IMPORTANT CANADIAN, AUSTRALIAN & AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC STUDIES CRITICAL OF CIRCUMCISION

(005875.811-:E-000062.43:N-AC:R-SU:C-30:V)   

There are critical studies and policy statements from Canada, Australia, and the United States, though they vary by country. Here’s an overview of the key medical and ethical critiques from each:

1. Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS)
   Position (2015, reaffirmed 2023):
   The CPS does not recommend routine infant circumcision.

Key points:
The risks (bleeding, infection, pain) may outweigh benefits for healthy infants.

Parents should be fully informed and consider ethical, cultural, and medical aspects.

They emphasize the child’s right to autonomy and bodily integrity.

"The medical risk:benefit ratio of routine newborn male circumcision is closely balanced when current evidence is reviewed."
— CPS Position Statement

1. Australia
   Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP)
   Position (2010, under review as of 2023):

Does not support routine circumcision of male infants.

Recommends that circumcision only be considered for specific medical conditions.

Key points:

Benefits (e.g., reduced UTI risk) are marginal and do not justify routine use.

Ethical concern: irreversible procedure done without the child’s consent.

Cultural sensitivity is acknowledged, but secular medical justification is weak.

“The RACP believes that the potential medical benefits are not sufficient to warrant routine circumcision of all male infants in Australia.”

1. United States
   American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)
   Position (2012):
   The AAP stated that the benefits outweigh the risks, but not enough to recommend universal circumcision.

Criticism of this position:

Over 30 international physicians and ethicists (from Europe, Canada, and the U.S.) published a response in the Pediatrics journal (2013), accusing the AAP of cultural bias.

They argued the AAP downplayed risks and ignored ethical concerns like autonomy and bodily integrity.

U.S. Critics and Studies
Brian D. Earp (Yale/Oxford): One of the most prolific American bioethicists criticizing circumcision. He argues that:

Infant circumcision violates bodily rights.

Health claims are exaggerated or culturally skewed.

Journal of Medical Ethics (various articles): Multiple pieces critical of circumcision as a non-consensual, medically unnecessary intervention.

Common Themes Across All Critiques:
Informed consent is not possible in infants.

Risk of complications is real, though rare.

Cultural norms influence decisions more than science.

Arguments are shifting toward ethical/human rights, not just medicine.