Friday, September 1, 2017

Drs. May Ask If Baby Is Circumcised for a Hearing Test - Here's Why


Oh the things I learn from my Facebook news feed...

Today, I came across this gem:


Now, normally, I blow a gasket when I hear a baby goes in for something completely unrelated to genital problems, and the doctor has the nerve to ask whether the baby has been circumcised or not.

This seems pretty legit though.

Apparently babies can cry so hard during a circumcision that they can burst an ear drum.
One more nail in the coffin for the claim that babies "sleep right through" their circumcision.

So I guess you can now add "burst ear drum" to the list of possible risks and complications for male infant circumcision.

I hope the AAP and other respected medical organizations are taking note.

Credit to SavingOurSons.org for this.

Related Post:
INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves

What Your Dr. Doesn't Know Could Hurt Your Child

Monday, August 28, 2017

Another Circumcision Death - Wound Would Not Stop Bleeding


I had been trying to avoid Facebook.

I don't like being an intactivist.

Do you know this?

I wish the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors were recognized for the barbaric mutilation and the gross violation of basic human rights that it is.

I avoid my Facebook account because I know that the minute I sign on, my news feed is going to show that somewhere in the world, a child is suffering complications from this needless procedure.

At the end of this post, you can see all the cases I've documented on this blog.

And there are others.

There are others, but I've either been too busy to bother, or I'm just not on Facebook and I miss them.

I have a life, I need to get to work, I've got kids of my own to raise, and I can't dedicate as much time as I want to this cause.

Being an intactivist is hard work.

You have to see children suffer from complications, watch as parents mourn what was supposed to be one of the most joyful times in their lives.

And then, you have to watch as people dismiss the deaths and complications of circumcision, dismiss facts and information, have people tell you "Who are you to tell parents what to do?"

This.

This right here is why I "have the nerve" to have this blog, to speak out against what is in non-consenting individuals, male genital mutilation.

I had been studiously avoiding logging on to Facebook, but my phone tells me someone has messaged me, and so there I go checking it.

Ironically enough it's some woman trying to lecture me on how "uneducated" I am on the subject.

And before I can click on my private message icon, what do I see?

This.



The caption reads:

"The unexpected has happened!!!

A baby has died. I don't know how to take this.
His circumcision wouldn't stop bleeding. They went to the Beaumont ER they gave him meds and then sent home. THAT'S IT!!! Nothing else.

No parent should experience this pain ( and a hurricane/tropical storm). And I know that no one plans for a funeral when they have a new born.
I'm going to help financially with the services the best I can. The only way I know how to help lift some of the burden off of them.

Will you please pray for the family? This is a difficult time.

If you'd like to help with the financial burden please go here."

The link is to a YouCaring page, which can be accessed here as of 8-29-2017. Who knows when they will take it down.

I've taken a screen shot of it and am posting it here:



 The caption here reads:

"Baby Zackery was born August 17th, 2017. He passed away August 28 from what is thought to be due to complications with his circumcision but we will not know more until later. Our family needs help with funeral costs to put this sweet baby boy to rest as his parents don't possess the proper funds and we would like to help take this burden from them so they don't have to worry about how to afford a funeral as they are dealing with the loss of their precious baby boy. Any and all donations will be greatly appreciated and God bless everyone for their help."

I don't want to spend too long on this post.

I'll be repeating what I've posted on every other death/complication post.

The risks of male infant circumcision include infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage and even death.

How is ANY risk conscionable for elective, cosmetic surgery?

Are parents being fully informed on this matter?

According to the 2012 AAP statement, the risks of male infant circumcision are unknown.

This is because hospitals are not required to release any information on adverse outcomes of circumcision. Doctors have incentive to attribute deaths due to circumcision to secondary causes of death, and parents are complicit in keeping deaths and complications under wraps.

That is until recently, where parents post their children's stories online.

With the advent of the internet, the risks and complications of male infant circumcision can no longer be ignored, and members of the AAP can no longer feign ignorance.

Members of the AAP, if the risks of male infant circumcision are unknown, WHY PRAY TELL AREN'T YOU INVESTIGATING???

How is a single death due to elective, cosmetic surgery concsionable?

In 2012, you reviewed the current body of medical literature and you could not commit to a recommendation based on it, because in your own words "the benefits of circumcision weren't great enough."

And yet, somehow, you expect parents, the great majority of who don't have a medical degree, to somehow arrive at a more reasonable conclusion.

At this point I must ask, what are you people at the AAP SMOKING???

Death is a risk of male infant circumcision.

This, and other children were needlessly killed by the elective, cosmetic, non-medical surgery.

WHY aren't doctors required to fully inform parents about this?

More importantly, without medical or clinical indication, how is it that doctors are able to get way with reaping profit from performing elective, cosmetic, non-medical surgery on a healthy, non-consenting minor, let alone pretend to be able to offer parents any kind of "choice" in this matter?

Reaping profit from performing elective, non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals constitutes medical fraud in any other case.

Why is male infant genital mutilation the lone exception?

That doctors are able to reap profit at the expense of a child's basic human rights, even as children DIE is absolutely DESPICABLE.

WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO DO YOUR JOBS AND DEDICATE YOUR EXISTENCE TO THE HEALTH OF ALL CHILDREN???

