Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Circumcision study flaws

981 bytes added, 14:10, 3 August 2020
USA: Add AAFP information.
|accessdate=2020-08-03
}}
 
The AAP has a long-standing policy that its published policies and statements expire after five years unless re-affirmed. The AAP has ''not'' re-affirmed the statements below so they expired on 31 August 2017. The AAP now has ''no'' official position on non-therapeutic circumcision of boys.
The [https://www.acog.org American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists] (ACOG) endorsed the 2012 AAP statement even before it had been published. It promptly put is its own statement on its website citing the now expired AAP statement and subtly promoting non-therapeutic male circumcision to expectant mothers. It still cites the AAP statement although that statement expired in 2017.
* {{REFweb
|accessdate=2020-08-03
}}
 
 
The [https://www.aafp.org/home.html American Academy of Family Physicians] continues to promote non-therapeutic male circumcision. The AAFP report is based on the now discredited 2012 AAP statement. It touts prevention of urinary tract infection (UTI), but fails to advise that UTI is easily treatable with antibiotics if it should occur. The AAFP gives no information on the multiple functions and value of the foreskin. It fails to state that circumcision of the newborn is a medically-unnecessary, non-therapeutic amputation of a valuable body part that leaves a life-long injury and impairment of function.
 
* {{REFweb
|url=https://www.aafp.org/about/policies/all/neonatal-circumcision.html
|title=Neonatal Circumcision
|last=
|first=
|accessdate=2020-08-03
}}
 
 
[[Doctors Opposing Circumcision]] is an non-profit, educational organization. It does not earn money from performing non-therapeutic circumcision and is not biased by [[financial incentive]].
{{REF}}
17,059
edits

Navigation menu