So supposedly the AAP will release a statement saying that while they don’t recommend routine circumcision for all infant makes, they state that the medical benefits outweigh the medical risks….
(um, I’m sorry, death or deformity is not a risk I’m willing my son to take for the sake of unnecessary cosmetic surgery. Moreover, both intact and circumcised males can get UTIs, and both need to practice daily hygiene and safe sex. Wrap it up! No need to cut babies.
Anyone who has an intact husband and/or son knows that 1/2 of these benefits are bogus. They say circumcision prevents, prevents, prevents… Prevents means 100%… Circumcision only has the possibility of reducing not preventing penile problems. Most intact men will never have a problem. There is no need to cut babies on the possibility of a problem. Circumcised men have problems as well(skin bridges, scars, painful erections, meatal stenosis, dry glans, hairy shaft- these are circ complications)
Point being- babies don’t have sex. Babies are not retractable so there is no penile hygiene to worry about. Babies are human beings. Babies grow into adults. Let the adult make the decision to modify their body or not based on current medical thinking)
The AAP’s treatment of the issue is in sharp contrast to that of other countries, such as the Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG), which roundly condems the practice. In May, a court in Cologne, Germany, ruled that circumcision of a healthy boy was bodily harm under the Basic Law.
One member of the task force on male circumcision, Dr Douglas Diekema, has hinted that the policy would lean further towards recommending genital cutting of healthy babies in the USA, in the light of studies of male volunteers for the adult operation in high-HIV-prevalance areas of Africa that seemed to show a reduction in their – but not women’s – acquistion of HIV by heterosexual intercourse. (To the contrary, one study suggested male circumcision might increasethe risk to women. USAID surveys of HIV rates show higher rates among circumcised than non-circumcised men, in a majority of the countries for which it has figures.)
Dr Diekema was the chair of the AAP’s Bioethics Committee in 2010 when it issued a policy that would allow a token, ritual nick to girls’ genitals “much less extensive than neonatal male genital cutting”. An outcry by anti-FGC organisations, led by Intact America, caused the policy to be “retired” within a month.
Speaking in more general terms, Dr Diekema has said under oath “I fully agree with the Bioethics Committee of the American Academy of Pediatrics when they state:
“…[P]roviders have legal and ethical duties to their child patients to render competent medical care based on what the patient needs, not what someone else expresses. … The pediatrician’s responsibilities to his or her patient exist independent of parental desires or proxy consent.”
– but he has never applied this to male infant circumcision.
“Ethical and human rights concerns have been raised regarding elective infant male circumcision because it is recognized that the foreskin has a functional role, the operation is non-therapeutic and the infant is unable to consent.
. Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors conflicts with the child’s right to autonomy and physical integrity
�The BMA does not believe that parental preference alone constitutes sufficient grounds for performing a surgical procedure on a child unable to express his own view
�Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed.