then it would be a prudent medical procedure and, as such, should be covered by insurance. For most people, it's not and shouldn't be.
So how can a prudent medical procedure be illegal?
It still baffles me that you think a baby that happens to reside inside the womb has no rights whatsoever, not even the right to live. But once that baby exits the womb something magical happens that makes it so the mother has no right to decide how her child is raised or make medical decisions for the baby, and the baby has complete rights.
Meh...I've been pro circ for awhile and would have had one done if either or both of my kids were boys. I'm all about choice so I'm cool if you don't circ. It's still really common around here to circ and insurance covers it.
I'd be surprised if any Canadian province covers circ. Any Canadian ladies have circ covered? We don't in AB. It's $200 and is not covered by extended benefits like Blue Cross. But we have comparably a very low circ rate compared to the States. I wonder why that is. Duh. Probably because it's not insured Just kidding. I seriously would like to know what big difference there is between us and the US. Does the US have a higher population (relatively) of Jews and Muslims? I would think so. What about Europeans? I'm British and I know that no male in my family, including my son and my brother's 3 boys being all born in Canada, are circ'ed. Brits just don't really do it. Is or was there a bigger medical push, so to speak, in the US to circ? Maybe Canadians are more of a 'it's not necessary' approach. IDK. Interesting.
It does make you stop and wonder as you read the study. The recommendations appear to be based on three large-scale trials in Africa within the past decade. These found that circumcised heterosexual men were up to 60 percent less likely to become infected with HIV than uncircumcised men.
Some of the language within the new circ study seems pretty wishy-washy. I'm not overly comfortable when study authors have vested interested, especially financial gain.
It reminds me a bit of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations on breast cancer screening -- "against routine screening mammography" for women in their 40s.
Without screening, 3.5 out of every 1,000 women ages 40 to 49 will die of breast cancer in the next 10 years; regular mammography can reduce that number to 3. The panel calculated that to save one life among women in this age group, 1,900 women must be screened annually for 10 years. The other 1,899 women will receive no benefit from mammography over that period, though they will field 1,330 call-backs for reassessment and 665 breast biopsies, and eight of them will be diagnosed with cancers whose prognosis will not be altered by detection via mammogram -- either because they would never become dangerous or because they are so aggressive that there's little to be done.
They American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists criticized the task force recommendations and continued to call for annual or biennial mammograms for women in their 40s. By continuing the present system, a lot of money comes into the very group that rejected more slack screening
Could this be another example where money is the bottom line?