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?
Related:
- 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?
Source:
CIRCUMCISION, TASK FORCE ON. (2012). Circumcision Policy Statement. Pediatrics. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-1989
Photo © A.D.A.M.
I also find holes in their stance – both morally and medically!
I have to admit I was a little disappointed in this. I beleive I heard that the main concern was UTI. By teaching medical professionals and parents how to care for an intact penis this would be greatly lowered. Since most of the world’s population is uncircumcized why don’t we have a world full of men with issues?
The take on transmitting disease is kind of mute if you also go along with their “suggestion” that you have your children vaccinated against the HPV that is thought to be transmitted.
On the Today show one of the negatives Dr. Nancy Synderman included the great loss of revenue the medical industry would experience if most parents choose not to do this totally cosmetic procedure
Medcaid in my state, FL, will not cover this procedure and haven’t for many, many years.
Actually this is rolled into the global fee for most newborn care.
The AAP report indicates that circumcision can lower your chance of getting infected with HIV. Meanwhile, virtually every European country has a significantly lower HIV rate than the US; ditto for China, Japan, and Australia. All places where circumcision is relatively rare..
The AAP task force report is based on studies in sub-Saharan Africa, and contains the following gem:
“Specifically, the Task Force recommends additional studies to better understand the impact of male circumcision on transmission of HIV and other STIs in the United States because key studies to date have been performed in African populations with HIV burdens that are epidemiologically different from HIV in the United States.”
That is, the AAP is throwing it’s weight behind slicing the genitals of male infants in the United States based on studies which it admits may not even be applicable! Not really great for their credibility.
Then there is the troubling comparison to female genital cutting. In the case of baby girls, would the AAP even dare to conduct studies designed to determine “potential health benefits”? Absolutely not, because girls are rightfully protected by law against ANY form of cutting, even a symbolic ritual nick (as previously recommended by the AAP), with no legitimacy given to arguments based on “potential health benefits”, parental choice, religious tradition, etc.