Monday, August 27, 2012

Circumcision Resource Center Responds to Revised AAP Statement

By REBECCA WALD

The Circumcision Resource Center, headed by Ronald Goldman, Ph.D., has issued a response to the American Academy of Pediatric's revised policy on circumcision. The AAP pronouncement, issued today, strengthens the organization's stance in favor of circumcision, but stops short of recommending the procedure for all male infants.
The CRC's response outlines eighteen deficiencies in the 2012 statement. Among other things, it points out that professionals have challenged many studies cited by the AAP, that the report is influenced by numerous conflicts of interest, and that the alleged benefits of circumcision have been inflated. 

In addition to his work with the Circumcision Resource Center, Dr. Goldman has written two influential books on the harms of male infant circumcision. Both books serve as excellent guides for parents and professionals. One of the books, "Questioning Circumcision: A Jewish Perspective," is the first and only book of its kind to critically assess infant circumcision from a uniquely Jewish angle.

2 comments:

  1. Robert Clover Johnson, IntactivistAugust 28, 2012 at 11:56 AM

    The Washington Post, August 27 issue, page A10, prints an Associated Press article entitled "Benefits of circumcision trump risks, doctors say." The penultimate paragraph states that "Eighteen states have eliminated Medicaid coverage for circumcision, a trend that could contribute to rising health care costs to treat infections if circumcision rates continue to decline, according to a study published Aug. 20 in Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine." This argument is a shameful demonstration of AAP's obliviousness to studies showing that doctors and nurses often cause infections in intact infants by urging parents to retract the foreskin as much as possible and wash underneath with soap, killing healthy bacteria that PREVENT infections. Such ignorance, touted as a scare tactic to encourage more parents to choose to have their infants traumatized and stripped of most of their erogenous nerves is a blatant example of AAP's weak and insidious new posture regarding circumcision.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dr Goldman has been a Jewish intactivist since the late 1980s. I think he does not have the reputation he deserves.

    There never has been an honest study of the possible damage to the adult penis resulting from routine infant circumcision. This is why the AAP's claims that the benefits of routine circumcision now exceed the cost, is complete nonsense. The costs have yet to be measured. There is ample anecdotal evidence of those costs, however. The AAP report patronisingly dismisses anecdotal evidence by calling it "case studies." But the AAP did not call for a survey of the American and Canadian adult penis, based on a large stratified random sample, and complete with clinical examination and interview of spouses. Such a study, if run more honestly than the African clinical trials, would enable us to move on from anecdotal evidence. But absent such a study, we are free to hang on to the anecdotal evidence because it is the best there is.

    More on how the AAP Task Force report is rife with errors of fact and judgement:
    http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/2012-08-26A_Commentary.pdf
    http://www.drmomma.org/2012/08/aap-circumcision-policy-statement.html#comment-form

    ReplyDelete