Obstetricians and the American circumcision scandal
Construction Site
This article is work in progress and not yet part of the free encyclopedia IntactiWiki.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is a medical trade association that provides a statement on its website to encourage parents to consent to harmful, injurious circumcision of the newborn. Obstetricians have long been a major factor in the promotion and performance of circumcision of the newborn.
ACOG information for parents
The infamous 2012 statement for parents appears to have been removed in 2017 at the time that the 2012 American Academy of Pediatrics Circumcision Policy Statement, on which the previous ACOG statement was based, expired without being re-affirmed.
It was replaced in 2017 by another statement on circumcision of the newborn that shows signs of concerns about the possible legal liability of ACOG. The statement attempts to move the responsibility and liability for any circumcision from the surgeon to the parent. Some of the claims that advocate circumcision have been omitted.[1]
There is a claim that circumcision may reduce the risk of urinary tract infection (UTI), but it fails to tell parents that the treatment for UTI is with anti-microbial drugs, not surgery.[2] The ACOG statement also fails to inform parents of the immunological functions of the foreskin, the value of breastfeeding in reducing UTI, or the increased difficulty of initating breastfeeding after circumcision.
ACOG now uses the device of saying "why parents choose" to reduce their potential liability. This statement cites the AAP, however, the AAP's last statement expired in August 2017. The AAP now has no identifiable official position on circumcision of the newborn.
AGOG provides no information on the various functions of the foreskin, which are now well known. It may have some potential liability for this fraudulent omission.[3] [4]
Contents
Statement by George C. Denniston, M.D., M.P.H.
George C. Denniston, M. D., M.P.H. (2025) commented:
Some obstetricians also routinely cut half of the normal skin from the normal penises of the newborn males whom they have just delivered. They do it without medical indication, and they continue to do it despite the overwhelming evidence of harm. There is no way of getting around the fact that these doctors are torturing and mutilating their patients at the rate of 3300 newborn males every day in the United States. It is totally amazing that Americans permit doctors to continue to commit these atrocities on a daily basis. They should pass a law, which is probably the only way to stop this compulsion.[5]
External links
Alissa, Kristel (3 July 2025). The Penis You Were Supposed to Have: 10 Functions of the Foreskin You Were Never Taught
, Intact America. Retrieved 6 July 2025.
References
- ↑ Anonymous (2017).
Newborn Male Circumcision
, ACOG. Retrieved 7 July 2025. - ↑
McCracken, Jr. GH. Options in antimicrobial management of urinary tract infections in infants and children. Pediatr Infect Dis J. August 1989; 8(8): 552--5. PMID. DOI. Retrieved 7 July 2025.
Quote:Because long term outcome of UTI in uncircumcised males is unknown, it is inappropriate at this time to recommend circumcision as a routine medically indicated procedure.
- ↑ Giannetti M. Circumcision and the American Academy of Pediatrics: Should Scientific Misconduct Result in Trade Association Liability. Iowa Law Rev. 2000; 85(4): 1507-68. Retrieved 7 July 2025.
- ↑ Adler PW, Van Howe RS, Wisdom T, Daase F. Is circumcision a fraud?. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy. November 2020; 30(1): 45-107. Retrieved 7 July 2025.
- ↑
Denniston GC (2025): Never a Dull Moment: The Life of an Activist Physician. Van Nuys: Donald A. Collins Publishing. Pp. 39-40. ISBN 9798287592585. Retrieved 6 July 2025.