AAP???

This child's blood, and the blood of other children before him is in YOUR hands.

List of Deaths and Complications Documented on This Blog:
FACEBOOK: Another Baby Fighting For His Life Post Circumcision

MADERA, CA: Another Circumcision Complication

CIRCUMCISION BOTCH: Another Post-Circumcision Hemorrhage Case Surfaces on Facebook

LAW SUIT: Child Loses "Significant Portion" of Penis During Circumcision

CIRCUMCISION BOTCHES: Colombia and Malaysia

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: This Time in Russia

FACEBOOK: KENTUCKY - Botched Circumcision Gives Newborn Severe UTI

FACEBOOK: Circumcision Sends Another Child to NICU - This Time in LA

GEORGIA: Circumcision Sends a Baby to the NICU

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: This Time in Italy

FACEBOOK NEWS FEED: A Complication and a Death

INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves

MALE INFANT CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Boy Dies

CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yet Another One (I Hate Writing These)

Another Circumcision Death Comes to Light

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yes, Another One - This Time in Israel

FACEBOOK: Two Botches and a Death

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Child Dies After Doctor Convinces Ontario Couple to Circumcise

ONTARIO CIRCUMCISION DEATH: The Plot Thickens

Joseph4GI: The Circumcision Blame Game

Phony Phimosis: How American Doctors Get Away With Medical Fraud

FACEBOOK: Two More Babies Nearly Succumb to Post Circumcision Hemorrhage

FACEBOOK: Another Circumcision Mishap - Baby Hemorrhaging After Circumcision

What Your Dr. Doesn't Know Could Hurt Your Child

FACEBOOK: Child in NICU After Lung Collapses During Circumcision

EMIRATES: Circumcision Claims Another Life

BabyCenter Keeping US Parents In the Dark About Circumcision

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: Circumcision Claims Another Life

TEXAS: 'Nother Circumcision Botch
 

New York Herpes Circumcision Problem:
NYC: More Herpes Circumcision Cases Since de Blasio Lifted Metzitzah B'Peh Regulations

BUSTED: Agudath Israel of America's Antics Revealed

NEW STUDY: Ultra-Orthodox Mohels Don't Give Babies Herpes

NEW YORK: Two More Herpes Babies, One With HIV

NEW YORK: Metzitzah: Two mohelim stopped after babies get herpes

NEW YORK: Yet Another Herpes Baby

Rabbis Delay NYC's Metzitzah B'Peh Regulations - Meanwhile, in Israel...

While PACE Holds a Hearing on Circumcision, Another Baby Contracts Herpes in NYC

Israel Ahead of New York in Recommending Against Metzitzah B'Peh

New York: Oral Mohel Tests Positive for Herpes

Herpes Circumcision Babies: Another One? Geez!

Mohels Spreading Herpes: New York Looks the Other Way

Circumcision Indicted in Yet Another Death: Rabbis and Mohels are "Upset"

Related Post:
INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves

Saturday, August 26, 2017

Self-Serving FGM Myths That Persist


It's been a while, and I was thinking a post on my blog is long overdue. Believe it or not, your blogger does have a life outside of intactivism; a family to raise, bills to pay, a job to be at. I really wish I had more time to dedicate to this, as I believe it to be a worthy cause.

At any rate, this post was touched off by a recent private message war on Facebook.

It seems that people that both defend the forced circumcision of males, but oppose the forced circumcision of females have an arsenal of canned responses that they're ready to fire off at any given moment. Furthermore, it seems that they haven't given these responses much thought, for upon further investigation, one can see the logical fallacies in their arguments.

It never ceases to amaze me how the same person can present an argument in favor of male infant circumcision, but for whatever reason, the same argument fails when used in favor of female circumcision, and vice versa, an argument used against female circumcision that would also work against male circumcision, but for whatever reason, doesn't apply.



One can witness male circumcision apologists trying their hardest to have it both ways, going through mental gymnastics to make their arguments work.

I shall talk about the points raised in my latest exchange on Facebook Messenger without naming any names to save the person embarrassment.
"Americans do not practice barbaric, pointless practices that leave females in pain for the rest of their lives like genital mutilation also commonly called "female circumcision"."

Here are the myths this statement is imbued with:
  • Male infant circumcision isn't barbaric
  • Male infant circumcision isn't pointless
  • Female circumcision always results in pain for the rest of their lives
  • Only forced female genital cutting can be euphemised with the word "circumcision"

This statement is rather flawed, because it relies on a straw-man argument. FGM is "barbaric and pointless mutilation" because it "it leaves females in pain for the rest of their lives."

While FGM does have disastrous results in some cases, this simply isn't true for most women. Even the WHO acknowledges that there are varying degrees of severity for FGM, and that the worst form of FGM, also known as "infibulation," or "pharaonic circumcision," is actually the rarest. A New York Times article says it is as low as 15%. Actually, most women in Africa who have been circumcised don't complain, according to Catania and Johnsdotter. The majority of women in countries like Malaysia and Indonesia are circumcised, and, like American parents regarding male circumcision, they don't see what the big deal is.


