A newly published article in the Journal of Medical Ethics is shaking up the medical establishment's stance on infant circumcision. Titled "As controversies mount, circumcision policies need a rethink," it exposes deep flaws in the conclusions of the American Academy of Pediatrics' (AAP) most recent circumcision policy.
The article includes unprecedented interviews with two members of the AAP's original 2012 Circumcision Task Force. Both reveal that the oft-quoted claim that "the health benefits outweigh the risks" was never purely a scientific conclusion, but a compromise shaped by cultural and legal pressures.
Dr. Douglas Diekema, the Task Force's bioethicist, now admits, "When you look at all the data, I don't think you can honestly say the benefits outweigh the risks."
Dr. Andrew Freedman, the Task Force's pediatric urologist, went further, stating that "[i]f it can be called a preventative medicine, it is at the very weakest level," and suggesting "maybe the AAP should get out of the [circumcision] business."
This courageous exposé marks a turning point in the public and professional conversation. It reinforces what the genital autonomy movement has long known: the medical justification for routine infant circumcision doesn't hold up under ethical or scientific scrutiny. Doctors Opposing Circumcision wholeheartedly commends the work, and endorses the conclusions, of author Max Buckler.
This is a pivotal moment for the cause of bodily autonomy and honest medicine. Please read and share the full article and its associated press release.
CITATION: Buckler M. As controversies mount, circumcision policies need a rethink. October 2025. J Med Ethics, in press.
Thanks to our sister organization, Intaction, for permission to publish and adapt this summary.