Talk:American Academy of Pediatrics

Untitled

Someone should try to rewrite the history section. Phrases like "works tirelessly" shouldn't be in there. Someone should also review the edits made by 209.149.177.67 as wholesale removal of topics labeled as controversial are usually not good signs. - 67.166.132.47 (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

reverted the controversial positions section....I tried to limit it to AAP positions that have made the national news...don't think AAP's support of car seats and immunizations is controversial.--209.149.177.67 12:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

female genital cutting

Recently, edits have been made asserting the AAP "is advocating female genital mutilation" or is suggesting U.S. law be "changed to permit doctors to perform a 'ceremonial pinprick, or small nick'". This is probably due to misrepresentation in the media. If one actually reads AAP's policy statement , it's clear AAP condemns all forms of FGM.

From the abstract:

The American Academy of Pediatrics opposes all types of female genital cutting that pose risks of physical or psychological harm, counsels its members not to perform such procedures, recommends that its members actively seek to dissuade families from carrying out harmful forms of FGC, and urges its members to provide patients and their parents with compassionate education about the harms of FGC while remaining sensitive to the cultural and religious reasons that motivate parents to seek this procedure for their daughters.

Under the section "EDUCATION OF PATIENTS AND PARENTS", the AAP points out that some physicians who work closely with immigrant populations have voiced concern about the adverse effects of criminalization of the practice on educational efforts:

In some countries in which FGC is common, some progress toward eradication or amelioration has been made by substituting ritual "nicks" for more severe forms. In contrast, there is also evidence that medicalizing FGC can prolong the custom among middle-class families (eg, in Egypt)

Most forms of FGC are decidedly harmful, and pediatricians should decline to perform them, even in the absence of any legal constraints. However, the ritual nick suggested by some pediatricians is not physically harmful and is much less extensive than routine newborn male genital cutting. There is reason to believe that offering such a compromise may build trust between hospitals and immigrant communities, save some girls from undergoing disfiguring and life-threatening procedures in their native countries, and play a role in the eventual eradication of FGC. It might be more effective if federal and state laws enabled pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a ritual nick as a possible compromise to avoid greater harm.

This is hardly equivalent to "advocating" FGC, or even suggesting US laws should be changed. It simply acknowledges the various approaches to eradicating or reducing health risks posed by FGC. The policy statement ends by summarizing AAP's 4 recommendations, none of which condone the practice of ritual nicks.--CurtisSwain (talk) 23:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• They are condoning medical nicks. They are flatly, explicitly saying that they condone medical nicks. The whole point of the position statement was that they condone medical nicks. Please check your POV at the door and stick to easily verifiable facts. • Ling.Nut 02:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

My POV is that articles should be accurate and not over simplify complex issues. Yes, it would be accurate to say the AAP now condones ceremonial pinpricks, or small nicks. To condone means to to overlook, forgive[1], or to give tacit approval[2]. The problem with the recent edits is they assert the AAP is "advocating that U.S. law be changed". To advocate means to support, promote, or plead a cause[3]. Suggesting the decriminalization of ceremonial nicks "might be more effective" in curtailing FGC is hardly akin to actively advocating for any laws to be changed. Furthermore, while condoning medical nicks is obviously the most controversial part of the position statement, it would be highly inaccurate to say it's "the whole point of the position statement". The whole point of the position statement is summarized in the abstract and in the 4 recommendations given at the end. An editor would gain a better grasp of the AAP's stance by actually reading the position statement itself.

Additionally, the recent edits have simply been inserted out of context. Therefore, I propose:

In regards to female genital cutting (FGC), in May 2010, the AAP modified its previous position and suggested it "might be more effective" to permit doctors to perform a "ceremonial pinprick, or small nick" as a compromise intended to "play a role in the eventual eradication of FGC". --CurtisSwain (talk) 08:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

We could even add a bit about the ensuing controversy and reaction from various women's rights organizations.--CurtisSwain (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Done.--CurtisSwain (talk) 07:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

References

Pediatricians now reject all female genital cutting

• Pediatricians now reject all female genital cutting • Ling.Nut 22:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

I've proposed that AAP News is merged into this article. Simply because AAP news is very light on content and it would be fine included somewhere in this article. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 15:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I merged the articles as proposed as there was no concerns raised. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 10:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Edits

Nstewartaap, if you have issues with the article here is the place to discuss that. I made edits to remove advertising material so if you want to make changes do them directly - a reversion just puts the advertising back in & that is not in line with wiki policy. Also I am not sure what you mean by Organization prefers to not call out one specific program out of hundreds. (in an edit summary). But one thing to bear in mind is that what the organisation wants is largely irrelevant unless there is attack material/unsourced allegations which keep being added back etc (in which case they should contact Wikimedia foundation). --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 14:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nstewartaap (talk • contribs) 15:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Added advertisement marker.

