Clearly these people will only pay heed to lawsuits and financial liability. Perhaps they’re worried about losing their prestigious and lucrative positions at the apex of medical respectability. But the very structure of “medical respectability” is set to collapse under the weight of the evidence of criminal racketeering and wholesale child abuse, and not just with respect to MGM. http://thoughtcrimeradio.net/2019/06/physicians-arent-burning-out-theyre-suffering-from-moral-injury/
One could say these are simply scientific miscalculations, and the quacks who carry them out are only acting in good faith in the context of a diseased culture (shades of nuremberg) , but whatever their personal motivations, it takes a certain level of psychopathy and dissociation (not unlike those of a violent and abusive parent) to impose such violence on innocent children.
A goldfish knows nothing about water. The American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision is unaware of the peculiar circumcising culture in which it is immersed. For example, characters in American TV sitcoms may exhibit a casual vindictiveness toward the foreskin, or the man with one, that would cause widespread outrage if it involved race.1 American medical texts portray “normal” penises as circumcised, and may define the foreskin as “the part removed by circumcision”.2
This unawareness permeates the Task Force’s 2012 circumcision policy.3 Dr Frisch and 37 eminent European pediatricians, speaking for 22 pediatric associations, and for 17 countries from Iceland to Lithuania, have accurately pointed it out. The Task Force’s reply amounts to “Tu quoque” (“You’re another”).
Those countries have “a clear bias against circumcision” the same way they have “a clear bias against parentally-elective infant toe amputation”. They have no Task Forces on Leaving Boys’ Genitals Alone.
The reply, like the policy itself, discounts the only study that actually attempted to measure the sensitivity of the foreskin itself, by ignoring its main, uncontested, finding: “male circumcision ablates the most sensitive part of the penis.”4 ….
It contrasts the harm of being circumcised (without any measure of the worst of that harm, such as major complications and death) with a new, undocumented and unmeasured “harm of not being circumcised”, but such harm could equally apply to failure to amputate any other less-than-vital body parts, such as the earlobes.
The Task Force offers no rebuttal to Frisch et al.‘s substantive case, based on the AAP’s own policy, that the diseases circumcision reduces (if the studies the Task Force cites are to be relied on) are so rare, or of such late onset, or so readily prevented or treated, that circumcising infants to prevent them is a bad option compared to letting the child grow up to decide the fate of his own genitals.
Its original claim that “the benefits outweigh the risks” was made with no actual weighing. It is now nowhere to be seen, and goes undefended.