# AAP shifting FGM polocy



## ursaminor (Mar 28, 2009)

I thought I would pass this on, a lot of Intactivists and FGM awareness people have been posting on facebook about the AAP's shifting language on FGM - now being referred to as FGC (female genital cutting) and more 'cultural sensitivity" in regards to parents wanted the procedure, and dissuading parents from seeking "harmful forms of FGC". Here is a link to the abstract and a comparison to the old statement, apparently not found on the AAP's site anymore...

http://www.circumstitions.com/AAP.html

ETA sorry for the typos I'm a bit of a dyslexic


----------



## titania8 (Feb 15, 2007)

Wow. That is seriously disturbing.


----------



## laohaire (Nov 2, 2005)

So there are unharmful forms of genital cutting?


----------



## Fyrestorm (Feb 14, 2006)

Wait...Wait...Wait....so the AAP is changing their position on a procedure that's illegal in the US anyway. Weird and scary


----------



## dachshundqueen (Dec 17, 2004)

In reading the actual policy statement that can be downloaded as PDF, I think you are drawing the wrong conclusions here.

What I am garnering from the policy statement is that pediatricians need to be more aware that there are strong cultural and religious reasons that some parents seek out FGM, and that as pediatricians they need to understand those reasons in order to best dissuade parents from either seeking to have the procedure done to their child or attempting to do it themselves.

What I do find disturbing is the language stating that a ritual nick performed by the pediatrician would build trust between hopsitals/doctors and the immigrant community and would be a good compromise. The softening of the AAP stance that this "milder" form of FGM is acceptable is mind boggling. How the AAP can in one paragraph state that this is acceptable and in the next state that parents need to be reminded that any form of FGM is illegal in the USA is beyond me.

"....pediatricians must always resist decisions that are likely to harm children." (1092, upper right hand corner) Which is ridiculous because the first part of that paragraph is about male circumcision - and that doesn't cause HARM??????

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...ds.2010-0187v1

Liz


----------



## Fellow Traveler (Jan 8, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dachshundqueen* 
In reading the actual policy statement that can be downloaded as PDF, I think you are drawing the wrong conclusions here.

I am not sure what part of the drawn conclusion you feel are wrong; they (the AAP) are softening their policy. Whereas before they stated that Physicians shouldn't under any circumstances perform this for any reason, they are now saying these mild forms might be considered as a substitute. That is a shift in policy.


----------



## ursaminor (Mar 28, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dachshundqueen* 
What I do find disturbing is the language stating that a ritual nick performed by the pediatrician would build trust between hopsitals/doctors and the immigrant community and would be a good compromise. The softening of the AAP stance that this "milder" form of FGM is acceptable is mind boggling. How the AAP can in one paragraph state that this is acceptable and in the next state that parents need to be reminded that any form of FGM is illegal in the USA is beyond me.

"....pediatricians must always resist decisions that are likely to harm children." (1092, upper right hand corner) Which is ridiculous because the first part of that paragraph is about male circumcision - and that doesn't cause HARM??????

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...ds.2010-0187v1

Liz

I have not read the entire publication...I'm trying to find a minute when I am in the best head space and DS isnt needing me. Are they truly saying it is okay for a ped to preform a "nick"? is the said nick, removal of the clitoral prepuce?...and isnt that, illegal? (-although I might add, peds still preform clitoroplasty on female intersex children and babies without fear of being prosecuted







)
This is all very weird, and I think it is the AAP's way of dealing with the hypocrisy between their MGM and FGM stance. Very scary indeed, and only a few days away from the CDC's new statement


----------



## dachshundqueen (Dec 17, 2004)

You were speaking to:

Regarding being more culturally aware, if pediatricians actually take the time to learn the history (both cultural and religious) of FGM they can use that knowledge to actually hold a decent discussion with the parent on not doing FGM. IE. An intelligent pedi will try to find counterpoints to the main religious and cultural reasons for doing FGM, rather than saying, "Just don't do it, it's illegal." Moreso meeting the parent where they are.

Whereas:

The more important item in the article and shift in policy is regarding the actual suggestion by the AAP that the "nick" would be an acceptable compromise (even though the AAP acknowledges that this is still illegal currently and constitutes child abuse!!!).

Does that make sense?