A circumcised African woman sounding off

A circumcised Malaysian woman speaking her mind

This is important to point out, because some of the biggest arguments that advocates use to justify the forced genital mutilation of boys in America are that:
  • Boys don't remember what happened to them as infants
  • Adult men don't complain
  • Adult men enjoy sex (the converse argument being that circumcised women don't)

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The same argument that would justify male infant circumcision would justify female infant circumcision, but it somehow just doesn't, or people would rather continue to belief myths that simply aren't reality, because what is true for adult circumcised in America, is true for adult circumcised women in say, Malaysia, Indonesia and countries in Africa.

So it must be asked.

Is pain and/or whether or not it can be remembered in adulthood what makes the forced genital cutting of minors "barbaric, pointless mutilation?"

Is pain and whether or not it can be remembered the issue here?
The fact is that most men weren't circumcised as infants. That's an American or Jewish phenomenon. Most men who are circumcised in the world are circumcised at later ages, when they can remember what is happening to them. I don't hear anyone decrying the fact that scores of men die yearly in initiation rituals in Africa.

A girl is circumcised in Bandung, Indonesia
"BARBARIC AND POINTLESS MUTILATION!"

A boy is circumcised in the same city.
"Nothing to see here... He can still have sex. It's OK."


On with the next part of my exchange:
"If male circumcision was anything like this female "circumcision" practiced in parts of the world, they would have their entire penis removed and not just a flap of skin that can get constricted later in life."

Here are the myths this statement is imbued with:
  • Female circumcision is all one and the same
  • All female circumcision completely removes the equivalent of the entire penis
  • The foreskin in males is merely a flap of skin that can and usually always does, get constricted later in life
  • The potential for problems is enough to justify the removal of a body part

Even the WHO recognizes that there are varying degrees of severity of female circumcision, and that not all remove the clitoris, which the person wants to equate here, with the entire shaft of the penis. As I have already said above, the worst kind of FGM is actually the rarest form.

The question then becomes, would FGM variations that are as severe, or even less severe than male circumcision as it is justified in the United States, be justified?

Is FGM justified so long as it is as severe, or less severe than male infant circumcision as we know it?

I invited the person arguing with me to look at this paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, where authors propose just that. Not too long ago, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) itself tried to justify what they called a "ritual nick."

The fact of the matter is that, even in the most severe cases of FGM, it is simply impossible for the clitoris to be removed in its entirety from the female vulva. As Catania argues, only the tip of the clitoris can ever be removed, leaving plenty of clitoris behind in a woman for sexual stimulation. Even women who have undergone infibulation are still able to enjoy sex and experience orgasm. The claim that female genital cutting renders a woman a sexual cripple for the rest of her life is simply categorically false.

Diagram of internal female anatomy taken from Wikipedia
    Other facts that I invited this person to observe are that worldwide, 70% of males are intact, and that there simply isn't an epidemic of men experiencing the "problems" she presents. I invited this person to consider that other body parts are susceptible to disease, but that they aren't removed at birth. 1 in 8 American women will be diagnosed with breast cancer. 1 in 6 American men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer. The rate of men developing problems that may require surgical correction is approximately 1%.

    The external labia are also "flaps of skin," which could be affected by disease and infection. It is one of the areas affected by cancer. So should these be removed as well?

    I'd like to point out to my readers how the argument that "it could cause problems later on" only works when addressing the male foreskin.

    Continuing with my exchange:
     "Males with constricted foreskins have to have the foreskin removed or face serious infections."

     Myths repeated here:
    • The foreskin is prone to problems
    • The problem is usually a constricted foreskin
    • All men with constricted foreskins develop problems including serious infections

    I keep asking people to look at reality. Because what is that reality? That 70% of all men in the world are intact, and that there simply isn't an epidemic of constricted foreskins and "serious infections."

    The fact of the matter is that true phimosis is actually quite rare, occurring at a rate of about 1%. Some men may have non-retractile foreskins that have nothing to do with phimosis, but the majority of these men live their lives with no problems. Infections, when they occur, can usually be taken care of with conventional medicine, just as they are taken care of in women, when they develop infections.
    Some men do need surgery, but these cases are rare. What is the reason for the exaggeration? The person is trying to justify male circumcision. Of course, inner and outer labia have their own problems and diseases they are prone to, and some women must have them removed, but let's not talk about why early removal of them in girls is justified.
    The exchange continues:
     "Having the foreskin removed is what male circumcision involves while in female circumcision, they basically cut deep into an area full of nerves and blood vessels, a very horrible, completely barbaric practice that serves no rational purpose. It is only cruel in every way imaginable."
    Myth purported:
    • The foreskin is not an area full of nerves and blood vessels
    Really?

    I want readers to notice how hyperbole is quite justified when speaking out against female circumcision, as is minimization when speaking in favor of male infant circumcision. The opposite is true; any attempt at minimizing FGM is met with hostility, and speaking about any detriment to male infant circumcision is "hyperbole."

    Female circumcision is horrible, completely barbaric, serves no rational purpose, and only cruel in every way imaginable. Really? That's not what people who do it think. I hope it's obvious now that the grounds on which female circumcision is attacked, and on which male circumcision is defended is all self-serving special pleading. The conflicting rationale that only works for or against the circumcision of one sex are a necessary result of cognitive dissonance; the mental acrobatics necessary to holding two conflicting thoughts in the mind.

