Circumcision ... :(

[Witwicky]

"Routine". Which is fair enough.
Cutting the umbilical cord is routine. It happens every time. I don't think that circumcision should be routine. It should be up to the parents. So I agree with that statement.
It doesn't change the facts that the benefits outweigh the risks.

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.

[Witwicky]

^^ Unfortunately, the ethical issues are blatantly ignored (conveniently).

[Father]

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.

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.

You seemed to have left that last sentence off. I guess you don't agree with the RACP after-all.

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.

I would suggest that if you do not agree with the above RACP statements, that you might not want to quote from them, as their statement needs to be read in its entirety, and not just picking a sentence in isolation that may support your position.

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.

[JohnC]

"Routine". Which is fair enough.
Cutting the umbilical cord is routine. It happens every time. I don't think that circumcision should be routine. It should be up to the parents. So I agree with that statement.
It doesn't change the facts that the benefits outweigh the risks.

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.

[Father]

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

Unless you can find the definition of the word???

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.

[JohnC]

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.

[Witwicky]

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.



You seemed to have left that last sentence off. I guess you don't agree with the RACP after-all.

Also this.





I would suggest that if you do not agree with the above RACP statements, that you might not want to quote from them, as their statement needs to be read in its entirety, and not just picking a sentence in isolation that may support your position.

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.

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.

[Father]

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.

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.

[JohnC]

On routine circumcision, 'procedures for purposes other than remedying health state' is correct; that is, the logical opposite of therapeutic. Glad we agree.

[Witwicky]

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.

Obviously I was referring to the previous quote

The point is that you are ignoring the medical recommendations by RACP, despite this being the driving force behind your reasoning.