medizinischen Gründen durchgeführt werden sollte ... Recent policy statements issued by professional societies representing AustralianJüngste Grundsatzerklärungen von Berufsverbänden, die australische, Canadiankanadische und amerikanische Kinderärzte vertreten, and American pediatricians do not recommend routine circumcision of male newbornsempfehlen keine routinemäßige Beschneidung männlicher Neugeborener.

|Quelle=official websiteOffizielle Website

|url=http://www.ama-assncirp.org/amalibrary/no-indexstatements/about-amaama2000/13585.shtml

|date=2000 |accessdate=20112020-0506-0425

{{ZitatNYT en}} |Text===The trade associations pact=== The circumcision policies of American medical trade associations are currently in chaos. The three trade associations, whose member profit by carrying out non-therapeutic circumcision of boys formed a pact in 2007 to create a circumcision statement that would protect [[third-party payment]] for non-therapeutic circumcision..benefits The three trade associations are not sufficient for the : * [[American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists| American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist]]s (ACOG)* [[American Academy of Family Physicians]] (AAFP)* [[American Academy of Pediatrics to recommend that all infant boys be circumcised.]] (AAP)  |Autor===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, {{MD}}, {{JD}}, representing the AAP Committee on Child Health Financing, to the task force. The AAP released its two-part statement<ref name="2012policy">{{REFjournal |last=Task Force on Circumcision |etal=no |title=Circumcision Policy Statement |journal=Pediatrics |location= |date=2012-09 |volume=130 |issue=3 |pages=585-6 |url=http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/ |pubmedID=22926180 |QuellepubmedCID=official website |DOI=10.1542/peds.2012-1989 |accessdate=2020-08-26}}</ref> <refname="2012technicalreport">{{REFjournal |last=Task Force on Circumcision |etal=no |title=Male circumcision |journal=Pediatrics |location= |date=2012-09 |volume=130 |issue=3 |pages=e756-e785 |url=https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/130/3/e756.full.pdf |pubmedID=22926175 |pubmedCID= |DOI=10.1542/peds.2012-1990 |accessdate=2020-06-26}}</ref> 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,<ref>{{REFweb |url=http://www.circumstitions.com/news/news48.html#aap12 |title=Intactivism News |last=Young |first=Hugh |author-link= |publisher= |website=www.circumstitions.com |date=2012-08 |accessdate=2020-06-26 |format=

}}</ref> including [[Doctors Opposing Circumcision]],<ref>{{REFweb |url=httphttps://www.healthychildrendoctorsopposingcircumcision.org/Englishwp-content/uploads/ages-stages2016/prenatal08/decisionscommentary-on-american-academy-of-pediatrics-2012-circumcision-policy-statement.pdf |title=Commentary on American Academy of Pediatrics2012 Circumcision Policy Statement |publisher=Doctors Opposing Circumcision |website=www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org |date=2013-04 |accessdate=2020-06-28 |format= |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 tohave studied voluminous literature, but ignored older and more useful studies, and cherry-makepicked the medical oeuvre.}}</ref> an association of European doctors,<ref>{{REFjournal |last=Frisch |init=M |author-link=Morten Frisch |last2=Aigrain |first2=Yves |init2=Y |author2-link= |last3=Barauskas |first3=Vidmantas |init3=V |author3-link= |last4=Bjarnason |first4=Ragnar |init4=R |author4-link= |last5=Boddy |first5=Su-Anna |init5=SA |author5-link= |last6=Czauderna |first6=Piotr |init6=P |author6-link= |last7=de Gier |first7=Robert |init7=R |author7-link= |last8=de Jong |first8=Tom |init8=T |author8-link= |last9=Günter |first9=Faschig |init9=F |author9-link= |etal=yes |title=Cultural bias in the AAP's 2012 Technical Report and Policy Statement on Male Circumcision |trans-title= |language=English |journal=Pediatrics |location= |date=2013-04 |volume=131 |issue=4 |pages=796-800 |url=https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/Where131/4/796 |pubmedID=23509170 |pubmedCID= |DOI=10.1542/peds.2012-We2896 |accessdate=2025-Stand06-Circumcision25}}</ref> and others.<ref>{{REFjournal |last=Steven |init=JS |author-link=J. Steven Svoboda |last2=Van Howe |init2=RS |author2-link=Robert S.aspxVan Howe |etal=no |title=Where We StandOut of step: Circumcisionfatal flaws in the latest AAP policy report on neonatal circumcision |journal=J Med Ethics |location= |date=2013 |volume=39 |lastissue=7 |firstpages=434-41 |publisherurl=American Academy https://www.arclaw.org/wp-content/uploads/Svoboda-Van-Howe-Out-of Pediatrics-Step-Fatal-Flaws-in-AAP...-JME-2013.pdf |pubmedID=23508208 |pubmedCID= |dateDOI=0.1136/medethics-2013-101346 |accessdate=20112020-0306-2325}}</ref><ref>{{REFjournal |last=Van Howe |first=Robert S. |init=RS |author-link=Robert S. Van Howe |etal=no |title=Response to Vogelstein: How the 2012 AAP Task Force on circumcision went wrong |journal=Wiley Bioethics |location= |date=2018-01 |volume=32 |issue=1 |pages=77-80 |url=https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/56031979/Van_Howe_2018.pdf? |pubmedID=28691236 |pubmedCID= |DOI=10.1111/bioe.12363 |accessdate=2020-06-26