    Research shows that the most sensitive area on a man's penis is in the transitional region from the external to the internal part of the foreskin, also known as the mucocutaneous junction, and that this is removed by circumcision. 

    Diagram from Sorrells et al. study on penile sensitivity

    Of course, the foreskin is also an area full of nerves and blood vessels, 20,000 nerves to be exact, however, in the mind of the person I'm having this exchange with, it isn't a problem to cut these off in boys.

    The person persists and responds, recycling the same rationale, and repeating what this person already said before in even louder tones:
    Saying that you can still have an orgasm if your clitoris is cut off is like saying that you can still use your arm if it is cut off.  Yes, you can still have vaginal orgasms as one still has a vagina.  However, a female can't have a clitoral orgasm if they have no clitoris and truth is that most females have clitoral orgasms far easier & more frequently than vaginal orgasms.

    Why does anyone try to make excuses and make up lies to defend female genital mutilation where the truth is that there is no excuses for clitoris removal regardless!  It is equivalent to removing a male's penis head where most of a male's nerves in his sexual pleasure zones are located.
    Even after I presented evidence the contrary the following myths persist:
    • Orgasm and/or sexual enjoyment is simply impossible without a clitoris
    • The clitoris is always and completely removed during FGM
    • Intactivists are trying to defend FGM
    • Clitoral removal is equivalent to removing the glans penis in the male
    • The glans is where most of a male's nerves in his sexual pleasure zones are located
    They say you can take a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think.

    Science and research are proving all these myths to be false, yet they persist.

    It is actually possible to orgasm after losing the glans. There are videos of men ejaculating post penectomy. (Go to X-Tube and search "penectomy.") It is also interesting to note that transsexuals who undergo surgery are still able to enjoy sex without their penises.

    Not that this justifies cutting off children's penises in any way; I'm just trying to dispel the "can't enjoy sex" myth and why it fails as any arguing point.

    Let's explore this idea that removing part of the body doesn't affect its function.

    You can still see with one eye. You can still taste if I cut off the tip of your tongue. Who sees better though? Who tastes better? Likewise, who feels more? Who has better sensations?

    The bottom line
     Is it truly a matter "severity?"

    Because even the WHO recognizes that not all FGM removes the clitoris. The WHO and AAP acknowledge that some forms of FGM are as severe, if not less severe than male infant circumcision.

    Is it a matter of "pain?"

    Because women circumcised as infants don't remember it either. And girls can be anesthetized as males can be.

    Is it a matter of sexual enjoyment?

    Because the great majority of circumcised women will tell you they enjoy sex and can orgasm just fine, just as the great majority of circumcised men will tell you.

    The bottom line is this:
    Unless there is clear medical or clinical indication, the forced genital cutting of ANYONE is a gross violation of basic human rights.
    Arguments that only work in favor or against forced circumcision of one sex, but not the other, are self-serving, ad-hoc, special pleading.

    Even if female circumcision could be made "painless," and "less severe" than male circumcision, it would still be wrong.

    Even if it could be proven that female circumcision would prevent scary diseases like HIV and cancer, forcibly doing it to non-consenting girls or women would still be wrong.

    When an action is a basic human rights violation, how much sex a person can still enjoy afterward is secondary, if not irrelevant.

    Tuesday, July 18, 2017

    CONNECTICUT: Baby's Glans Partially Amputated - Doctor Cleared of Negligence

    Particularly in the United States, suing for circumcision malpractice is an uphill battle.

    About 80% of US males are circumcised from birth, and though male infant circumcision rates have fallen in the past years, to about about 56% if CDC numbers are to be believed, the practice is still quite prevalent, at about 1.3 million boys circumcised a year.

    This means that male infant circumcision is viewed favorably by a considerable number of the population.

    The country is exposed to a constant drizzle of news articles and "studies" saying that circumcising male infants is "beneficial," and that adverse effects of it are "negligible."

    So we, as a nation, are predisposed to believe that circumcision is a benign, "harmless" procedure and that nothing could ever go wrong.

    It's no surprise, then, that any adverse results that do present themselves are minimized, and those who are at fault for negligence or malpractice are often absolved, boys and men who have to live with the consequences of a circumcision gone wrong be damned.

    Connecticut Mogen Clamp Case
    A circumcision malpractice case is currently stirring up controversy on Facebook, where at least one user who posted the case on his timeline has been punished with a 30 day ban.




    The case in question is Mahoney v. Smith, a case in Connecticut where parents sued Dr. Lori Storch Smith over malpractice for a circumcision performed at Norwalk Hospital on December 29, 2010.

    During this procedure, Dr. Smith used a Mogen Clamp, and then realized that she had cut off approximately 30% of the glans of the baby's penis. The baby was subsequently transported to Yale-New Haven Hospital where he had the amputated portion reattached.

    The trial began on April 15, 2015 – and the jury cleared the defendant. The verdict was appealed, and the Appellate Court ruled against the plaintiffs on July 13, 2017.

    Long story short, the jury was presented with evidence, and despite the fact that the child's circumcision resulted in 30% of his glans being amputated, decided that the Bay Street Pediatrics doctor should be cleared of medical negligence.

    The Devil in the Details
    The parents tried appealing the court decision but were unsuccessful.

    They tried to argue that  a video shown in court was unfairly allowed by the trial judge, which may have swayed or confused the jurors.

