What the current position of the American academy of Pediatrics with respect to male circumcision for infants?
- Anonymous8 years agoFavorite Answer
Let's not kid ourselves - if it makes them money THEY'LL DO IT !
- abidLv 45 years ago
Yes however they also say they do not know the hazards. Meanwhile the Pediatricians of other countries have famous that the advantages are not real and the hazards are huge. The U.S. Undertaking drive has ZERO reference. Do ANY medical professionals which have all of their typical genitals recommend that toddlers have elements reduce off? Many cut men do not regret circumcision as they have got no clue about what they lost. And that is the point, these guys do not pass over the 20000 pleasure nerves because they have no reference? Like a color blind individual not figuring out the value of colour sight or a one eye person no longer figuring out the value of 3D sight. This staff of persons making statements about advantages vs risks, after they do not recognize the harm (how would they), could be funny however for the entire mutilations and sexual dysfunction that they're going to reason. How can individuals have an opinion on this and but suppose that what is reduce is a flap of skin? The parts have hundreds of thousands of specialised nerve endings. These are the most innervated elements of the HUMAN MALE. The constituents cut off shut down a massive a part of the kid’s/man’s sensory approach. That can by no means be again (it is shut down for just right). Additionally, many cut guys have sexual perform problems from the of sexual exercise. However, most will get ED at a a lot more youthful age than they might in any other case (reduce men are four.5 instances as prone to get ED). Disgrace on the AAP for now not due to the fact the damage! Have they no feel of decency? Primarily pediatricians will have to First do no damage!
- e wLv 78 years ago
The position is that they make big bucks from mutilating the genitals of male infants.
They charge the parents for hacking off the most sensitive part of the male anatomy, forcing genital mutilation and violating the rights of the child.
Then, they turn around and sell the amputated infant's foreskin for about $300, to use in such things as cosmetic creams---(google foreskin cosmetics, if you don't believe me), and they get around the law prohibiting the sale of body parts by claiming that it's "medical waste."
Many of these doctors also belong to the religions that try to impose male genital mutilation, called circumcision, on all males.
Gee, do you think that these doctors might be biased because of the money and religion?
The rights of the child are never considered.
It's illegal to circumcise female minors, but males don't have equal protection under the law, which is sexist in the extreme and unconstitional as such.
Circumcision is a fraud and a hoax.
The foreskin is not a birth defect; it is a birthright.
- PhilLv 68 years ago
They claim based on studies done in Africa (highly controversial, by the way) that the "benefits" outweigh the risks.
However, they don't discuss any of the risks (which include DEATH). Even no complications from the surgery, the penis is forever changed, so in that sense, there are always risks to EVERY circumcision because it weakens the penis.
APA is the only medical organization IN THE WORLD to have such a lax stance on circumcision. If they can't actually recommend it and draw a conclusion from the "research", how can they expect parents to do it?
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous8 years ago
Barcode has quoted accurately from the Policy Statement.
The current position is to acknowledge that circumcision has very distinct and proven medical advantages, but like all surgery there are some risks - small though they may be. Parents have a right and duty to decide for their children what medical treatment they should receive (including vaccinations and circumcision) but physicians have a duty to provide unbiased information to assist them in making those decisions.
Note that doctors would make much more money by treating the many problems that these pages show arise for teens and adults from lack of circumcision. If money were their main concern they would not perform infant circumcisions and then earn more later from the resulting problems. A new study published this week shows that the net cost to Medicaid of not covering infant circumcisions and treating only the problems is actually greater than the cost of covering all infant circumcisions.
- LuciusLv 78 years ago
Most medical organizations recommend against circumcision, the mediocre benefits, if there even are any, are not worth the cons of the surgery, such as a 75% reduction in sexual pleasure and 4x increased risk of ED. The AAP is heavily biased as it's motivated by the billions of dollars in profits from circumcision and they often themselves are circumcised so they don't understand what they are taking away from other human beings.
No one in their right mind would say, "I don't mind reducing my sexual pleasure by up to 75% to have a slight decreased risk of penile cancer." Which penile cancer is so rare more child will actually die from circumcision than penile cancer, yet they have the tenacity to list it as a health benefit.
- Anonymous8 years ago
currently they leave it up to parents to do their own research and let their doctors know of their decision, rather than taking a medical approach and encouraging medical practitioners to advise parents about the medical facts. They claim the "benefits" outweigh the risks, but the benefits they speak of are not medical or anything to do with health, and the risks are not explained beyond the general risks of surgery to do with anesthetic and they use the term "risk of infection" without really explaining what sets circumcisions apart from other surgeries. They also don't consider any sexual implications, pain nor any other factors in making their statement. Hence their position statement is far from unanimous within the AAP with many members disagreeing with the statements pertaining to benefits. And others believe as a medical organization they have a responsibility to inform the public as to the medical issues surrounding circumcision, and others believe it should be the job of pediatricians to inform parents and patients rather than simply telling them to do their own research and tell the pediatrician of their decision.
