Will the AAP Refuse to Endorse Neonatal Circumcision?

Photo:  AttributionShare Alike Some rights reserved by Franco Folini Will the AAP take a strong stance against circumcision?

Will the AAP take a strong stance against circumcision?

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is the leading organization of pediatricians in the United States.  It is a non-profit (Section 501 (c) (3)) that publishes journals and statements that are considered the authoritative voice on children’s health.  The AAP’s annual conference begins today in San Francisco, where they are expected to review their “stance on neonatal circumcision,” according to Intact America.

Will the AAP refuse to endorse neonatal circumcision and offer boys the same protection as girls against genital mutilation?

The AAP current position on circumcision (updated 6/22/10) is:

The American Academy of Pediatrics believes that circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages, as well as risks. The existing scientific evidence is not sufficient to recommend routine circumcision. Therefore, because the procedure is not essential to a child’s current well-being, we recommend that the decision to circumcise is one best made by parents in consultation with their pediatrician, taking into account what is in the best interests of the child, including medical, religious, cultural, and ethnic traditions.

Your pediatrician (or your obstetrician if he or she would be performing the circumcision) should discuss the benefits and risks of circumcision with you and the forms of analgesia that are available.

Advocates against genital mutilation believe this cautious statement needs revising to reflect the current trend in America to leave boys intact.  According to the Centers for Disease Control, circumcision rates have dropped dramatically in the US.  Mens News Daily reports:

The rate of circumcisions in the United States has declined precipitously during the past four years.

The news was revealed at the recent 18th International AIDS Conference in Vienna, where Charbel El Bcheraoui, Ph.D. of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) gave a presentation stating that the newborn circumcision rate has plunged from 56% in 2006 to only 33% a short three years later in 2009. The dramatic drop accentuates a decade long trend in the rate of male circumcision across the U.S. population.

Intact America further explains:

“The paradigm in this country is shifting,” said Chapin. “More and more parents understand that circumcision is unethical and wrong. It’s time America’s pediatricians realized this, too.”

Earlier this year, Intact America blasted the AAP’s call to legalize a form of female genital cutting, a practice currently outlawed in this country and internationally acknowledged as genital mutilation linked to the oppression of girls and women. After thousands of emails in protest were delivered to the AAP’s offices via a campaign on the Intact America website, the AAP backed down and retracted its statement.

Intact America believes the same human right to an intact body that currently extends to girls should be extended to boys. No reputable medical authority currently recommends routine neonatal male circumcision, which the American Medical Association calls “non-therapeutic.”

Neonatal circumcision is the “most commonly performed surgery in the United States”, and it is time the AAP’s stance reflects the changing trend in the US of parents to keep their boys intact.

Comments

  1. The estimated 33% US circumcision rate comes from data collected by a company that handles insurance e-claims from only 21% of US hospitals. The CDC won’t even vouch for the accuracy (hence it is an estimate). Obtaining the data using this method is completely different than for previous circumcision rate studies, primarily because this was not a study to determine the circumcision rate, but rather for adverse effect rates.

    It is very likely that the rate will be much higher if insurance e-claims from all US hospitals are counted. Then count circumcisions performed in private Drs offices & clinics, parents paying cash (no insurance) and bris performed by rabbi/mohels. After all that, the circumcision rate will be much more accurate.

  2. What @CircInfo above fails to realize is that the study sponsored by the CDC covered the years 2006 to 2009. The decrease in the circumcision rate is valid because the same statistical methodology was used for the period. Whether that decrease is applicable to the general population is debatable, but he fact is, the study population was a significant fraction of the full population and it decreased. A

    It is also worth noting that the 2006 circumcision rate agrees with the 2006 rate that has been bandied about for years. No one seems to questions that rate.

    It seems the pro-circumcision people do not like the fact that the circumcision rate is decreasing. Or, maybe they are just sore losers because they are not able to keep the circumcision rate high.

