Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
From a policy point of view there are going to be multiple perspectives and considerations besides purely medical ones. This includes cultural and ethical choices. The term ethics encompasses a wide variety of concepts and areas of grey and doesn't just mean right vs. wrong.
Conversely, if it was overly dangerous or held no medical benefits they would be recommending against it, which they aren't.
Basically, they are saying it is the individual's choice, which echoes my own stance on the issue. I just think people should know the facts before making that choice. There are several posters in here purposely downplaying the proven medical benefits.
|
It just seems weird to me that an organization like the CDC would take something like that into account in their medical and scientific recommendations. You can just as easily include a qualifier like "there are obvious religious and cultural reasons one way or the other, but medically speaking, we recommend it."
Why is a medical organization bothering itself with including religious or cultural reasons for/against this as part of it's recommendations? It would be like the CDC acknowledging the irrationality of anti-vaxers and thus, not recommending that all children be vaccinated. Just an odd position from an authority that should really only be concerning themselves with the scientific affects of something. You either condone it or you don't, and if you aren't sure, then the evidence isn't "clear".