Circumcision

[pogi]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You keep offering up your opinion as fact and then proclaiming that parents need to do what you say.  Your opinion isn't fact though, there are many medical professionals who disagree with it actually, so it seems silly to keep asking parents to treat it it like it is.

If I don't specifically state something as a fact, then it is implied that it is my opinion.  I have never tried to establish my opinion as fact.  I don't have to preface any statement with "this is only my opinion".  I recognize that there are medical professionals who disagree with my opinion.  That doesn't make them right.

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We are allowed to care about how other people treat their kids up to a point.  Circumcision isn't that ponit. 

No, I am allowed to care about whatever I want.  Circumcision is not some sacred untouchable procedure, immune from all investigation and critical thinking, especially considering that the vast majority of medical organizations in developed nations consider it unethical - we are the sole survivors of a practice, it seems.  

Look, perhaps you think I am judging parents who choose circumcision.  I am not.  Otherwise, I don't understand why you are being so defensive.  Your stringent defense make me think that you must have very good reason and data to suggest that it follows medical ethics, but for some reason you don't want to share.  You seem content to trust that the AAP has it's head on straight, and unwilling to even critically analyze their statement, even though it falls WAY out of line with the rest of the developed world. 

[pogi]

47 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Because there are many medical professionals who disagree with you.  That's why I don't believe your personal definition of standard medical ethics applies to anyone but you.

I did not cite my personal definition.  There has been a code of medical ethics around since the early 1800's, the AMA probably being the most influential. 

Even the AAP has a standard of ethics when it comes to informed consent.  A standard they clearly violate when it comes to circumcision, ehich clearly states that a parent needs to be informed as to the risks and probability of success.  Interesting that the AAP, in their statement, admits that knowing these probabilities and risks is impossible at this point.   You can read it here:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/95/2/314.full.pdf

Quote

The AAP’s ethical consultant has said elsewhere that “circumcision is not medically essential and poses a risk of harm,” and that a parental request is not sufficient to justify doing any surgery, and the statement ignores these.

https://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/for-professionals/medical-organization-statements/

Interesting that they ignored their own ethical consultant. 

47 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The definition of unethical is immoral, wrong, wicked, and evil.  There is no way for something to be unethical and not be a sin.  People aren't held accountable for sinning in ignorance, it's true, but the act is still sinful, it's just covered by the Atonement automatically rather than requiring repentance.  So yes, when you say that circumcising is unethical you are saying that it is a sin.  I'm sure you don't want to go on record as judging that parents who circumcise are sinning, because that's a pretty precarious place to put yourself, but that is what you are doing when you proclaim that it is unethical for parents to circumcise their infants.

And can you give any examples where God, to His church led by His prophet, has not intervened when His people were supporting sinful behavior?  I don't agree that God would not intervene if His followers were choosing to harm their children.  God may not command in all things but has that ever applied to immoral behavior?

You cannot sin in ignorance - that is scripture.  It is not considered sin.

God didn't seem to make any intervention when it came to slavery.  The prophet practiced it, does that mean he was sinning. Or was he simply on the wrong side of history.  The fact that some people disagreed in regards to slavery, didn't make it any more right.  I am beyond confident that I am on the right side of ethics and history.  

Edited January 16, 2019 by pogi

[Scott Lloyd]

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

Because there are many medical professionals who disagree with you.  That's why I don't believe your personal definition of standard medical ethics applies to anyone but you.

The definition of unethical is immoral, wrong, wicked, and evil.  There is no way for something to be unethical and not be a sin.  People aren't held accountable for sinning in ignorance, it's true, but the act is still sinful, it's just covered by the Atonement automatically rather than requiring repentance.  So yes, when you say that circumcising is unethical you are saying that it is a sin.  I'm sure you don't want to go on record as judging that parents who circumcise are sinning, because that's a pretty precarious place to put yourself, but that is what you are doing when you proclaim that it is unethical for parents to circumcise their infants.

And can you give any examples where God, to His church led by His prophet, has not intervened when His people were supporting sinful behavior?  I don't agree that God would not intervene if His followers were choosing to harm their children.  God may not command in all things but has that ever applied to immoral behavior?

We’ve had this debate in a previous thread, but there is a connotative distinction between ethics and morality. I fear that by ignoring or dismissing this distinction, you are escalating the conflict. 