Therefore even though performing circumcisions can net pediatricians up to $100,000 a year extra in their salaries (same as for ob/gyn's), many vehemently oppose the current statement, just as they opposed the 2010 statement in favor of FGM which was later retracted. Their position on circumcision is equally as damnable considering what is now known about penile anatomy, the foreskin and what's known medically about the procedure and risks (they certainly aren't minor - in fact in 2003 it was discussed that circumcision should end due to the increase in the rate of MRSA from circumcisions, and since then the rate has dramatically increased, the rate of necrotizing faciitus has skyrocketed as with the rate of all infections many of which are antibiotic resistant and are classed as superbugs, and with the studies into pain and the long-term affects with even the FBI noting a link between circumcision and violent crimes)
Basically, with circumcision contravening so many international Articles and technically currently being illegal, the position definitely seems to have more to do with legalities as well as the US funding of the circumcision programs in Africa and as many adults who were circumcised as babies suing the doctors, it's to try to offer protection to doctors.
tldr version: They say to do your own research regarding the matter and don't look to them for advise.
"Note that doctors would make much more money by treating the many problems that these pages show arise for teens and adults from lack of circumcision." Not exactly. The majority of problems in these pages arise from loose circumcisions and the forcible retraction of intact foreskins and have been noted worldwide that they ONLY occur in countries where circumcision was recently performed and ONLY occur as a result of misinformation. And even then, the treatment, if any, is simple, non-invasive and painless and only very rarely requires medication or surgery.
- MerlinLv 78 years ago
Of having their cake and eating it.
The Purpose and Policy of the AAP is to maximise Income for their members
whilst appearing to be Ethical and Morally Responsible
and dumping the blame on to Parents for their decision,
whilst grabbing the lion's share of the widening market,
now that fewer circumcisions are done at birth.
- JackieNoLv 78 years ago
They do not recommend baby boy penis parts removal but they claim the benefits are greater than the risks. Many (including Pediatric Drs. of other countries) think they are doing this to avoid being sued for doing harm (see other countiries views below).
The AAP task force are just cut men that so so want there to be a reason for the state of their penis. Of course they don't have a clue about what their natural penis was like so they have no reference and they don't value the erogenous tissue with some 20000 fine touch and stretch nerve endings as well as cutting blood vessels and removing a large part of outer skin and equal sensitive inner foreskin greatly affects sexual function and pleasure.
Consider a real expert as to what is amputated!
I would expect that anyone that watches this would never cut off parts their baby boy. :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD2yW7AaZFw
In the US population the cut men get HIV at the same rate as natural (intact) men. Mostly natural Europe gets HIV at a lower rate than mostly cut America. The AAP is changing their statement based on claims from Africa of HIV studies. These contradict real population data from Africa where circumcised men get HIV at the same rate or an even higher rate as natural men. Numerous studies document that erectile dysfunction and loss of sensitivity is a significant issue for cut men. There is no STD advantage, just sexual dysfunction.
Shame on the AAP for not considering the harm! Have they no sense of decency?
Especially pediatricians should First do no harm!
Viewpoint of the the Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG):
"The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organisations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity. Contrary to popular belief, circumcision can cause complications – bleeding, infection, urethral stricture and panic attacks are particularly common. KNMG is therefore urging a strong policy of deterrence. KNMG is calling upon doctors to actively and insistently inform parents who are considering the procedure of the absence of medical benefits and the danger of complications."
Statement of the Germany’s official Pediatric Association, the Berufsverband der Kinder- und Jugendärtze (BVKJ):
"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 report’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."
- BarcodeLv 78 years ago
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS
Circumcision Policy Statement
The practice of medicine has long respected an adult's right to self-determination in health care decision-making. This principle has been operationalized through the doctrine of informed consent. The process of informed consent obligates the physician to explain any procedure or treatment and to enumerate the risks, benefits, and alternatives for the patient to make an informed choice. For infants and young children who lack the capacity to decide for themselves, a surrogate, generally a parent, must make such choices.118
Parents and physicians each have an ethical duty to the child to attempt to secure the child's best interest and well-being.119 However, it is often uncertain as to what is in the best interest of any individual patient. In cases such as the decision to perform a circumcision in the neonatal period when there are potential benefits and risks and the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, it should be the parents who determine what is in the best interest of the child. In the pluralistic society of the United States in which parents are afforded wide authority for determining what constitutes appropriate child-rearing and child welfare, it is legitimate for the parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to medical factors, when making this choice.119
Physicians counseling families concerning this decision should assist the parents by explaining the potential benefits and risks and by ensuring that they understand that circumcision is an elective procedure. Parents should not be coerced by medical professionals to make this choice.
Previous SectionNext Section
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. It is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to the medical factors, when making this decision. Analgesia is safe and effective in reducing the procedural pain associated with circumcision; therefore, if a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided. If circumcision is performed in the newborn period, it should only be done on infants who are stable and healthy.