Liz


----------



## Claire and Boys (Mar 27, 2007)

I never saw this coming. I really think it is an attempt to address the double standard that we have been pointing out for years. I think it has a LOT to do with the upcoming CDC statement and am quite nervous now about what that might contain in the light of this.


----------



## Fyrestorm (Feb 14, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Claire and Boys* 
I never saw this coming. I really think it is an attempt to address the double standard that we have been pointing out for years. I think it has a LOT to do with the upcoming CDC statement and am quite nervous now about what that might contain in the light of this.

Me too...get Peds to think FGM is ok and what does that mean for MGM?


----------



## Galatea (Jun 28, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Claire and Boys* 
I never saw this coming. I really think it is an attempt to address the double standard that we have been pointing out for years. I think it has a LOT to do with the upcoming CDC statement and am quite nervous now about what that might contain in the light of this.

I agree. They are trying to appear less hypocritical.

But there is STILL no right way to do a wrong thing.


----------



## kittywitty (Jul 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *laohaire* 
So there are unharmful forms of genital cutting?

Seriously!!!

This is so disturbing.


----------



## glongley (Jun 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Claire and Boys* 
I never saw this coming. I really think it is an attempt to address the double standard that we have been pointing out for years. I think it has a LOT to do with the upcoming CDC statement and am quite nervous now about what that might contain in the light of this.

My interpretation is that (despite the fact that Federal Law says even the slightest nick or pinprick to female genitals is illegal) they are trying to maintain the acceptability of what we currently do the baby boys, by making anything done to a female that seems no more serious than that be pronounced 'unharmful.' Therefore confirming that male circumcision is unharmful.

It is seriously mindboggling that of the two ways they could go to try to address the double standard in how we view female vs. male genital cutting, they choose the one that makes FGC more OK, rather than the one that makes MGC not OK. YIKES!

Gillian


----------



## Claire and Boys (Mar 27, 2007)

Yep. The lengths that they will go to to push male infant circumcision. Now selling out infant girls as well.

I doubt very much that any other medical organisation worldwide would echo this. This IMO really puts a large dent in the AAP's credibility.

What I'm hoping is that FGM orgs will see this and finally people will start working together to end all nonconsensual genital cutting - regardless of what body part it is done on. For too long have people said "Hey, female circ is worse, so that means male circ is okay." This shows that we cannot be complacent about *either*. It's all essentially the same - children getting their body parts cut on with no medical justification and without their consent.


----------



## KaylaBeanie (Jan 27, 2009)

I guess I'm just an unpassionate cynic. At least the AAP has grown some balls and leveled the playing field. MGC is "okay"? Well, now girls are viewed equally. Yay for equality







At least they're consistent?

I honestly don't think it's worth the stress of getting worked up over. Regardless of strange AAP policy changes, FGC is still illegal and that isn't set to change. If a group of people push to make it legal, you can bet that every single feminist group in America will be up in arms. In fact, part of me hopes that happens. It will get a TON of media coverage, and it would be impossible to discuss the new policy without mention of MGC, and it would be a great opportunity for the higher up intactivists to speak at events, rallies and on tv shows. This is no different than if the AAP said that cultural tattooing of infants/minors might not be THAT bad. Doesn't matter what they think, the law is the law.


----------



## 2boyzmama (Jun 4, 2007)

Excuse me while I go throw up.


----------



## frontierpsych (Jun 11, 2006)

Echoing what everyone else has said. It is really sad. So many people inside and outside this organization are knee deep in denial about this issue, and will do anything to cover it up.


----------



## Rico'sAlice (Mar 19, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KaylaBeanie* 
I This is no different than if the AAP said that cultural tattooing of infants/minors might not be THAT bad.

Is that illegal? Interesting. Aside from circumcision I'm also thinking of the comparison to infant ear piercing. I realize I'm getting off track, but I wonder if there are their laws restricting non-ear lobe piercing (nose, etc.) of infants/small children.


----------



## Pookietooth (Jul 1, 2002)

Yikes! I understand wanting to be culturally sensitive, but what about bodily integrity? Isn't that a basic human right?


