In 2012, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) released a controversial policy statement on circumcision.
While the statement did not culminate in a recommendation as circumcision advocates were hoping for, it was littered with the baseless mantra that "the benefits [of circumcision] outweighed the risks," and with calls for public medical programs to cover it.
The claim that "the benefits outweigh the risks" conflicts with statements that "the benefits [of male infant circumcision] aren't great enough to recommend" it, and that "the true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision are unknown," found within the same Policy Statement.
So out-of-line was the 2012 AAP report, that 38 pediatricians, urologists, epidemiologists, and professors, representing 20 medical organizations and 15 universities and hospitals in 17 countries formally rejected it.
Even so, circumcision advocates took the "benefits outweigh the risks" soundbite and ran with it.
Some go as far as actually saying the AAP has given a recommendation for circumcision, when it is clear to those who have actually read their 2012 statement that they stop short.
After the AAP released their statement, it didn't take very long for the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to mirror them. Almost like clockwork, the CDC released a statement similar to that of the AAP, seemingly giving circumcision advocates yet more ammunition for promoting male infant circumcision. (As the AAP, the CDC shies away from a clear recommendation for male infant circumcision.)
With the Canadian Paediatric Society due for a release of their own policy statement on male infant circumcision, speculation arose as to whether or not they too would mirror the controversial AAP statement.
Circumcision advocates were hoping the CPS would get into lockstep with the AAP, and repeat the same "benefits outweigh the risk" slogan.
Much to their chagrin, however, the CPS not only failed to join the AAP and CDC in chorus, they outright reaffirmed their position against it.
Said Dr. Thierry Lacaze, chair of the CPS Fetus and Newborn Committee:
"While there may be a benefit for some boys in high risk populations and the procedure could be considered as a treatment or to reduce disease, in most cases, the benefits of circumcision do not outweigh the risks."
Thus the AAP and CPS can be witnessed going separate ways on the matter.
Is the CPS stepping out of line?
Or is it the AAP who is deviating?
The fact of the matter is that the trend of opinion on routine male circumcision is overwhelmingly negative in industrialized nations.
The AAP tried very hard to push the slogan that "the benefits [of circumcision] outweigh the risks" in their 2012 statement, but they were formally rejected by 38 pediatricians, urologists, epidemiologists, and professors, representing 20 medical organizations and 15 universities and hospitals in 17 countries.
And now, the Canadian Paediatric Society joins the number of respected medical organizations who diverge with the AAP.
Thus, it continues to be true:
No respected medical board in the world recommends male infant circumcision. All of them, including the AAP in their latest statement, state that there isn't sufficient evidence to warrant this endorsement.
To say otherwise would be to take an unfounded position against the most respected medical organizations in the West.
Good on the CPS for refusing to buy into the AAP's nonsense.