22,310
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
normalize et al. (AMA)
The expired American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) position statement on male circumcision (2012) has attracted significant critical comment, including from the AAP itself.
In a dissenting paper, Frisch ''et al''. (2013) point out "Circumcision fails to meet the criteria to serve as a preventive measure for UTI [...] As a preventive measure for penile cancer, circumcision also fails to meet the criteria for preventive medicine [...] circumcision for HIV protection in Western countries fails to meet the criteria for preventive medicine [...] Circumcision fails to meet the commonly accepted criteria for the justification of preventive medical procedures in children."
Frisch ''et al''. conclude that "The AAP report lacks a serious discussion of the central ethical dilemma with, on one side, parents’ right to act in the best interest of the child on the basis of cultural, religious, and health-related beliefs and wishes and, on the other side, infant boys’ basic right to physical integrity in the absence of compelling reasons for surgery. Physical integrity is one of the most fundamental and inalienable rights a child has. Physicians and their professional organizations have a professional duty to protect this right, irrespective of the gender of the child."
Van Howe & Svoboda (2013) criticize the AAP statement because it failed to include important points, in accurately analyzed and interpret current medical literature, and made unsupported conclusions.<ref>{{REFjournal
}}</ref>
Frisch ''et al''. (2013) pointed out the difference of the AAP's statements in comparison to other Western countries, such as Canada, Australia, and various European countries.<ref name="frisch2013">{{REFjournal
|last=Frisch
|init=M
|pubmedID=23509170
|issn=0031-4005
}}</ref> They attribute this to cultural bias since non-therapeutic male circumcision is prevalent in the United States. They also criticized the strength of the health benefits the statement had claimed, such as protection from HIV and other STIs.<ref name="frisch2013"/> The American Academy of Pediatrics responded that because about half of American males are circumcised and half are not, there may be a more tolerant view concerning circumcision in the US, but that if there is any cultural “bias” among the AAP task force who wrote the Circumcision Policy statement, it is much less important than the bias Frisch ''et al''. may hold because of clear prejudices against the practice that can be found in Europe. The AAP elaborately explained why they reached conclusions regarding the health benefits of circumcision that are different from the ones reached by some of their European counterparts.<ref>{{REFjournal
|last=Task Force On Circumcision
|date=2013-04-01
Fox and Thomson (2005) state that in the absence of "unequivocal evidence of medical benefit", it is "ethically inappropriate to subject a child to the acknowledged risks of infant male circumcision." Thus, they believe, "the emerging consensus, whereby parental choice holds sway, appears ethically indefensible".<ref name="fox-thomson"/>
<!--[[Brian J. Morris|Morris]] ''et al''. (2014) argued that "...failure to circumcise a baby boy may be unethical because it diminishes his right to good health."<ref>{{REFjournal
|last=Morris
|init=BJ
{{Main|Circumcision and HIV}}
Rennie ''et al.'' (2007) remark that the results of three randomised controlled trials in sub-Saharan Africa, showing reduced risk of HIV among circumcised men, "alter the terms of the debate over the ethics of male circumcision."<ref name="rennie2007">{{REFjournal
|last=Rennie
|first=Stuart