While both concepts pertain to distinguishing between right and wrong, morality (and the associated terms you listed such as righteousness, sin, evil, wickedness, etc.) generally occur in a religious sphere. Ethics, on the other hand, pertains to professional or academic arenas — such as law, business, and medicine — and generally accepted standards of behavior within those arenas. 

I’ll give you an example from when I was a working journalist. On one occasion, when dealing with a source who was a religious leader, I was asked to attribute something he had said to someone else, one of his subordinates,  He apparently wanted to divert some of the attention away from himself and increase the prominence of his colleague.He apparently thought his position of organizational superiority gave him the prerogative to do that. I could not in good conscience comply, because it would have violated the ethics of my profession pertaining to truthfulness and accuracy. But apparently, the individual did not consider it to be morally wrong, or he would not have asked me to do it. 

As to the subject at hand, neonatal circumcision on a healthy boy is arguably unethical because it conflicts with the generally accepted standard of behavior that surgery should not be performed on one incapable of giving informed consent unless there is a compelling medical need. 

Edited January 17, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

31 minutes ago, pogi said:

I did not cite my personal definition.  There has been a code of medical ethics around since the early 1800's, the AMA probably being the most influential. 

Even the AAP has a standard of ethics when it comes to informed consent.  A standard they clearly violate when it comes to circumcision, ehich clearly states that a parent needs to be informed as to the risks and probability of success.  Interesting that the AAP, in their statement, admits that knowing these probabilities and risks is impossible at this point.   You can read it here:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/95/2/314.full.pdf

Interesting that they ignored their own ethical consultant. 

You cannot sin in ignorance - that is scripture.  It is not considered sin.

God didn't seem to make any intervention when it came to slavery.  The prophet practiced it, does that mean he was sinning. Or was he simply on the wrong side of history.  The fact that some people disagreed in regards to slavery, didn't make it any more right.  I am beyond confident that I am on the right side of ethics and history.  

Which prophet practiced slavery?

[pogi]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Which prophet practiced slavery?

 

Quote

When James Flake was killed in an accident in 1850, Flake's wife donated Green Flake [slave] to the LDS Church as tithing. He then worked for Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball before acquiring his freedom and settling in Union. 

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/573510/Black-slaves-were-among-earliest-pioneers-in-Utah.html

 

[bcuzbcuz]

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

It seems that circumcision is not medically indicated or contraindicated.  So from a medical perspective, the studies are neutral and not useful in supporting any argument, pro or con.

If that's true then it seems the only other argument is one of ethics.  From my perspective, it is no unethical for a parent to choose to have their sons circumcised.  I recognize that other's disagree but to be frank, their opinions are irrelevant to me and my family.  I believe there is strong scriptural evidence that God does not see having a baby circumcised as an unethical decision, and His opinion is really the only one I care about on the matter.

I'm not sure what else there is to say about it.  

1 Cor. 7:19.   For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God.

In Sweden, circumcision is permitted up to the age of two months and must, by law, be done under sedation. Circumcision after 2 months may only be performed by a registered doctor and may not, under any circumstances be done against the stated will of the boy/man §2001:499.

Circumcision of girls is now forbidden in Sweden §1982:316.

 Very few boys, who are not either Jewish or Muslim, are circumcised. Many doktors will not perform the operation.

In Australia, the Queensland Law Reform Commission of 1993 in a non-binding ruling stated that circumcision of boys could be considered ”a criminal act” and this has been instrumental in circumcision becoming less and less common.

Circumcision has also decidedly declined in frequency in Canada, although there have been no court rulings on the practice.

In Norway, parents and cleric are not allowed in the operation theater during the circumcision.

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

1 Cor. 7:19.   For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God.

In Sweden, circumcision is permitted up to the age of two months and must, by law, be done under sedation. Circumcision after 2 months may only be performed by a registered doctor and may not, under any circumstances be done against the stated will of the boy/man §2001:499.

Circumcision of girls is now forbidden in Sweden §1982:316.

 Very few boys, who are not either Jewish or Muslim, are circumcised. Many doktors will not perform the operation.

