17,052
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
Wikify third-party payment
<blockquote><p>"In a 2012 position statement, the academy stated that a systematic evaluation of the medical literature shows that the "preventive health benefits of elective [[circumcision]] of male newborns outweigh the risks of the procedure" and that the health benefits "are sufficient to justify access to this procedure for families choosing it and to warrant third-party payment for circumcision of male newborns," but "are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns". The Academy takes the position that parents should make the final decision about circumcision, after appropriate information is gathered about the risks and benefits of the procedure. By doing this, the AAP attempts to shift the liability for the certain injury of child non-therapeutic circumcision from the doctor to the parents.
The 2012 statement is a shift in the Academy's position from its 1999 statement in that the academy 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>
<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". The AAP received further criticism from activist groups that oppose [[circumcision]]."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Academy_of_Pediatrics</ref></p></blockquote>