Attorneys and a physician recently had a report published in the Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics (a peer-reviewed medical journal) wherein they demonstrate that male circumcision is already illegal.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27338602
Abstract:
>The foreskin is a complex structure that protects and moisturizes the head of the penis, and, being the most densely innervated and sensitive portion of the penis, is essential to providing the complete sexual response. Circumcision-the removal of this structure-is non-therapeutic, painful, irreversible surgery that also risks serious physical injury, psychological sequelae, and death. Men rarely volunteer for it, and increasingly circumcised men are expressing their resentment about it.Circumcision is usually performed for religious, cultural and personal reasons. Early claims about its medical benefits have been proven false. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control have made many scientifically untenable claims promoting circumcision that run counter to the consensus of Western medical organizations.
>Circumcision violates the cardinal principles of medical ethics, to respect autonomy (self-determination), to do good, to do no harm, and to be just. Without a clear medical indication, circumcision must be deferred until the child can provide his own fully informed consent.In 2012, a German court held that circumcision constitutes criminal assault. Under existing United States law and international human rights declarations as well, circumcision already violates boys> absolute rights to equal protection, bodily integrity, autonomy, and freedom to choose their own religion. A physician has a legal duty to protect children from unnecessary interventions. Physicians who obtain parental permission through spurious claims or omissions, or rely on the American Academy of Pediatrics' position, also risk liability for misleading parents about circumcision.
spuriously "original" bump
>>29740922
perfect, but will liberals ban circumcision performed by muslims?
>>29740922
Is it banned in US yet?
>>29741592
I couldn't tell you whether they were "liberals" or not, but the authors of the report have made it clear that they support protecting everyone from involuntary genital mutilation.
>>29741639
thats great, the meeical lobby in US will fight though
>>29741616
It's already unlawful because it violates the principle of equal protection, since girls are legally protected from genital mutilation/genital cutting/ritual genital pricking since 1996--and to protect one sex but not the other is unconstitutional, but unfortunately the courts have not yet recognized this.
>>29741668
No doubt. They're already making concessions in response to new research showing that fewer than 1% of males will ever need to be circumcised for medical reasons though.
http://www.circinfo.org/AAP_in_retreat.html
>In response to this devastating avalanche of scientific evidence, the AAP has more or less conceded that its 2012 circumcision policy was not really concerned with the medical case for circumcision at all, but with cultural and religious issues. In an editorial accompanying the Sneppen/Thorup paper, Andrew Freedman, a member of the circumcision policy taskforce, makes the following amazing admissions:
>Circumcision is basically and usually a religious or cultural preference on the part of the parents, not a medical decision.
>Parents and medical advisers use medical evidence selectively to bolster their prior ideological positions on circumcision.
>We did not recommend circumcision.
>Circumcision is not necessary for optimum health.
>Underlying aim of 2012 circumcision policy was to counter proposals to prohibit non-therapeutic circumcision of minors.
>"Given the role of the phallus in our culture", it is legitimate to consider non-medical factors in the circumcision decision.
>Not all penises have to look the same.
>The risk/benefit equation we devised ("benefits outweigh risks") is applicable and relevant only to those who have non-medical (cultural, religious, social) reasons for circumcision.
>Source: Andrew Freedman, The circumcision debate: Beyond benefits and risks. Pediatrics 137 (5), May 2016. Advance access 6 April 2016.
>>29742088
cont'd
>The obvious questions arising from Dr Freedman's admissions are:
>1. If circumcision is not a medical procedure, is not recommended and is not necessary for health, and if it is primarily a religious, cultural or social ritual, how can the AAP justify its recommendation that it is legitimate for health insurance providers to fund it?
>2. Given the above, plus the acknowledged non-medical significance of the penis in our culture, how can the AAP justify its assumption that it is the parents, rather than the owner of the penis, who are the appropriate parties to make the circumcision decision?
>We must point out that it was Freedman who, when the AAP policy was under attack back in 2012, notoriously stated that he did not circumcise his own boys for medical reasons, but because he felt the weight of centuries of ancestors breathing down his neck. It is evidence of his continuing commitment to circumcision as a cultural/religious rite that he makes no mention of bioethical or human rights issues, such as the child's right to an open future; nor does he acknowledge that the AAP's risk/benefit calculation has been criticised as empirically false, conceptually misconceived and inadequate to the complexity of the "circumcision decision". Despite the title of his editorial, Freedman has not gone far enough beyond "benefits and risks".
>The key point is that those who have sought to advocate or defend circumcision (whether for cultural or medical reasons) on the basis that the AAP had guaranteed the soundness of the health case in its favour now find that the cheque has bounced. The fact is that the AAP bank account is empty. The last remaining bastion of respectable circumcision advocacy has been the American Academy of Pediatrics; now that their fortress has been stormed by a devastating Viking raid, the case for circumcision is well and truly on its last legs.
>>29741782
Could I sue my parents or my circumcision doctor?
The courts can't rule unless a case is presented
>>29742225
>Could I sue my parents or my circumcision doctor?
Maybe. You can contact the law office of the attorneys who wrote the report and ask them.
http://www.arclaw.org/
