2003 British Medical Association
“The BMA does not believe that parental preference
alone constitutes sufficient grounds for performing a surgical
procedure on a child unable to express his own view. . . . Parental
preference must be weighed in terms of the child's interests. . . . The
BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefit from
non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a
justification for doing it. . . . Some doctors may wish to not perform
circumcisions for reasons of conscience. Doctors are under no
obligation to comply with a request to circumcise a child.”
2002 Royal Australasian College of Physicians
“After extensive
review of the literature the RACP reaffirms that there is no medical
indication for routine male circumcision. The possibility that routine
circumcision may
contravene human rights has been raised because circumcision is
performed on a minor and is
without proven medical benefit. . . . Review of the literature in
relation to risks and benefits shows there is no evidence of
benefit outweighing harm for circumcision as a routine procedure.”
2002
Canadian Paediatric Society (reaffirmed
1996 position)
“Circumcision
of newborns should not be routinely performed.”
2000
American Medical Association
“The AMA supports the general
principles of the 1999
Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics.”
1999 American Academy of Pediatrics
“Existing scientific evidence
demonstrates potential
medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are
not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.”
1996 Australian
College of Paediatrics
“The Australasian
Association of Paediatric Surgeons
has informed the
College that ‘neonatal male circumcision has no medical indication. It
is a traumatic procedure performed without anaesthesia to remove a
normal
functional and protective prepuce [foreskin].’ ”
1996 Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons
“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
[foreskin]....The 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights
of the Child states that ‘State parties should take all
effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing
traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children.’
”
No
national medical
organization in the world recommends
routine circumcision
of male
infants.
|
