Sunday, August 26, 2012

AAP: Call Them Out

The impending release of the new AAP position statement has been leaked, and it is already causing outrage among those who understand the issues.

Although the new position statement is basically the same as the last one, ignoring the ethical issue, overblowing the so-called "benefits," minimizing the risks and harms of circumcision and never actually coming to a reasonable conclusion, this one relies myopically on select "studies," namely the so-called "research" in Africa, and leans the furthest toward an actual recommendation, never actually making one.

Basically, pro-circumcision bias dominates the AAP, and the so-called "circumcision task force" has decided to release a self-serving position that tries to, but stops short of, making infant circumcision a medical indication. As in their last statement, they conclude, quite correctly, that even the latest "evidence" is not enough to recommend infant circumcision. However, they continue to say that parents, most of whom have never been to medical school, should weigh the same evidence and come up with their own conclusion.

Worse than this, the statement goes on to talk about how best to brainwash parents about the "benefits of circumcision" so that they can make the "right decision." Using select "research" as a pretext, certain racial groups are targeted and profiled as being disease prone (essentially non-circumcising groups, surprise, surprise), and focus a great deal on how they can increase circumcision rates in these ethnic groups. In other words, the AAP, with the endorsement of other medical trade unions with circumcising members are openly discussing the market and how the market share should be divided.

Essentially, stating that "the evidence is not enough to recommend circumcision" is pure lip service, followed by an entire sales pitch which has been backed by other medical trade unions with circumcising physicians with money to lose.

This seems to be the only instance in medicine where doctors, with their years of training and important-sounding credentials, are suddenly too stupid to know whether or not a surgical procedure is warranted in a healthy, non-consenting child. This seems to be the only instance in medicine where ethicists, who are supposed to be experts in their field, are suddenly dumbfounded.

The new AAP statement is complete hogwash, and the so-called "circumcision taskforce" has chosen in favor of protecting AAP members' financial interests and reputation; they self-servingly focus on just the "research" that favors their view, while ignoring evidence that is devastating practitioners of male infant circumcision. The AAP circumcision "task force" members are corrupt and couldn't care less about the health and well-being of children.

Furthermore, the AAP embarrasses itself by publishing conclusions that are inconsistent with the rest of Western medicine. In doing so, they not only embarrass themselves, but also American medicine as a whole.

Although the AAP does not recommend circumcision, and it is still true that no national medical association in the world does, their new position makes the claim that "the benefits outweigh the harms," based on flawed research, and it tries to justify physicians who profit from performing non-medical surgical procedures on healthy, non-consenting individuals.

Furthermore, based on this self-serving claim, they go on to say that public coffers should reimburse their members, and circumcising members of other, non-related physician trade organizations, such as ACOG, where doctors whose profession is the care of women, are operating on male children.

The new AAP statement was written not with the interest of child health and well-being, but with the interests of its circumcising members, and circumcising physicians in other medical fields. Basically, circumcising doctors in other medical fields, as well as circumcision advocates, have conspired with the AAP to write a document that grants physicians that circumcise healthy, non-consenting children, immunity, the health, well-being and basic human rights of children be damned.

TAKE ACTION: Call the AAP out!!!
There are currently efforts to call the AAP out on their new statement. A petition can be signed here, and Facebook users can learn about a letter-writing campaign here. See if there is a protest being organized in your area.


Rebuttal to the new statement
I don't have time to go through the entire AAP 2012 statement, and I feel it's mostly bullshit I cover on my blog anyway. (IE, the whole HIV/circumcision farce, cancer etc.) It's all basically the same old worn "benefits" circumcision advocates try to re-hash. Others, however, have taken the liberty to taker a shot at the AAP statement in its entirety. A good critique of the new AAP statement can be seen here.

PS - New "Connect" Page
I find that I have increasingly less time to cover the issue of circumcision. I do have a job and a life, and recently those have taken up most of my time. Luckily, though, the intactivist movement has grown exponentially since I've been an intactivist, and, perhaps more than ever, this issue is being given a lot more attention. The subject is no longer the taboo "non-issue" circumcision advocates wish it would continue to be.

I will of course keep tackling this issue as much as I can, but I will not always be able to. For this reason I have taken the liberty of compiling a list of resources, such as circumcision news sources, my favorite blogs, organizations etc., and putting them on a page on my blog. You will notice a bar of links; to access my links page, click on "Connect." I will be updating this page as I find more stuff, so check back regularly.


  1. Is the fight lost now that the AAP has endorsed the practice of circumcision? Will many people be subjected to brainwash now that the AAP has said it's "ok"?

    Will other health organizations around the world second the APP like sheep or will they stand strong against them?

    News around the world in the English speaking countries are saying that it's ok because the AAP has published new research that circumcision benefits outweigh the risks and can help prevent the spread of diseases.

    I wonder how long will it take for this bull#$%& of info infiltrate to non-circumcising countries and fall for this pseudo-scientific "facts".

    This is sad.

  2. Read the fine print, Manny.

    The AAP has NOT endorsed the practice of circumcision, but has instead decided to publish a number of self-contradictions and "conclusions" that no other medical organization has come to.

    Note the inconsistency in their report; the very AAP says, after all its beating around the bush, that the evidence is not enough to recommend infant circumcision... BUT, still enough that "parents should consider it, and have access to it" and that the state should fork over the cash.

    In short, the AAP is trying to make asses of Americans and the rest of the world, but will, in the end, prove to be making asses out of themselves.

    Let it be clear; the AAP has not published any "new research." As far as I'm concerned, the AAP is a trade organization, not some institution that publishes "research." They are merely publishing the "research" that suits the interests of their circumcising members and the pro-circumcision "task force."

    Don't lose heart; in other countries, circumcision is either not recommended, or outrightly condemned. Look at what's happening all over Europe; it is (at least for the moment) age-restricted in Cologne, Germany, and the Danes are considering something similar. I hear similar measures are being considered in Tasmania, near Australia.

    The AAP is trying to hide the moon; but, I have the firm belief that, like the moon, and the sun, truth cannot be hidden for very long.

    The AAP has tried to endorse a "ritual nick" for girls TWICE in the past already, and they had to retract their statement.

    Don't forget that; this is just a self-serving "statement." These can always be retracted when others show how absolutely ridiculous it is.

    Remember slavery, remember the oppression of women. Remember the laws and "statements" that favored them; they are now a part of this country's shameful history.

    Circumcision is headed in that direction.

    1. I'm confused.

      I've seen videos on the Internet (which I have posted on the FR Forum) regarding this AAP topic and read in my mother tongue news about it and I understand that although the AAP does not -openly- recommend RIC or circumcision in general, it does say the -benefits outweigh the risks- (justifying the practice) which essentially means and they're practically saying that it's "ok" to circumcise which unaware people will mostly and likely understand that way, right?

      Here is a link to a short video about it: