I don’t read German and I don’t have a translator on my phone, however someone posted this link and roughly translated it saying the the German Pediatric Association has come out against the German Draft law on circumcision and the AAP’s (american pediatric association) recent stance on circumcision.
This should be the link in German
(Direct copy paste)
I just learned that the German professional association of pediatricians (BVKJ) released a statement which criticizes both the German draft law on circumcision and the new AAP circumcision Task Force Report. There are plans for a larger report with an AAP rebuttal written in English.
You should be able to download the statement here:
It’s in German but Google translate should work fine to give you a rough idea. On page 4, they raise an incredibly important point (translated by me):
The much cited AAP circumcision task report contradicts previous AAP reports without being able to cite any new scientific evidence.
While the statement is in German, the abstract at the bottom of the document is in English:
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recently released its new technical report and policy statement on male circumcision, concluding that current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks. The technical report is based on the scrutiny of a large number of complex scientific articles. Therefore, while striving for objectivity, the conclusions drawn by the eight task force members reflect what these individual doctors perceived as trustworthy evidence. Seen from the outside, cultural bias reflecting the normality of non-therapeutic male circumcision in the US seems obvious, and the reportâ€™s conclusions are different from those reached by doctors in other parts of the Western world, including Europe, Canada, and Australia. In this commentary, a quite different view is presented by non-US-based doctors and representatives of general medical associations and societies for pediatrics, pediatric surgery and
pediatric urology in Northern Europe. To these authors, there is but one of the arguments put forward by the AAP that has some theoretical relevance in relation to infant male circumcision, namely the possible protection against urinary tract infections in infant boys, which can be easily treated with antibiotics without tissue loss.
The other claimed health benefits, including protection against HIV/AIDS, genital herpes, genital warts and penile cancer, are questionable, weak and likely to have little public health relevance in a Western context, and do not represent compelling reasons for surgery before boys are old enough to decide for themselves.