Changes

[[Image:Aap.jpg|right|thumb|Emblem of the American Academy of Pediatrics]]

The '''American Academy of Pediatrics''' (AAP) is a trade association of American pediatricians, headquartered in Elk Grove Village, Illinois. Almost all U.S. pediatricians are members.

The AAP has not recognized the [[human rights]] of children that were granted by the ''International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights'' (1966) and the ''Convention on the Rights of the Child'' (1989).

The AAP evidently has an apparent long standing policy of appointing members of its various circumcision task forces who are believed by reason of published statements and/or ethnicity to be [[Bias| biased]] in favor of non-therapeutic male [[circumcision]]. Some such members are:

It is thought that the AAP chooses [[circumcised doctors]] who don't have a [[foreskin]] to its various task forces on circumcision, so personal knowledge and understanding of a normal body part has been lacking on its various task forces. Perhaps the AAP believes that such doctors will be [[Bias| biased]] in favor of circumcision. The AAP apparently hopes to continue to produce statements in favor of [[circumcision]] so that the collection of revenue, usually by [[third-party payment]], from circumcision can continue.

The first policy was a one-sentence statement in a book on care of the newborn that stated:

|url=http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/aap/#a1971

|title=Standards and Recommendation for Hospital Care of Newborn infants. 5th ed.

|accessdate=2020-03-31

}}</ref>

The policy cited the 1970 landmark paper by E. Noel Preston as its authority.<ref name="preston1970">{{REFjournal

|last=Preston

}}</ref>

The simple 1971 statement that dismissed non-therapeutic circumcision as a medical procedure did not sit well with the AAP, so efforts were made to walk back that statement. An "ad hoc" task force of four male physicians was formed to develop a new statement that was released in 1975. The new statement attempted to shift responsibility and legal liability from the physician to the parents. The statement claimed that "traditional, cultural, and religious factors" could be considered in making a decision to perform non-therapeutic circumcision upon a boy. The statement did not recognize the boy as a person with human and legal rights to bodily integrity and security of the person, nor did it consider [[pain]] control. There was no mention of the numerous [[Foreskin#Physiological_functions| functions of the foreskin]] or of [[Risks and complications| risks and complications]] of [[circumcision]]. The statement contained not a single reference. The result was that medically-unnecessary, non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] could still be performed and doctors could continue to [[Financial incentive| profit thereby]] and anesthesia for surgical [[pain]] was not required.

The 1975 policy was considered outmoded so a new "task force on circumcision" with circumcision promoter [[Edgar J. Schoen]] as chairman was formed. It is believed that five of the six members of the task force, or 83 percent, were Jewish.

|DOI=

|accessdate=2020-03-31

|url=https://www.thefreedictionary.com/potential

|title=Potential

}}</ref>

The Committee on Bioethics of the AAP issued a statement on bioethics and consent in 1995 that has caused great difficulty for the promoters of male non-therapeutic circumcision of non-consenting infants at the AAP. The statement provides in part:

|last=Kohnman

|first=Arthur

|init3=

|author3-link=

|etal=yes

|title=Informed consent, parental permission, and assent in pediatric practice.

|journal=Pediatrics

|location=

|accessdate=2021-07-23

}}</ref>

Non-therapeutic circumcision of children is neither diagnosis nor treatment, so the statement means that parents do ''not'' have right to consent to non-therapeutic circumcision of children. This has caused problems for future advocates of male non-therapeutic circumcision at the AAP, so they have adopted a work-around policy. Future statements regarding male non-therapeutic circumcision resorted to citing a non-germane statement on the medical ethics of sick and dying children.<ref>{{REFjournal

}}</ref> Non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] of children, however, is performed only on healthy children who can withstand the [[pain]], [[trauma]], and stress of the [[amputation]].

The American Academy of Pediatrics had been acutely embarrassed by the faults of [[Edgar J. Schoen| Edgar Schoen]]'s horrific circumcision policy statement, so a new task force was convened under the direction of Carole Marie Lannon, {{MD}}, {{MPH}}, to produce a new, more appropriate, and less embarrassing policy statement on non-therapeutic child circumcision which was published in Pediatrics in September 1999.<ref name="aap1999">{{REFjournal

|last=Lannon

}}

Several state Medicaid organizations had delisted medically-unnecessary, non-therapeutic male circumcision as a covered procedure, which caused alarm at the AAP. The corrupt [[World Health Organization]] (WHO), in a very poor and misguided decision in 2007, claimed that male circumcision would reduce infection with human immunodeficiency virus ([[HIV]]).<ref name="who2007">{{REFweb

|quote=

* Ellen Buerk, {{MD}}, representing the board of directors of the AAP.

* Waldemar Carlo, {{MD}}, a specialist in the care of the newborn.

* [[Andrew Freedman]], a Jewish urologist from Los Angeles who circumcised his own son on the kitchen table.

* Lesley Atwood, {{MD}}, representing the [[American Academy of Family Physicians]]. whose fellows also make extra money by performing non-therapeutic circumcision.

The AAP, in association with [[ACOG]] and [[AAFP]], issued a circumcision policy statement in 2012. That statement was heavily criticized by many due to its obvious [[bias]] toward obtaining and preserving [[third-party payment]] for non-therapeutic child circumcision.<ref name="doc2013">{{REFweb

The 2012 statement is a shift in the Academy's position from its 1999 statement in that the Academy now says the health benefits of the procedure outweigh the risks, and supports having the procedure covered by insurance. The 2012 position statement is an obvious effort to preserve [[third-party payment]] to physicians, without which most non-therapeutic circumcisions would not be done.</p>

* {{REFjournal