What does the AAP's statement about circumcision mean? What do other medical organizations think about the AAP's statement? Read these articles to gain some insight into the AAP's vague statement on circumcision.

Medical Ethicists from 17 Countries Tell American Academy of Pediatrics to Stop Championing Neonatal Male Circumcision (Intact America)
"The American Academy of Pediatrics should be reeling today from two independent blasts of criticism from doctors and medical ethicists saying the AAP’s Task Force report last summer, which softened its opposition to routine neonatal male circumcision, is unsupported by scientific data or medical ethics."

Cultural Bias in the AAP’s 2012 Technical Report and Policy Statement on Male Circumcision (American Academy of Pediatrics)
"Seen from the outside, cultural bias reflecting the normality of non-therapeutic male circumcision in the United States seems obvious, and the report’s conclusions are different from those reached by physicians in other parts of the Western world, including Europe, Canada, and Australia."

International Physicians Protest Against American Academy of Pediatrics’ Policy on Infant Male Circumcision (KNMG)
"Circumcision conflicts with children’s rights and doctors’ oath and can have serious long-term consequences, state an international group of 38 physicians from 16 European countries in Pediatrics today."

The AAP is Not God (Little Images)
"The AAP asks you to follow the status quo and keep the millions of dollars rolling in for their members; the Creator of the universe asks that if you have given your life to Christ, that he be the Lord of all of it, down to the decisions we make for our children at the doctor’s office."

AAP's Circumcision Policy Statement (Pediatrics)
"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision."

Commentary on AAP's 2012 Circumcision Policy Statement (Doctors Opposing Circumcision) 
"There was no discussion of the child’s right to bodily integrity or the child’s right to security of his person and special protection during childhood, which rights non-therapeutic circumcision clearly violates.."