RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Veracity and rhetoric in paediatric medicine: a critique of Svoboda and Van Howe's response to the AAP policy on infant male circumcision
JF Journal of Medical Ethics
JO J Med Ethics
FD BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and Institute of Medical Ethics
SP 463
OP 470
DO 10.1136/medethics-2013-101614
VO 40
IS 7
A1 Brian J Morris
A1 Aaron A R Tobian
A1 Catherine A Hankins
A1 Jeffrey D Klausner
A1 Joya Banerjee
A1 Stefan A Bailis
A1 Stephen Moses
A1 Thomas E Wiswell
YR 2014
UL http://jme.bmj.com/content/40/7/463.abstract
AB In a recent issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics, Svoboda and Van Howe commented on the 2012 change in the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) policy on newborn male circumcision, in which the AAP stated that benefits of the procedure outweigh the risks. Svoboda and Van Howe disagree with the AAP conclusions. We show here that their arguments against male circumcision are based on a poor understanding of epidemiology, erroneous interpretation of the evidence, selective citation of the literature, statistical manipulation of data, and circular reasoning. In reality, the scientific evidence indicates that male circumcision, especially when performed in the newborn period, is an ethically and medically sound low-risk preventive health procedure conferring a lifetime of benefits to health and well-being. Policies in support of parent-approved elective newborn circumcision should be embraced by the medical, scientific and wider communities.