  3. The American medical industry is driven by profits. Male infant circumcision is a profit center for doctors and hospitals. With just under a million infant circumcisions done per year at between $300 to $800 each, the male infant circumcision business is almost a billion dollar a year industry.

    I foresee a large public outcry if the AAP issues a policy advocating male infant circumcision. The public did not like the CDC making overtures supporting circumcision last year. The public will not like the AAP doing it this year.

  4. Circ Info’s desperation to maintain the status quo of mutilating male babies is laughable.

    Fortunately the tide is turning against people like this – as it should have done a long time ago.

  5. The AAP’s current statement on circumcision is an absolute embarrassment. The statement does everything short of recommend the procedure. Absolutely Shameful! Time to join the rest of the developed world and abandon medicalized genital mutilation. “The American Academy Of Pediatrics, Dedicated To The Genital Mutilation Of All Children.”

  6. The decision of whether or not to circumcise is a personal one that should be left to the owner of the penis not the parents! A male who is not circumcised always has the option of getting circumcised should he decide that the procedure would be beneficial to his particular personal, sexual, religious, ethnic or cultural circumstances.

    What option do I, a man who was circumcised without consent have? There’s no such thing as a “de-circumcision” as much as I wish every day that there was such a thing. Sure I can use a “foreskin restoration device” and a routine to stretch some skin from the shaft of my penis which definitely improves sensitivity, but even that cannot and does not substitute or replace all the lost erogenous tissue of my true foreskin which I believe belonged to me by birthright as a human being and certainly was not my parents right however good their intentions to even consider having any part of my body removed without medical necessity or my consent. Even if it was possible to clone a perfect replica of my foreskin, that wouldn’t undo the brain damage caused by so much pain induced so early on in one’s life or make me feel any less violated from having been strapped down to a plastic restraining device and having had my genitals tampered with when I was a helpless newborn not to mention having denied me the experience of growing up with normal intact genitals. How sad it is that the APP and other medical organizations rarely even consider what effects undergoing this procedure involuntarily could potentially have on the adult that the infant will become! I have gone over the potential “benefits” of circumcision and not one of them would ever make me consider causing that much damage to myself or anyone else.

  7. Joseph4GI says:

    Circ Info is a circumfetishist who tries to promote circumcision using pro-circumcision sites written by long-standing pro-circumcision advocates, namely Brian Morris. Brian Morris is notorious for quoting himself, which makes the possibility that Circ Info is none other than Brian Morris himself highly feasible. That, or Brian Morris’ circumfetish masturbation buddy Jake Waskett.

    At any rate, if the CDC didn’t think the 33% was accurate, they wouldn’t have been touting it at the AIDS conference in Vienna. They push the figure and then when America finds out about it they refuse to own it? Really?

    I’ll have to agree that that 33% figure seems suspiciously low, but I think that the figure is still low, possibly among the low 40s, even after all the circs done in private clinics and parents paying cash are counted.

    Do bris circumcisions even matter? Jewish parents circumcise their children for tradition whether it would offer “medical benefit” or not. We need to count the circumcisions that matter; only 5% or less of US circumcisions account for Jewish circumcisions performed at brisses. The rest of the 95% are secular circumcisions performed at hospitals.

    Since non-bris circumcisions are mostly paid for by our tax dollars, it is these that we should decide whether we need to spend on or not.

    Given the fact that condoms are cheaper, and worlds more effective than circumcision, which would only offer a meager 60% at best, not to mention it is an invasive procedure that cuts off a part of a non-consenting child’s penis, America needs to evaluate whether it really needs to be spending money on ethically questionable procedures with dubious benefits that are better achieved with other methods.

    Fact of the matter is, circumcision would be an expensive condom that fails 40% of the time at best. Condoms prevent HIV over 95% of the time, they’re cheap, and they don’t involve cutting off part of a non-consenting individual’s genitals. Not to mention, they would offer the 95% protection to BOTH partners. Circumcision, if studies are accurate, would offer men only 60% “reduction,” and absolutely nothing to women, leaving them vulnerable.