----------



## KaylaBeanie (Jan 27, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rico'sAlice* 
Is that illegal? Interesting. Aside from circumcision I'm also thinking of the comparison to infant ear piercing. I realize I'm getting off track, but I wonder if there are their laws restricting non-ear lobe piercing (nose, etc.) of infants/small children.

Hmm, upon googling it would appear that tattooing/piercing is not explicitly illegal provided there is parental consent.

http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/H...3/Default.aspx

I happen to remember a few cases in the news where parents got in trouble for tattooing minor children, but I'm not sure if it was the tattoo itself that was illegal or the circumstances surrounding it. I do know that I have seen pre-teen Indian children here in the states with pierced noses though, so I can't imagine it's illegal. I'm big into piercings and tattoos, and I know that even if laws "allow" it with parental consent, every shop I've been to has a policy of no ear piercing before age 12, and then non-genital/nipple/tongue piercings allowed with parental consent at age 16. So it would appear to be a gray area. By these laws, it wouldn't be illegal if a parent consented for a child to be pierced or tattooed.


----------



## Claire and Boys (Mar 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Pookietooth* 
Yikes! I understand wanting to be culturally sensitive, but what about bodily integrity? Isn't that a basic human right?

obviously not in the USA


----------



## Raine822 (Dec 11, 2008)

The laws vary on tattoos and piercings. However, as stated before most good tattoo artists will have policies of their own. All three of my tattoo artists will not do anything if child is under 16. Also, they make sure even if 16 to question the decision as is permanent. None will agree to tattoo names ect for minors.


----------



## K703 (Dec 15, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Raine822* 
The laws vary on tattoos and piercings. However, as stated before most good tattoo artists will have policies of their own. All three of my tattoo artists will not do anything if child is under 16. Also, they make sure even if 16 to question the decision as is permanent. None will agree to tattoo names ect for minors.

Then again ideally most good doctors would have policies against surgical procedures that are neither medically necessary nor done with the consent of the individual being operated on. We know how far that is from the truth.


----------



## 2boyzmama (Jun 4, 2007)

I have been thinking about this since last night...I truly can not understand how they can outright say that it is illegal, then support a "ritual nick"? WTH is that anyway? Where/what do they "nick"? And at what age would that be done anyway?

Never mind, I don't care. I'm still just stuck on how this is legal. I understand cultural sensitivity. I understand the fear that these parents will go "underground" to do it and how that's much much worse. I understand the desire that if they feel like they can't stop it, then they can at least minimize it and make it "safe" (ugh, as if this is safe at all). I get it, I do, but it is still ILLEGAL. How can they publish something like this and not be commiting legal suicide??? How can they justify this?????

When discussing circumcision, there are at least the purported medical benefits (even though we all know they are false). But this is a case of doing something purely because it is cultural, with no (NONE!!) supposed medical benefits, contradictory or otherwise, and the AAP is okay with it?

My god what is this country coming to. Truly.


----------



## Raine822 (Dec 11, 2008)

k703, You just made me realize how sad it is that a tattoo artist would be more concerned about a non consenting minor than a medical doctor.


----------



## Mama~Love (Dec 8, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *2boyzmama* 
I have been thinking about this since last night...I truly can not understand how they can outright say that it is illegal, then support a "ritual nick"? WTH is that anyway? Where/what do they "nick"? And at what age would that be done anyway?

Never mind, I don't care. I'm still just stuck on how this is legal. I understand cultural sensitivity. I understand the fear that these parents will go "underground" to do it and how that's much much worse. I understand the desire that if they feel like they can't stop it, then they can at least minimize it and make it "safe" (ugh, as if this is safe at all). I get it, I do, but it is still ILLEGAL. How can they publish something like this and not be commiting legal suicide??? How can they justify this?????

When discussing circumcision, there are at least the purported medical benefits (even though we all know they are false). But this is a case of doing something purely because it is cultural, with no (NONE!!) supposed medical benefits, contradictory or otherwise, and the AAP is okay with it?

My god what is this country coming to. Truly.









I agree with your every word.


