IntactiWiki

Position statements on infant circumcision: Difference between revisions

← Older editNewer edit →
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats
22,162 edits
m →Canada: Add link.
→United States of America: Add text and link.
Line 22: Line 22:
  |accessdate=2020-06-25
  |accessdate=2020-06-25
}}</ref>}}
}}</ref>}}
The circumcision policies of American medical trade associations are currently in chaos.
The three trade associations, whose member profit by carrying out non-therapeutic circumcision of boys formed a pact in 2008 to create a circumcision statement that would protect [[third-party payment]] for non-therapeutic circumcision. The three trade associations are:
• American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)
• American Academy of Family Doctors (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 AAP released its two-part statement in 2012 and it was immediately endorsed by ACOG and AAFP, who put up similar statements on their websites.
The statement immediately received withering critical comment from many sources, including [[Doctors Opposing Circumcision]], an association of European doctors,<ref>{{REFjournal
|last=Frisch
|first=M
|author-link=Morten Frisch
|last2=Aigrain
|first2=Yves
|author2-link=
|last3=Barauskas
|first3=Vidmantas
|author3-link=
|last4=Bjarnason,
|first4=Ragnar
|author4-link=
|last5=Boddy
|first5=Su-Anna
|author5-link=
|last6=Czauderna
|first6=Piotr
|author6-link=
|last7=de Gier
|first7=Robert
|author7-link=
|last8=de Jong
|first8=Tom
|author8-link=
|last9=Günter
|first9=Faschig
|author9-link=
|etal=yes
|title=Cultural bias in the AAP's 2012 Technical Report and Policy Statement on Male Circumcision
|trans-title=
|language=English
|journal=Pediatrics
|location=
|date=2013-04
|volume=131
|issue=4
|pages=796-800
|url=https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/131/4/796
|archived=
|quote=
|pubmedID=23509170
|pubmedCID=
|DOI=10.1542/peds.2012-2896
|accessdate=2025-06-25
}}</ref> and others.<ref>{{REFjournal
|last=Steven
|first=JS
|author-link=J. Steven Svoboda
|last2=Van Howe
|first2=RS
|author2-link=Robert S. Van Howe
|etal=no
|title=Out of step: fatalflaws in the latest AAP policy report on neonatal circumcision
|trans-title=
|language=
|journal=J Med Ethics
|location=
|date=2013
|volume=39
|issue=7
|pages=434-41
|url=https://www.arclaw.org/wp-content/uploads/Svoboda-Van-Howe-Out-of-Step-Fatal-Flaws-in-AAP...-JME-2013.pdf
|archived=
|quote=
|pubmedID=23508208
|pubmedCID=
|DOI=0.1136/medethics-2013-101346
|accessdate=2020-06-25
}}</ref>
The AAP standard policy is for their policy statement to expire after five years unless re-affirmed.  The AAP circumcision policy statement expired in 2017 but has not been re-affirmed, so the AAP now has no official position on circumcision, although it continues to quote from the expired statement.
The other two trade association have statements that are based on the expired AAP statement. Are they still valid? No one knows.


{{Citation
{{Citation
Retrieved from "https://en.intactiwiki.org/wiki/Position_statements_on_infant_circumcision"