by Marc Angelucci:
Today the Los Angeles Daily Journal printed Marc Angelucci’s op-ed responding to the American Medical Association’s irresponsible and unexamined 11/15/11 statement that male circumcision has documented health benefits.
The AMA completely disregarded what national medical associations worldwide are saying, and based on some of their responses on Facebook it appears they didn’t even read them. The AMA’s announcement on its Facebook page has well over 150 very critical comments from the public about this decision. See:
Interestingly, two of their members answered by admitting this was somewhat of a quick decision. One of them, Sam Mackenzie, said this was made with only “limited debate,” and he offered to draft a resolution for reconsideration at their June meeting, and he said that the AMA’s report “stated that there was very limited testimony arguing against the resolution. The limited debate was framed around intrusion of patient choice and physician practice, not on the merits of circumcision. I’m not saying this is appropriate–just that it’s what happened. Second, this was submitted as a late resolution; hence, it was not privy to discussion on the online forum before the meeting. A strong case could have been made for referral to a council, for example, the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs. In hindsight, this would have been my preferred action, but as a medical student, I was focused on other issues, for example, those centered around Medicaid revisions and cuts to GME funding.”
Vice President NCFM