News update
Article features new interviews with former American Academy of Pediatrics Circumcision Task Force members, urging transparent, ethically grounded guidance.
“Maybe the AAP should get out of the [circumcision] business, since it’s not really a medical practice. It’s only a ‘medical procedure’ in the sense that medical professionals are performing it.”— Andrew Freedman, M.D.
BOISE, ID, UNITED STATES, October 24, 2025 / EINPresswire.com / — A new Journal of Medical Ethics (JME) article by scholar Max Buckler, “ As controversies mount, circumcision policies need a rethink,” draws on recent interviews with two members of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ (AAP’s) 2012 Circumcision Task Force—offering an unprecedented look inside the policy’s formation.
The article appears amid controversy following U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s claims that “two studies…show children who are circumcised early have double the rate of autism” and that it’s “highly likely” that Tylenol given for pain relief is responsible. His comments add to persistent ambiguity in U.S. pediatric policy.
Buckler traces how cultural, legal, and scientific forces shaped the AAP’s policy statement that “the health benefits outweigh the risks.” Though expired by default since 2017, that policy still guides the decisions of doctors and parents.
New interviews with two members of the AAP’s Task Force on Circumcision indicate the statement is flawed.
Douglas Diekema, M.D., MPH, the task force bioethicist, reflected: “When you look at all the data, I don’t think you can honestly say in a recommendation that the benefits outweigh the risks.” While not advocating a ban—given the practice’s religious importance—he added: “I also didn’t think pediatricians should be recommending it…. To the parent who is on the fence…. I would say they are probably better off not doing the procedure.”
Andrew Freedman, M.D., the task force’s representative pediatric urologist, described the 2012 “benefits outweigh risks” phrasing as a compromise among task force members—some strongly pro-circumcision, others aiming for neutrality. “It is a non-therapeutic procedure,” he said. “If it can be called preventive medicine, it’s at the very weakest level…. You cannot recommend circumcision based on medical benefit alone.”
Freedman compared the AAP’s position to “a ‘permission slip’ for those who want to circumcise their children so that society cannot say they are bad parents or outlaw the practice.” He added, “Maybe the AAP should get out of the [circumcision] business, since it’s not really a medical practice. It’s only a ‘medical procedure’ in the sense that medical professionals are performing it.”
In addition to providing context about the 2012 statement, Buckler’s article urges national medical bodies to separate medical rationales from cultural accommodation in future guidance.
Buckler is an independent researcher who serves in an advisory capacity on the leadership team of Bruchima national nonprofit that advocates for the inclusion of non-circumcising Jews in Jewish life, and educates about the rich diversity of Jewish perspectives on circumcision and its alternatives. Buckler’s research was not sponsored by Bruchim, nor was Bruchim involved in its publication.
“Bruchim values Buckler’s important contribution, especially because Jews who abstain from circumcision may face stigma within their own community, and are often portrayed as being at odds with medical consensus. Such framing reinforces the perception that those who choose not to circumcise are disregarding sound medical advice, when in fact the landscape is far more complex,” said Bruchim’s executive director and co-founder, Rebecca Wald.
Wald further stated: “Bruchim doesn’t take the position that those who choose to circumcise for religious reasons should be prohibited from doing so, but we do feel that all parents, regardless of their choice, deserve access to the most up-to-date, clear, and accurate information.”
Lisa Braver Moss, Bruchim’s president and co-founder, added: “For many Jewish families, trust in medical institutions is central. But when the AAP’s statement blurs the line between medical recommendation and cultural accommodation, it leaves parents questioning whether circumcision is truly in their child’s best medical interest—or merely permitted for religious reasons.”
Max Buckler is an interdisciplinary scholar whose work explores the intersections of Jewish tradition, bioethics, and bodily autonomy. His scholarship has appeared in The Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, Current Sexual Health Reports, IJIR: Your Sexual Medicine Journal (Nature), and in the edited volume Bioethics and Religion: Exploring the Intersection.
Rebecca Wald, Executive Director
Bruchim
Visit us on social media:
Legal Disclaimer:
EIN Presswire provides this news content “as is” without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.
