Slicing Through the Myths of Circumcision... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkBsrBHpbDs
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The
American Academy of Pediatrics policy on male genital cutting is culturally
biased and seriously flawed.
It should be withdrawn.
It should be withdrawn.
·
It
fails to consider the structure or functions of the foreskin, a normal healthy
body part, only the cutting of it off. It does not, for example, cite Taylor's
ground-breaking 1996 paper, the prepuce: Specialized mucosa of the penis and its
loss to circumcision.
The erogenous value of the foreskin has been known for millennia, even to its enemies. Recent denial of that value is confined to those who have no experience of it.
The erogenous value of the foreskin has been known for millennia, even to its enemies. Recent denial of that value is confined to those who have no experience of it.
·
It
bases its conclusions about sexuality on two physiological studies that did not
consider the foreskin, and on surveys of African adult volunteers for
circumcision in the context of HIV prevention.
·
It
treats normal intact penile features as pathological; late separation of the prepuce
from the glans can take as long as 17 years but the AAP says it should
separate within two months; and it associates "preputial wetness"
with disease when it is normal, just like oral wetness.
·
It
is filled with confirmation bias - finding the results the authors want.
·
It
claims benefits of circumcising outweigh the risks without ever numerically
comparing them.
·
It
exaggerates benefits and minimizes risks and harm: For example -
It
cites a study showing that "circumcision ablates [removes] the most
sensitive part of the penis" and ignores that finding.
·
It
admits the African HIV findings may not be applicable to the USA, but goes
ahead and applies them. (In three pages discussing STIs and HIV, the word
"condom" does not appear.)
·
It
cites a study suggesting circumcising men increases the HIV risk to
women, and ignores that finding. (That study was called off "for
futility" - an increased risk of HIV transmission apparently of no
interest to the researchers - before it could reach statistical significance.)
·
It
cites a study showing that a narrow foreskin (phimosis), not a normal one, is
the issue in penile cancer, and ignores that finding.
·
It
dismisses major complications and death from circumcision because it did not
find any statistical studies of them.
·
It
discusses the action of the Mogen circumcision clamp without mentioning that
the clamp has caused too much of several boys' penises to be cut off; lawsuits
have driven the company out of business.
·
It
repeats the common claim that it is safer to circumcise babies than adults, but
offers no evidence for that claim.
·
Its
discussion of the ethical question of removing genital tissue from a
non-consenting person versus leaving it for him to decide assigns no value to
his autonomy or his human right to bodily integrity.
·
It
compares the costs of circumcising early vs late, but not with the benefits of
not doing it at all.
·
Its
ethical consultant has said elsewhere that circumcision is not necessary and
has a risk of harm, and that a parental wish is not sufficient to justify doing
any surgery, and it ignores that.
The AAP should withdraw its circumcision policy the way it withdrew its female genital cutting policy after a storm of outrage two years ago, when it recommended a token ritual nick to baby girls, much LESS extensive than neonatal male genital cutting.
If that was unacceptable, how can this be acceptable?
The public mood is turning against infant circumcision. The Intactivism movement has found a receptive audience, especially among young people through social media.
(This video was created within 36 hours of the AAP releasing its policy.)
The AAP's policy seems bent, not on considering the healthy intact penis at all, but on restoring insurance and public funding to circumcision in order to find a new market among the poor.
It does a disservice to the growing number of boy babies being left intact, and their parents - and an even greater disservice to the boys who will be circumcised as a result of its strident advocacy, and to the men they become.
No comments:
Post a Comment