British Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons releases statement against circumcision

Via Marc A.: Statement here (.pdf file).

They actually talk about the HUMAN RIGHTS and medical ethics issues, which most are too hypocritical, ignorant or scared to do. Take a look at the bottom of the first page.

Nicely said, British Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons! Thank you for joining your colleagues in Australia in saying NO to infant male circumcision and NO to hypocrisy! Excerpt:

'...Current consensus of medical opinion, including that of the Canadian and American Paediatric Societies and the American Urological Society, is that there is insufficient evidence that these benefits outweigh the potential risks. That is, routine infant male circumcision, i.e. routine removal of normal tissue in a healthy infant, is not recommended.'
...

The matter of infant male circumcision is particularly difficult in regards to human rights, as it involves consideration of the rights of the infant as well as the rights of the parents.

...Routine infant male circumcision is an unnecessary and irreversible procedure. Therefore, many consider it to be “unwarranted mutilating surgery”.
Many adult men are increasingly concerned about whether their parents had the right to give consent for infant male circumcision. They claim that an infant’s rights should take priority over any parental rights to make such a decision. This procedure should be delayed to a later date when the child can make his own informed decision. Parental preference alone does not justify a non‐therapeutic procedure.
...
Ethical considerations regarding infant male circumcision centre on the welfare (or “best interests”) of the infant and the potential benefit and harm associated with the procedure. Ethics points us to corrective vision, i.e. to question practices that have become routine, or which we take for granted
...
These principles are articulated in specific responsibility statements in the CMA Code of Ethics. Also included below are items relating to physicians rights and care of the patient.'

Ed. note: The document's update date is September 2009, which appears on the last page.