Experts Who Shaped U.S. Circumcision Policy Now Voice Doubts

natlawreview.com/press-releas...

A supposedly evidence based medical organization shouldn’t be relying on non medical beliefs to justify a policy that violates medical ethical rules

Vaccines are good, but I think in other cases like circumcision we’ve allowed cultural beliefs to dictate medical policy, as two AAP circumcision task force members recently stated that they couldn’t recommend it on medical benefits alone. now we are trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube

Vaccines are good but they pushed circumcision despite the largest studies showing it gives no std protection, they seem to pick and choose when they follow the science

@ameracadpeds.bsky.social

Any chance you could spend a fraction of your time and start recognizing the benefits of the foreskin and align your policy with every other developed country? Place human rights and medical ethics above profits?

The foreskin has benefits and shouldn’t be removed

From the medical organization that still doesn’t list the benefits and functions of the foreskin, has a misleading expired statement on circumcision as their most recent statement, which was counter to every other developed country’s policy, where they don’t cut @ameracadpeds.bsky.social

Maybe the AAP @ameracadpeds.bsky.social should take its own advice here and join the rest of the world in recommending AGAINST circumcision as it is harmful and unnecessary, the foreskin has benefits

Experts Who Shaped U.S. Circumcision Policy Now Voice Doubts

natlawreview.com/press-releas...

Public money also shouldn’t go to fund Medicaid circumcisions, even the AAP doesn’t recommend them to be routine

The rest of the world generally doesn’t even do it

Experts Who Shaped U.S. Circumcision Policy Now Voice Doubts

@ameracadpeds.bsky.social
How about we start using medical considerations alone to choose circumcision policies instead of cultural and legal reasons

Or at least acknowledge the foreskin has benefits?

natlawreview.com/press-releas...

Vaccines are good people, circumcision is bad. When we allow circumcision for parental preferences and ignore that every other country doesn’t see the value in it, but we do it anyway, it is hard to then criticize parental preferences in vaccines

AAP needs to make recommendations on health alone

@who.int every child deserves intact, damage free genitals. Boys should have the full sensation and gliding sheath function the foreskin provides. You should be advocating against circumcision

@who.int should health include mental health? If so should the WHO start advocating against circumcision, since that is damaging, traumatic and unnecessary?

Vaccines are great, it’s circumcision harm that we really need to stop forcing on children.

And take away their bodily rights via unnecessary and damaging circumcision, while they cry about non existent transgender surgeries on minors and fail to see the hypocrisy

How about an effort against male genital mutilation (circumcision) ?

Why isn’t is a human rights issue that men lose the most sensitive part of the penis, the glans coverage which would keep it sensitive and we lose the gliding skin. All that and it can be very traumatic to lose that autonomy

Why shouldn’t men be able to do this?

Why aren’t we considered worthy of human respect?

Why does it become moot, couldn’t they just do it then?

If parents even just had to wait a week after birth to have it done, to remove it from the pressure shortly after birth would give parents time to breath and figure out the foreskin is just fine as it is, just that change would help us out immensely

A great cause to pickup would be the fight against child circumcision for all children, boys deserves intact genitals too!!

The foreskin has the best nerves, keeps the glans from drying out and provides a gliding sheath…. It’s an important part of a fully functioning penis

We have horrible double standards, another great one is

FGM - we consider the victim’s right and in most of the west it’s illegal or at least questionably illegal

MGM - it’s all parental or religious rights, and legal, despite the harm

There are plenty of great reasons to be against circumcision, autism risk isn’t one of them.

RFK wasn’t even taking a position on genital cutting, he was just ranting about Tylenol, and some media ran with it out of context for clicks and without regard to how misleading it was

Instead of going after Tylenol we could get with the rest of the world and stop doing unnecessary circumcisions. Let boys have intact genitals. it’s the basic human thing to do. The foreskin exists for multiple benefits: it has the best nerves, gliding skin function and keeps the glans sensitive.

Circumcision and Risk of HIV among Males from Ontario, Canada - PubMed We found that circumcision was not independently associated with the risk of acquiring HIV among males from Ontario, Canada. Our results are consistent with clinical guidelines that emphasize safe-sex practices and counseling over circumcision as an intervention to reduce the risk of HIV.

Maybe update your policy to NOT suggest circumcision as the recent most studies ever (600,000 Canadians, Denmark: 810,000+ males over 36 years of medical history) found that circumcision gave no protection:

Canadian:
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34551593/

Denmark:
link.springer.com/article/10.1...

Bring up circumcision in that context and people will bend over backwards to apply choice to one scenario but not the other

This is quite misandristic and a terrible thing to say

Circumcisions are the timeshare of the medical industry
-The salespeople use heavy pressure
-The benefits are greatly overstated
-The long term downsides aren’t discussed, you find out after signing
-you can’t get rid of it after purchase
-Highly profitable

Both are measured in billions per year

Cultural beliefs are hard to break, some might have made sense long ago before our current medicine and running water. Then you have to convince men that their genitals would have been better if left alone, which mentally as children we have had to defend the choice forced upon us

If Circumcision Were Invented Today, It Would Be Banned by Tomorrow What if a brand-new surgery promised no health benefits, caused permanent harm to babies, and required no consent? Circumcision wouldn’t stand a chance today—and here’s why it would be banned on sight...

How about the @ameracadpeds.bsky.social
AAP updates their policy to match European countries that DON’T advocate for genital cutting, the foreskin protects the glans from desensitization and provides a gliding sheath to reduce friction among other benefits

intactamerica.org/why-circumci...

Bodily autonomy for all. Abortion should be legal and unnecessary child circumcisions illegal.

I’d wonder if this would be a way to recognize the potential harm from circumcision. It is hard to believe we don’t really consider the emotional and psychological harm of genital cutting

considering that almost all intact men would choose to stay intact for #2, those reasons should be excluded from the argument

The only consideration from a medical perspective for child circumcision that is any way supported by evidence is a 1% UTI risk, it becomes clear that this is not justified