This article reads like it's an advertisement or information directly from the article's topic. It's very praising and contains a copious amount of unneeded junk like "protect the well-being of children" and "unite the voices of pediatricians in the fight for better public policies." Almost like it's a sales-pitch. I felt the majority of the article reads this way. It's also lacking in third-party sources. Toroxus (talk) 02:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Controversy and self published material

There seems to be a push to include self published material from circumcision advocacy groups here. We need independent reliable sources to mention their objections before they deserve any WP:WEIGHT here. Yobol (talk) 13:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. But isn't the AAP's own set of publications essentially "self published" by an "advocacy group?" --KarlHegbloom (talk) 11:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Title

The title is now in italics. How can we change that? Biosthmors (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It looks like it is an automatic change when someone puts in a particular infobox. I have removed it. Yobol (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

Article reads like a promotional brochure. Looks as though someone from the org has gone about "cleaning" things up, leaving a subjective presentation of the organisation as wholly positive. The section on Controversies was removed, even though there have been a number of high-profile controversies; this smacks of Newspeak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.232.208 (talk) 08:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I just went through the article (see here), and I think it is much better now. Biosthmors (talk) 22:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Male circumcision

The Academy has issued a very self-serving and controversial position on male circumcision. This article needs to cover that in some detail. Lakeside75 (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what you're suggesting the article say, but it is discussed. Biosthmors (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Organization and removal of unsourced or primary sourced info

I've organized some things and removed unsourced and primary sourced info that I thought was promotional in nature.[4] Any objections? My edits were reverted earlier but I think this could have been accidental as the edit summary had no mention of why the material was reinstated. Biosthmors (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Professional association

A couple of times the linked term professional association has been changed in the first sentence. It has been changed to association, which I reverted, and now I see it is trade association. I think professional association is a more accurate term. Trade association is described as "an organization founded and funded by businesses that operate in a specific industry". Individual pediatricians aren't exactly businesses though some may be seen as businessmen (those in private practice). Biosthmors (talk) 04:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree, and I reverted it back. Yobol (talk) 01:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The motivation for the change from "professional association" to "trade association" appears to come from this self-published press release by anti-circumcision activist Georganne Chapin, quote:

“The fact that the AAP Task Force is calling for third-party payment for circumcision, even though it cannot find justification for recommending the surgery, shows that a group charged with a serious evaluation of a non-therapeutic surgery is acting like a trade association on behalf of doctors’ bank accounts, rather than helping doctors to protect their newborn patients,” said Chapin.

and so it is intended as an insult against the AAP. It's interesting to note that even Chapin says "acting like a" and not "is a," indicating Chapin doesn't actually think the AAP is really a trade organization.

Back to the question, how should it be classified? As always, look at what the sources say:

• The website of the Montana chapter of the AAP describes itself as a "professional association," this annual report from the Illinois chapter of the AAP describes itself as a "professional organization," and I see others like this.
• This report (revised 2011) and this report (2011) in the US HHS AHRQ database describe the AAP as a "Medical Specialty Society" and I see others like it.

so I see its chapters self-identify it as a "professional organization" and at least one government database calls it a "Medical Specialty Society", I don't have a preference for either. But, no WP:RS support for "trade organization," and editing the article to call it that appears to be in bad faith Zad68 19:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and maybe the best would be health association or medical association, which redirects to health association. I just started medical specialty society to redirect there too. Biosthmors (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

So, all of this just begs the question: "Are Pediatricians required to affiliate or join the AAP in order to practice?" --KarlHegbloom (talk) 11:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Remove "a registered non-governmental organization" from mention of Intact America

I am removing the phrase "a registered non-governmental organization" after "The policy shift was criticized by Intact America" for the following reasons:

1. It is completely superfluous. There are about 1.5 million NGOs operating in the United States. Including this information about Intact America is about as useful to this article as saying "The policy shift was criticized by Intact America, an organization which has a C in its name."
2. It is very far off-topic to what this article should be about, the American Academy of Pediatrics.
3. Those interested in the structure of Intact America can click on the wikilink to go to Intact America. In this edit summary, the editor putting this phrase back said, "one shouldn't have to go read another article," which is a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia is designed. Yes, in every Wikipedia article, you do have to go to another article to get the full details about a tangential topic mentioned.

