United States of America: Difference between revisions

The statement expressed no concern for the [[pain]] of circumcision, nor did it provide information on the functions and value of the [[foreskin]] nor did it recognize the child as a person with domestic and international rights to self-determination and physical integrity. The statement carefully avoided recommending [[circumcision]] and placed the responsibility for the certain [[amputation]] injury on the parents rather than on the attending physician.<ref name="aap1975" />

<blockquote>There are no medical indications for routine circumcisions, and the procedure cannot be considered an essential component of health care. If an infant is circumcised, the procedure must be delayed until the infant is at least 24 hours old and stable, without [[bleeding]] tendency or any other illness. Circumcision must never be done at time of delivery.<ref>{{REFbook

<blockquote> However, until the benefits of routine circumcision of the neonate can be proved worth the risk and cost, medical resources probably should be allocated to measures of demonstrated value.<ref name="grimes1978" />

It was at about this time that several small organizations that opposed non-therapeutic circumcision of boys started to appear. They were the first [[intactivists]], although that word had not yet been coined.  One such organization was the Remain Intact Organization of Larchwood, Iowa, which was lead by Rev. [[George Zangger| Russell George Zangger]]. From the 1970s to the 1990s Zangger sent out cards with New Testament quotations that said the outward sign of circumcision is of no value. [[Jeffrey R. Wood]] formed [[INTACT Educational Foundation| INTACT]] (Infants Need to Avoid Circumcision Trauma), founded in 1976 as a local resource serving Western Massachusetts, and "Dedicated to Preserving Freedom of Choice." The organization gained recognition and had members across the nation.

Boczko & Freed (1979) collected cases of penile cancer in circucised men and by so doing, disproved the false belief propagated since 1932 by [[Abraham L. Wolbarst]] that circumcision was protective against penile cancer.<ref name="boczko1979">{{REFjournal

Professor Lowell R. King (1982), who had been a member of the "ad hoc" task force on circumcision of the AAP, felt compelled to defend the reasoning of the task force.<ref name="king1982">{{REFjournal

The advocacy of [[circumcision]] to prevent UTI spurred a debate in the medical literature until the AAP published a new statement in 1999 that softened the claims.