Today the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) officially unveiled their new statement on circumcision of the newborn male. Since 1999 they have backed away from routine circumcision, and as a result, the rates of newborn male circumcision has dropped. Here is the bulk of their statement:
"After a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence, the American Academy of Pediatrics found the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision. The AAP policy statement published Monday, August 27, says the final decision should still be left to parents to make in the context of their religious, ethical and cultural beliefs." (Emphasis mine.)
Groups that are opposing the statement point out that the studies that the AAP used were largely done in developing countries, and say that the results don't translate well to the US. One thing that I thought was interesting was that there was little discussion of the ethics involved in circumcision, with the exception of saying that insurances, including medicaid, should cover this surgery if the parents choose it. Given the recent court decision to outlaw circumcision in one area of Germany it was an interesting omission. And of course, the media spin misses the part where they say they don't recommend it universally.
What are your thoughts?
- Readers Share: How did you make the decision about circumcision?
- Is circumcision necessary?
- How to tell the family you're not circumcising?
- Does my intact son need special care?
CIRCUMCISION, TASK FORCE ON. (2012). Circumcision Policy Statement. Pediatrics. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-1989
Photo © A.D.A.M.