American Academy of Pediatrics says circumcision benefits outweigh risks

Download PDF Copy

Aug 28 2012

Shifting its stance, the pediatricians' group now says the benefits of circumcising boys to protect against disease outweighs the risk, but that the decision should be up to parents.

The New York Times: Benefits Of Circumcision Are Said To Outweigh Risks
The American Academy of Pediatrics has shifted its stance on infant male circumcision, announcing on Monday that new research, including studies in Africa suggesting that the procedure may protect heterosexual men against H.I.V., indicated that the health benefits outweighed the risks (Rabin, 8/27).

Los Angeles Times: Pediatricians' Group Shifts In Favor Of Circumcision
The American Academy of Pediatrics has shifted its official position on the contentious issue of infant circumcision, stating Monday that the medical benefits of the procedure for baby boys outweigh the small risks (Brown, 8/26).

The Associated Press/Washington Post: Circumcision Benefits Outweigh Risks And Insurers Should Pay; Pediatricians Revise Stance
The nation's most influential pediatricians group says the health benefits of circumcision in newborn boys outweigh any risks and insurance companies should pay for it. In its latest policy statement on circumcision, a procedure that has been declining nationwide, the American Academy of Pediatrics moves closer to an endorsement but says the decision should be up to parents (8/27).

WBUR: Influential AAP Says Health Benefits Of Circumcision Trumps Risk
The American Academy of Pediatrics new policy statement today asserting that the health benefits of male circumcision outweigh the risks will inevitably set off a firestorm of reaction. Even while the pediatrics group continued to reiterate in their paper that circumcision is a personal family decision best left up to "parents in consultation with their child's doctor" folks who oppose the procedure and equate it with genital mutilation will certainly not be pleased (Zimmerman, 8/27).

This article was reprinted from kaiserhealthnews.org with permission from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Kaiser Health News, an editorially independent news service, is a program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health care policy research organization unaffiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Posted in: Child Health News | Men's Health News | Medical Procedure News

Tags: Baby, Circumcision, Consultation, Doctor, Health Care, HIV, HIV/AIDS, HIV-1, Newborn, Pediatrics, Research

Comments (2)

Download PDF Copy

Comments

cutting parts off babies' genitals is still wrong

Mark Lyndon says:

August 28, 2012 at 7:04 AM

The AAP are way out of line with other national medical organizations, and it's very disappointing that they say this:
"Parents are entitled to factually correct, nonbiased information about circumcision"

but they provide information that is both biased and highly selective. They simply don't seem to consider that the foreskin might actually be valuable.

It's really easy to find circumcised doctors who are against circumcision, but surprisingly difficult to find male doctors in favor who weren't circumcised themselves as children.

How strange that all the health benefits the AAP claim don't seem to exist in Europe, where almost no-one circumcises unless they're Jewish or Muslim.

The AAP is the same organization that changed its policy on female cutting in 2010 btw saying "It might be more effective if federal and state laws enabled pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a ritual [clitoral] nick as a possible compromise to avoid greater harm."
They were forced to retract this about six weeks later:

Dr Diekema, the chair of the committee said "We're talking about something far less extensive than the removal of foreskin in a male".

I suppose it's a good thing they didn't look at operating on girls to prevent breast cancer. 11% of women get breast cancer, and 3% die of it, so the health benefits to the girls would massively outweigh the risks.

Meanwhile, other national health organizations including the Canadian Paediatric Society and the Dutch Medical Association continue to recommend *against* circumcising newborns.

0 0

Reply