    The video shows a Mogen procedure being completed successfully without any complications.

    Furthermore, details that were never an issue or point of contention were addressed, namely that anesthesia and the right surgical tools to control bleeding were used. (The end result was 30% of the child's glans being severed, regardless of how much anesthesia or which tools were used.)

    According to the appellate court, rather than confuse, the video likely illustrated for the jury the testimony given by the Mahoneys’ own expert witness, Dr. David Weiss, describing a circumcision using a Mogen clamp, an allegation that can't be true, given the fact that the child's circumcision was a botched surgery, not one completed successfully as shown in the video.

    The problem lies in the technicality that the Mahoneys' counsel identified the video as acceptable evidence for presentation prior to the trial.

    The Mahoneys are apparently at fault for not having requested to see the video before it as presented and rejected it as evidence.

    According to Law360, "The plaintiffs could have asked to watch the video prior to its introduction at trial, but did not do so; nor did they file a motion in limine seeking to preclude its admission into evidence, move for a continuance after it was marked for identification or recall Dr. Weiss to serve as a rebuttal witness concerning the video," the panel wrote in a nine-page opinion.

    The Mahoneys tried to argue that use of the video violated the court rules regarding disclosure of expert testimony, but the panel rejected this argument saying the plaintiffs did not specifically make those claims in their motions to set aside the verdict for a new trial.

    The jury, while deliberating, wanted to see the video again. However, this request was denied because the video itself was not part of the evidence, because it was not produced as evidence and was not a recording of the actual botched surgery. (Begging the question of why it was allowed to be shown in the first place.)

    The jury then requested to hear again the declaration of the expert witness, the one that presented the video. They were told they could get a  transcript but that would take about 2 days to just listen to the transcript again.

    It must be asked, what was the purpose of showing a video where the procedure went how it was supposed to in the first place?

    How was it significant enough to show it to the jury the first time, but suddenly not significant enough to request to see it a second?

    So if your blogger read the appellation correctly, the court discouraged the jury from re-hearing this testimony. In my opinion, this is necessarily the result of judges who are already circumcised themselves, and/or have circumcised children, working with a jury whose members are likely to be circumcised/parents of circumcised children themselves, both of whom already want believe circumcision is benign and could never go wrong, and want to see this case dismissed, so that they can go back to believing circumcision is "harmless" and "good."

    In the end, a child's glans was partially amputated, and the jury believed the doctor wasn't negligent and performed the circumcision "properly" because that's what they saw in a video.

    And it's the parents' fault for not requesting to see the video before it was presented.

    The details can be read here.

    It Doesn't Matter
     A Mogen clamp; the circumcision clamp used in this case

    We can go on and on quibbling about the details in this case, how the judges, jury, lawyers handled it etc., but that is beating around the bush.

    The fact is a mogen clamp was used in 2010, when it was already clear that there is potential for injury even in the best case.

    I have already written numerous posts on this before, but the Mogen Clamp is notorious for glans amputations.


    Common Mogen Problem: The circumciser is blind to the
    conditionof the child's glans. Some or all of the glans is pulled up
    along with the foreskin, resulting in partial or full glans amputations.

    Back in August, 2000, the FDA issued a warning regarding the potential for injury employing the use of the Mogen and Gomco clamps, after 105 reports of injuries between July 1996 and January 2000.

    On July of 2010, six months before this botched procedure, an Atlanta Lawyer won a $10.8 million lawsuit for the family of a baby whose glans was amputated during a Mogen clamp circumcision.

    Mogen Circumcision Instruments of New York was already $7 million in default on another lawsuit, and was thus forced out of business.

    Another baby, born on March of 2010 (9 months before this botched circumcision) also had the glans of his penis removed during a Mogen clamp circumcision. His parents filed a lawsuit on April of 2015.

    The FDA warning was later archived, but remained accessible on their website for some time.

    (Incidentally, your blogger tried accessing that warning today, but it is nowhere to be seen. The failed search even offers to search the FDA archive, but this is also a dead end. Fortunately, a copy of the warning can be found archived on the CIRP webpage.)

    AAP Silent
    In 2012, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued their policy statement on circumcision, in which they make the self-contradictory statement that “the benefits outweigh the risks”, but that “the benefits are not enough to recommend circumcision.”

    Dr. Andrew Freedman from the task force said that “there are modest benefits and modest risks."

    In their statement, the AAP tries to minimize the risks and complications of male infant circumcision, including the most catastrophic risks, which include partial or full ablation of the penis, hemorrhage and even death. Reported incidences of adverse effects of circumcision are dismissed as "case reports" because of the lack of statistics.

    The AAP admits in their 2012 statement that "the true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision is unknown."

    The AAP policy statement on circumcision is turning 5 years next month.

    Will they reaffirm it?

    Will they present a new one?

    Are they even trying to document the actual number of catastrophic injuries?

    The fact is, physicians and hospitals are not required to report adverse outcomes of circumcision procedures.

    It's also a fact that the AAP is first and foremost a trade union, whose primary interest is the welfare of their members, a great deal of who profit from the business of male infant circumcision.

    Something tells me they're not interested in conducting investigations that could prove devastating to their members.

