Position statements on infant circumcision: Difference between revisions

Perhaps the most shocking fact is that circumcision continues to be practiced in the United States even though no official western medical organization in the world recommends it. The Royal Dutch Medical Society, The British Medical Association, the Canadian Pediatric Society, and the Royal Australian College of Physicians have all made official policy statements against circumcision.  

The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Urological Association all do not recommend circumcision, but deceptively claim "potential" benefits. (The word ''potential'' means to exist in possibility, but ''not'' in actuality,<ref>{{REFweb

The trend of opinion on non-therapeutic male circumcision is overwhelmingly negative in industrialized nations. No respected medical board in the world recommends circumcision for infants, not even in the name of HIV prevention. They must all point to the risks, and they must all state that there is no convincing evidence that the benefits outweigh these risks. To do otherwise would be to take an unfounded position against the best medical authorities of the West.

The circumcision policies of American medical trade associations are currently in chaos.

• American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)

 

• [[American Academy of Family Physicians]] (AAFP)

 

• [[American Academy of Pediatrics]]. (AAP)

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) would take the lead and create a task force to draft a new statement. It would have representatives from AAFP and ACOG. The monetary intent of the AAP, ACOG, and AAFP is made clear by the appointment of  medical insurance specialist Steven Wegner, MD, JD, representing the AAP Committee on Child Health Financing, to the task force.

}}</ref> including [[Doctors Opposing Circumcision]],<ref>{{REFweb

  |url=https://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/for-professionals/medical-organization-statements/

  |title=Medical Organization Statements

  |publisher=Doctors Opposing Circumcision

  |date=2016-03

  |accessdate=2020-06-26

  |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.

  |first=M

  |last4=Bjarnason,

  |first=JS

  |first2=RS

Obstetricians are doctors for female patients. They deliver babies so they get the first opportunity to profit from doing circumcision of a baby boy. Although males are outside of the scope of practice of Ob-Gyn, Although its embarrassingly bad statement regarding non-therapeutic infant male circumcision now has been deleted from its website, ACOG still prints and sells promotional pamphlets to its member physicians.

  |last=Eugene

  |first=Outerbridge

  |title=Neonatal circumcision revisited.

===Canadian Urological Association===

The [http://www.cua.org/en Canadian Urological Association] issued its statement on circumcision in February 2018.

  |title=Non-therapeutic male circumcision (NTMC) of children – practical guidance for doctors

The National Health Service performs circumcision only for medical reasons.  It does not do non-therapeutic circumcision.

Neonatal male circumcision has no medical indication. It is a traumatic procedure performed without anaesthesia to remove a normal functional and protective prepuce. At birth, the prepuce has not separated from the underlying glans and must be forcibly torn apart to deliver the glans, prior to removal of the prepuce distal to the coronal groove.

  |location=Herston, QLD

In the Netherlands, the [https://www.knmg.nl/over-knmg/about-knmg/about-knmg.htm Royal Dutch Medical Association] (KNMG) issued a statement in 2010 stating that "The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organizations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity." Circumcision can cause complications, including infection and bleeding, and are asking doctors to insistently inform parents that the procedure lacks medical benefits and has a danger of complications. In addition to there not being any convincing evidence that circumcision is necessary or useful for hygiene or prevention, circumcision is not justifiable and is reasonable to put off until an age where any risk is relevant, and the boy can decide himself about possible intervention, or opt for available alternatives. They went on to say "There are good reasons for a legal prohibition of non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors, as exists for female genital mutilation."<ref>{{REFweb

  |publisher=Doctors Opposing Circumcision