Email AAP's Board of Directors to not endorse routine circumcision!

[Mister.Barbecue]

The AAP will soon come out with a new policy. It will likely be pro-circ. We need to protest this.

From a recent AMA article: http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/201...7/prse0302.htm
The AAP's Task Force on Circumcision has submitted its report to the academy's board of trustees, which is likely to act by the end of 2012, Dr. Diekema said. He could not divulge specifics on the task force's work because it is under embargo while the board considers it.

However, Dr. Diekema said the policy on routine circumcision will probably shift away from strict neutrality because of new data about the procedure's health benefits.

* ! *

So, the Task Force has finished their work. And now the only people left to influence are the Board of Directors at the AAP. They are reviewing the policy recommendations of the Task Force (which we know are probably pro-circ). Tell the AAP board to refuse to recommend circumcision to parents! Send them letters, via e-mail and snail mail (or leave a polite phone message) why you feel circumcision is unethical. We must show them that many are opposed to an unethical circumcision endorsement from the AAP. And please, spread the word to send emails to these people who will be considering this key policy soon.
These are the members of their Board of Directors: http://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-a...Directors.aspx

Here are their email addresses, which you can conveniently copy & paste into an email:
"Errol R. Alden" ealden@aap.org,
"Robert W. Block" robert-block@ouhsc.edu,
"O. Marion Burton" marion.burton@uscmed.sc.edu,
"Thomas K. McInerny" thomasmci@aol.com,
"Carole E. Allen" allen@massmed.org,
"Danielle Laraque", dlaraque@maimonidesmed.org,
"Sandra Gibson Hassink", shassink@nemours.org,
"Francis E. Rushton, Jr" ferushton@embarqmail.com,
"Marilyn Bull" mbull@iupui.edu,
"Michael V. Severson" mvsbrd@mac.com,
"Kenneth E. Matthews" d7aap@yahoo.com,
"Kyle Yasuda" kyasuda@u.washington.edu,
"Myles B. Abbott" mabbottmd@aol.com,
"Sara H. Goza" sgoza@aap.net,



Executive Committee members, for other methods of contact. [some info could be out of date. Most ph#'s are office reception.]

Errol R. Alden, MD, FAAP - Executive director/CEO, American Academy of Pediatrics
ealden@aap.org
141 Northwest Point Blvd
Elk Grove Village, IL 60007-1019
Phone: +1 847 434 7500 Fax: +1 847 434 8385
Or you can try:
American Academy of Pediatrics
Tel: +1.847.434.4000 Fax: +1.847.434.8000

Robert W. Block - President
robert-block@ouhsc.edu
Department of Pediatrics
University of Oklahoma School of Community Medicine,
4502 East 41st Street, Tulsa, OK 74135-2512.
More addresses: http://www.vitals.com/doctors/Dr_Robert_W_Block

Thomas K. McInerny, MD, FAAP - President-elect
thomasmci@aol.com
University of Rochester Medical Center
School of Medicine and Dentistry
601 Elmwood Ave, Box 777 Rochester, NY 14642
Appointment: (585) 275-URMC

O. Marion Burton, MD, FAAP - Immediate Past President
marion.burton@uscmed.sc.edu
Clinical Affairs
University of South Carolina School of Medicine
15 Medical Park, Suite 300,
Columbia, SC 29203


Board Members

Carole E. Allen
allen@massmet.org
Harvard Vanguard Medical Assoc
40 Holland St, Somerville, MA
(617) 629-6000
--
95 Beverly Rd
Arlington, MA 02474
(617) 629-6391

Danielle Laraque, MD, FAAP -
dlaraque@maimonidesmed.org
Chair, Department of Pediatrics and Vice-President, Maimonides Infants and Children's Hospital of Brooklyn
977 48th Street
Brooklyn, NY 11219
Ph: 718/283-7632 , 718/283-6150
Fax: 718/283-7005
very interestingly, she works at the same medical center where that Jewish baby just died from oral suction & herpes!

Sandra Gibson Hassink, MD
shassink@nemours.org
1600 Rockland Rd, PO Box 269
Wilmington, DE 19803
Phone: (302) 651-4429

Francis E. Rushton, Jr, MD, FAAP
ferushton@embarqmail.com
Beaufort Pediatircs PA.
964 Ribaut Rd., Ste. 1.
Beaufort, SC 29902-5425

Marilyn Bull, M.D., FAAP.
mbull@iupui.edu
Riley Children's Hospital.
702 Barnhill Dr., Rm. 1601.
Indianapolis, IN 46202-512

Michael V. Severson, M.D., FAAP.
mvsbrd@mac.com
15556 McKay Rd.
Brainerd, MN
56401-6168

Kenneth E. Matthews, MD, FAAP
d7aap@yahoo.com
Mailing address: Bryan University Pediatric Association
1602 Rock Prairie Rd W., Ste. 340
College Station, TX 77845-3068
Phone: (979) 696-4440 [office]
Fax: (979) 694-8500

Myles B. Abbott, MD, FAAP
mabbottmd@aol.com
East Bay Pediatrics Group.
2999 Regent St., Ste. 325.
Berkeley, CA 94705-2150

Sara H. Goza, MD, FAAP
sgoza@aap.net
Fayette Medical Clinic. [might be out of date]
101 Yorktown Dr.
Fayetteville, GA 30214
She served as AAP Chair, for a Task Force on Medicaid

[Mister.Barbecue]

The AAP Board of Directors has been reviewing the report by its circumcision taskforce for almost 6 months now.
Tell them to reject any change in policy that will support circumcision!