    The bottom line is that male infant circumcision is elective, cosmetic non medical surgery whose risks and complications are no longer deniable.

    Are parents being warned of these risks?

    But more importantly, can doctors get away with reaping profit performing non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals?

    Were it the amputation or extraction of any other part of the body, the medical fraud would be undeniable.

    Why is it that doctors who perform male infant circumcision get a free pass?

    Related News Articles:
    Schmidt Law - Mogen Clamp Circumcision Lawsuit Filed for Penis Amputation

    AJC - Atlanta lawyer wins $11 million lawsuit for family in botched circumcision

    WCPO Cincinnati - Cincinnati protesters demand end to circumcisions at Good Samaritan Hospital

    Journal of Perinatology - Pain During Mogen or PlastiBell Circumcision


    Related Posts:
    Mogen Circumcision Clamp Manufacturers Face Civil Lawsuit

    The Ghost of Mogen

    CINCINNATI: Intactivists Protest Circumcision "Experiment" at Good Samaritan Hospital

    AFRICA: Botwsana to Implement Controversial Infant Circumcision Devices

    Monday, July 10, 2017

    MEDICAL FRAUD: First Choice Pediatrics Brazenly Misquoting AAP to Push Circumcision

    Sometimes you've got to help the AAP along.

    You see, in their 2012 statement on circumcision, the AAP did everything they could to vindicate male infant circumcision, but in the end stopped short of a recommendation because in their own words, "the benefits [of male infant circumcision] aren't great enough to recommend" it.

    So what do you do?

    You get ambitious pediatricians to give them that extra push.

    In a YouTube video published by First Choice Pediatrics, one can see Esther Song brazenly saying the AAP actually does recommend male infant circumcision, and boasting that they use a sucrose solution to help with pain management among other things.


    "American Academy of Pediatrics do recommend circumcision for the babies... there's some controversies and the problem is that insurance are not covering it, they're still considering it as cosmetic procedure, but we do believe that it is better for their hygiene, and there's other studies showing that it does decrease rates of sexually transmitted infections... and its' actually quicker healing, and we do use this sucrose solution to calm them down and it is very effective and doctors do use local anesthesia to help with the pain also, so I do recommend getting the circumcision and we do offer the surgery here..." ~Esther Song, Pediatrician, First Choice Pediatrics

    So many things wrong here, beginning with the fact that actually, no, the AAP does not recommend male infant circumcision. They stopped short in their 2012 statement stating that the "benefits are not sufficient."

    Second, babies don't have sex, so why a possible reduction in sexually transmitted diseases is relevant to tell parents is questionable.

    Third, she is talking about pain management that has been shown by studies to actually be quite ineffective.

    Here is what one study on "sucrose solution," or sugar water has to say on the matter:

    "Our data suggest that oral sucrose does not significantly affect activity in neonatal brain or spinal cord nociceptive circuits, and therefore might not be an effective analgesic drug. The ability of sucrose to reduce clinical observational scores after noxious events in newborn infants should not be interpreted as pain relief."
    Slater, Rebeccah; Laura Cornelissen, Lorenzo Fabrizi, Debbie Patten, Jan Yoxen, Alan Worley, Stewart Boyd, Judith Meek, Prof Maria Fitzgerald (2010-10-09). "Oral sucrose as an analgesic drug for procedural pain in newborn infants: a randomised controlled trial". Lancet, The 376 (9748): 1225-1232. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2810%2961303-7/fulltext. Retrieved 2011-04-08.

    Additionally, here are two studies on local pain management:

      "...more than half of the study group had what we considered excessive pain/discomfort over the course of the entire procedure.". 
    Taeusch, H William; Alma M Martinez, J Colin Partridge, Susan Sniderman, Jennifer Armstrong-Wells, Elena Fuentes-Afflick (April/May 2002). "Pain During Mogen or PlastiBell Circumcision". Journal of Perinatology 22 (3): 214-218. http://www.nature.com/jp/journal/v22/n3/full/7210653a.html. Retrieved 2011-04-08.

    "The adrenal cortisol response to surgery was not significantly reduced by the administration of lidocaine.".
    Williamson, Paul S.; Nolan Donovan Evans (August 1986). "Neonatal Cortisol Response to Circumcision with Anesthesia". Clinical Pediatrics 25 (8): 412-416. http://cpj.sagepub.com/content/25/8/412.abstract. Retrieved 2011-04-08.

    I think it is clever how she makes the controversy about "insurance companies not covering it," and doesn't get into how human rights groups consider it to be mutilation and a human rights violation outside a valid medical necessity.

    Will she inform parents about how circumcision has been abandoned by pretty much every other English-speaking country?

    I guess you can't talk about that if you're trying to sell circumcision to parents, can't you...

    One of the persons in the videos said that babies "sleep through the procedure." I'm guessing she thinks, or she hopes, YouTube videos aren't available for parents to watch, and that parents wouldn't bother to see them, because no, babies don't sleep through the procedure. And they certainly aren't asleep during the post-operation diaper changes when the babies scream their lungs out. There are YouTube videos for that too.

    How stupid do the folks at First Choice think parents are?

    Hurray for fully informing parents!

    "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
    ~Upton Sinclair

    So the only thing really going for First Choice is their "belief" that male infant circumcision is more "hygienic." Why they don't believe in soap and water like the rest of the English-speaking world is puzzling.

