That is disturbing. I wonder why the AAP is willing to put itself out there as so out of step with the majority of the other developed, western nations who have been going in the opposite direction for years. Do they not feel conspicuous? What does it say about a country when an organization like the AAP starts moving in the direction of recommending circ because it feels it offers benefits, in stark contrast to the other nations, who have looked at the same data and said no. Strange.
And, as many PPs pointed out, is that parents to be who haven't given it a thought will say, "Hey, the AAP says the benefits outweigh any risks," and will dutifully agree to it, because obviously the AAP says those risks are minor.
I think this statement by Brady is absurd:
“But from a public health perspective, I think it [circumcision] is a good decision and a lot of children will benefit.”
How many newborns and children are having sex and thus supposedly be doing a great service to public health? Because I can't see any other logic to that statement. Even if it supposedly lowers the risk of UTIs, then how is one kid getting treatment for that a risk to public health?
I have encountered mothers who say that they did circ their sons to lower their risk of contracting HIV. No, not in Africa. In the US. I would hope that they advise them to use condoms first.