----------



## hkowell1 (Oct 26, 2008)

Ok, I might get blasted for this...however, "Cultural Sensitivity" is pretty lite language for something that is Cultural Norm. I don't know how many of the women here have worked with women from cutting cultures or even been to Lectures etc... We are not going to change how these women feel about their bodies or their womanhood/motherhood by telling them sorry you just can't do that anymore. This is ingrained into the very meaning of what it is to be a woman. Please don't get me wrong. Im not advocating for FGM.
Im sure none of us supports drug abuse/sex trades-however a good doctor/case manager is going to talk about safety-Many outreach worker hand out clean needles, condoms etc...the acts are illegal, but the over all goal is to keep people as safe as possible.

Its a slow process to rid the culture of negative rituals/behaviors etc...
and it begins with education


----------



## calebsmommy25 (Aug 23, 2008)

I don't even know what to say.


----------



## Rico'sAlice (Mar 19, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *2boyzmama* 
When discussing circumcision, there are at least the purported medical benefits (even though we all know they are false). But this is a case of doing something purely because it is cultural, with no (NONE!!) supposed medical benefits, contradictory or otherwise, and the AAP is okay with it?

Actually, I think I recall that some of the HIV/male circumcision studies or some other survey also "demonstrated" a protective affect from female "circumcision". I'll see if I can find those links.

ETA:
This is not specifically what I was remembering, but for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting#HIV
Kanki et al. (1992) reported that, in Senegalese prostitutes, women who had undergone FGC had a significantly decreased risk of HIV-2 infection when compared to those who had not.[55]

Stallings et al. (2009) reported that, in Tanzanian women, the risk of HIV among women who had undergone FGC was roughly half that of women who had not; the association remained significant after adjusting for region, household wealth, age, lifetime partners, union status, and recent ulcer..[54]

Now there are also of plenty of studies showing the opposite conclusion, confounding factors, explanations, etc. But that's true for male as well. And of course some of the medical issues with male circ just haven't been studied with females. Like if there was a sizable population of circumcised females in western countries maybe a study could be done on protective measures from urinary tract infections or something.


----------



## fruitful womb (Nov 20, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *2boyzmama* 

When discussing circumcision, there are at least the purported medical benefits (even though we all know they are false). But this is a case of doing something purely because it is cultural, with no (NONE!!) supposed medical benefits, contradictory or otherwise, and the AAP is okay with it?

My god what is this country coming to. Truly.

Give it time. Proponents for FGM will soon fabricate "studies" to show "medical benefits" that support their ritual. The path down this road started as soon as the AAP watered down FGM to FGC for "Cultural Sensitivity".

History repeats itself.


----------



## jessjgh1 (Nov 4, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *calebsmommy25* 







I don't even know what to say.

That's about all I can think too.
Jessica


----------



## KaylaBeanie (Jan 27, 2009)

Cultural sensitivity to FGC and cultural acceptance of FGC are totally different concepts. If a first generation immigrant couple has never even heard that people don't perform it here and asks their doctor about it, the proper response is not "Dear GOD, you child mutilators, go away before I call the cops!" The correct response would be to calmly discuss it and debunk the myths they have grown up believing, doing your best to get the point across in the least offensive way possible. I totally agree with the AAP there. I also agree that there needs to be some sort of training in place for OBs and urologists for how to deal with the issue in a polite way without endorsing any form of genital cutting.


----------



## jessjgh1 (Nov 4, 2004)

Yes, but it is not proper to offer to then do just a small 'symbolic' cut, if after explaining that the US doesn't do genital cutting (on girls) and the parents still want it done.
That's beyond cultural sensitivity.

From Liz above...

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dachshundqueen* 
What I do find disturbing is the language stating that a ritual nick performed by the pediatrician would build trust between hopsitals/doctors and the immigrant community and would be a good compromise. The softening of the AAP stance that this "milder" form of FGM is acceptable is mind boggling.

Agreed.
Jessica


----------



## KaylaBeanie (Jan 27, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jessjgh1* 
Yes, but it is not proper to offer to then do just a small 'symbolic' cut, if after explaining that the US doesn't do genital cutting (on girls) and the parents still want it done.
That's beyond cultural sensitivity.

Jessica

That's exactly my point. The AAP is talking about cultural sensitivity (a GOOD, awesome thing!) and then going a step too far and promoting the condoning of FGC.


----------



## Pumpkinheadmommy (Nov 6, 2007)

At least they mentioned this:

Quote:

Some forms of FGC are less extensive than the newborn male circumcision commonly performed in the West.


