Disclaimer

Doctors are not experts in human rights. The genital mutilation of children is a human rights issue, not a medical issue.

Are you trying to decide whether to have part of your son’s healthy penis amputated? You should seek the expert advice of human rights activists, not doctors.

Protesters hold many signs, including "Foreskin is not a Birth Defect", "Blood Rituals are not Medicine", and "European Doctors Condemn Circumcision"

American doctors, in particular, are the last people you should trust with the safety of your son’s penis, because:

  • Many of them are totally ignorant about the functions of the foreskin.
  • They do not want to admit that their profession has been damaging the genitals of children for the past 100 years.
  • In many cases there is a financial incentive – the more babies they cut, the more they (or the hospital) can bill to the insurance companies.

Having said that, if you’re determined to seek medical advice, keep scrolling!

European Doctors Condemn Circumcision

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.

A bloodstained man holds two signs – "Nobody Wants Less Penis" and "I Did Not Consent"

Some Ethical American Doctors

To do this to an infant is an atrocity – a savage, brutal act.

Many doctors were made to perform this procedure in order to complete their residencies. It takes courage to stop. But they must. And they must forgive themselves. When a doctor stops, there is hope for his rehabilitation. If he continues, his entire career is a farce, because he is using his skills to deliberately harm other people.

As a pediatrician and someone who works towards the health of children, I am obviously against circumcision, just as I am against any act that inflicts oppression or harm to a human being that is incapable of protecting or defending himself.

Every male who’s been circumcised has lost significant tissue. Somewhere in the recesses of his somatic memory . . . this incredible pain in the neonatal period is stored.

We’ve known since the early 1970s . . . that there is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn male.

There are people who, when circumcised as children, later realize they’ve been deprived of a part of their normal anatomy. This is certainly a violation of a person’s autonomy and his freedom of choice.

Even when a circumcision is done “perfectly” . . . there are side effects . . . in terms of functionality.

This operation needs to be abandoned, for medical and also ethical reasons.

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.

American Academy of Pediatrics

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.

This dangerous, irresponsible, and self-contradictory policy 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.

A bloodstained man holds a sign above his head – "Circumcision Harms Boys and Men"

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 at the AAP’s annual conventions until the publication of a clear, unambiguous policy statement that no one should tamper with the genitals of healthy children.