Doctors Group: AAP conflict of interest hampers honest circumcision policy

**GenitalIntegrityNow** · 06-03-08, 11:53 PM

A non-profit doctors group has issued a policy statement on protecting the genital integrity of male infants and children. The independent report provides what the group claims major American medical associations have not; An evidence-based policy for the well-being of children, free from conflicts of interest. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is deeply conflicted, and its policy statements reflect "an ongoing tug-of-war between the two opposing forces who seek to dominate the AAP’s circumcision policy," says Doctors Opposing Circumcision. Consequently, "AAP circumcision policy statements are compromises that have scant relationship to the real evidence."

The medical literature relating to male circumcision is polarized by the 130-year-old debate between the circumcised doctors and the others; the AAP may be equally polarized with respect to non-therapeutic male circumcision because of the presence of so many circumcised doctors within its fellowship.

The report, which includes review of "the position of the circumcision of male children under international human rights law, domestic law, and contemporary bioethics," concludes "America needs and is ready for a new policy of genital integrity for its children."

The Genital Integrity Policy Statement is published at the group's website and in pdf format.

**Prince_James** · 06-04-08, 12:41 AM

We don't need idealogues pushing a single and warped agenda.

"Genital Integrity" is as nonsensical as it is ridiculous, both as a term, and as a concept.

**GenitalIntegrityNow** · 06-04-08, 08:18 AM

Originally Posted by Prince_James

We don't need idealogues pushing a single and warped agenda.

"Genital Integrity" is as nonsensical as it is ridiculous, both as a term, and as a concept.

It's odd that there is need for this concept. Were it common to trim off part of a newborn's nose for such reasons as "to look more like daddy" then we would need a Facial Integrity Policy as well.

**Prince_James** · 06-04-08, 08:29 AM

Circumcision is a cosmetic, cultural, and cleanliness feature which does no harm to anyone involved. Your penile insecurities aside.

**~~lepustimidus~~** · 06-04-08, 08:40 AM

Originally Posted by Prince_James

Circumcision is a cosmetic, cultural, and cleanliness feature which does no harm to anyone involved.

Except for the baby who has a layer of skin scraped off his dick.

**GenitalIntegrityNow** · 06-04-08, 08:46 AM

Originally Posted by Prince_James

Circumcision is a cosmetic, cultural, and cleanliness feature which does no harm to anyone involved. Your penile insecurities aside.

Doctors may ethically perform cosmetic amputations on informed and consenting adults who want it for cultural or perceived hygienic reasons. The practice of such surgery on newborns, however, ethically requires a medical indication.

**Bells** · 06-04-08, 08:47 AM

Originally Posted by Prince_James

Circumcision is a cosmetic, cultural, and cleanliness feature which does no harm to anyone involved. Your penile insecurities aside.

Except for the newborn baby boy, who is having his foreskin sliced off, burnt off or tied up so it rots and falls off.

Aside from the fact that the penis is not fully developed at birth and it continues to grow after the child is born, hence why you are advised to never ever push the foreskin back as it can damage their penis, removal of the foreskin in newborn baby boys is a painful procedure that is, for the most part, unnecessary. The only time a baby boy should be circumcised is if the foreskin is too tight at birth, impending the natural flow of urine (as one example). If there is no medical reason to remove it, why would you want to?

The foreskin - also known as the prepuce - is the fold of skin that normally covers and protects the glans of the penis.

The foreskin's inside fold is mucous membrane, like the inside of the mouth, and keeps the surface of the glans soft, moist and sensitive.

The foreskin contains a rich supply of blood vessels and a dense concentration of nerve endings.

The frenulum, the fold of tissue on the underside of the penis, secures the foreskin in its forward position.

Specialized erogenous tissue, named the ridged band, encircles the foreskin at its mucocutaneous junction (where the foreskin's inside and outside folds meet).

(Source)

A child is more at risk of infection after having a circumcision, than he would be if he kept his foreskin. The foreskin actually acts as a form of protection for the penis itself. Again, why would you want to remove it?

**Prince_James** · 06-04-08, 09:38 AM

Genitalintegritynow:

Doctors may ethically perform cosmetic amputations on informed and consenting adults who want it for cultural or perceived hygienic reasons. The practice of such surgery on newborns, however, ethically requires a medical indication.

Parents have medical discretion and power of attorney over their infants. They are the deciders.

**Prince_James** · 06-04-08, 09:40 AM

Bells:

Aside from the fact that the penis is not fully developed at birth and it continues to grow after the child is born, hence why you are advised to never ever push the foreskin back as it can damage their penis, removal of the foreskin in newborn baby boys is a painful procedure that is, for the most part, unnecessary. The only time a baby boy should be circumcised is if the foreskin is too tight at birth, impending the natural flow of urine (as one example). If there is no medical reason to remove it, why would you want to?