Please share this link as far and wide as you can. Encourage people to copy/paste the email addresses of the board members and send them an email or a copy of the pre-written letter here:
http://intactiv.tumblr.com/post/2864...trics-and-tell


Their Email addresses:
“Errol R. Alden” <ealden@aap.org>, “Robert W. Block” <robert-block@ouhsc.edu>, “O. Marion Burton” <marion.burton@uscmed.sc.edu>, “Thomas K. McInerny” <thomasmci@aol.com>, “Carole E. Allen” <allen@massmed.org>, “Danielle Laraque”, <dlaraque@maimonidesmed.org>, “Sandra Gibson Hassink”, <shassink@nemours.org>, “Francis E. Rushton, Jr” <ferushton@embarqmail.com>, “Marilyn Bull” <mbull@iupui.edu>, “Michael V. Severson” <mvsbrd@mac.com>, “Kenneth E. Matthews” <d7aap@yahoo.com>, “Kyle Yasuda” <kyasuda@u.washington.edu>, “Myles B. Abbott” <mabbottmd@aol.com>, “Sara H. Goza” <sgoza@aap.net>,



Sample letter: (you may include it underneath your own words)

“Across many European nations, fierce debate goes on in houses of parliament over whether to ban circumcision. This year, German and Finnish district courts ruled that non-medically-indicated circumcision is illegal. Can the AAP really afford to ignore these new developments before publishing a new circumcision policy? The AAP should carefully re-evaluate the legal status of this cultural practice, especially now that so many European institutions have condemned it as a violation of human rights.

Many world medical organizations do not support medicalized circumcision anymore. In fact, the Royal Dutch Medical Society, the Swedish Academy of Pediatrics and the South African Medical Association have all called this procedure unethical, and a violation of a child’s human rights. It has become known that the natural prepuce has a function and is a valuable body part that should not be cut off without proper indication. It is no longer appropriate for the AAP to tolerate this unethical practice by its doctors. The AAP must now do what’s right and strongly discourage parents from doing this unnecessary and harmful surgery, which nas no real medical benefit.

Circumcision violates the AAP’s own policies on proxy consent for minors: http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/AAP/ ”

[freddys]

I emailed a similar letter to each of the AAP's director, but there is something wrong with Thomas K. McInerny's email, since the message could not be delivered. At least all the others have been reached. I am going to ask the members of our local NORM chapter to do the same.

[Colorado]

Same here. I emailed them all but on woman was on vacation...and got her auto-response..out of office email...but she will be getting it when she comes back from vacation.
Colorado

[mark85]

What do you guys think of this? Is it too long? I know that it may be a little late in the game since they're releasing their policy pretty soon, but I felt obligated to send something.

----

"Dear AAP Board Members,

I'm writing to you to express my concern about the AAP preparing to recommend routine infant circumcision. There is no other major medical organization in the world that thinks there is sufficient evidence to recommend this practice, and the Royal Dutch Medical Society, Swedish Academy of Pediatrics, and South African Medical Association, condemn it as unethical and a violation of human rights. As an American citizen, it disturbs me to think we will be recommending a prophylactic surgery on infants that no other major medical association in the world recommends. This will not only harm the credibility of the AAP abroad, but also the reputation of the United States medical community as a whole if this recommendation is put into practice.

If this decision is being predominantly based on the results of the studies known as the African RCT's, then I think you are making a grave error in judgment. Even if you disregard very concerning methodological flaws in these studies, as well as the misleading media reports about them, these studies do not suggest that these results are applicable to developed nations. They studied the effect of adult circumcision (in a population that's drastically different than the United States in many important factors) in heterosexual transmission of HIV. On top of that, it only showed that relative risk reduction of 60% (which upon review, has been proven to be an inflated number) in female-to-male transmission. When it came to a study testing male-to-female transmission, the rate of transmission was actually higher in the circumcised group. So these results, even when taken at absolute face value, are not very relevant to HIV transmission in the United States. The writers of the studies themselves admitted that the results are not applicable to developed nations. All countries that have successfully went up against sexual transmission of HIV have solved it with education and the promotion of safe sex practices, and that is what is being proven time and time again as the real solution to this problem. No study has concluded that circumcision is a suitable replacement for condom use, so it's condoms and other safe sex practices that should be promoted here, not circumcision.

