Changes

The '''American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP)''' is the [[medical trade association ]] that defends and promotes the business interests of family physicians in the United States.

American Academy of Family Physicians<br>11400 Tomahawk Creek Parkway<br>Leawood, KS 66211-2680<br>USA

11400 Tomahawk Creek Parkway LeawoodFamily physicians is one of three medical specialties who substantially profit from carrying out medically-uncessary, non-therapeutic child circumcisions, KS 66211so it should be no surprise that they promote non-268therapeutic child [[circumcision]] with a very positive policy statement.

The AAFP publishes the [https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp.html American Family physicians is one of three medical specialties who substantially profit from carrying out medically-uncessary, non-therapeutic child circumcisions, so it should be no surprise that they promote non-therapeutic child [[circumcision]Physician] with a very positive policy statement.

The corrupt [[World Health Organization]] (WHO) published a statement in 2007, based on now discredited African randomized controlled trials, that falsely claimed that male circumcision would prevent or reduce infection with [[HIV]].<ref name="who2007">{{REFweb

The AAFP then joined with the [[American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists| American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists]] (ACOG) and the [[American Academy of Pediatrics]] (AAP) in 2008 to produce a pro-circumcision policy statement that would promote [[circumcision]] and [[third-party payment]] for non-therapeutic circumcision of children. Lesley Atwood, {{MD}}, was assigned to represent the AAFP in the development of the pro-circumcision statement.

The statement was finally published by the [[AAP ]] in 2012, but attracted overwhelming criticism from many sources.

p>After the release of the position statement, a debate appeared in the journal ''Pediatrics'' and the ''Journal of Medical Ethics'' between the AAP and an ad-hoc group of Western doctors, ethicists and lawyers, who questioned the evidence and ethics of the AAP position statement, and accused the AAP of "cultural bias".

|publisher=[[Doctors Opposing Circumcision(D.O.C.)]]

The AAP received further criticism from activist groups that oppose [[circumcision]]."<ref>{{URLwikipedia|American_Academy_of_Pediatrics#Elective_infant_circumcision|American Academy of PediatricsElective infant circumcision|2020-03-31}}</ref></p>

Under AAP, a statement expires after five years unless it is reaffirmed, but the AAP did not reaffirm its flawed 2012 statement, so it expired in 2017and is no longer a valid source.

The AAFP issued a circumcision position statement in 2012 that was based on the 2012 AAP position statement.<refname="aafp2012">{{REFweb

|accessdate=2019-12-10}}</ref>

}}</ref> The use of the word ''potential'' is likely to be very misleading to the public and especially to parents of infants boys, who are being asked to sacrifice the erogenous [[foreskin]] part of their infant boy's [[penis]], for claimed, unproved speculative allegation of benefit. The major benefit claimed is prevention of [[urinary tract infection]] (UTI), however UTI is easily and satisfactorily treated with antibiotics, in the unlikely event it should occur.<ref name="mccracken1989">{{REFjournal |last=McCracken Jr |first=George |init=G |author-link= |etal=no |title=Options in antimicrobial management of urinary tract infections in infants and children |trans-title= |language= |journal=Pediatr Infect Dis J |location= |date=1989-08 |volume=8 |issue=8 |pages=552-5 |url=http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/UTI/mccracken/ |archived= |quote= |pubmedID=2771540 |pubmedCID= |DOI=10.1097/00006454-198908000-00041 |accessdate=2020-04-18}}</ref> The AAFP fails to inform parents of this conservative and satisfactory treatment. Singh-Grewal et al. (2005) report 111 circumcisions would be necessary to prevent one UTI. [[Circumcision]] is recommended only in cases of recurrent UTI. the authors point out that the rate of complications of circumcision exceeds the rate of prevention of UTI, so there is no net benefit from neonatal non-therapeutic circumcision.<ref>{{REFjournal |last=Singh-Grewal |first=Davinder |init=D |author-link= |last2=Macdessi |first2=Joseph |init2=J |author2-link= |last3=Craig |first3=Jonathan |init3=J |author3-link= |etal=no |title=Circumcision for the prevention of urinary tract infection in boys: A systematic review of randomized trials and observational studies |trans-title= |language= |journal=Arch Dis Child |location= |date=2005 |volume=90 |issue=8 |pages=853-8 |url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1720543/pdf/v090p00853.pdf |archived= |quote= |pubmedID=15890696 |pubmedCID=15890696 |DOI=10.1136/adc.2004.049353 |accessdate=2010-04-18}}</ref> The AAFP makes no mention of the [[foreskin| nature and function of the foreskin]]. The AAFP does not tell the public that [[fatalities]] and [[Documented severe complications of circumcision| tragic outcomes]] occur rarely. The AAFP does not recognize the infant boy as a human person with [[human rights]]. The AAFP does not discuss the conflict of interest between the infant boy's rights to his [[physical integrity| bodily integrity]], his [[foreskin]], his [[human rights]], and his well-being; and the family physician's interest in maximizing his income. == Current AAFP position statement == The current AAFP position statement, [https://www.aafp.org/about/policies/all/neonatal-circumcision.html Neonatal Circumcision], was reviewed in October 2023. It seems little changed since 2012. There still is no recognition of the infant boy's personhood and his rights to [[physical integrity]] and self-determination.<ref name="myers2020">{{REFjournal |last=Myers |first= |init=A |author-link=Alex Myers |last2=Earp |first2= |init2=BD |author2-link=Brian D. Earp |etal=no |title=What is the best age to circumcise? A medical and ethical analysis |trans-title= |language= |journal=J Biosoc Sci |location= |date=2020-09 |volume=34 |issue=7 |pages=560-72 |url=https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Brian-Earp-2/publication/337720859_What_Is_the_Best_Age_to_Circumcise_A_Medical_and_Ethical_Analysis/links/5f815f61a6fdccfd7b555395/What-Is-the-Best-Age-to-Circumcise-A-Medical-and-Ethical-Analysis.pdf |archived= |quote= |pubmedID=32068898 |pubmedCID= |DOI=10.1111/bioe.12714 |format=PDF |accessdate=2023-12-30}}</ref> The statement also claims "potential" health benefits, while failing to state that a "potential" health benefit is an unproven, imaginary benefit. The statement continues the plea for insurance coverage of unnecessary, non-therapeutic circumcision, which actually is a plea for [[Financial incentive| more money for doctors]]. The claims made are not documented with citations, nor is there an actual recommendation for [[circumcision]]. The statement continues the practice of trying to shift liability from the physician to the parents, for the known [[pain]], [[trauma]], and certain [[injury]] by [[amputation]] of a [[Foreskin| multi-functional body part]]. {{SEEALSO}}* [[Circumcision study flaws]]

* {{REFweb URLwebsite|url=https://www.aafp.org/home.html |title=AAFP |last= |first= |accessdate=20192023-1211-1014}} {{ABBR}}* {{REFweb |url=https://www.aafp.org/about/policies/all/neonatal-circumcision.html |title=Neonatal Circumcision |last= |first= |accessdate=2019-12-10REF}}