Medical Advice

More American parents are following the advice of the European medical community, which has condemned American doctors for baby circumcision.

The British Medical Association, in its 2019 “Practical Guidance for Doctors” states that:

The BMA cannot envisage a situation in which it is ethically acceptable to circumcise a child or young person, either with or without competence, who refuses the procedure, irrespective of the parents’ wishes.

The Royal Dutch Medical Association reported in 2013:

International physicians protest against American Academy of Pediatrics’ policy on infant male circumcision. Circumcision conflicts with children’s rights and doctors’ oath and can have serious long-term consequences, state an international group of 38 physicians from 16 European countries in Pediatrics today.

Dr. Morten Frisch of Denmark explains that circumcision is “…not something rooted in sound medical science,” and its support in the US medical community “…comes primarily from doctors’ trade associations — such as the AAP — that protect financial and other interests of physicians who continue to perform such surgeries.” He concludes:

Cutting off a functional, protective and sensitive body part is a far-reaching decision that the vast majority of Europeans believe should be left to its owner when he becomes old enough to understand the consequences.

The American Medical Association’s Code of Medical Ethics – Opinion 11.3.1 states clearly:

Physicians should not recommend, provide, or charge for unnecessary medical services.

Given that the vast majority of men live healthy lives with intact penises, it would be absurd to claim that amputating the foreskin of a healthy child is medically necessary.

Therefore, any doctor who commits such an act – or even recommends that it be done – has committed a grave ethical violation.

Don’t let your doctor use the AAP to trick you into the sexual disfigurement of your son!

The AAP currently has no position on the issue of childhood penis mutilation. Their most recent policy statement, in 2012, was promptly condemned by the European medical community for its ignorance regarding the structure and function of the human foreskin:

It seems that the authors of the AAP report consider the foreskin to be a part of the male body that has no meaningful function in sexuality. However, the foreskin is a richly innervated structure that protects the glans and plays an important role in the mechanical function of the penis during sexual acts.

The dangerous, irresponsible, and self-contradictory 2012 statement had claimed that the “benefits” of foreskin amputation outweighed the “risks,” while simultaneously admitting that “. . . the true incidence of complications . . . is unknown,” all while ignoring the harm inherent in loss of the foreskin, the risk of which is 100% in every circumcision.

After embarrassing themselves the following year by publicly admitting that they don’t know – and more remarkably, don’t even “…think that anybody knows…” – the functions of the body part they are trying to destroy (which are well-documented throughout the medical literature), the AAP’s circumcision cheerleaders went into hiding, and their 2012 policy statement expired in disgrace after 5 years.

All policy statements from the American Academy of Pediatrics automatically expire 5 years after publication unless reaffirmed, revised, or retired at or before that time.
~ Front page of 2012 circumcision policy statement.

For policy statements from relevant medical organizations, see this list from our friends at Attorneys for the Rights of the Child.

Unfortunately, many misinformed doctors still claim that the AAP recommends childhood foreskin amputation, thereby tricking well-intentioned parents into the sexual disfigurement of their sons. Therefore, the Bloodstained Men & Their Friends have vowed to continue protesting until the publication of a clear, unambiguous policy statement that no one should tamper with the genitals of healthy children.