In Australia, the Queensland Law Reform Commission of 1993 in a non-binding ruling stated that circumcision of boys could be considered ”a criminal act” and this has been instrumental in circumcision becoming less and less common.

Circumcision has also decidedly declined in frequency in Canada, although there have been no court rulings on the practice.

In Norway, parents and cleric are not allowed in the operation theater during the circumcision.

Thanks for the information.  I don't think anyone is debating that circumcision isn't growing out of favor.

[bluebell]

51 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As to the subject at hand, neonatal circumcision on a healthy boy is arguably unethical because it conflicts with the generally accepted standard of behavior that surgery should not be performed on one incapable of giving informed consent unless there is a compelling medical need. 

It's certainly arguable, people argue it all the time.  I'm not saying it isn't.  What I'm saying is that something being "arguably unethical" does not mean something is actually unethical.   People argue that vaccinating children is unethical, but we all know that that doesn't make it so.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I did not cite my personal definition.  There has been a code of medical ethics around since the early 1800's, the AMA probably being the most influential. 

Even the AAP has a standard of ethics when it comes to informed consent.  A standard they clearly violate when it comes to circumcision, ehich clearly states that a parent needs to be informed as to the risks and probability of success.  Interesting that the AAP, in their statement, admits that knowing these probabilities and risks is impossible at this point.   You can read it here:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/95/2/314.full.pdf

They don't seem to interpret their standard the same way that you do.

Quote

Interesting that they ignored their own ethical consultant. 

Or, maybe they just don't agree with how you view it.

Quote

You cannot sin in ignorance - that is scripture.  It is not considered sin.

Without the Atonement, could murder keep someone from returning to God again, even if they were never taught it was wrong?  

Quote

God didn't seem to make any intervention when it came to slavery.  The prophet practiced it, does that mean he was sinning. Or was he simply on the wrong side of history.  The fact that some people disagreed in regards to slavery, didn't make it any more right.  I am beyond confident that I am on the right side of ethics and history.  

Good for you.  The "God secretly agrees with me" argument seems silly to me but, like i said before, you do you.     

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

If I don't specifically state something as a fact, then it is implied that it is my opinion.  I have never tried to establish my opinion as fact.  I don't have to preface any statement with "this is only my opinion".  I recognize that there are medical professionals who disagree with my opinion.  That doesn't make them right.

No, I am allowed to care about whatever I want.  Circumcision is not some sacred untouchable procedure, immune from all investigation and critical thinking, especially considering that the vast majority of medical organizations in developed nations consider it unethical - we are the sole survivors of a practice, it seems.  

Look, perhaps you think I am judging parents who choose circumcision.  I am not.  Otherwise, I don't understand why you are being so defensive.  Your stringent defense make me think that you must have very good reason and data to suggest that it follows medical ethics, but for some reason you don't want to share.  You seem content to trust that the AAP has it's head on straight, and unwilling to even critically analyze their statement, even though it falls WAY out of line with the rest of the developed world. 

I'm not being defensive, I simply stringently (to borrow your word) disagree with you.  I realize that you dislike that there are parents and medical professionals who disagree with you but it is what it is.   

I've shared all the medical stuff with you before on other threads, and I know others have shared them with you on this one.  You dismiss that which disagrees with your beliefs (like we all do to a degree), so there is no reason to do so again.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Yes, it is. 

Perhaps you are not clear on what "invasive" means in medical terminology. 

I'm definitely not an expert.  Google can only take a person so far.  If I used a medical definition of invasive that is incorrect I retract it.  It's not essential to my disagreement about the ethical aspects of circumcision anyway.

[pogi]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

They don't seem to interpret their standard the same way that you do.

I am not talking to the AAP, I am talking to you. If you could please help me understand how the practice is not in violation of their own ethical code from your perspective, that would help.  Your opinion matters.  You don't have to take their word for anything, but you seem to be using their opinion as your gospel without critically analyzing anything for yourself or comparing against the rest of the developed world.  

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Or, maybe they just don't agree with how you view it.

Perhaps you are confusing me with their ethical consultant.  I didn't say that.  He did.

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Good for you.  The "God secretly agrees with me" argument seems silly to me but, like i said before, you do you.     