    Circumcision has already been shown to fail to protect against AIDS here in the US, as we have higher HIV transmission rates than countries that DON’T circumcise, and the majority of male AIDS victims were circumcised at birth.

    The AAP would be completely idiotic to “recommend” infant circumcision to “reduce the risk” for a disease for which infants are not even at risk for, and for which men would have to wear a condom anyway for actual protection.

    Diekema would be a “bioethicist” in name only, as he would be completely ignoring the ethic of circumcising a healthy, non-consenting individual.

  8. Joseph4GI says:

    Circumcision is a business, and the CDC and AAP are nothing but trade unions. The CDC and AAP have clear reasons for endorsing male infant circumcision; as it takes doctors relatively little time and effort per procedure, they can perform quite a few at a time and they can charge up to 800 dollars each, it is a hefty stipend with no skin off their backs, so to speak.

    The AAP could never do what is ethically correct and condemn medically unwarranted circumcision in healthy non-consenting minors; their sponsors and members would not be very happy if an easy source of income were to suddenly vanish.

    Our country’s “health” system is money driven, unfortunately, and as long as doctors can get away with endorsing the crime of medical fraud with pseudo-science, they are going to.

    This is not going to stop until enough angry men dig deep into their mutilator’s pockets with hefty lawsuits.

    Only when circumcision costs doctors more money than they make will they be forced to stop.

    Until then, medical ethics and the rights of the individual go out the window.

  9. Frank OHara says:

    Circ Info: Detailed analysis is very easy to obtain. Doctors and insurance all contribute to an organization called The Medical Information Bureau or “MIB.” Regardless of whether a boy is circumcised in a hospital or in a pediatrician’s office, a record of it will be included in the MIB. True, ritual circumcisions may or may not be noted in The MIB records but if none of them were reported, it would only affect the results by 1.7%. For instance, life insurance companies rarely require a physical examination any longer on policies less than $50,000.00 because they can search The MIB records for previously diagnosed conditions.

    Additionally, research such as this uses random sampling, not a survey of all births. A sample of 21% would establish a relatively accurate statistic accurate to less than 2%. Regardless of whether the true infant circumcision rate is 31% or 35%, the study was conducted to establish an accurate estimate of the infant circumcision rate in The US and it has done that. The undisputable fact is that infant circumcisions have fallen precipitiously.

    Infant circumcision is/was a fad that is taking the route of all other fads. When a fad begins a decline, everybody jumps ship quickly and refuses to be a part of something that is considered to be “old fashioned.” The only bad part of this is the boy/man has to endure this fad the rest of his life. He simply can not remove it and be fashionable again.

    Frank O’Hara

  10. It would be a giant leap in the right direction if they ban infant circumcision. I had no choice, my body was cut and altered. That is mutilation by the very definition of the word. Men are getting information on what circumcision really is and more importantly, what it removes. Ill tell you that I deeply resent the fact that forced genital cutting was imposed on me, and millions upon millions of others (most of them infants: unaware of sex, diseases, pain). The glans of the penis is very sensitive, and contrary to popular belief it is an internal organ. It is protected by a sheath of skin that too is equipped with specialized tissues and densely packed with nerves. Other than removing function and sensitivity from the penis the only other effect of circumcision is to make doctors money. There are no medical benefits that antibiotics can’t fix or that safe sex can’t prevent. And if you argue about hygiene issues, take a walk to your local pharmacy and look at all the products to help maintain and aid in female hygiene, try to find a product that men need other than soap. None, and they cut me so that i would be cleaner? WHAT THE FUCK!!! All I can say is i hope future generations will be spared from this genital cutting so they can enjoy the pleasures of an intact body.

  11. Calling something an “estimate” is not a criticism. An estimate is bad only if it is biased. You have not discussed possible sources of bias. I can think of one: did this dataset include circs reimbursed by Medicaid? This is crucial, because in many states, Medicaid pays for 25-40% of all childbirths. Religious circumcision is not material; less than 1% of boys are born to Jewish parents. It is very true that no nation counts routine circs done in doctors offices on an outpatient basis. It is also likely that a growing fraction of parents are chosing to circ despite being out of pocket for it.

