In the end, we agreed that the risks of modifying our newborn’s body outweighed the perceived benefits, a position with which the American Academy of Pediatrics now disagrees according to a policy released last week. New studies, some of which were conducted in Africa, suggest that circumcision reduces the risk that heterosexual men will contract H.I.V. As a result, the academy recommends that the procedure be covered by insurers, but stops short of endorsing it as medically necessary. A member of the academy and author of the policy, Dr. Douglas S. Diekema, describes the stance as "pro-choice not pro-circumcision." The last public position the AAP took on circumcision, in 1999, was to state there was insufficient medical evidence to support or negate the claim that the procedure's benefits outweigh its risks.
Despite this new research, my husband and I remain confident in our decision to forgo the snipping. Irreversibly altering a part of our son's body without his consent based on the mercurial opinion of experts was the wrong choice for our family.
Did you and your partner discuss whether your son would be circumcised before his birth? Does the new policy by the American Academy of Pediatrics render you more or less confident in your decision?