American Academy of Pediatrics: Difference between revisions

Line 429:

|quote=

}}</ref>

{{Box|Boxtext=<big>'''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.'''</big>}}

{{Box|Boxtext=<big>'''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 2026, the AAP has had ''no'' official circumcision policy for nine years, although it misleadingly continues to publish its long expired policy on its website.'''</big>}}

Although the patients of the fellows of the AAP are children, the AAP consistently has failed to acknowledge the [[human rights]] of its child patients.<ref name="doc2013" />

From the Wikipedia:

<blockquote>"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>

<blockquote>"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.

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 said the health benefits of the procedure outweigh the risks, and supports having the procedure covered by insurance. The ''expired'' 2012 position statement was an obvious effort to preserve [[third-party payment]] to physicians, without which most of the ''unnecessary'' non-therapeutic circumcisions would not be done.

==== Criticism ====

@@ Line 429: / Line 429: @@
   |quote=
 }}</ref>
-{{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>}}
+{{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 2026, the AAP has had ''no'' official circumcision policy for nine years, although it misleadingly continues to publish its long expired policy on its website.'''</b></big>}}
 Although the patients of the fellows of the AAP are children, the AAP consistently has failed to acknowledge the [[human rights]] of its child patients.<ref name="doc2013" />
 From the Wikipedia:
-<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>
+<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 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 said the health benefits of the procedure outweigh the risks, and supports having the procedure covered by insurance. The ''expired'' 2012 position statement was an obvious effort to preserve [[third-party payment]] to physicians, without which most of the ''unnecessary'' non-therapeutic circumcisions would not be done.</p>
 ==== Criticism ====