    If these data are inadequate for estimating circumcision, they are also inadequate for their intended purpose, which was to estimate the rate of complications. Incidentally, “complication” was defined much too narrowly, as an adverse medical condition detected within 90 days of the circumcision. The interesting complications do not manifest themselves until adulthood, better yet, before middle age.

  12. Zweedledee says:

    http://wreckingboy.livejournal.com/318545.html

    Here is a good article to read.

  13. Zweedledee says:

    So.. circinfo….

    Then if I know the absolute correct % of circumcised boys vs. intact boys then.. I could make my decision to circumcise my son based on what everyone else is doing..!

  14. While the AAP might be organized as a nonprofit, it operates as a trade organization for its members, not unlike the AFL-CIO. Its job is to protect its membership. With so many pediatricians performing circumcisions it is natural that they will never condemn male infant circumcision until such time their members stop performing them. If you read all the AAP policy statements you will see that they have gradually shifted liability from physicians to parents. This is a premptive move to limit lawsuits.

    Concerning the data collected for the CDC announcing that the US circumcision rate has plummeted to 33%, keep in mind that a 21% sampling is quite large. Many analysts, such as the CDC’s own National Center for Health Statistics typically employ 5% samplings, and then apply extrapolation heuristics to obtain a close estimate.

  15. Every human child has an inherent right to their whole human body. Circumcision is surgery without need or consent. The rates of circumcision in the US are dropping rapidly because ordinary people are becoming informed, not by associations like the AAP but because of access to the facts. Every parent can google “circumcision video” and watch the brutal rape of a baby boy.

    The AAP is more of a business association of doctors, many of whom make a great deal of money from this unnecessary and harmful surgery imposed upon infants.

    Wake up America, do your research and protect your children from the circumcision madness. Keep your baby boys (and girls) whole and healthy!

  16. I don’t understand why the statistics (exactly how far rates are dropping) are considered so important when considering the AAP’s stance on RIC. It’s great if the rates are down to 33%, but even if they were t 98%, the AAP’s responsibility would still be to protect infants from unnecessary and harmful cosmetic surgery.

    The statement about there being risks and benefits is complete bull. There isn’t one immediate benefit to the unconsenting individual who is being strapped down and cut. Even if circumcision did protect against AIDS (which seems doubtful), how many babies are out having unprotected sex? There is not one reason that a parent’s preference for a circumcised penis should override their child’s right to decide for himself whether he wants part of his penis cut off, and no reason that boys shouldn’t have equal protection under the law. The AAP is just covering their collective ass and those of doctors who continue to profit from circumcision. They need to get over it and do what’s actually best for individuals and society by condemning the practice of routine infant circumcision- no matter how many doctors and parents still want it.

  17. I am quite certain that the AAP will only strengthen their support for circumcision under the guise of providing more information to parents. The sound bites we have heard from the “task force” are all pro-circumcision, with snickering about men who regret the sexual tissue amputated from them without their consent. At least the issue is on the table, out in the open, which was not the case a few decades ago before the internet.

  18. @Kathleen: the AAP has never admitted that routine infant circumcision is “…unnecessary and harmful cosmetic surgery” and I don’t expect it will any time soon. If the AAP took that position, then every routine circumcision would create major tort exposure.

    @Joseph4GI: you wrote “At any rate, if the CDC didn’t think the 33% was accurate, they wouldn’t have been touting it at the AIDS conference in Vienna. They push the figure and then when America finds out about it they refuse to own it? Really?”

    ME. The figures we are discussing here are tentative findings in a working paper owned by its authors, and not yet (or ever) “endorsed” by the CDC. I bet the fellow who presented the PowerPoint assisted talk in Vienna did not expect that the audience would include intactivists armed with webcams! I also predict that the CDC will forbid the use of webcams during future talks.