{{ZitatExample</ref> The AAP standard policy is for their policy statement to expire after five years unless re-affirmed. |Text=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.the association between having a sexually transmitted disease (STD) - excluding human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)  ===American College of Obstetricians and being circumcised Gynecologists=== Obstetricians are inconclusivedoctors for female patients.They deliver babies so they get the first opportunity to profit from doing circumcision of a baby boy.. most Although males are outside of the studies [scope of the effect practice of Ob-Gyn, Although its embarrassingly bad statement regarding non-therapeutic infant male circumcision on HIV] ...have now has been conducted in developing countriesdeleted from its website, particularly those in Africa. Because of the challenges with maintaining good hygiene ACOG still prints and access sells promotional pamphlets to condoms, these results are probably not generalizable to the Uits member physicians. * {{REFweb |url=https://www.Sacog. populationorg/store/products/patient-education/pamphlets/labor-delivery-and-postpartum-care/newborn-male-circumcision |title=Newborn Male Circumcision |last |first= |accessdate=2020-06-26}} |Autor===[[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 (AAFPbased on the former discredited 2012 AAP policy)on its website. |Quelle=official website |ref=<ref>* {{REFweb |quote= |url=httphttps://www.aafp.org/onlineabout/enpolicies/home/clinical/clinicalrecs/childrenall/neonatal-circumcision.html |title=Circumcision: Position Paper on Neonatal Circumcision. Board Approved: August 2007 Reaffirmed

|publisher=AAFP |date= |accessdate=20112020-0506-02}}</ref>25

== Kanada Canada =====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".<ref name="cps1975">{{ZitatREFjournal |last=Swyer |init=PR |author-link= |last2=Boston |init2=RW |author2-link= |last3=Murdock |init3=A |author3-link= |last4=Paré |init4=C |author4-link= |Textlast5=[We] do not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newbornsRees |init5=E |author5-link= |last6=Segal |init6=S |author6-link= |last7=Sinclair |init7=JC |author7-link= |etal=no |title=FN 75 Circumcision in the newborn period |journal=CPS News Bull Suppl |location= |date=1975 |volume=8 |issue=2 |pages=1-2 |url=http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/cps1975/ |quote= |pubmedID= |pubmedCID= |DOI= |accessdate=2020-06-27}}</ref>  ====1996====

The [https://www.cps.ca/ Canadian Paediatric Society] (1996) stated:<blockquote>[We] do not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns. Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed. |Autor=The Canadian Paediatric Society |Quelle= |ref=<ref>{{REFjournal |last=Outerbridge |first=Eugene |init=E |title=Neonatal circumcision revisited. Fetus and Newborn Committee, Canadian Paediatric Society

|url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1487803/

|pubmedCID=1487803

|accessdate=2020-06-25}}</ref></blockquote> ====2015==== 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 |last=Sorokin |first=S. Todd |init=ST |author-link= |last2=Finlay |init2=JC |author2-link= |last3=Jeffries |init3=AL |author3-link= |etal=yes |title=Newborn male circumcision |journal=Paediatr Child Health |location= |date=2015-08 |volume=20 |issue=6 |pages=311-20 |url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4578472/ |quote= |pubmedID=26435672 |pubmedCID=4578472 |DOI=10.1093/pch/20.6.311 |accessdate=2020-06-27}}</ref></blockquote> === Canadian Urological Association === The [[Canadian Urological Association]] issued its statement on circumcision in February 2018. {{Zitat |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. |Autor=Sumit Dave |Quelle= |ref=<ref>{{REFjournal |last=Dave |first=Sumit |init=S |author-link= |etal=yes |title=Canadian Urological Association guideline on the care of the normal foreskin and neonatal circumcision in Canadian infants (abridged version) |journal=Can Urol Assoc J |location= |date=2018-02 |volume=12 |issue=2 |pages=18-28 |url=https://cuaj.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/5034/3470 |quote= |pubmedID=29381455 |pubmedCID=5937397 |DOI=10.5489/cuaj.5034 |accessdate=2020-06-26

|Quelleref=<ref>{{REFdocument |title=Non-therapeutic male circumcision (NTMC) of children – practical guidance for doctors |trans-title= |language=English |url=https://www.bma.org.uk/media/1847/bma-non-therapeutic-male-circumcision-of-children-guidance-2019.pdf |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. |trans-quote= |quote-lang= |publisher=British Medical Association |location=BMA House, Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9JP |format=PDF |date=2019 |accessdate=2020-06-25}}</ref> |Source=

== Australien == 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[https://www.nhs.uk/ National Health Service] performs circumcision only for medical reasons. It does not offer non-therapeutic circumcision."<refname="nhs2018">{{REFweb |url=https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/circumcision-in-boys/ |title=Circumcision in Boys |publisher=National Health Service |website= |date=2018-11-20 |accessdate=2020-06-27 |format=

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]:

|accessdate=2020-06-25

== Niederlande =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 |quote= |url=https://www.racp.edu.au//docs/default-source/advocacy-library/circumcision-of-infant-males.pdf? |title=Circumcision of infant males |last= |first= |publisher=[[RACP]] |date=2010-09 |accessdate=2020-06-25}}</ref> 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

|url=httphttps://knmgwww.artsennetdoctorsopposingcircumcision.nlorg/wp-content/Dienstenuploads/knmgpublicaties2016/KNMGpublicatie09/Nontherapeuticknmg-non-therapeutic-circumcision-of-male-minors-27-05-2010.htmpdf

|publisher=KNMG |date=2010-05-27 |accessdate=20112020-0906-0125