----------



## QueenOfTheMeadow (Mar 25, 2005)

I just want to remind everyone that actionable(aka intactivist) posts need to go into the Activism forum. Please feel free to start a thread there.


----------



## jessjgh1 (Nov 4, 2004)

Equality Now has information about this issue on their website.
Jessica


----------



## Fyrestorm (Feb 14, 2006)

I just read the Equality Now release as well as the Intact America response...why are neither of them stating the obvious? It's only 4 more years until the boys that were cut after the FGM ban will be reaching the age of consent...I have a feeling LOTS of them are going to be really mad....

I smell law suits based on the 4th amendment and the AAP doing a major CYA. They can say that they are following equal protection if they are ok with harming both sexes.

This also helps to cover them in regards to the 'surgeries' they preform on intersex children.


----------



## jessjgh1 (Nov 4, 2004)

I've posted links and info on this on my facebook- and not said a word about male circumicsion.... so far no one has commented. I'm a little scared that people just don't even get this on a base level. I don't expect most of them to make leaps to MGM.... but gee, even before I had my son and knew anything about circumcision (I figured male circ as the norm, hand't really thought about it) if I'd heard about this I would be thinking WTF- in the US?? That's outrageous?

Jessica


----------



## fruitful womb (Nov 20, 2004)

do they really think they're above the law?


----------



## Fyrestorm (Feb 14, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fruitful womb* 
do they really think they're above the law?

Of course they do


----------



## emnic77 (Sep 12, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Claire and Boys* 
I never saw this coming. I really think it is an attempt to address the double standard that we have been pointing out for years. I think it has a LOT to do with the upcoming CDC statement and am quite nervous now about what that might contain in the light of this.

Ditto this 100%. I absolutely agree.

Just unbelievable.


----------



## Mama~Love (Dec 8, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fruitful womb* 
do they really think they're above the law?

They _are_ the law, they can do whatever they please, they don't report to anyone.


----------



## fruitful womb (Nov 20, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mama~Love* 
They _are_ the law, they can do whatever they please, they don't report to anyone.

Law enforcement and a body of free thinkers are two separate entities.


----------



## FernG (Feb 14, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jessjgh1* 
I've posted links and info on this on my facebook- and not said a word about male circumicsion.... so far no one has commented. I'm a little scared that people just don't even get this on a base level. I don't expect most of them to make leaps to MGM.... but gee, even before I had my son and knew anything about circumcision (I figured male circ as the norm, hand't really thought about it) if I'd heard about this I would be thinking WTF- in the US?? That's outrageous?

Jessica

No response on my facebook post either.


----------



## Mama~Love (Dec 8, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fruitful womb* 
Law enforcement and a body of free thinkers are two separate entities.

Do you really think that law enforcement will get this changed? Didn't think so.


----------



## AXEius (Jul 8, 2006)

I think it has nothing to do with cultural sensitivity and everything to do with cashing in on the money they are loosing by not performing more genital mutilations and infants.


----------



## Fyrestorm (Feb 14, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mama~Love* 
They _are_ the law, they can do whatever they please, they don't report to anyone.

Actually, they are mandated reporters - but, do you think they are planning on reporting themselves for child abuse?


----------



## KaylaBeanie (Jan 27, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mama~Love* 
Do you really think that law enforcement will get this changed? Didn't think so.

Just like a whacko AAP statement isn't going to change a national law. Until someone manages to get a lawsuit to change the FGM law that has a shot of passing, all this panic is pretty pointless. Sure, write the AAP, talk about it, but it's not like there will be 50% of girls getting cut up tomorrow. It's still illegal, and there is no immediate danger of that changing. The panic needs to be saved for if and when there IS danger of that changing.


----------



## Fyrestorm (Feb 14, 2006)

What people seem to be forgetting here is that the AAP is a trade organization - no more, no less. Their members pay dues and they are represented in their best interests. Not in childrens best interests, just their own.


----------



## phathui5 (Jan 8, 2002)

Here are the actual recommendations from the revised AAP policy:

RECOMMENDATIONS

The American Academy of Pediatrics:

Opposes all forms of female genital mutilation (FGM).

Recommends that its members actively seek to dissuade families from carrying out FGM.

Recommends that its members provide patients and their parents with compassionate education about the physical harms and psychological risks of FGM.