    Note that the paper that talked is based on has yet to be put in the public domain. For me, that is very suspect. Given the CDC’s firm belief that the future of AIDS is heterosexual transmission, as in Africa, and that circumcision is an effective partial defense against heterosexually transmitted AIDS, the decline in the circ rate from 56% to 33% is a major disaster. Hence I expect the CDC to “refuse to own” these numbers.

    @O’Hara:

    “Detailed analysis is very easy to obtain.”

    ME. Not true.

    Doctors and insurance all contribute to an organization called The Medical Information Bureau or “MIB.”

    ME. Does “insurance” include Medicaid?

    ” Regardless of whether a boy is circumcised in a hospital or in a pediatrician’s office, a record of it will be included in the MIB.”

    ME. Only if a third party pays for it.

    “True, ritual circumcisions may or may not be noted in The MIB records but if none of them were reported, it would only affect the results by 1.7%.”

    ME. It is my understanding that mohels can bill private insurers such as BC/BS.

    “Additionally, research such as this uses random sampling, not a survey of all births.”

    ME. It is my understanding that the recent results aired in Vienna were not based on random sampling, but on counting the universe.

    “A sample of 21% would establish a relatively accurate statistic accurate to less than 2%. Regardless of whether the true infant circumcision rate is 31% or 35%, the study was conducted to establish an accurate estimate of the infant circumcision rate in The US and it has done that. The undisputable fact is that infant circumcisions have fallen precipitiously.”

    ME. The CDC has yet to release the underlying paper. Until it does so , I reserve judgement. A fall from 56% in 2006 to 33$ in 2009 strains my credulity.

  19. Infant circumcision flies in the face of all medical precedent. One, you don’t do surgery on a healthy person because something might go wrong in the future — and certainly not as a routine matter. Any kind of surgery is a last resort.

    And two, potential benefits of a procedure must always be weighed against its risks and drawbacks. Since concrete risk data on circumcision has not been kept — and since many doctors remain unaware of the function of the foreskin (hence the drawbacks of circumcision) — most doctors don’t have enough information to recommend even ONE such surgery, let alone routinely.

    There are Jewish parents questioning this practice. My new literary novel, The Measure of His Grief, is the first novel ever to tackle the male circumcision controversy. Please visit lisabravermoss.com.

  20. Frank OHara says:

    KTHLENE: “Even if circumcision did protect against AIDS (which seems doubtful), how many babies are out having unprotected sex?”

    You are correct. The information is not for these children when they are children but for them as adults when they are sexually active adults. You are also correct that it is doubtful. With 80% of adult American male so called “protected” by circumcision, HIV/AIDS should be as rare as polio or ebola in America. The polio vaccine (with a similar rate of efficacy) eliminated the infection within a single generation. Male circumcision has not shown a similar effect so the evidence shows it is not effective in preventing HIV/AIDS. In fact The US has the highest infection rate of all the industrialized nations. If male circumciison were effective as claimed, HIV would be virtually unknown in America. It would sufficiently block the vectors of transmission that the virus could not survive.

    Kathleen: “The AAP is just covering their collective ass and those of doctors who continue to profit from circumcision. ”

    This is true. If the AAP did come out with A strong statement against infant circumcision, few doctors would abandon it because it is a highly luctrative procedure resulting in almost a billion dollars a year to practitioners. Those doctors (their members) would then be liable for malpractice that would far outweigh the profits from the procedure and therefore would be in conflict with their mission to protect their members.

    Kathleen: “no reason that boys shouldn’t have equal protection under the law. ”

    I agree. This is a constitutionally protected protection that has not made it to court yet. When it eventually does, I suspect it will change the face of infant circumcision in America. This equal protection is contained in The 14th Ammendment to the US Constitution and says that one class of citizen can not be treated differently than another class of citizen. The 1996 Female Genital Mutilation law protects females but specifically excludes males. This is a conflict to the 14th Ammendment that simply can not stand in court.

    Myrick: “@O’Hara:

    “Detailed analysis is very easy to obtain.”

