Medical Cut-Backs

10 Pages 2485 Words

ver only in the United States has it become so routine in the hospitals. In 1949 the Lancet, a paper in the United Kingdom, put out an article that demonstrated that no supportive evidence for routine circumcisions existed. Following the appearance of this article The National Health Services, otherwise known as the NHS decided routine circumcisions offered no obvious benefit to the patient and should not be provided (Dritsas 249). It was then that the British and the rest of Europe decided that the idea of circumcising baby boys routinely was not practical, and the young practice of six years stopped. Presently in Europe only ten percent of men are circumcised, for the most part it is simply just not done for reasons outside religious beliefs. In 1971 a policy was released by the American Academy of Pediatrics, also known as the AAP, stating that routine circumcision was not necessary (Dritsas 249). However this statement was released primarily to the medical community only, who of course did not want to end the routine nature of doing such a simple and expensive procedure. This newfound knowledge was just brushed under the carpet and still millions of Americans go on every day believing that circumcision is the only clean way to be. The medical community also misleads the general public of the nature of circumcision, saying that the babies are to young to feel pain and that it was a procedure similar to cutting the umbilical cord (Dritsas 251). This also is invalid. Most people should not even consider the idea of circumcision. The facts simply do not lead up to circumcision being the right answer. The only validity I see to circumcision is in religious beliefs.
Judaism is one of the most widely know religions to believe in circumcision. In the Jewish culture when a newborn male reaches the age of about three to six months they throw a party for him in which his dearest family and friends come and watch the rabbi perfor...