Intaction is fighting the policymakers.
With an arsenal of bogus science, (and a big profit motive of course), North Carolina’s Medicaid programme is set to reintroduce male circumcision as part of it’s “medically necessary” insurance cover.
We need your help to stop this massive step in the wrong direction. As soon as one state caves in to this lobbying from pharmaceutical companies, more are sure to follow, and this chain reaction can impact the policies set by other countries.
On behalf of many men who are suffering from the physical and psychological complications directly resulting from circumcision, Intaction are launching a campaign to stop this policy from being introduced.
Time is of the essence!
“The public notice didn’t provide much information on the proposed changes, and their wasn’t sufficient time to find out more before the deadline.” – Anthony Losquadro, Intaction.
To look at some of the arguments that NC Medicaid are relying on, we have provided an introduction to the argument below.
Preventing AIDS/HIV –
Firstly, this is not relevant until a boy is at the age of consent, in which case the obvious decision is to let them make the decision at an appropriate age. The NCM programme doesn’t provide cover for adult circumcision, which is the actual true age demographic of people who are affected by unprotected sex practices.
The NCM confess that HIV/AIDS is not a major problem but “at some point it might be”. Well, the same could be true of any disease, however we do not pre-emptively remove breasts to stave off breast cancer. The double standard that the NCM have for circumcision destroys their legitimacy as a respected health provider. Were it not such an appalling oversight, this would be comical.
Confounding this, we recommend Boyle & Hill’s paper.
Preventing UTI (urinary tract infection)
So do antibiotics, and the small number of men and boys affected is minuscule.
The proper context is this: the “10-fold” difference in incidence of UTI is what you get when you divide two very small percentages against each other: 0.15% (for circumcised boys) and 1.5% (for intact boys).
In both cases, rates are low… …this is the same thing as saying that “UTI does not occur in 99.85% of circumcised infant males and in 98.5% of un-circumcised infant boys.” In the rare event that some unlucky child does in fact become infected, UTIs are both “easily diagnosed and treatable, with low morbidity and mortality.” – Taken from Skeptic.org
Medical Necessity?
Does this really qualify as medically necessary when alternatives are blatantly available? This situation stinks of corrupt incentive motives for the universal reintroduction of this outdated “health” practice. Pre-emptively removing any part of the body before a medical issue presents itself is preposterous in all other situations. Why has NCM blindly overlooked this?
There are Consequences to Circumcision
15 Square, along with ten’s of thousands of men are aware of the physical and mental harm associated with circumcision. If you have been affected psychologically, we would like to hear your story to show evidence of the dangers of this practice.
Follow this link to find out more about getting your voice heard.
Be the first to comment