I have said nothing of God or sin, or that God agrees with me and not with you.  You are the one who is interjecting those concepts and confusing medical ethics with religion.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am not talking to the AAP, I am talking to you. If you could please help me understand how the practice is not in violation of their own ethical code from your perspective, that would help.  Your opinion matters.  You don't have to take their word for anything, but you seem to be using their opinion as your gospel without critically analyzing anything for yourself or comparing against the rest of the developed world.  

Perhaps you are confusing me with their ethical consultant.  I didn't say that.  He did.

I'm sorry if i've been confusing.  I've been typing on the fly without having a lot of time to re-read stuff so it's probably not coming out very clear all the time.   It seems like the statement you linked to is essentially saying that in most cases doctors have an ethical responsibility to get consent from parents for medical procedures and to get consent from the minor patient if they are old enough to give it.   I don't see how infant circumcision violates that statement. 

Quote

I have said nothing of God or sin, or that God agrees with me and not with you.  You are the one who is interjecting those concepts and confusing medical ethics with religion.

This is a religion board.  If there is no interaction of medial ethics with our religious beliefs, why are we even talking about this on here?

[pogi]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I'm not being defensive, I simply stringently (to borrow your word) disagree with you.  I realize that you dislike that there are parents and medical professionals who disagree with you but it is what it is.   

I've shared all the medical stuff with you before on other threads, and I know others have shared them with you on this one.  You dismiss that which disagrees with your beliefs (like we all do to a degree), so there is no reason to do so again.

I didn't participate in another circumcision thread.  I think I read the first couple posts and lost interest.  In fact, I think I sided with you at that point in time and liked your post - I just reviewed it briefly as I didn't recall participating in a circumcision thread .

I have refuted the statement of the AAP in detail, to which I have received no counter argument to date.  Most of the arguments against my position on this thread have been in comparing FGM to MGM - fine, I have dropped that.  The only argument I have heard is that the AAP says that the benefit is greater than the risk, and therefore ethical.  I have refuted that in detail.  No one has been able to make a counter argument to date. Can you please tell me how the AAP can know that the benefit is greater than the risk, when they openly admit that the risks are unknown?  It seems that the rest of the developed world recognizes this fact, but I am curious as to why you personally defend the AAP's statement?  What evidence are you relying on?  Why are you so beholden to the opinion of the AAP?

Can you explain to me how the AAP came to the conclusion that the benefits are greater than the risks considering the following:

Quote

 

The AAP makes the key claim, repeated numerous times, that “the benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks,” without ever quantitatively comparing them. Indeed, it admits multiple times that the true rate and impact of circumcision complications is unknown, but still illogically makes this claim.

“The true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision is unknown.” p. e772
“It is unknown how often these late complications require surgical repair; this area requires further study.” p. e772
“Based on the data reviewed, it is difficult, if not impossible to adequately assess the total impact of complications.” p. e775
“Financial costs of care [after complications], emotional tolls, or the need for future corrective surgery are unknown.” p. e775

A guiding principle of medicine, however, suggests that a procedure should not be recommended until its complications, losses, and harms are fully understood.

 

This is not a matter of opinion, as you seem to want to make it.  They have said that it is "unknown".

Also, if you could please show me where anyone has addressed medical informed consent, and explained how the AAP is not in violation of their own ethic.  That would be a good start.  After that, can you explain to me when and why it would ever be ethical and medically indicated to perform a more invasive and dangerous procedure when non-invasive preventive measures are more effective and less of a financial burden on the health care system.  

The only argument I have heard from you is this:

Other professionals disagree with you, therefore it is none of your business.  That simply doesn't make sense.  People disagreed about slavery too, that doesn't mean that it was nobody's business to critically analyze the practice.  Disagreement does not make a practice ethically neutral.  If you agree with the AAP's position, then I expect a defense for it from you.  Otherwise I have no reason to believe that you are not just practicing blind faith and cultural bias.    

Edited January 16, 2019 by pogi

[pogi]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

It's not essential to my disagreement about the ethical aspects of circumcision anyway.

What is essential to your disagreement?

[Calm]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

And can you give any examples where God, to His church led by His prophet, has not intervened when His people were supporting sinful behavior

Slavery in the Bible could be seen as that way. (I see that pogi brought up the modern example)

Note:  I don't know enough of how it operated in their society to judge the ethics of the implications of biblical slavery, there are many things called slavery and some I can't see God ever allowing appearances he approved or was at least neutral about it.  Others I might see him not being happy about, but seeing it as a better alternative to what else a culture had available for someone in debt or displaced since often the other alternative would be starvation or homelessness.

