Difference between revisions of "American Academy of Family Physicians"

From IntactiWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
(Add link in SEEALSO section.)
 
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 24: Line 24:
 
}}</ref>
 
}}</ref>
  
−
The AAFP then joined with the [[American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists| 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 AAFP then joined with the [[American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists| American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists]] (ACOG) and the [[American Academy of Pediatrics]] (AAP) 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 the 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.
+
The statement was finally published by the [[AAP]] in 2012, but attracted overwhelming criticism from many sources.
  
 
==Criticism of the AAP statement==   
 
==Criticism of the AAP statement==   
Line 155: Line 155:
 
}}</ref> 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.
 
}}</ref> 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.<ref name="mccracken1989">{{REFjournal
+
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.<ref name="mccracken1989">{{REFjournal
 
  |last=McCracken Jr
 
  |last=McCracken Jr
 
  |first=George
 
  |first=George
Line 177: Line 177:
 
  |DOI=10.1097/00006454-198908000-00041
 
  |DOI=10.1097/00006454-198908000-00041
 
  |accessdate=2020-04-18
 
  |accessdate=2020-04-18
−
}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{REFjournal
+
}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{REFjournal
 
  |last=Singh-Grewal
 
  |last=Singh-Grewal
 
  |first=Davinder
 
  |first=Davinder
Line 213: Line 213:
 
The AAFP does not tell the public that [[fatalities]] and [[Documented severe complications of circumcision| tragic outcomes]] occur rarely.
 
The AAFP does not tell the public that [[fatalities]] and [[Documented severe complications of circumcision| 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.
+
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 [[physical integrity| bodily integrity]], his [[foreskin]], his [[human rights]], and his well-being; and the family physician's interest in maximizing his income.
 +
 
 +
== Current AAFP position statement ==
 +
 
 +
The current AAFP position statement, [https://www.aafp.org/about/policies/all/neonatal-circumcision.html Neonatal Circumcision], was reviewed in October 2023. It seems little changed since 2012. There still is no recognition of the infant boy's personhood and his rights to [[physical integrity]] and self-determination.<ref name="myers2020">{{REFjournal
 +
|last=Myers
 +
|first=
 +
|init=A
 +
|author-link=Alex Myers
 +
|last2=Earp
 +
|first2=
 +
|init2=BD
 +
|author2-link=Brian D. Earp
 +
|etal=no
 +
|title=What is the best age to circumcise? A medical and ethical analysis
 +
|trans-title=
 +
|language=
 +
|journal=J Biosoc Sci
 +
|location=
 +
|date=2020-09
 +
|volume=34
 +
|issue=7
 +
|pages=560-72
 +
|url=https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Brian-Earp-2/publication/337720859_What_Is_the_Best_Age_to_Circumcise_A_Medical_and_Ethical_Analysis/links/5f815f61a6fdccfd7b555395/What-Is-the-Best-Age-to-Circumcise-A-Medical-and-Ethical-Analysis.pdf
 +
|archived=
 +
|quote=
 +
|pubmedID=32068898
 +
|pubmedCID=
 +
|DOI=10.1111/bioe.12714
 +
|format=PDF
 +
|accessdate=2023-12-30
 +
}}</ref>
 +
 
 +
The statement also claims "potential" health benefits, while failing to state that a "potential" health benefit is an unproven, imaginary benefit.
 +
 
 +
The statement continues the plea for insurance coverage of unnecessary, non-therapeutic circumcision, which actually is a plea for [[Financial incentive| more money for doctors]].
 +
 
 +
The claims made are not documented with citations, nor is there an actual recommendation for [[circumcision]]. The statement continues the practice of trying to shift liability from the physician to the parents, for the known [[pain]], [[trauma]], and certain [[injury]] by [[amputation]] of a [[Foreskin| multi-functional body part]].
  
 
{{SEEALSO}}
 
{{SEEALSO}}
 
* [[Circumcision study flaws]]
 
* [[Circumcision study flaws]]
−
 
+
* [[United States of America]]
 
{{LINKS}}
 
{{LINKS}}
 
* {{URLwebsite|https://www.aafp.org/home.html|2023-11-14}}
 
* {{URLwebsite|https://www.aafp.org/home.html|2023-11-14}}
Line 224: Line 261:
 
{{REF}}
 
{{REF}}
  
−
[[Category:USA]]
+
 
 +
[[Category:Circumcision]]
 +
[[Category:Male circumcision]]
 
[[Category:Physicians]]
 
[[Category:Physicians]]
 
[[Category:Medical society]]
 
[[Category:Medical society]]
 
[[Category:Promoter]]
 
[[Category:Promoter]]
 +
 +
[[Category:USA]]

Latest revision as of 16:30, 23 April 2024

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 AAFP publishes the American Family Physician.

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 (AAP) 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, M.D.[a 1], was assigned to represent the 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

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 and is no longer a valid source.

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.

Current AAFP position statement

The current AAFP position statement, Neonatal Circumcision, was reviewed in October 2023. It seems little changed since 2012. There still is no recognition of the infant boy's personhood and his rights to physical integrity and self-determination.[8]

The statement also claims "potential" health benefits, while failing to state that a "potential" health benefit is an unproven, imaginary benefit.

The statement continues the plea for insurance coverage of unnecessary, non-therapeutic circumcision, which actually is a plea for more money for doctors.

The claims made are not documented with citations, nor is there an actual recommendation for circumcision. The statement continues the practice of trying to shift liability from the physician to the parents, for the known pain, trauma, and certain injury by amputation of a multi-functional body part.

See also

External links

Abbreviations

  1. ↑ REFweb Doctor of Medicine, Wikipedia. Retrieved 14 June 2021. In the United Kingdom, Ireland and some Commonwealth countries, the abbreviation MD is common.

References

  1. ↑ REFweb (2007). Male circumcision for HIV prevention, World Health Organization. Retrieved 16 April 2020.
  2. ↑ REFjournal Frisch M, Aigrain Y, Barauskas V, et al. Cultural Bias in the AAP’s 2012 Technical Report and Policy Statement on Male Circumcision. Pediatrics. 1 April 2013; 131(4) PMID. DOI. Retrieved 4 April 2020.
  3. ↑ REFweb Wikipedia article: Elective infant circumcision. Retrieved 31 March 2020.
  4. ↑ REFweb Neonatal Circumcision. Retrieved 10 December 2019.
  5. ↑ REFweb Potential, Medical Dictionary, Farley. Retrieved 18 April 2020.
    Quote: Capable of doing or being, although not yet in course of doing or being; possible, but not actual.
  6. ↑ REFjournal McCracken Jr G. Options in antimicrobial management of urinary tract infections in infants and children. Pediatr Infect Dis J. August 1989; 8(8): 552-5. PMID. DOI. Retrieved 18 April 2020.
  7. ↑ REFjournal Singh-Grewal D, Macdessi J, Craig J. Circumcision for the prevention of urinary tract infection in boys: A systematic review of randomized trials and observational studies. Arch Dis Child. 2005; 90(8): 853-8. PMID. PMC. DOI. Retrieved 18 April 2010.
  8. ↑ REFjournal Myers A, Earp BD. What is the best age to circumcise? A medical and ethical analysis PDF. J Biosoc Sci. September 2020; 34(7): 560-72. PMID. DOI. Retrieved 30 December 2023.
Retrieved from "https://en.intactiwiki.org/w/index.php?title=American_Academy_of_Family_Physicians&oldid=37062"