American Academy of Pediatrics: Difference between revisions

The AAP advances the financial and business interests of its members.  Hundreds of millions of dollars are paid out by [[Third-party payment| third-parties]] to physicians, including pediatricians, obstetricians, and family physicians to provide medically unnecessary non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] of minor boys. Their slogan is: "Dedicated to the Health of All Children," however the protection of the income of its fellows ("members") overrides their duties to children. Preservation of that income stream has always been a fundamental policy of the AAP.

Several state Medicaid organizations had delisted medically-unnecessary, non-therapeutic male circumcision as a covered procedure, which caused alarm at the AAP. The corrupt [[World Health Organization]] (WHO), in a very poor and misguided decision in 2007, falsely claimed that male circumcision would reduce infection with human immunodeficiency virus ([[HIV]]).<ref name="who2007">{{REFweb

The AAP allied itself with the [[American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists]] (ACOG) and the [[American Academy of Family Physicians]] (AAFP) to produce a new [[circumcision]] policy that would claim a medical benefit. A new task force was named with [[Susan Blank]], a doctor with pro-[[circumcision]] credentials, as chairwoman. The task force was an unusually large eight-member task force with an unusual constitution. It included:

* [[Andrew Freedman]], a Jewish urologist from Los Angeles who circumcised his own son on the kitchen table.

* Sabrina Craigo, {{MD}}, representing the [[American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists]], whose fellows make extra money by performing non-therapeutic circumcision on newborn baby boys, although males are outside of their practice area.

{{Box|Boxtext=<big><b>'''The AAP policy regarding its statements is to give each statement a five-year life, after which the statement expires unless it is reaffirmed. The 2012 Circumcision Policy Statement has not been reaffirmed, so it expired in 2017. As of 2023, the AAP has had ''no'' official circumcision policy for six years, although it misleadingly continues to publish its long expired policy on its website.'''</b></big>}}

<blockquote><p>"In a 2012 position statement, the Academy stated that a systematic evaluation of the medical literature shows that the "preventive health benefits of elective [[circumcision]] of male newborns outweigh the risks of the procedure" and that the health benefits "are sufficient to justify access to this procedure for families choosing it and to warrant third-party payment for circumcision of male newborns," but "are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns".  The Academy takes the position that parents should make the final decision about circumcision, after appropriate information is gathered about the risks and benefits of the procedure. By doing this, the AAP attempts to shift the liability for the certain injury of child non-therapeutic circumcision from the doctor to the parents. </blockquote>

The 2012 statement is a shift in the Academy's position from its [https://www.cirp.org/library/statements/aap1999/ 1999 statement] in that the Academy now says the health benefits of the procedure outweigh the risks, and supports having the procedure covered by insurance. The 2012 position statement is an obvious effort to preserve [[third-party payment]] to physicians, without which most non-therapeutic circumcisions would not be done.</p>

The AAP's difficulties with a child circumcision policy are largely of its own doing. The AAP continues to put its members' financial well-being ahead of the [[human rights]] and well-being of its child patients, which it does by omission of significant information and distortion of the medical facts in its numerous circumcision policy statements. Medical societies outside of the [[United States]] are in near total disagreement with the AAP and its American allies with regard to non-therapeutic child [[circumcision]].

Although the AAP speaks very highly of non-therapeutic circumcision, a close reading indicates that it has never made an actual overt recommendation for circumcision, probably because its lawyers forbid it. Nevertheless, a suit has been filed against the AAP that alleges fraud in its circumcision statements.<ref name="delaney2021" />