Edited January 16, 2019 by Calm

[pogi]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I'm sorry if i've been confusing.  I've been typing on the fly without having a lot of time to re-read stuff so it's probably not coming out very clear all the time.   It seems like the statement you linked to is essentially saying that in most cases doctors have an ethical responsibility to get consent from parents for medical procedures and to get consent from the minor patient if they are old enough to give it.   I don't see how infant circumcision violates that statement. 

That is not a statement I was referring to.  I was referring to the AAp's own ethical consultant who suggested that circumcision is not medically essential and poses a risk of harm, and therefore parental consent is not sufficient to justify the procedure. 

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

This is a religion board.  If there is no interaction of medial ethics with our religious beliefs, why are we even talking about this on here?

Fair enough.  The OP was religiously oriented, but it has evolved from there.  I am happy to bring it back.  

It seems your religious argument has two parts, 1) because God has said nothing about it through his prophets, it must be ethical, and 2) unethical behavior is directly equivalent to sin.   Is that your argument? Furthermore, because I call it unethical, you conclude that I look at all people who choose circumcision as sinners.  Is that fair?

Before I answer, I just want to make sure I understand your argument clearly first.  Feel free to change or amend your position before I answer.

 

Edited January 16, 2019 by pogi

[bluebell]

33 minutes ago, pogi said:

I have refuted their statement in detail to which I have received no counter argument to date.  Most of the arguments against my position on this thread have been in comparing FGM to MGM - fine, I have dropped that.  The only argument I have heard is that the AAP says that the benefit is greater than the risk, and therefore ethical.  I have refuted that in detail.  No one has been able to make a counter argument to date. Can you please tell me how the AAP can know that the benefit is greater than the risk, when they openly admit that the risks are unknown?  It seems that the rest of the developed world recognizes this fact, but I am curious as to why you personally defend the AAP's statement?  What evidence are you relying on?  Why are you so beholden to the opinion of the AAP?

Can you explain to me how the AAP came to the conclusion that the benefits are greater than the risks considering the following:

This is not a matter of opinion, as you seem to want to make it.  They have said that it is "unknown".

Also, if you could please show me where anyone has addressed medical informed consent, and explained how the AAP is not in violation of their own ethic.  That would be a good start.  After that, can you explain to me when and why it would ever be ethical and medically indicated to perform a more invasive and dangerous procedure when non-invasive preventive measures are more effective and less of a financial burden on the health care system.  

The only argument I have heard from you is this:

Other professionals disagree with you, therefore it is none of your business.  That simply doesn't make sense.  People disagreed about slavery too, that doesn't mean that it was nobody's business to critically analyze the practice.  Disagreement does not make a practice ethically neutral.  If you agree with the AAP's position, then I expect a defense for it from you.  Otherwise I have no reason to believe that you are not just practicing blind faith and cultural bias.    

Honestly Pogi, believe about me whatever you want. I’m not going to extend any effort persuading you that I’m not “practicing blind faith and cultural bias”. It’s not worth it. 

[pogi]

Just now, bluebell said:

Honestly Pogi, believe about me whatever you want. I’m not going to extend any effort persuading you that I’m not “practicing blind faith and cultural bias”. It’s not worth it. 

That's fine.  But if you are not interested in actively discussing this issue and providing me with any argument, what are you doing here exactly?  It seems like you are just picking me apart without first laying your own foundation and basis for doing so. You tell me that I don't have a right to have an opinion on the matter, or to be concerned about what I perceive to be unethical cultural practices, but you haven't given me a good reason as to why I shouldn't be concerned other than "you do you and I'll do me".  Unfortunately, many unethical people use the same argument. 

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, pogi said:

That's fine.  But if you are not interested in actively discussing this issue and providing me with any argument, what are you doing here exactly?  It seems like you are just picking me apart without first laying your own foundation and basis for doing so. You tell me that I don't have a right to have an opinion on the matter, or to be concerned about what I perceive to be unethical cultural practices, but you haven't given me a good reason as to why I shouldn't be concerned other than "you do you and I'll do me".  Unfortunately, many unethical people use the same argument. 