Zad68 01:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

full details is far different than providing context to a reader. perhaps "activist group" as a descriptive for "intact america".--96.232.126.27 (talk) 07:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

You know, the actual cited source does not even attribute the quote to Intact America, but rather to Georganne Chapin directly, here's the quote:

Georganne Chapin, founding executive director of the anti-circumcision advocacy group Intact America, said last week that she looked forward to calling out academy leadership for "scientific blindness."

We can correct this problem and still carry the context wording you are supporting by changing the article content to:

The policy shift was criticized by anti-circumcision activist Georganne Chapin.

with the same source. If you're OK with that we have consensus. Zad68 17:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of New AAP Circumcision Policy Statement and Response

I revised the section on the AAP's circumcision policy to include criticism and counter-criticism. I also eliminated the statement on Georganne Chapin's opposition to the new AAP policy because there are many, many individuals and organizations opposed to it.Farmsworth (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Promoting the Well-Being of Children Whose Parents Are Gay or Lesbian

The American Academy of Pediatrics on 20 March 2013 issued the following report and policy statement. I think that this statement could be called a policy from a top-level children's health medical organization, as probably most pediatricians in the United States belong to this society.

• "Promoting the Well-Being of Children Whose Parents Are Gay or Lesbian". Pediatrics. 131 (4): 827. 2013. doi:10.1542/peds.2013-0376.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Sections on Controversies and Criticism

A July 15 edit removed huge sections of this page that appear to be related to controversies and criticisms of the AAP. This edit appears to have been made by a representative of the AAP. I'm not sure this was appropriate. At very least, such radical edits should be discussed as a community prior to being made. Although I certainly appreciate that the AAP would want to be sure non-factual information was removed, well-referenced information, even if not always favorable, should remain. This is not an advertisement site for the AAP. I don't doubt the edits were good faith, but if there is a concern, best to discuss it first. 97.100.165.246 (talk) 02:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)Rhodes

Here is the diff. In this edit user:Nstewartaap removed criticism about the organization. Since the letters "AAP" are in the name and since this WP:SPA is removing criticism, I suspect that this person must work in communications for the organization. I am messaging them on their talk page and will offer to talk with them about Wikipedia community guidelines. I would love to see this organization develop Wikipedia articles on pediatrics, because Wikipedia is one of the world's most consulted sources of information for pediatrics. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

In 2015 the AAP stopped taking funding from Coca-cola. Should this be included? HLHJ (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American Academy of Pediatrics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130727172535/http://aapnews.aappublications.org/ to http://aapnews.aappublications.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

James Cantor

With respect to the article, Cantor's attack on AAP's stance on transgender children may be somewhat misleading in implying he represents mainstream medical opinion. Cantor was pushed out of Quad-S for repeated rules violations on the same topic and has made numerous claims in his career that haven't been replicated by other scientists. The article makes it sound as though a mainstream researcher criticized them and they were unable to respond with a coherent opinion because they did not engage with a media magazine. Is this really a fair appraisal of the topic...? TricksterWolf (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

LGBT Healthcare Section

The referenced quote by Block in the LGBT Healthcare section appears to use quotes differently from the source article. The quoted section from the source article reads

US medical professional groups are aligned in support of “gender affirming care” for gender dysphoria, which may include gonadotrophin releasing hormone analogues (GnRHa) to suppress puberty; oestrogen or testosterone to promote secondary sex characteristics; and surgical removal or augmentation of breasts, genitals, or other physical features.

My original thought was to remove the quotes and change the paragraph to read

According to Block (2023) US Medical Groups, including the AAP, "are aligned in support of “gender affirming care” for gender dysphoria, which may include gonadotrophin releasing hormone analogues (GnRHa) to suppress puberty; oestrogen or testosterone to promote secondary sex characteristics; and surgical removal or augmentation of breasts, genitals, or other physical features."

However, given that this section is about the positions of AAP, I'm not sure that this paragraph is necessary. The second and third paragraphs outline the AAP's position. If the goal is to note that the AAP's position is in line with the other professional medical associations, it might be better to just say that, with the reference to the article. None of the other sub-sections under the Policy Positions sections make reference to agreement or disagreement with other professional medical associations, so it's unclear what the purpose is in this subsection. CyberLillian (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)