The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) certainly deserves recognition in this Hall of Shame. Its name starts with a lie. The AAP is not any kind of "academy". It is a 67,000 member medical trade association charged with the responsibility of advancing its pediatric fellows' business, financial, and legal interests.
The AAP has a long history of flip-flops in its policy regarding child circumcision. The human and legal rights of children do not seem to have been considered in its various circumcision policies adopted through the years. Boys have been regarded as chattels of their parents, who it permitted to do what ever they wanted with regard to a boy's penis. The statements generally have been regarded as biased in favor of circumcision and more money for the doctors who perform circumcision.
To its credit, in its first policy, enunciated in 1971, It stated, "There are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period." While truthful, it did not give doctors an excuse to amputate foreskins for profit, so it did not last long.
Four pediatricians got together in 1975 and called themselves an "ad hoc" task force and wrote a new policy statement.
The statement declared that "traditional, cultural, and religious factors" were sufficient reasons to do a circumcision. It attempted to transfer responsibility for the surgical decision from the attending physician to the parents. It cited no evidence and had no footnotes or references, but it provided money-hungry doctors with an opportunity to collect a surgical fee, although at the cost of an infant boy's physical integrity. There was no mention of pain, psychological issues, or complications. There was no mention of functions of the foreskin as they apparently believed that the foreskin had no function.
The 1975 position statement lasted until the late 1980s, when it was felt that a new and updated circumcision policy statement was needed. The AAP appointed a six-member task force with five Jewish members and with the infamous circumcision-promoting late Jewish doctor Edgar J. Schoen, M.D. as chairman. Judaism requires male circumcision so it is thought that Jewish doctors are predisposed toward circumcision.
There were many areas of concern in the new AAP position statement on circumcision published by Schoen's task force in 1989.
There was deep dissatifaction with the work of the Edgar J. Schoen task force, so a new task force was formed with Dr. Carole Marie Lannon, M.D., M.P.H., as chairwoman. The new statement was published in 1999. The statement again used potential benefits to mislead and deceive parents. There was no mention of the nature of the foreskin and its functions. There was still no recognition of the rights of the child. The infant boy was treated as piece of meat to be carved up at the will of his parents.
In 2008, the AAP made a deal with the medical trade associations that represent the family physicians and the obstetricians. The AAP would create a circumcision policy statement that would be endorsed by the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).
The AAP created a task force with Susan Blank, MD, as chairwoman.
That statement was published in 2012. It had numerous errors of fact. It received severe and ongoing criticism. International physicians found the statement to be unacceptable.
The AAP was acutely embarrassed by the critical comment. The statement was not reaffirmed, so it expired ignominiously after five years in August 2017. The AAP has had no official public policy on circumcision of boys since then.
The AAP has removed mention of circumcision from its main website. A search for "circumcision" now produces what purports to be an AI-generated statement that essentially provides the AAP's former position, but without naming the AAP. The AI-generated statement seems to find information only from the AAP, so it appears to be a subterfuge.
The AAP operates a second website, called HealthyChildren.org. Information about circumcision that was previously available there appears to have been removed as of 1 July 2026, but is found in the AI-generated statement. A search for circumcision does not return a response. It is likely that the AAP's legal advisers suggested the removal of all circumcision information.
Circumcision of young boys remains a harmful, unnecessary, painful, traumatic, mutilating. irreversible amputation of penile tissue with numerous important protective and sexual functions. with adverse sexual and psychological consequences, and in violation of the child's rights to physical integrity and self-determination. We can only hope that the AAP is serious about reforming its policies and instituting policies that favor genital integrity for American boys.
The AAP has a long history of flip-flops in its policy regarding child circumcision. The human and legal rights of children do not seem to have been considered in its various circumcision policies adopted through the years. Boys have been regarded as chattels of their parents, who it permitted to do what ever they wanted with regard to a boy's penis. The statements generally have been regarded as biased in favor of circumcision and more money for the doctors who perform circumcision.
To its credit, in its first policy, enunciated in 1971, It stated, "There are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period." While truthful, it did not give doctors an excuse to amputate foreskins for profit, so it did not last long.
Four pediatricians got together in 1975 and called themselves an "ad hoc" task force and wrote a new policy statement.
The statement declared that "traditional, cultural, and religious factors" were sufficient reasons to do a circumcision. It attempted to transfer responsibility for the surgical decision from the attending physician to the parents. It cited no evidence and had no footnotes or references, but it provided money-hungry doctors with an opportunity to collect a surgical fee, although at the cost of an infant boy's physical integrity. There was no mention of pain, psychological issues, or complications. There was no mention of functions of the foreskin as they apparently believed that the foreskin had no function.
The 1975 position statement lasted until the late 1980s, when it was felt that a new and updated circumcision policy statement was needed. The AAP appointed a six-member task force with five Jewish members and with the infamous circumcision-promoting late Jewish doctor Edgar J. Schoen, M.D. as chairman. Judaism requires male circumcision so it is thought that Jewish doctors are predisposed toward circumcision.
There were many areas of concern in the new AAP position statement on circumcision published by Schoen's task force in 1989.
- The statement cited potential benefits. The word potential is a tricky and misleading word. It actually means to exist in possibility but not in actuality, so a potential benefit exists only in possibility.
- While it was now known that infants actually feel pain, the statement did not recommend any form of pain relief.
- The statement cited biased and misleading claims regarding urinary tract infection by circumcision advocate Thomas E. Wiswell, M.D.
- Although the human rights era started in 1945 with the creation of the United Nations and the UN Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the AAP statement did not recognize infant boys as human beings with rights of their own. Non-therapeutic infant circumcision without consent of the patient violates Articles 3 & 5.
There was deep dissatifaction with the work of the Edgar J. Schoen task force, so a new task force was formed with Dr. Carole Marie Lannon, M.D., M.P.H., as chairwoman. The new statement was published in 1999. The statement again used potential benefits to mislead and deceive parents. There was no mention of the nature of the foreskin and its functions. There was still no recognition of the rights of the child. The infant boy was treated as piece of meat to be carved up at the will of his parents.
In 2008, the AAP made a deal with the medical trade associations that represent the family physicians and the obstetricians. The AAP would create a circumcision policy statement that would be endorsed by the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).
The AAP created a task force with Susan Blank, MD, as chairwoman.
That statement was published in 2012. It had numerous errors of fact. It received severe and ongoing criticism. International physicians found the statement to be unacceptable.
The AAP was acutely embarrassed by the critical comment. The statement was not reaffirmed, so it expired ignominiously after five years in August 2017. The AAP has had no official public policy on circumcision of boys since then.
The AAP has removed mention of circumcision from its main website. A search for "circumcision" now produces what purports to be an AI-generated statement that essentially provides the AAP's former position, but without naming the AAP. The AI-generated statement seems to find information only from the AAP, so it appears to be a subterfuge.
The AAP operates a second website, called HealthyChildren.org. Information about circumcision that was previously available there appears to have been removed as of 1 July 2026, but is found in the AI-generated statement. A search for circumcision does not return a response. It is likely that the AAP's legal advisers suggested the removal of all circumcision information.
Circumcision of young boys remains a harmful, unnecessary, painful, traumatic, mutilating. irreversible amputation of penile tissue with numerous important protective and sexual functions. with adverse sexual and psychological consequences, and in violation of the child's rights to physical integrity and self-determination. We can only hope that the AAP is serious about reforming its policies and instituting policies that favor genital integrity for American boys.
This post was last modified: 5 hours ago by Old-guy.
Edit Reason: Continued development