    ME. Not true.”

    Very true. I am employed in the insurance industry and know how this information is obtained and used. It is extremely easy to obtain if you are in an area to use it.

    Myrick: “ME. Does “insurance” include Medicaid?”

    Yes, it does. Medicaid circumciisions have declined percipitiously in the 16 states that have defunded it. The average drop in the infant circumcision rate in these states apppears to be around 20%. Those states realized they were wasting precious financial resources that could be better used for other health care needs.

    Myrick: “Only if a third party pays for it.”

    Since a third party always pays for it (ie, not the baby) it is always recorded.

    Myrick: “It is my understanding that the recent results aired in Vienna were not based on random sampling, but on counting the universe.”

    These studies virtually always rely on random sampling. For instance, the CDC’s official statistics are taken from 500 hospitals in the US, not all hospitals. This represents a large enough sampling to ensure accuracy within a fraction of a percentage point. With approximately 1.6 million male births each year, distilling such information on a case by case basis would be an impossible task given the personnel and financial resources available.

    Myrick: “It is my understanding that mohels can bill private insurers such as BC/BS”

    Not true. Unless they are also physicians, they can not. They might try to bill but the billing will be rejected. This also brings up another important point: Since they are not licensed medical professionals, they also can not obtain analgesia (anesthesia) for the operation leaving these babies to sufffer the full brunt of the pain. All anesthetics require a prescription from a licensed professional.

    Myrick: ” It is my understanding that the recent results aired in Vienna were not based on random sampling, but on counting the universe.”

    Your understanding is simply wrong.

    Myrick: “The CDC has yet to release the underlying paper. Until it does so , I reserve judgement. A fall from 56% in 2006 to 33$ in 2009 strains my credulity.”

    I can understand that. It does seem a bit much but it is following the path of other fads (which it certiainly is) Fads generally follow a predictable path. Once someone knows (recognizes a fad) they are likely to adopt it. The ones who are generally the early adopters are those with standing in the group. This is exactly what happened with infant circumcision. Those earliest boys to be circumcised were generally the scions of urban families who gave birth in hospitals. Their “country cousins” generally gave birth at home so it became a marker of urban and “sophisticated” families and the country cousins eventually adopted the practice making it wide spread. Like other fads, once it begins to become over used and a practice of the underclass, everybody begins to reject it as a fad because it no longer holds a perceived class distinction and it dies out quickly as infant circumcision is. Eventually, adherance to outdated fads becomes a subject of ridicule and no one wants to be ridiculed and the fad quickly dies out to be relegated to museums and yard sales.

    Infant circumciision is taking exactly this course. The change is being lead by websites that deal with pregnancy and child birth that have the courage to allow specific forums devoted to the subject. Those forums are well attended and a large group of “intactivists” are getting the message out. The circumcision rate is in free fall as evidenced by the latest statistics.

    .

  21. Frank OHara says:

    Josaeph 4GI: “Only when circumcision costs doctors more money than they make will they be forced to stop.”

    To the best of my estimates, this is true and is what virtually brought the practice to it’s knees in Canada. Dr. Dennis Kendall of The Saskatchewan College of Physicians and Surgeons (Canadian equivalent of the AMA) was warning the membership of the professional and financial liabilities of infant cirucmcision, few heeded his warnings but the circumcision death of Ryleigh McWillis in 2002 brought his warnings to reality and most physicians in Canada saw the writing on the wall, so to speak, and begain removing the procedure from their offerings. The infant circumcision rate in Canada immediately fell from 17% to less than 6% and remains low to this day. It was only the risk to their income and profession that ended widespread circumcision in Canada. I suspect the same will be true in The US.

    .

  22. Frank OHara says:

    Joseph4GI: “Do bris circumcisions even matter? Jewish parents circumcise their children for tradition whether it would offer “medical benefit” or not. We need to count the circumcisions that matter; only 5% or less of US circumcisions account for Jewish circumcisions performed at brisses.”

