New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Aap

post #1 of 5
Thread Starter 
In case any of you didn't see this, I got this message from Intact America in my email today:

"Very compelling."

That's how Susan Blank – who chairs the American Academy of Pediatricians' task force on circumcision – described studies of adult males in sub-Saharan Africa that suggest circumcision reduces the risk of HIV transmission.

Well, here's what we think is very compelling: circumcising babies is wrong – ethically, morally, and medically. It's shocking to think Dr. Blank and her task force are considering policy recommendations for baby boys in the United States based on misconstrued data from controversial African studies.

Send a message directly to Dr. Blank today and urge the AAP task force not to recommend circumcision.
That's why Intact America was on the ground at the AAP's national conference in Washington D.C. this fall, speaking with medical professionals and AAP decision-makers.

And, with the help of supporters like you, we placed an open letter to the AAP in The Washington Post.

We have to keep up the pressure.

Tell Dr. Blank and the AAP that circumcision is unnecessary, harmful, and ethically wrong.

Thank you for all of your support during this critical time.
If the AAP ignores the ethics of circumcision, family doctors and pediatricians will face tremendous pressure to recommend it to parents. And the task force could act soon – so there's little time to lose!

We need your help to make sure that Dr. Blank and her task force are focusing on the facts.

Circumcision is not only unnecessary, but it's also harmful and unethical. Doctors should not do it!
post #2 of 5
Sent a message to Dr. Blank. Thanks for the link!
post #3 of 5
Egads. CONDOMS are way more effective at preventing HIV. Can we be compelling about those instead? please? sheesH.
post #4 of 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlyle View Post
Egads. CONDOMS are way more effective at preventing HIV. Can we be compelling about those instead? please? sheesH.
not to mention, babies aren't having sex.

I sure hope circumcised sexually active men aren't wondering around thinking they have on a "natural condom".

The men in Africa who just got circumcised will NOT use condoms now because, well, they were told if they got circ'd they would be immune to the HIV virus.

Just remember, Australia went on and on for weeks raving about these studies just before their medical establishment were about to release a new statement.

Australia banned circumcision and wrote a statement endorsing a stance against circumcision.

The Circ to reduce AIDS propaganda backfired.

This is likely to backfire here in America too.
post #5 of 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlyle View Post
Egads. CONDOMS are way more effective at preventing HIV. Can we be compelling about those instead? please? sheesH.
Yes, I just posted about this on my blog, and I made that point exactly. There actually was an analysis of this recently presented at an AIDS conference in South Africa: Lima V et al. The combined impact of male circumcision, condom use and HAART coverage on the HIV-1 epidemic in South Africa: a mathematical model. 5th IAS Conference on HIV Treatment, Pathogenesis and Prevention, Cape Town, abstract WECA105, 2009

Jenn
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Case Against Circumcision