Даёшь обрезание?

[FOLEY]

По-моему первопричиной этого спора является не медицинская сторона, а национально-религиозная. В течении веков, начиная с Российской Империи и продолжая Советской с з0-х годов, культивировалось пренебрежительное отношение к обрезанию, как к чему-то постыдному. Анектоды, народное творчество в туалетах, а также псевдонаучные заявления врачей на заказ правящей идеологии и религии. Люди воспитанные в такой атмосфере, приезжая в Америку чувствуют себя обиженным меньшинством (необрезанным так сказать).

но неужели слепость выкормленная совковой грудью настолько не подлежит починке что игнорирование довольно прямолинейных фактов продолжается?

ну не верится мне что так слепо можно себя вести...хотя?

[dream fairy]

Люди воспитанные в такой атмосфере, приезжая в Америку чувствуют себя обиженным меньшинством (необрезанным так сказать).

Вот мне бы кто показал статистику последних трёх лет по обрезанию младенцев в госпиталях.
Вот что я нашла:In 1971, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) reported that there are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period.2 After that the nationwide incidence of neonatal circumcision continued the slow decline that started in 1965, although Wallerstein (1985) reported spot samples of 77 to 98 percent.3

In 1989, the AAP issued a statement that claimed that circumcision had "potential benefits".4 The publication of this statement temporarily arrested the decline in circumcision. Nelson et al., who used a different source, the National Inpatient Survey (NIS), reported an increase in the incidence of circumcision in the 1988-2000 period.5 Based on the NIS, Nelson et al. reported a circumcision incidence of 48.3 percent in 1988-91, but the NHSD reported an incidence of 58.8 percent in 1989, 59.0 percent in 1990, and 61.1 percent in 1991. There would have been little or no increase if Nelson et al. had used data from the NHDS.

In 1999, the AAP issued yet another statement that said the data on potential benefits were insufficient to recommend the practice of neonatal non-therapeutic circumcision.6 Shortly thereafter, the American Medical Association declared that neonatal circumcision is a non-therapeutic procedure.7 More parents began to opt for genital integrity and the percentage of boys circumcised once again began to decline.

http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/
Что означает вкраце: обрезание не имеет сильного влияния на улучшение здоровья, и является косметической процедурой.
Я в этом мало разбираюсь, просто пытаюсь найти окончательное решение специалистов, которые спорят уже лет 100 наверное.

[dream fairy]

[FOLEY]

Кстати, Коза..спасибо за линк...на нем много интересного, и все в одном месте.



http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/ama2000/ например:

RECOMMENDATIONS

The following statements, recommended by the Council on Scientific Affairs, were adopted as AMA policy at the 1999 AMA Interim Meeting.

1. The AMA encourages training programs for pediatricians, obstetricians, and family physicians to incorporate information on the use of local pain control techniques for neonatal circumcision.

2. The AMA supports the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which reads as follows: Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided.

3. The AMA urges that as part of the informed consent discussion, the risks and benefits of pain control techniques for circumcision be thoroughly discussed to aid parents in making their decisions.

[Димуша]

Вот мне бы кто показал статистику последних трёх лет по обрезанию младенцев в госпиталях.

Я не знаю статистику в госпиталях. Но в душевой спортзала - если необрезанный значит эммигрант.

[FOLEY]

[FOLEY]

Я не знаю статистику в госпиталях. Но в душевой спортзала - если необрезанный значит эммигрант.

ну в сша процентов 80% белых обрезаются сейчас...(не обрезанных, которых больше чем 80%, а новорожденных которые за последние несколько лет обрезались). среди латинос...эта цифра всего...50%..среди афроамериканцев чуть больше.

[dream fairy]

Не уверена, страница за или против.. скорее против, но интересная.
http://www.homiegfunk.com/RIC2.htm

[Koza]

Foley, опять опускаем некоторые вещи?

Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficent to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision.


In 1989, because of new research on circumcision status and urinary tract infection (UTI) and sexually transmitted disease (STD)/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, the Academy concluded that newborn male circumcision has potential health benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks.4 This statement also recommended that when circumcision is considered the benefits and risks should be explained to the parents and informed consent obtained. Subsequently, a number of medical societies in the developed world have published statements that do not support routine circumcision of male newborns.5-7 In its position statement, the Australian College of Paediatrics emphasized that in all cases, the medical attendant should avoid exaggeration of either the risks or benefits of this procedure.5

[CIRP note: A potential benefit is one that has been suggested, but has not been realized. On the other hand, the risks, complications, disadvantages and certain injury of circumcision are real and proven.]



A naschjot linka AAP, on uzhe vam ne paxnet?
A tam mnogo interesnyx ssylok, tol'ko chitajte vsjo,ne vyborochno.

[FOLEY]

Foley, опять опускаем некоторые вещи?

A naschjot linka AAP, on uzhe vam ne paxnet?

A tam mnogo interesnyx ssylok, tol'ko chitajte vsjo,ne vyborochno.

Ага..читай выше Я именно оттуда заключения и выставил А то что в красном...заметка от CIRPa...это не есть исследование. Так же ненадо приплетать Автсралийские мнения...

Да и опять таки....в первом же предложении написано про бенефит.