    Actually, Jews only account for 1.75% of the American population. 5% would indicate a tremendous increase in the Jewish birthrate. It’s just not happening!

    .

  23. Frank OHara says:

    Eric M: “The decision of whether or not to circumcise is a personal one that should be left to the owner of the penis not the parents!”

    I agree. If it is a rightful personal decision of the parents, it should also be the rightful decision of the child to have what ever parts of the parent’s genitals he wishes to be removed. That’s what I call rights and I suspect it would quickly end the practice.

    .

  24. Frank OHara says:

    KATHLENE: “I don’t understand why the statistics (exactly how far rates are dropping) are considered so important when considering the AAP’s stance on RIC.”

    It should not be important but parents depend on the actions of others when making the decision. If they think everyone else is doing it, they think maybe they should too. I know that is a warped way of thinking but that is the way it works and is probably the main reason the circumcision rate climbed to the 90% range by the early 1990′s. Without cultural acceptance, it would be abhorent to injure infants in this manner and would appear to be sexual perversion at it’s worst.

    .

  25. Frank OHara says:

    Myeick wrote: “Given the CDC’s firm belief that the future of AIDS is heterosexual transmission, as in Africa, and that circumcision is an effective partial defense against heterosexually transmitted AIDS, the decline in the circ rate from 56% to 33% is a major disaster.”

    If in fact, they believe that male circumcision will have an impact on the HIV viurus’s spread, they are simply ignoring the science of epidemology. Certianly the researchers have ignored it. You only have to look into the history of the researchers. Bailey, Halperin, et al. have been rabid and relentless promoters of male circumcision for nearly 30 years, long before HIV/AIDS arrived on the scene in The US. This smacks of an agenda.

    The US has the highest HIV infection rate of any industrialized nation. If male circumciison had the claimed effect and with 80% of American males circumcised, the vectors of transmission would be sufficently interupted that HIV should have never been able to become established here. That is not true and the expected results are not observable anywhere in the world. That is proof positive that male circumcision is ineffective at stemming the spread of HIV. There are more than 200 (229-230 historically) circumcision deaths annually in The US. I suspect this is about 200 more deaths than male circumcison would prevent from HIV.

    It’s time to ignore false science and stop the deaths for a mutilating surgery foisted on newborns without their consent.

    Frank

  26. If you wish to do something positive to help parents avoid the tragedy of circumcision, purchase the DVD, Birth As We Know It, and show it to everyone you can think of. Mostly it shows wonderful waterbirths, and then contrasts these with c-section and circumcision. It is convincing, and effective!
    Not incidentally, we now recognize a circumciser as a sexual pervert. Which is worse, a priest who plays with the penis and harms psychologically, or a doctor who tortures and mutilates permanently(both by definition) a child’s penis, and harms him psychologically? Please decide for yourself.

  27. A variety of Jewish and Israeli groups are working to abolish circumcision also.

    Gonnen: Protect the Child (in Hebrew)
    http://www.gonnen.org

    Kahal: Giving Up Brit Milah (in Hebrew and English)
    http://www.kahal.org

    Beyond the Bris: A Jewish Intactivist Blog
    http://www.beyondthebris.com

    Jews Against Circumcision
    http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org

    Questioning Circumcision: A Jewish Perspective
    http://www.jewishcircumcision.org

  28. International doctors’ organizations condemn the AAP’s stance on circumcision

    When was the last time you have heard of so many doctors (38 of them!) and their organizations condemning another doctors’ organization?

    I am including a reference to the American Academy of Pediatrics own journal which presents the international condemnation of the AAP:

    Cultural Bias in the AAP’s 2012 Technical Report and Policy Statement on Male Circumcision
    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/12/peds.2012-2896.full.pdf
    http://knmg.artsennet.nl/Nieuws/Nieuwsarchief/Nieuwsbericht-1/International-physicians-protest-against-American-Academy-of-Pediatrics-policy-on-infant-male-circumcision.htm

Speak Your Mind

*