    I wonder what the American Academy of Pediatric thinks about medical groups deliberately misquoting them for profit...

    For their own benefit, we do hope the folks at First Choice are willing to rectify the deliberate misinformation they're feed parents.

    Statements by Other Organizations
    Just for fun, here is a list of statements on circumcision released by medical organizations around the world. 

    USA
    "The British Medical Association has a longstanding recommendation that circumcision should be performed only for medical reasons... Recent policy statements issued by professional societies representing Australian, Canadian, and American pediatricians do not recommend routine circumcision of male newborns".
    ~AMA Report 10 of the Council on Scientific Affairs

    "...benefits are not sufficient for the American Academy of Pediatrics to recommend that all infant boys be circumcised."
    ~American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 

    "...the association between having a sexually transmitted disease (STD) - excluding human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and being circumcised are inconclusive... most of the studies [of the effect of circumcision on HIV] ...have been conducted in developing countries, particularly those in Africa. Because of the challenges with maintaining good hygiene and access to condoms, these results are probably not generalizable to the U.S. population".
    ~AAFP "Position Paper on Neonatal Circumcision" 

    Canada
    "Current understanding of the benefits, risks and potential harm of this procedure no longer supports this practice for prophylactic health benefit. Routine infant male circumcision performed on a healthy infant is now considered a non-therapeutic and medically unnecessary intervention."
    ~College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia 

    "[We] do not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns."
    "Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed."
    ~The Canadian Paediatric Society 

    Britain
    "The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefits from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it."
    ~The British Medical Association
    Australia

    Australia
    The Royal Australasian College of Physicians stated in 2010 that the foreskin "exists to protect the glans" and that it is a "primary sensory part of the penis, containing some of the most sensitive areas of the penis."
     
    According to the Australasian Academy of Paediatric Surgeons:
    "The Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons does not support the routine circumcision of male neonates, infants or children in Australia. It is considered to be inappropriate and unnecessary as a routine to remove the prepuce, based on the current evidence available."

    "We do not support the removal of a normal part of the body, unless there are definite indications to justify the complications and risks which may arise. In particular, we are opposed to male children being subjected to a procedure, which had they been old enough to consider the advantages and disadvantages, may well have opted to reject the operation and retain their prepuce."

    "Neonatal male circumcision has no medical indication. It is a traumatic procedure performed without anaesthesia to remove a normal functional and protective prepuce. At birth, the prepuce has not separated from the underlying glans and must be forcibly torn apart to deliver the glans, prior to removal of the prepuce distal to the coronal groove."
     
    Netherlands
    In the Netherlands, the Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) issued a statement in 2010 stating that "The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organizations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity." Circumcision can cause complications, including infection and bleeding, and are asking doctors to insistently inform parents that the procedure lacks medical benefits and has a danger of complications. In addition to there not being any convincing evidence that circumcision is necessary or useful for hygiene or prevention, circumcision is not justifiable and is reasonable to put off until an age where any risk is relevant, and the boy can decide himself about possible intervention, or opt for available alternatives. They went on to say "There are good reasons for a legal prohibition of non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors, as exists for female genital mutilation."

    Related Posts:
    AAP: Around the Bush and Closer to Nowhere

    OUT OF LINE: AAP Circumcision Policy Statement Formally Rejected

    Friday, July 7, 2017

    FACEBOOK: Circumcision Regret Mom Shares Son's Story

     

    I ran across the rant of a circumcision regret mom on my Facebook news feed and thought it would be worth a post on my blog.

    Advocates of circumcision are always trying to minimize the risks and complications of male infant circumcision. "The risks are minimal," they say, without really getting into any detail.

    But what are those risks?

    The risks of male infant circumcision include infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage and even death.

    It is difficult to come up with concrete numbers for many reasons, namely that doctors and hospitals are not required to report the number of adverse outcomes in circumcision, the complications are often attributed to something else, and parents are complicit with doctors in keeping complications under wraps. At 1.3 million circumcisions a year, male infant circumcision is a money-maker, and thus doctors and hospitals have financial incentive to minimize adverse male infant circumcision outcomes.

    But there's a risk that is not often talked about, even though, according to research, it is fairly common, particularly in circumcised males; meatal stenosis, a narrowing of the urethra which makes it difficult to urinate.

    I'm not going to say much on this post; I will merely copy/paste the rant, and cite research on the topic immediately following that.

    All I will say is that ANY risk is unconscionable, given that male infant circumcision is elective, non-medical surgery on a healthy, non-consenting individual.

    The mother's rant was as follows:

    Meatal Stenosis. What?
    Does your son have it? Do you know what it is?
    I didn't, 6 years ago. I'd never heard of it until I started learning about infant circumcision harm, far too late, I might add, to protect my son.
    Meatal Stenosis, 100% caused by circumcision.
    It's a good thing that I do now. It could have saved my eldest son's life.

    Studies Have shown approx. up to 26% of circumcised males develop it- at least 81% in some communities(Israel), experts believe.
    I learned about it because of the volunteer work that I do, although he didn't present with typical symptoms. The pediatric urologist told my husband that he was lucky I caught it. I wasn't sure, it was only my instinct and knowledge that saved him. He has it severely, btw. (Edited to add, the pediatric Urologist of nearly 20 years, does about 10+ of these a week, and has NEVER done one on an intact child).
    Would you have caught it in your son? Do you know what the symptoms are?