The conversation has gone on in detail for several days.  Lots of repetition, imo.  That bluebell might be at a point where she believes nothing significantly new will be said doesn't imply she was never interested in actively discussing the topic.

That you added the unnecessary commentary of "many unethical people use the same argument" would have had me dropping the conversation instantly, btw.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

That's fine.  But if you are not interested in actively discussing this issue and providing me with any argument, what are you doing here exactly?  It seems like you are just picking me apart without first laying your own foundation and basis for doing so. You tell me that I don't have a right to have an opinion on the matter, or to be concerned about what I perceive to be unethical cultural practices, but you haven't given me a good reason as to why I shouldn't be concerned other than "you do you and I'll do me".  Unfortunately, many unethical people use the same argument. 

I'm sorry if I was unclear.  My last post was me essentially saying "I'm not here anymore."  And to further clarify, I never said you don't have a right to your opinion.  I've said that I fully support parents doing whatever is best, in their opinion, for their kids and I'm completely fine when they share such.

I said that your opinion isn't binding on anyone else and that your opinion is irrelevant to other people's parenting choices.  

Edited January 16, 2019 by bluebell

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

What is essential to your disagreement?

My disagreement was with your statement that it's unethical for parents to choose to circumcise their children.  But like I said before, I'm at the agree to disagree point so no need to discuss it further.

[pogi]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

The conversation has gone on in detail for several days.  Lots of repetition, imo.  That bluebell might be at a point where she believes nothing significantly new will be said doesn't imply she was never interested in actively discussing the topic.

There has been lots of repetition.  People seem to keep bringing up points that have already been refuted, so I give gentle reminders.  Until somebody comes up with a way to counter-argue my refutations, then they have no foundation justification for telling me that I have no right to be concerned about the ethical nature of this cultural practice. 

I honestly haven't heard much if any argument from the pro-circumcision side.  Mostly, people are content to simply tell me that my arguments are unconvincing without any defense for their position whatsoever, other than pointing to the AAP statement - which no one has tried to defend.  I have made several valid ethical arguments that people seem to be content to poo-poo without reason. It is not helpful to tell me that my argument is unconvincing.  Tell me why.  What evidence supports the AAP statement?  Why can't the rest of the developing world see that evidence? 

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

That you added the unnecessary commentary of "many unethical people use the same argument" would have had me dropping the conversation instantly, btw.

I felt like her comment to mind my own business was unnecessary.  My point was simply that her comment of "you do you, and I'll do me" has no ethical foundation.  I have every right and reason (until someone convinces me otherwise) to be concerned. 

[bluebell]

One last post because I know pogi asked for it a few times and I'm back at my computer and can more easily provide it.  This is where I'm getting my information from.  

[pogi]

58 minutes ago, bluebell said:

My disagreement was with your statement that it's unethical for parents to choose to circumcise their children.  But like I said before, I'm at the agree to disagree point so no need to discuss it further.

I understand that you are phasing out of the conversation.  That is fine. I just want to clarify that I have defended parents who chose to circumcise their children in this thread.  A parent is not ethically wrong for trusting the AAP and their own pediatricians in regard to circumcision.  My arguments should not be construed as an attack or judgment on any parent who has decided to circumcise their children. I, myself circumcised my son.  I give myself slack.  I don't view my decision as a sin or ethical violation on my part, per se.  Pediatricians can't expect lay parents to be able to adequately weigh the evidence when none is presented to them.  We are expected to simply take their word for it.  It is based on trust.  If anything, we are guilty of blind trust.  That is all. The ethical violation is with the AAP.  They clearly violate their own ethical standard of practice as outlined by them. Their own ethical adviser agrees - along with the rest of the developed world.  That should count for something. 

57 minutes ago, bluebell said:

One last post because I know pogi asked for it a few times and I'm back at my computer and can more easily provide it.  This is where I'm getting my information from.  

This link is simply to the original 2012 AAP statement.  It does nothing to address the multiple concerns that I have brought up that other medical organizations across the globe and providers have with it.  It simply doesn't address my concerns.  Until they are addressed, I have good reason to be concerned.  No one has been able to, or even tried to address them.