17,122
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Add LINKS section.
}}</ref> in 2012 and it was immediately endorsed by ACOG and AAFP, who put up similar statements on their websites.
The statement immediately received scathing, withering critical comment from many sources, including [[Doctors Opposing Circumcision]], an association of European doctors,<ref>{{REFjournal
|last=Frisch
|first=M
|accessdate=2020-06-25
}}</ref>
{{LINKS}}
* {{REFweb
|url=https://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/for-professionals/medical-organization-statements/
|archived=
|title=Medical Organization Statements
|trans-title=
|language=English
|last=
|first=
|author-link=
|publisher=Doctors Opposing Circumcision
|website=www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org
|date=2016-03
|accessdate=2020-06-26
|format=
|quote=By contrast, U.S. medical associations – especially the American Academy of Pediatrics, the lead broker of this cultural practice for decades – have been strategically deferential to parental choice and tradition. The AAP has been equivocal on the medical evidence since declaring circumcision “unnecessary” in 1971 – then walking that disavowal back ever since. The AAP has consistently dangled the specter of unpleasant, even dangerous (but highly unlikely) outcomes for intact boys, while disingenuously leaving it up to frightened young parents to make an immediate ‘decision.’ The rare mention by the AAP of the human rights of the child to an intact body has been, at best, parenthetical, and at worst, disdainful and dismissive.
}}
{{REF}}