No announcement yet.

The CDC and AAP Statements

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The CDC and AAP Statements

    When debating circumcision from a medical standpoint, people bring up the "benefits outweigh the risks" canard. The CDC and AAP both have pro MGM articles, which are quite silly. That said, most people have the 'trust the doctor' instinct, and will go with the terrible arguments made by the AAP and CDC. I am wondering if there is a list of their baseless claims, with rebuttals to each and every claim, point by point? And if not, perhaps this is something which could be created by forum members, such as myself?

  • #2
    If you are a physician, or better yet well versed in human physiology, then go for it. If you aren't, and aren't familiar with the informed arguments against circumcision damage vs penile function, then it's easy to fail.


    • #3
      Originally posted by savethechildren View Post
      The CDC and AAP both have pro MGM articles
      Of course the AAP needs an article on proper genital care for boys. Instead they published a policy on circumcision. But they presently have NO POLICY. The one on their site is maintained for reference, but it expired in 2017.

      The CDC bases its policy statement in part on the expired AAP policy.

      No medical association on earth endorse forced genital cutting of healthy minors. Informed adults can decide for themselves.

      Originally posted by want_to_restore521 View Post
      most people have the 'trust the doctor' instinct, and will go with the terrible arguments made by the AAP and CDC.
      That would be a disastrous mistake. The expired AAP policy statement - without considering ethics or what the foreskin is or does - says there are enough benefits that parents should be allowed to choose circumcision for their kids. But the sorts of benefits they cite would be akin to claiming "no cavities" as a benefit of extracting every tooth upon eruption. They state in their policy that the benefits outweigh the risks and then in the same breath state that the risks are unknown. They're just careless: They acknowledge that death from circumcision is irrelevant, and state that no deaths occurred during a certain calendar year (WHEREIN one can easily find circumcision deaths in the year's news headlines).

      Representatives of medical associations around the world have starkly denounced the AAP statement as hopelessly biased for a pro-cutting culture and lacking in ethical considerations. For a well-footnoted policy statement that does consider ethics, look to nearly any other country, and in particular Holland: (pdf attached).

      Originally posted by want_to_restore521 View Post
      I am wondering if there is a list of their baseless claims, with rebuttals to each and every claim, point by point?
      For sure.


      Attached Files
      -Ron Low
      [email protected]
      847 414-1692 Chicago


      • #4
        You might find this helpful:

        and this:



        • #5
          1. One thing to keep in mind is that any "medical" interaction between physicians and the parents of young children which might lead to circumcision, is fairly closely governed by several sets of accepted guidelines (Milliman Guidlines, as an exmple) which mandate the presence of thus far intractable disease or damage to the penile foreskin before circ can be reuested and performed. Those guidelines are set in place and used by representatives of various medical insurance carriers to review those requests. These carriers hire a medical officer to sit at the head of this process, and the reps (the ones who actually review the request from the urologist or whatever the specialist is requesting approval and payment for circ) are trained in the review process.

          2. As stated above, the specialist must request approval from the insurance carrier, and his request must be based in, and meet, evidence-based information. This specialist is aware of these nationally used guidelines, and his patient notes and history must reflect at least several exams, and ongoing intractable condition which has not responded to several treatments.

          3. Note that I stated one pivotal factor in this process is compensation. For the specialist to be compensated for the procedure, there has to be clinical evidence for it, or his request won't be approved, and he won't be paid for it. Money money

          4. Any intactivist worth this salt has to figure out where in all of this an effective conversation must happen. If your plan was to call attention to any failure of this process to the primary players, where would you step in?