American Academy of Family Physicians

From IntactiWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) is the medical trade association that defends and promotes the business interests of family physicians in the United States.

The AAFP headquarters address is:

American Academy of Family Physicians
11400 Tomahawk Creek Parkway
Leawood, KS 66211-2680
USA

Family physicians is one of three medical specialties who substantially profit from carrying out medically-uncessary, non-therapeutic child circumcisions, so it should be no surprise that they promote non-therapeutic child circumcision with a very positive policy statement.

The corrupt World Health Organization (WHO) published a statement in 2007, based on now discredited African randomized controlled trials, that falsely claimed that male circumcision would prevent or reduce infection with HIV.[1]

The AAFP then joined with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2008 to produce a pro-circumcision policy statement that would promote circumcision and third-party payment for non-therapeutic circumcision of children. Lesley Atwood, MD, was assigned to represent AAFP in the development of the pro-circumcision statement.

The statement was finally published by the AAP in 2012, but attracted overwhelming criticism from many sources.

Criticism of the AAP statement

p>After the release of the position statement, a debate appeared in the journal Pediatrics and the Journal of Medical Ethics between the AAP and an ad-hoc group of Western doctors, ethicists and lawyers, who questioned the evidence and ethics of the AAP position statement, and accused the AAP of "cultural bias".

  • In 2013, international physicians protested against American Academy of Pediatrics’ policy on infant male circumcision. This protest was organized by Morten Frisch and led to an article in Pediatics[2], signed by an international group of 38 physicians from 16 European countries.

The AAP received further criticism from activist groups that oppose circumcision."[3]

Under AAP, a statement expires after five years unless it is reaffirmed, but the AAP did not reaffirm its flawed 2012 statement, so it expired in 2017.

2012 AAFP circumcision position statement

The AAFP issued a circumcision position statement in 2012 that was based on the 2012 AAP position statement.[4]

The statement claims that non-therapeutic infant male circumcision has "potential benefits". Potential means to exist in possibility but not in actuality,[5] The use of the word potential is likely to be very misleading to the public and especially to parents of infants boys, who are being asked to sacrifice the erogenous foreskin part of their infant boy's penis, for claimed, unproved speculative allegation of benefit.

The major benefit claimed is prevention of urinary tract infection (UTI), however UTI is easily and satisfactorily treated with antibiotics, in the unlikely event it should occur.[6] The AAFP fails to inform parents of this conservative and satisfactory treatment. Singh-Grewal et al. (2005) report 111 circumcisions would be necessary to prevent one UTI. Circumcision is recommended only in cases of recurrent UTI. the authors point out that the rate of complications of circumcision exceeds the rate of prevention of UTI, so there is no net benefit from neonatal non-therapeutic circumcision.[7]

The AAFP makes no mention of the nature and function of the foreskin.

The AAFP does not tell the public that fatalities and tragic outcomes occur rarely.

The AAFP does not recognize the infant boy as a human person with human rights. The AAFP does not discuss the conflict of interest between the infant boy's rights to his bodily integrity, his foreskin, his human rights, and his well-being; and the family physician's interest in maximizing his income.

See also

External links

  • REFweb AAFP. Retrieved 10 December 2019.

References

  1. REFweb (2007). Male circumcision for HIV prevention, World Health Organization. Retrieved 16 April 2020.
  2. REFjournal Frisch, Morten / Yves Aigrain / Vidmontas Barauskas, et al. (1 April 2013): Cultural Bias in the AAP’s 2012 Technical Report and Policy Statement on Male Circumcision, in: Pediatrics. 131 (4), PMID, DOI. Retrieved 4 April 2020.
  3. REFweb Wikipedia article: 2020-03-31
  4. REFweb Neonatal Circumcision. Retrieved 10 December 2019.
  5. REFweb Potential, Medical Dictionary, Farley. Retrieved 18 April 2020. Capable of doing or being, although not yet in course of doing or being; possible, but not actual.
  6. REFjournal McCracken, Jr., George (August 1989): Options in antimicrobial management of urinary tract infections in infants and children, in: Pediatr Infect Dis J. 8 (8): 552-5, PMID, DOI. Retrieved 18 April 2020.
  7. REFjournal Singh-Grewal, Davinder / Joseph Macdessi / Jonathan Craig (2005): Circumcision for the prevention of urinary tract infection in boys: A systematic review of randomized trials and observational studies, in: Arch Dis Child. 90 (8): 853-8, PMID, PMC, DOI. Retrieved 18 April 2010.