23 mai 2017

Les médecins danois et la circoncision

Des vrais professionnels de la santé intègres qui mettent l'intérêt de leurs petits patients au-devant de toutes les autres considérations, y compris religieuses, ça ressemble à ça:

Except within the small Muslim and orthodox Jewish communities, people in Denmark wonder why on Earth any parents would want to have their precious newborn child held down to have a part of his healthy, yet immature, penis cut off. According to a nationally representative poll from the summer of 2016, 87 percent of Danes favor a legal ban on non-therapeutic circumcision of boys under the age of 18 years. So far, politicians have been hesitant, but increasingly willing to listen.

Doctors and medical organizations in Denmark, the other Nordic countries and, with one notable exception, elsewhere in the Western world agree that circumcision of healthy boys is ethically problematic. It is considered an operation seriously and patently at odds with the Hippocratic oath (”first do no harm”) and one that is in conflict with a variety of international conventions, most notably the U.N. Declaration of the Rights of the Child.

(...) In December of 2016, the Danish Medical Association published its revised policy on circumcision. Speaking on behalf of its 29,185 members, the new policy came out in an unusually clear voice. Its central passage goes like this (my unofficial translation):

Circumcision of boys without a medical indication is ethically unacceptable when the procedure is carried out without informed consent from the person undergoing the surgery. Therefore, circumcision should not be performed before the boy is 18 years old and able to decide whether this is an operation he wants.

Many Americans, who grew up in a culture whose medical authorities and mass media promote the view that an intact penis is dangerous, prone to infection, ugly and difficult to keep clean, may wonder what the penile health situation would be like in a country like Denmark, where few boys undergo circumcision. Of course, occasional intact men will encounter penile problems during their lifetime, just like people with natural teeth or appendices may develop cavities or appendicitis at some point later on. However, removing such healthy body parts on every child to prevent rare conditions in adulthood, that may be easily and effectively treated if and when they occur, is outright bad medical practice and ethics. So, why remove a healthy, functional and sensitive part of a child’s penis?

Indeed, a study published in Pediatrics in 2016 documented that only around one in 200 intact boys will develop a medical condition necessitating a circumcision before the age of 18 years. In other words, the chance is around 99.5 percent that a newborn boy can retain his valuable foreskin throughout infancy, childhood, and adolescence and enter adulthood with an intact penis. Simple information like this should urge parents to abstain from unnecessary infant surgery and let their sons decide for themselves about the size, sensitivity, functionality and appearance of their manhoods once they get old enough to understand the consequences.

À voir également:

Hitchens et la circoncision

Circoncision allemande

Maudite circoncision...

3 commentaires:

Étienne a dit...

J'ose comparer la circoncision à l'excision, pour beaucoup de gens (homme et femme), cette comparaison ne tiens pas.

Je serais curieux de savoir les chiffre nb de circoncision vs excision

Mais j'ai aussi réussi à convaincre une femme de ne pas le faire (l'A t'elle fait au bout de la ligne, je ne sais pas) de la même manière, par la comparaison. Mais il est clair dans la tête des gens que ce n'est pas du même niveau.
Est-ce du même niveau?
Sur des site de rencontre je vois même des femme dire : homme circoncis seulement, allant jusque qu'à dire que "pas circoncis c'est dégueulasse".
Et quand je dis, imaginer si moi je disais : femme excisée seulement, ça les fait réfléchir, mais reviennent à l'Argument classique : c'est pour la propreté, pas de sébum et même: l'homme viens moins vite. Alors là, elle se coulent elle même car diminuer le plaisir est la raison majeur de l'excision.
Donc c'est du même niveau.

Prof Solitaire a dit...

Je suis d'accord avec toi.

Pas question pour moi de mutiler mes fils pour plaire à d'éventuelles pétasses qui préfèrent ça.

Guillaume a dit...

C'est une forme de mutilation genitale, qu'on a trop tendance a banaliser, quitte a lui inventer des vertus. Difficile de l'interdire, mais on peut la baliser de maniere stricte. En exigeant qu'elle soit pratiquee sur des adultes consentants. Si jamais il y a des avantages a la circoncision, ils existent toujours si celle-ci est consensuelle. Quant aux desavantages, au moins ils seront vecus en toute connaissance de cause.