So you call yourself a journalist? A challenge to the American media.
AAP Circumcision Task Force member says “In the case of circumcision, the likelihood that the benefits would accrue to an individual child are relatively small”.
Douglas Diekema, in aninterview in the Washington Post, states that
“In the case of circumcision, the likelihood that the benefits would accrue to an individual child are relatively small,” then paradoxically adds:
“it seems reasonable that a child’s parents should be weighing the risks and benefits of the procedure in consultation with their physician.”
When asked: “In what areas, specifically, are you expecting pushback and from whom?” he responds: “Most of the pushback will come from individuals and groups who are opposed to circumcision. Among other things, they claim that there are no medical benefits to circumcision. This is simply not supported by the data, which clearly shows that there are some potential medical benefits to circumcision.” Sadly, the first part of that statement is true. The “pushback” will not be from religious groups with an investment in perpetuating ritual genital cutting, nor from doctors who profit from offering the service of non-therapeutic genital cutting, nor from parents who perceive penis customization as their “choice” and parental “right.”
It will come from those who ask good questions, such as “How many prophylactic, non-consensual amputations does the AAP tolerate, condone or endorse?”, “Why does a medical body make exceptions to all medical oaths, ethics and medical protocols for cutting of the infant penis?” “Why is there a bioethicist on the task force when the ethical concerns are not addressed?”
|The PENIS is SO SPECIAL, circumcisers can provide the “service” of genital cutting–
provided they first “perform” a tiny excision– just a “little snip”– of the part of their brains which recognizes ethics and human rights.
“Why is the AAP so focused on negative assumptions about infant males’ future sexual conduct and trustworthiness and neglect to mention condom use?”
|[“The percentage of circumcised men reporting a diagnosis of genital warts was SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER than uncircumcised [INTACT] men, 4.5% versus 2.4%.”]|
Sure, there are “potential benefits” to many amputations, Dr Diekema. Some women with a particular genetic marker choose prophylactic mastectomy, but infant girls are not tested for this marker and subjected to prophylactic amputation based on “potential benefits.” It seems only the infant penis is special enough to be treated in such a way, absent ANY medical indication:
We can ONLY HOPE that JOURNALISTS will begin to ask relevant questions instead of serving as a messenger service and advertising agency, but alarmingly, they have failed to ask even the simplest question. How can the AAP assert this:
“After a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence, the American Academy of Pediatrics found the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision.” AAP Policy Statement on Circumcision when the technical report admits the risks are not known?
AAP Technical Report on Circumcision p 772: “The true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision is unknown, in part due to differing deﬁnitions of “complication” and differing standards for determining the timing of when a complication has occurred (ie, early or late). Adding to the confusion is the comingling of “early” complications, such as bleeding or infection, with “late” complications such as adhesions and meatal stenosis. Also, complication rates after an in-hospital procedure with trained personnel may be far different from those of the developing world and/or by untrained ritual providers.”
GAME OVER, right? We don’t know the risks, so we cannot possibly assert that the benefits outweigh the risks…. Not so fast, we can bank on the indolence of the American press.Clever, AAP– unlike in 1999, in 2012 offering a statement and a technical report in separate documents– counting on the media to ignore the technical report.and to not only parrot the statement but create attention-grabbing headlines shows great understanding of the American press… and its willingness to publish each and every hopeful speculation at some “potential benefit” for non-therapeutic boy butchery.
For those journalists interested in dissections of the Academy of Pediatrics’ 2012 policy, these posts would give one a good start at beginning to ask the right questions and earning the title:
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/08/the-aap-report-on-circumcision-bad-science-bad-ethics-bad-medicine/ , http://circumstitions.com/ , http://www.circumcision.org/aap.htm , http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2012/08/aap-call-them-out.html , http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/2012-08-26A_Commentary.pdf http://www.drmomma.org/2012/08/aap-circumcision-policy-statement.html (with more links).Journalists could also scrutinize the circumcision industry documents, not relying on the AAP’s assessments. They could pose the following question: Why has “medicalized” circumcision been perpetuated despite failing to meet the provisions protecting individuals against experimental surgery? Protections guaranteed by a not insubstantial document, the Nuremberg Code, which ironically came into existence after the atrocities of World War II?
|The circumcision industry, in its own documents, admits that after 179 years of experiments (on MILLIONS of children)… we still need studies on circumcision risk.|