According to the Washington Post, the AAP will be making an announcement 'recommending' RIC in the September issue of Pediatrics magazine. I'm not sure of the exact details, but it will be worded along the lines of 'the benefits outweigh the risks'. Here's the link to the WaPo article...
and a direct quote from the piece:
"According to its 2005 position statement, which reaffirmed its 1999 stance, existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn circumcision but not enough to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. That position is poised to change, though, as the AAP is expected to release an updated statement and report reflecting recent research later this month. While details are not yet available, the new position concludes that the health benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks, said Michael Brady, a pediatric expert at Nationwide Children's Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, and a member of the AAP's task force on circumcision.
The AAP's new position falls short of a routine recommendation, Brady said, adding that parents should continue to take into account their own cultural, religious or social views. But from a public health perspective, I think it [circumcision] is a good decision and a lot of children will benefit."
Over and above the uncomprehending shock that most of the world's parents will experience at this news, the dismissive response by the world's medical institutions will be massive.
The AAP is likely to find itself isolated and in danger of becoming a laughing stock among its peers worldwide.
If it does not recommend routine infant circumcision (as seems to be the case) that is well and good. But if it even so much as insinuates that pre-puberty boys should be circumcised as some kind of panacea against future ills, the AAP's statement will be the butt of crude jokes across the world.
These are my opinions; what are yours?