Cutting the umbilical cord doesn't happen every time, but anyway...
The RACP's statement strongly suggest that harm outweighs the benefits, highlighting genital integrity, loss of function, physiological complications. They suggest that the choice should be left to the individual. It's interesting that you ignore that advice.
+ Reply to Thread
Results 61 to 70 of 83
-
01-10-2012 22:10 #61
-
01-10-2012 22:13 #62
^^ Unfortunately, the ethical issues are blatantly ignored (conveniently).
-
01-10-2012 22:25 #63
Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
- Posts
- 2,603
- Thanks
- 126
- Thanked
- 267
- Reviews
- 0
- Achievements:
I do not see them 'strongly suggest' that at all.
Your choice of quote is interesting also. Is there a reason why you stopped your quote where you did?
Here is the paragraph in its entirety.
After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand. However it is reasonable for parents to weigh the benefits and risks of circumcision and to make the decision whether or not to circumcise their sons.
Also this.
This suggests that parents are in principle better placed than doctors to weigh up the risks and benefits of circumcision for male infants. It is ethically appropriate for the decision about infant male circumcision to be left in parents’ hands, with the proviso that the decision may be overridden in individual cases where circumcision poses greater than average physical risks to the child (for example, because of concurrent morbidities). To deny parents the option to choose circumcision for their male infant would be to judge that it is clearly detrimental to a child’s overall well being and interests in all circumstances.In the absence of evidence of risk of substantial harm, informed parental choice should be respected.
Do I agree with the AAP and the RACP? Yes.
Do you agree with either? Who is ignoring the medical bodies here?
ETA: This should also cover the ethical question. The RACP is quite thorough in that department.Last edited by Father; 01-10-2012 at 22:29. Reason: added last sentence.
-
01-10-2012 22:38 #64
Sorry, Father, but you clearly don't know what routine means in a medical context. By routine we mean surgery performed without medical indication. The opposite of routine is therapeutic, which means for the treatment of a disease or to correct an anatomical defect. Check the International Classification of Diseases, if you doubt me.
-
01-10-2012 22:58 #65
Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
- Posts
- 2,603
- Thanks
- 126
- Thanked
- 267
- Reviews
- 0
- Achievements:
Not the best document to find stuff in.
It did not really have a definition of the word 'routine'.
It did have things like:
"Routine general health examination".
"Routine child health examination".
Section Z41 mentions "routine and ritual circumcision" under the section title of 'procedures for purposes other than remedying health state'. Great!
'Routine circumcision' would fall under that category. But it doesn't define routine.
The dictionary does however.
A sequence of actions regularly followed; a fixed program
It is semantics anyway. The point is the RACP says that parents are in the best position to make the choice. Not doctors. This point seems to have been lost by yourself and witwicky.
-
01-10-2012 23:00 #66
On the other hand, I agree with Father that both the AAP and RACP statements say that routine infant circumcision is an appropriate matter for parental discretion, rather than medical diktat, one way or the other. It is hard to see how it could be otherwise in a society such as Australia.
However, it would be a logical fallacy to then say that therefore a parental decision to opt for routine circumcision is thereby rendered ethical, since such a judgement cannot be made without weighing the principles of autonomy and bodily integrity. It is because reasonable people can and do disagree on how to weigh these principles that the debate continues.
My perception is that over the past 30 years opinion in Australia, at least, has shifted significantly such that probably a majority regard RIC as an unethical choice, even though many of these same people still believe it is ultimately a parental prerogative, even if that prerogative is wrongly used.
-
01-10-2012 23:01 #67
I find it amusing that you are cherry picking segments of the statement which revolve around psychosocial aspects of circumcision, when you have consistently stated that your reasoning is for proposed medical benefits. The statement that you have plucked out is carrying on from the previous paragraph regarding assessability by doctors who do not belong to the same religious or social community. Unless your decisions were for religious/social purposes, that statement shouldn't apply to you.
However, I suppose I do not agree fully with the RACP - I don't believe it is justifiable in any situation, including religious purposes. So there you go.
Ethical and human rights concerns have been raised regarding elective infant male
circumcision because it is recognised that the foreskin has a functional role, the operation is non-therapeutic and the infant is unable to consent.
Your son/s has/have the right to decide whether their foreskins get removed. It is their body part, it is their choice. It is a violation of their rights to have that body part removed without their consent. That I agree with.
-
The Following User Says Thank You to Witwicky For This Useful Post:
mousky (01-10-2012)
-
01-10-2012 23:08 #68
Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
- Posts
- 2,603
- Thanks
- 126
- Thanked
- 267
- Reviews
- 0
- Achievements:
You agree with yourself??? I would hope that you do.
Of course I was cherry picking. You provided a quote with only half the info, so I had to highlight that you really shouldn't be quoting the RACP statement, as you do not agree with it.
I have no problem with it. Just as I have no problem with the AAP statement of the benefits outweighing the risks. The facts are out there, and it is up to parents to use these facts to determine if it is in the best interest of their boys.
-
01-10-2012 23:09 #69
On routine circumcision, 'procedures for purposes other than remedying health state' is correct; that is, the logical opposite of therapeutic. Glad we agree.
-
01-10-2012 23:12 #70
Similar Threads
-
Death From Circumcision
By Lovemyfam in forum Anti Routine Infant CircumcisionReplies: 73Last Post: 15-11-2012, 15:04 -
Circumcision procedure
By SugarplumMummy in forum Pro-CircumcisionReplies: 6Last Post: 11-05-2012, 23:47 -
Circumcision vs Ear Piercing
By Mill in forum Discuss ItReplies: 55Last Post: 01-05-2012, 23:13
FEATURED SUPPORTER
LCF Fun Languages AustraliaFrench, Spanish, Mandarin, Italian & German lessons for children 0 - 12 years. Play-based and immersion language ...
BLOG POSTS
LATEST
5 tips for planning the perfect baby showerFrom career woman to baby – top tips to thrive4 ways to boost your kids’ creative thinkingPOPULAR
When can I start giving chores to my children?A guide to Parental Leave Pay in Australia – are you eligible?New baby nursery checklist – a guide to newborn essentials
FORUMS - chatting now ...
What do you drink?General Chat
Sight word activitiesGeneral Parenting Tips, Advice & Chat
Gestational Diabetes first test failed - diet, testing, and doubting doctor's adviceGestational Diabetes
I am...#21General Chat
*fluff thread* what have you eaten today?General Chat
I work with the most glamorous pregnant woman 😭Pregnancy & Birth General Chat
Magical MayConception & Fertility General Chat
REVIEWS