An Open Letter to the Leadership of the American Academy of Pediatrics

 An Open Letter to the Leadership of the American Academy of Pediatrics

March 21, 2014

Dear Colleagues of the American Academy of Pediatrics:

Since joining the AAP fourteen years ago, I have been grateful for the AAP’s role in scientific inquiry, dissemination of medical knowledge, and the promotion of the health of children. During my combined residency in internal medicine and pediatrics, I was humbled to receive the AAP’s International Travel Grant in support of my service to children under the training of a missionary doctor in Nigeria. As an AAP Fellow, I have been grateful for the opportunities to network with other professionals in our field to advance our knowledge toward the end of serving children.

It was precisely because I have held the Academy in such high standing, that I read with such sorrow and dismay the Academy’s Policy Statement, “Promoting the Well-Being of Children Whose Parents Are Gay or Lesbian," released one year ago today, which expressed the Academy's support for “homosexual marriage.”

Exactly because I have been grateful for the AAP, and because I am indeed dedicated to the health of all children, I must express my most strenuous objection to this Policy Statement. While I do not have reason to doubt the Policy Statement’s authors’ genuine desire for the good of children, I cannot help but wonder if the Academy has in part bowed to the calculated political influence of a powerful lobby, especially when the Policy Statement’s release was clearly timed to coincide with last year's US Supreme Court’s hearing of related cases.

The basic foundation undergirding my objection to the Policy Statement in question is this: Any and all attitudes and behaviors which violate or devalue the boundaries of God-defined marriage between one man and one woman, are in fact harmful and unhealthful toward all involved, including children. This is true no matter the sexual orientations of those involved: homosexual, bisexual, transgender, or heterosexual. Such examples as pornography, premarital sex, polyamory/polygamy, easy divorce and remarriage, domestic violence, and non-committal cohabitation are harmful because they fail to recognize the profound goodness and wonder of God-given marriage and sexuality, with its unique and complementary femaleness and maleness.

As physicians, we are broken people seeking to help others in their brokenness in a broken world. With honest introspection and openness toward others, each last one of us – through the influences of our genes, hormones, and environment – is deeply affected by brokenness, including in our sexuality. The young person who discovers that he is dealing with homosexual drives needs a pediatrician who will HELP him in his brokenness: listen to his concerns with a nonjudgmental ear, inform him of the risks and benefits of various choices, protect him from any and all bullying, and insofar as he is willing to receive them, provide him with the supports needed for him to live chastely. Further, this young person needs his doctor to commit to stand with him for his long-term health and well-being, and be willing to help him deal with the consequences of his decisions, even if those run contrary to the doctor’s recommendations. What this young person does NOT need is for his pediatrician to endorse his brokenness as good and right, or encourage him to act out his broken urges.

Compassion and respect for others’ worth and dignity, no matter what their attitudes or behavior, is commendable. Endorsing attitudes and behavior which are harmful and unhealthful to individuals and society is not to be commended, yet this is what the AAP has done in its seemingly enlightened position statement in support of “homosexual marriage.” I have no reason at present to believe that the studies cited in the statement intentionally set out with the agenda to affirm homosexuality as a normative lifestyle, but it is clear that one’s presuppositions vastly affect one’s study design, methodology, and interpretation of data. I believe that in time, as has been true in many other areas of medicine, study design flaws and data interpretation errors will come to light when better research (perhaps when this political hot-button cools) will affirm the truth of the rightness, goodness, and healthfulness of marriage between one man and one woman over all alternatives, for the health of the adults and the children they raise.

My unabashed conviction in this matter is based on a plain reading of Christian scripture, which not only sheds light on our world full of broken people like myself, but also gives hope for a full and joyful life in spite of our brokenness. I do not pretend to represent all of Christendom, though I do know that I speak for a great many Christians, as well as a great many people of other faiths on this particular issue. For us, our scriptures have served not only as the internal moorings of life and ethics, but also through history as the impetus for the establishment of universities and hospitals – incubators of scientific inquiry and advancement – often in regions with great need and suffering.

These moorings are important in part because we people of faith are sometimes accused of fear-mongering when we question, in this case, those who would seek to expand marriage to homosexual relationships: “Where would it stop? Should 3 or more consenting adults be able to marry? What about consenting adult siblings?” For the sake of gaining acceptance, proponents of “homosexual marriage” have insisted that their fight is simply to extend marriage rights to homosexual couples, but they ignore the socio-legal landscape where many (including from the LGBT community) already openly challenge marriage’s lifelong exclusivity to two people. How would today’s monogamy-supporting proponents of “homosexual marriage” counsel a bisexual woman who seeks to “marry” both her partners? I do not doubt that flawed sociological research could one day support the “healthfulness” of such a “marriage” threesome, especially in a political climate that pushes for it. These are very real scenarios we must consider, as we humbly embrace our ethical moorings as broken people with hope.

As a concerned father and physician to many generations of families, I urge the Academy to retract its Policy Statement supporting “homosexual marriage,” to refrain from embarking on further social experimentation in such uncharted waters, and to hold fast to the moorings of upholding traditional marriage between one man and one woman as best for the health and well-being of all children.

In Earnest,

Sidney Wu, MD

Fellow, American Academy of Pediatrics

Fellow, American College of Physicians

Diplomate, American Board of Pediatrics

Diplomate, American Board of Internal Medicine

Assistant Professor, Pediatrics

Assistant Professor, Internal Medicine

Loma Linda University School of Medicine

11