Painful procedure? The procedure is quick and done in hospitals with anaesthia. Even if not, the child will forget it.

A child is more at risk of infection after having a circumcision, than he would be if he kept his foreskin. The foreskin actually acts as a form of protection for the penis itself. Again, why would you want to remove it?

Infection is no problem. A topical antibiotic cures that problem, or a mild oral one.

It is a cosmetic procedure no more damaging to the organ than ear piercing is to it.

**spidergoat** · 06-04-08, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by Prince_James

Circumcision is a cosmetic, cultural, and cleanliness feature which does no harm to anyone involved. Your penile insecurities aside.

Bullshit, it's barbaric and mostly unnecessary. I am constantly amazed how slanted the advice is about it in popular media. I am circumsized, and I haven't forgotten it. How dare they make that decision for me?

**GenitalIntegrityNow** · 06-04-08, 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by Prince_James

Parents have medical discretion and power of attorney over their infants. They are the deciders.

Parents can ask a doctor to remove their infant's eyelids, lips, and foreskin, but a doctor is ethically obligated to refuse unless there is a medical indication for the surgery.

**GenitalIntegrityNow** · 06-04-08, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by spidergoat

Bullshit, it's barbaric and mostly unnecessary. I am constantly amazed how slanted the advice is about it in popular media. I am circumsized, and I haven't forgotten it. How dare they make that decision for me?

Popular media play a role, but if you read the Genital Integrity Policy Statement it's pretty clear that the root bias can be traced to the doctors. When the associations of doctors adopt a Genital Integrity Policy, the circumcision rate will plummet as it did in Australia and Canada. Without cover of their medical associations, the liability risk is too great.

**Prince_James** · 06-04-08, 10:09 AM

Spidergoat:

Bullshit, it's barbaric and mostly unnecessary. I am constantly amazed how slanted the advice is about it in popular media. I am circumsized, and I haven't forgotten it. How dare they make that decision for me?

"How dare they?" They are your parents. Get over it. You've lost nothing and you remember nothing. It is also hardly "barbaric". Plus, aren't you a Jew? Forgive me if I am mistaken, but if you are, be proud of your heritage.

**Prince_James** · 06-04-08, 10:10 AM

GenitalIntegrityNow:

Parents can ask a doctor to remove their infant's eyelids, lips, and foreskin, but a doctor is ethically obligated to refuse unless there is a medical indication for the surgery.

No he isn't whatsoever. Cosmetic procedures are not matters of ethical concern. Removing the eyelids would prevent sleep and would ruin the eyesight - that would a medical procedure. REmoving the lips would also be problematic.

Your position is flawed and your ideology one of Freudia penis obsession.

**spidergoat** · 06-04-08, 10:22 AM

Originally Posted by Prince_James

Spidergoat:

"How dare they?" They are your parents. Get over it. You've lost nothing and you remember nothing. It is also hardly "barbaric". Plus, aren't you a Jew? Forgive me if I am mistaken, but if you are, be proud of your heritage.

I lost nothing? It's only the most highly dense area of nerves on your body. I have precious little other pleasure in life, and they want to rob me of that? I respect my heritage, but not this practice. I don't see what it has to do with religion anyway, it's just a custom. You know, we have running water now, and soap at every small grocery store. There is no area of the body on a man that gets more attention.

**GenitalIntegrityNow** · 06-04-08, 10:24 AM

Prince_James, you will need to educate yourself on the structure and function of normal male anatomy before discussing this effectively.

**Prince_James** · 06-04-08, 10:28 AM

Spidergoat:

I lost nothing? It's only the most highly dense area of nerves on your body. I have precious little other pleasure in life, and they want to rob me of that?

Ask circumsized men v. uncircumsized men if they have a more satisfying sex life. You will find few say they do.

**Prince_James** · 06-04-08, 10:29 AM

GenitalIntegrityNow:

Prince_James, you will need to educate yourself on the structure and function of normal male anatomy before discussing this effectively.

I dare say I know a lot more about cocks than you, my good man.

**GenitalIntegrityNow** · 06-04-08, 10:36 AM

Prince_James, the Genital Integrity Policy statement discusses structures and functions of normal male anatomy with which you may be unfamiliar, in Chapter 2. You should read it.

**Simon Anders** · 06-04-08, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by Prince_James

We don't need idealogues pushing a single and warped agenda.

So this would include all religous people who advocate and carry out circumcisions. It would also include all the doctors during that period in American history, for example, who cut off pretty much every male babies foreskin, including my own, for that matter. These people were pushing a single warped agenda.

It's funny that asserting that we should not, in general, cut off a part of someone's body, is seen as a warped or extreme ideological position. One that needs defending.

I mean hell we leave the appendix in until there is an emergency with the thing and we've stopped being so carefree about the removal of the tonsils - once thought to be just a lump of useless flesh.