German court rules religious circumcision on boys an assault. Agree or Disagree?
ServantOfAllah
2012/06/27 02:21:41
|
|
|||||
|
64 votes
|
|
56% | ||
|
51 votes
|
|
44% | ||
Circumcising young boys on religious grounds amounts to grievous bodily harm, a German court ruled Tuesday in a landmark decision.
The regional court in Cologne, western Germany, ruled that the "fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity outweighed the fundamental rights of the parents", a judgement that is expected to set a legal precedent.
German court rules religious circumcision on boys an assault. Agree or Disagree?
German court rules religious circumcision on boys an assault. Agree or Disagree?
Read More: http://news.yahoo.com/german-court-outlaws-religio...
Circumcision is Not Good Health Policy
A cost-utility analysis, based on published data from multiple observational studies, comparing boys circumcised at birth and those not circumcised was undertaken using the Quality of Well-being Scale, a Markov analysis, the standard reference case, and a societal perspective. Neonatal circumcision increased incremental costs by $828.42 per patient and resulted in an incremental 15.30 well-years lost per 1000 males. If neonatal circumcision was cost-free, pain-free, and had no immediate complications, it was still more costly than not circumcising. Using sensitivity analysis, it was impossible to arrange a scenario that made neonatal circumcision cost-effective. Neonatal circumcision is not good health policy, and support for it as a medical procedure cannot be justified financially or medically.
Van Howe, R., “A Cost-Utility Analysis of Neonatal Circumcision,” Medical Decision Making 24 (2004):584-601.Pain, Trauma, Sexual, and Psychological Effects of Circumcision
Infant male circumcision continues despite growing questions about its medical justification. As usually performed without analgesia or anaesthetic, circumcision is observably painful. It is likely that genital cutting has physical, sexual and psychological c...
Circumcision is Not Good Health Policy
A cost-utility analysis, based on published data from multiple observational studies, comparing boys circumcised at birth and those not circumcised was undertaken using the Quality of Well-being Scale, a Markov analysis, the standard reference case, and a societal perspective. Neonatal circumcision increased incremental costs by $828.42 per patient and resulted in an incremental 15.30 well-years lost per 1000 males. If neonatal circumcision was cost-free, pain-free, and had no immediate complications, it was still more costly than not circumcising. Using sensitivity analysis, it was impossible to arrange a scenario that made neonatal circumcision cost-effective. Neonatal circumcision is not good health policy, and support for it as a medical procedure cannot be justified financially or medically.
Van Howe, R., “A Cost-Utility Analysis of Neonatal Circumcision,” Medical Decision Making 24 (2004):584-601.Pain, Trauma, Sexual, and Psychological Effects of Circumcision
Infant male circumcision continues despite growing questions about its medical justification. As usually performed without analgesia or anaesthetic, circumcision is observably painful. It is likely that genital cutting has physical, sexual and psychological consequences, too. Some studies link involuntary male circumcision with a range of negative emotions and even post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Some circumcised men have described their current feelings in the language of violation, torture, mutilation and sexual assault. In view of the acute as well as long-term risks from circumcision and the legal liabilities that might arise, it is timely for health professionals and scientists to re-examine the evidence on this issue and participate in the debate about the advisability of this surgical procedure on unconsenting minors.
Boyle G. et al., "Male Circumcision: Pain, Trauma and Psychosexual Sequelae," Journal of Health Psychology (2002): 329-343.
when will people realize that medicine always makes claims to justify what it does? and people think that because it came from a "doctor" that it is always right?