Obstetricians and the American circumcision scandal

From IntactiWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) 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.

Metcalf et al. (1983) reported that obstetricians carried out 87.7 percent of the circumcisions at the two hospitals surveyed in Utah.[1]

Obstetricians, to get their surgical fee, must provide a circumcision within hours of birth, because otherwise, the attending pediatrician will get the fee, if a circumcision is performed later.

It is clear that much of the blame for America's ongoing circumcision scandal must be laid at the feet of America's obstetricians.

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 remove the responsibility and liability for any circumcision from the surgeon to the parent who granted surrogate consent. Some of the previous claims that advocate circumcision have been omitted.[2]

The statement fails to advise parents that there are no medical indications for circumcision in the newborn period, that circumcision does not prevent or treat disease because no disease is present. It does advise parents of surgical risk, but fails to mention complete penile amputation or death as a possible outcome.[2]

There is a claim that circumcision may reduce the risk of urinary tract infection (UTI),[2] but it fails to tell parents that the treatment for UTI is with anti-microbial drugs, not surgery.[3] 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 ACOG's potential liability.[2] 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![4]

AGOG provides no information, which may dissuade parents from choosing circumcision, on the various functions of the foreskin,[2] which are now well known to medical science.[5] [6] It may have some potential liability for this fraudulent omission.[7] [8]

In conclusion, the ACOG statement for parents displays considerable bias in favor of circumcision and the obstetrician receiving a very substantial fee for the harmful amputation of a foreskin that takes only a few minutes.

Statement by George C. Denniston, M.D., M.P.H.

George C. Denniston, M. D., M.P.H. (2025), the founder and president of Doctors Opposing Circumcision, 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 3,300 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.[9]

Human rights and medical ethics issues

Baby boys have rights under both international human rights law and domestic law[10] from the instant they are born alive. Medical ethics requires medical doctors to respect those rights.

  • The ACOG practice of having a parent provide surrogate consent for a medically-unnecessary genital mutilation violates the boy's right to autonomy.
  • The performance of a circumcision destroys functional body tissue, results in the loss of function, and violates the boy's right to non-malefience.
  • The performance of a circumcision does not prevent or treat disease and has no medical benefit. It violates the boy's to right to beneficence.
  • The practice of non-therapeutic circumcision is a misuse of medical resources and violates the boy's right to justice.
  • The practice of non-therapeutic circumcision of the newborn is done solely to allow the obstetrician to collect a fee, so it is patient exploitation.

See also

External links

References

  1. ↑ REFjournal Metcalf TJ, Osborn SM, Mariani EM. Circumcision: A Survey of Current Practices. Clin Pediatr (Phila). August 1983; 22(8): 575-9. PMID. DOI. Retrieved 8 July 2025.
  2. ↑ a b c d e REFweb Anonymous (2017). Newborn Male Circumcision, ACOG. Retrieved 7 July 2025.
  3. ↑ REFjournal 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.
  4. ↑ REFweb Anonymous (3 February 2025). Circumcision: A Parent's Choice, Healthy Children. Retrieved 10 July 2025.
  5. ↑ REFjournal Cold CJ, Taylor JR. The prepuce. BJU Int. January 1999; 83, Suppl. 1: 34-44. PMID. DOI. Retrieved 8 July 2021.
  6. ↑ REFweb 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.
  7. ↑ REFjournal 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.
  8. ↑ REFjournal 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.
  9. ↑ REFbook 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.
  10. ↑ Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 US 250 - Supreme Court 1891.
Retrieved from "https://en.intactiwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Obstetricians_and_the_American_circumcision_scandal&oldid=42858"