Eileen Marie Wayne, M.D.

1302 7th Street
Moline, Il 61265
309 736-0808
www.InformedConsent.org
EileenWayneMD@InformedConsent.org
http://www.InformedConsent.org/circumcision.html




April 24, 1999

Carole Marie Lannon, M.D.
UNC CB#7225
University of North Carolina
Division of Community Pediatrics
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7225
Phone: 919-966-2504
FAX: 919-966-3852

Dear Dr. Lannon,

The March 1, 1999 AAP position statement about circumcision lists the prevention of urinary tract infections as a potential medical "benefit" of circumcision. As you well know, the standard of care for urinary tract infections is antibiotics, not amputation.

Furthermore, the UTI "studies" the AAP Task Force reviewed were done on the wrong control group. The controls included intact infants who were damaged during the newborn exam when the physician willfully ripped their undeveloped foreskins from their undeveloped glans. The iatrogenic sub-foreskin space and the surrounding raw glans and raw inner foreskin were an open invitation to infection from fecal pathogens. Parents of the intact infants were usually instructed to forcefully retract the foreskin during diaper changes and bathing. Continually breaking the reforming adhesions created open sores into which diaper pathogens were able to enter.

It would have been more enlightening and honest had the Task Force reviewed the UTI rate of intact undamaged infants from a country that neither circumcises nor tolerates the painful ripping of the foreskin away from the newborn's glans. Physicians contributed to the very infections they claim circumcision prevents. Physicians and misinformed parents, not the intact adherent undamaged virgin foreskins, contributed to the infections.

To prevent UTIs and other forms of infection, the AAP needs to actively promote breastfeeding, rooming in, and home births. To prevent UTIs, the AAP needs to prevent newborn and maternal pain so as to keep their immune systems optimal, prevent forced retraction of the undeveloped foreskin, and prevent circumcision. The AAP needs to recommend instead the circumcision of the circumcisers' medical licenses, as well as those of physicians who damage the infant's undeveloped penis by forcibly and prematurely retracting his foreskin, and of nurses who "teach" parents to retract the foreskin of the infant's undeveloped penis.

The UTI "studies" the AAP circumcision Task Farce cited for review are misleading and knowingly designed as a rationalization to promote circumcision. They are not evidence-based medicine. The "studies" are irrelevant because antibiotics, not amputation, are the standard of care for UTI. Citing the misleading UTI "studies" in the AAP circumcision position statement to provide evidence of some potential medical "benefit" from circumcision is unethical; is a deceptive attempt to excuse, justify, and condone circumcision; puts present and future babies in jeopardy; is a serious medical-legal liability; and is a licensing and disciplinary issue of grave concern to the entire circumcision task force, to circumcisers who follow the AAP Task Force recommendations, and to insurance carriers who collude in making the unnecessary sexual surgery of circumcision an economic benefit to the circumcisers.

Please correct the deficiencies in the AAP report and stop citing the fallacious UTI circumcision material as providing "some potential medical benefit."

In disappointment,

Eileen Marie Wayne, M.D.
www.InformedConsent.org/circumcision.html

Courtesy Copies to:

ACOG
409 12th St S.W.
PO Box 96920
Washington, D.C. 20090-6920
www.acog.com

Mr. Ed Zimmerman
Director of Physician Payment Systems
American Academy of Pediatrics
141 Northwest Point Boulevard
Elk Grove Village, Il 60009-0927
EZimmerman@aap.org
fax+1(847)228-5097

Thomas Wiswell, M.D.
Thomas Jefferson University
Thomas.Wiswell@mail.TJU.edu

Dean Edell, M.D.
askdrdean@healthcentral.com

Edgar Schoen, M.D.
Kaiser Permanente

Gerald Weiss, M.D.
gnweiss@frii.com


Return to opening page.