22,335
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
wikify amputation
[[Ernest G. Mark]] (1901) noted that the "pleasurable sensations that are elicited from the extremely sensitive" [[Ridged band|inner lining]] of the [[foreskin]] may encourage a child to [[Masturbation|masturbate]], which is why he recommended circumcision since it "lessens the sensitiveness of the organ".<ref>{{Mark1901}}</ref>
Brimhall (1902) reported an [[amputation ]] of a penis after circumcision.<ref name="brimhall1902">{{REFjournal
|last=Brimhall
|init=JB
The statement falsely claimed facilitation of hygiene, prevention of [[phimosis]], and prevention of [[penile cancer]] as reasons that parents may elect non-therapeutic infant circumcision.<ref name="aap1975" />
The statement expressed no concern for the [[pain]] of circumcision, nor did it provide information on the functions and value of the [[foreskin]] nor did it recognize the child as a person with domestic and international rights to self-determination and physical integrity. The statement carefully avoided recommending [[circumcision]] and placed the responsibility for the certain [[amputation ]] injury on the parents rather than on the attending physician.<ref name="aap1975" />
The 1975 statement served as the AAP's position statement until 1989.
* failure to recognize the child as a person with legal rights to bodily integrity.
* failure to provide information on the nature and functions of the human [[foreskin]].
* failure to call for analgesia to ease the intense [[pain]] of the [[amputation]].
* inclusion of [[Thomas E. Wiswell]]'s methodologically-flawed papers on [[urinary tract infection]] (UTI).
* failure to inform parents that UTI is properly treated with antibiotics.
* use of the misleading word ''potential'' to describe speculative medical benefits that do not actually exist.
* attempting to shift responsibility for the performance of an injurious and harmful [[amputation ]] from the medical operator to the parents.
The advocacy of [[circumcision]] to prevent UTI spurred a debate in the medical literature until the AAP published a new statement in 1999 that softened the claims.
Professor [[George C. Denniston]], {{MD}}, {{MPH}}, organized [[Doctors Opposing Circumcision]] in 1995.
Three registered nurses in Santa Fe, New Mexico, who conscientiously objected to assisting with foreskin [[amputation ]] operations, formed [[Nurses for the Rights of the Child]] in 1995.
A group of [[intactivist]]s assembled at Evanston, {{USSC|IL}} in 1996 for a meeting and then protested and demonstrated before the AAP convention in nearby Chicago.
</blockquote>
The British journal, ''The Lancet'', published reports of two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that were carried out in sub-Saharan Africa which purported to prove that male circumcision was protective against infection with HIV. The American Academy of Pediatrics consulted with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists ([[ACOG]]) and the American College of Family Physicians ([[AAFP]]) (those being the medical trade associations that represent the specialties that perform most non-therapeutic infant circumcisions and make most of the money from the performance of the non-therapeutic [[amputation]]). The three associations determined to make common cause to produce a position statement that would promote male circumcision based on its alleged protection against HIV infection. The AAP was to take the lead, but ACOG and AAFP provided representatives to the new [[AAP Circumcision Task Force 2012| AAP task force]], of which New York Jewess [[Susan Blank]], {{MD}}, {{MPH}}, was the chairwoman. This new task force did not publish a statement until 2012. The AAP declined to re-affirm the statement so it expired in August 2017.
[[Dan Bollinger|Bollinger]] (2010) estimated approximately 117 neonatal circumcision-related deaths occur annually in the United States.<ref name="bollinger2010">{{BollingerD 2010}}</ref>