Recommends that its members decline to perform any medically unnecessary procedure that alters the genitalia of female infants, girls, and adolescents.


----------



## phathui5 (Jan 8, 2002)

Quote:

But this is a case of doing something purely because it is cultural, with no (NONE!!) supposed medical benefits, contradictory or otherwise, and the AAP is okay with it?
The AAP is suggesting doing something that would hopefully prevent families from performing actual female genital *mutilation*. If sticking a labia with a needle (ritual nick) keeps a girl from losing her clitoris because the family then feels like they did what they needed to, I think doctors can feel good about that.


----------



## knucklehead (Mar 12, 2008)

Doing something a "little bad" to prevent something "really bad" is not justifiable to me.

A little bit of child porn, for example, is not allowed in this country to prevent child rapists from victimizing oversees.

Or, minor spousal abuse is not tolerated to prevent people from traveling outside the country to engage in honor killings.


----------



## Pirogi (Apr 5, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *phathui5* 
Here are the actual recommendations from the revised AAP policy:

RECOMMENDATIONS

The American Academy of Pediatrics:

Opposes all forms of female genital mutilation (FGM).

Recommends that its members actively seek to dissuade families from carrying out FGM.

Recommends that its members provide patients and their parents with compassionate education about the physical harms and psychological risks of FGM.

Recommends that its members decline to perform any medically unnecessary procedure that alters the genitalia of female infants, girls, and adolescents.

No. These are the old recommendations from 1999. The new recommendations are:

Quote:

The American Academy of Pediatrics:

Opposes all forms of FGC that pose risks of physical or psychological harm.

Encourages its members to become informed about FGC and its complications and to be able to recognize physical signs of FGC.

Recommends that its members actively seek to dissuade families from carrying out harmful forms of FGC.

Recommends that its members provide patients and their parents with compassionate education about the physical harms and psychological risks of FGC while remaining sensitive to the cultural and religious reasons that motivate parents to seek this procedure for their daughters.
If you go to the actual policy statement, they also say (bolding mine)

Quote:

*The American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement on newborn male circumcision expresses respect for parental decision-making and acknowledges the legitimacy of including cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions when making the choice of whether to surgically alter a male infant's genitals.* Of course, parental decision-making is not without limits, and pediatricians must always resist decisions that are likely to cause harm to children. Most forms of FGC are decidedly harmful, and pediatricians should decline to perform them, even in the absence of any legal constraints. However, the ritual nick suggested by some pediatricians is not physically harmful and is much less extensive than routine newborn male genital cutting. There is reason to believe that offering such a compromise may build trust between hospitals and immigrant communities, save some girls from undergoing disfiguring and life-threatening procedures in their native countries, and play a role in the eventual eradication of FGC. It might be more effective if federal and state laws enabled pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a ritual nick as a possible compromise to avoid greater harm.
This absolutely reeks of CYA with non-discriminatory genital cutting.


----------



## jessjgh1 (Nov 4, 2004)

Exactly, instead of fixing the double standard of male circumcision, let's just make it okay to cut girls, too.
No. Not okay.
Although, maybe this is one way to push this issue. Is America willing to sacrafice girls just so we can cut boys??? Isn't that what it comes down to?
My hesitation is that I come across as a looney if I try to express this to anyone not already knowledgeable about intactivism.

Jessica

Jessica


----------



## serendipity22 (Sep 19, 2006)

Quote:

However, the ritual nick suggested by some pediatricians is not physically harmful and is much less extensive than routine newborn male genital cutting.
Its interesting that they conclude something is not harmful because it is less extensive than male circ.

Of course a ritual nick is harmful.

Quote:

if federal and state laws enabled pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a ritual nick ...
Sounds like they want to offer it, without it being asked for...

Quote:

The American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement on newborn male circumcision expresses respect for parental decision-making and acknowledges the legitimacy of including cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions when making the choice of whether to surgically alter a male infant's genitals.
I think doctors should stick to medicine, the AAP has no more business making judgments on ethics etc. To me its like saying "The AAP acknowledges the legitimacy of ten year olds to choose to have sex, binge drink and smoke."

or
"The AAP supports child marriage, polygamy, forced marriage." Its not their area.


----------