So please do not recommend this extremely unorthodox, and frankly, disturbing practice of prophylactic surgery on non-consenting infants. Surgery should only be performed when there is a medical need and all other less invasive treatments have been exhausted. This is a permanent alteration to the form and function of not only an infant's genitals but a future adult's genitals, it amputates tissue that has been put under the microscope and proven to be highly innervated with sexually responsive fine touch nerves. In what other respect do we ever assume that the removal of highly innervated tissue will not result in diminished sensation? Since when is it standard in medical ethics to promote prophylactic surgery on minors? The federal laws on female genital surgery of minors do not leave legal exemptions for any possible prophylactic benefit for it, so the only fair thing to do is to give males the same standard as females.

Sexual behavior is predominantly a behavior of adults, not children, and definitely not infants, so we need to allow the adult individual to decide for themselves as to whether they think the benefits outweigh the costs of this practice. This may be a decision that's being made for infants, but that also means that it's a decision made forever for a future adult that may not want this done to them, that may end up highly valuing the sexual function of the foreskin over the minor inconvenience of using a condom. Regardless of how few or minor you think the risks are to this surgery, they're not ethically acceptable risks when it is being done without medical necessity.

I'd like to clarify that I am not asking the AAP to recommend against this procedure, only to continue to not recommend in favor of it.

Sincerely,
My name"

[Science Monk]

Originally Posted by mark85

What do you guys think of this? Is it too long? I know that it may be a little late in the game since they're releasing their policy pretty soon, but I felt obligated to send something.

----

"Dear AAP Board Members,

I'm writing to you to express my concern about the AAP preparing to recommend routine infant circumcision. There is no other major medical organization in the world that thinks there is sufficient evidence to recommend this practice, and the Royal Dutch Medical Society, Swedish Academy of Pediatrics, and South African Medical Association, condemn it as unethical and a violation of human rights. As an American citizen, it disturbs me to think we will be recommending a prophylactic surgery on infants that no other major medical association in the world recommends. This will not only harm the credibility of the AAP abroad, but also the reputation of the United States medical community as a whole if this recommendation is put into practice.

If this decision is being predominantly based on the results of the studies known as the African RCT's, then I think you are making a grave error in judgment. Even if you disregard very concerning methodological flaws in these studies, as well as the misleading media reports about them, these studies do not suggest that these results are applicable to developed nations. They studied the effect of adult circumcision (in a population that's drastically different than the United States in many important factors) in heterosexual transmission of HIV. On top of that, it only showed that relative risk reduction of 60% (which upon review, has been proven to be an inflated number) in female-to-male transmission. When it came to a study testing male-to-female transmission, the rate of transmission was actually higher in the circumcised group. So these results, even when taken at absolute face value, are not very relevant to HIV transmission in the United States. The writers of the studies themselves admitted that the results are not applicable to developed nations. All countries that have successfully went up against sexual transmission of HIV have solved it with education and the promotion of safe sex practices, and that is what is being proven time and time again as the real solution to this problem. No study has concluded that circumcision is a suitable replacement for condom use, so it's condoms and other safe sex practices that should be promoted here, not circumcision.

So please do not recommend this extremely unorthodox, and frankly, disturbing practice of prophylactic surgery on non-consenting infants. Surgery should only be performed when there is a medical need and all other less invasive treatments have been exhausted. This is a permanent alteration to the form and function of not only an infant's genitals but a future adult's genitals, it amputates tissue that has been put under the microscope and proven to be highly innervated with sexually responsive fine touch nerves. In what other respect do we ever assume that the removal of highly innervated tissue will not result in diminished sensation? Since when is it standard in medical ethics to promote prophylactic surgery on minors? The federal laws on female genital surgery of minors do not leave legal exemptions for any possible prophylactic benefit for it, so the only fair thing to do is to give males the same standard as females.

Sexual behavior is predominantly a behavior of adults, not children, and definitely not infants, so we need to allow the adult individual to decide for themselves as to whether they think the benefits outweigh the costs of this practice. This may be a decision that's being made for infants, but that also means that it's a decision made forever for a future adult that may not want this done to them, that may end up highly valuing the sexual function of the foreskin over the minor inconvenience of using a condom. Regardless of how few or minor you think the risks are to this surgery, they're not ethically acceptable risks when it is being done without medical necessity.

I'd like to clarify that I am not asking the AAP to recommend against this procedure, only to continue to not recommend in favor of it.

Sincerely,
My name"

Really NICE letter. You should be proud of it.

I don't think it is too long - especially considering the gobbledygook these people are used to dealing with, and the gobbledygook they feel free to throw at us. These people so often try to use semantics to obfuscate an issue. Your letter, on the other hand, rings true. It's clearly an effort to communicate honestly.

Drop the last sentence however. The AAP SHOULD be recommending AGAINST RIC, not simply remaining neutral on the issue. The last sentence detracts from your message, and it diminishes the punch of your masterfully written penultimate sentence, "Regardless of how few or minor you think the risks are to this surgery, they're not ethically acceptable risks when it is being done without medical necessity."

David
World As Monkey Island

[mark85]

Thanks David, that means a lot to me. I did end up removing that last comment, I was trying to be less demanding, but you were right, it did take away from my message, and it wasn't really all that consistent with what I was saying before that. I can post my final draft if you like (made a few language tweaks here and there.)