    Tomorrow my son has to have a surgery.
    A surgery he should never have to have, CAUSED because of the vicious amputation he should NEVER have had to suffer within a day or two of his life. Circumcision.

    I will ALWAYS speak out to protect those that can be spared the agony he had to, and has to, endure because a Father wanted the same for his son. He was a victim too. The same old story.....

    I will ALWAYS speak out to help STOP this scourge in America.
    I will ALWAYS speak out to protect Babies that can't speak or scream 'NO!'.
    'Unfriend' me if you are tired of seeing my posts. I, however, am tired of seeing babies suffer, endure years of agony and even death. I'm so tired of it. Tired of seeing MY baby suffer. It makes me nauseous. I have regretted not fighting harder for the last 6 years, and to make it up to him, I will fight till my last breath.
    Informed consent? They didn't mention one of the many complications, including Meatal stenosis, to us when we had to sign. That is NOT informed consent. That's deceit.
    Were you told?

    Fu*k you circumcison. See you in the grave clamps.

    That said, here are links to the research, as well as relevant quotes:

    "The condition is called meatal stenosis and the risk of developing it is 16-26 times higher in circumcised than intact boys under the age of ten.

    Meatal stenosis can occur several years after circumcision, and may lead to infection if left untreated. The only solution is a minor operation under general anaesthesia."
    "Meatal stenosis is markedly more common in circumcised than genitally intact males, affecting 5–20 per cent of circumcised boys."
    "Meatal stenosis as a complication is often missed by the clinician because children do not usually have late follow-up after circumcision. The symptoms of pain are often mistaken for symptoms of a lower urinary tract infection and symptoms of distal urethral impairment of urinary flow are usually ignored for many months until parents witness the child's voiding habit."
    "Meatal stenosis is a relatively common acquired condition with a symptomatic presentation that occurs in 9-10% of males who are circumcised; the frequency may be ashigh as 20% after circumcision if the condition is defined as a meatal diameter of less than 5 French."
    "Circumcision is one of the most common surgical operations throughout the world, and meatal stenosis is one its late complications."

    Related Posts:
    GUEST AUTHOR: Meatal Stenosis

    JOHNS HOPKINS: Meatal Stenosis Article Scrubbed from Website

    Sunday, June 18, 2017

    AFRICA: PEPFAR Taking Advantage of Father's Day to Push Circumcision


    It seems circumcision advocates will take any and every opportunity to graft circumcision into any and every conversation.

    It's surprising the claim that bing circumcised "reduces the risk" of Ebola hasn't been made yet.

    I was scrolling through my Facebook newsfeed when I run into this shit.





    They took Father's Day and used it as an opportunity to promote circumcision.

    The way male circumcision, perhaps even HIV, is mashed up with Father's Day seems rather forced and contrived, one thing not having to do with each other.

    At its simplest reduction, the message is, Happy Father's Day, reduce HIV, get circumcised.

    It's like oil and water.

    It sounds like the people in charge of PEPFAR PR have run out of ways to bang the circumcision pot.

    What does Father's Day have to do with HIV prevention?

    And what does circumcision have to do with anything?

    The message is as convoluted as you can get.

    Good Fathers Get Tested and Circumcised Before Cheating
    Fathers, who are assumed to be living with their families, have to "do their part" to prevent HIV transmission, by getting tested and getting circumcised.

    Stay with me here.

    Why would fathers need to do this, other than the assumption that fathers are expected to be promiscuous and unfaithful?

    Possibly having sex with their children? (How else would fathers spread a sexually transmitted disease to their children?)

    Happy Father's Day, you dirty slut.

    Yay.

    That ought to make fathers feel warm and fuzzy inside.

    Accepting It's OK To Assume Fathers Will Be Promiscuous...
    OK, now taking as a given that it's perfectly fine to assume fathers are going to sleep around and engage in risky sexual practices with their children, why circumcision?

    Why the need to graft the far-removed subject male circumcision into the conversation?

    I can only imagine what is going through the PEPFAR worker's mind.

    Father's Day is as good time as any to talk about HIV prevention. (Because, again, what says "diligent father" than a man who goes out on his family and children to engage in risky sexual practices?)

    And nothing prevents HIV transmission better than HIV (except maybe condoms and refraining from risky sexual practices, e.g., going out on your wife).

    Ergo, Father's Day is ipso-facto a good day to promote male circumcision.

    It makes perfect sense!

    How Much Longer?
    How long is this farce of pretending to be interested in HIV prevention and men's health when the real reason is to defend the forced genital cutting that goes on back in our own country going to go on?

    When are other medical authorities around the world going to denounce the promotion of "mass circumcision campaigns" as the scientific profanity and crime against humanity that it is?

    Male Circumcision Does Not, Cannot Prevent HIV Transmission
    Even if the "research" held any water (it's replete with flaws), circumcision would only "reduce" the risk of HIV transmission from female to male by 60%.

    What is the risk of a female getting HIV from an HIV positive man who has sex with her without a condom?

    What power does she have to demand her man wear a condom, if her man believes he is "protected" by circumcision?

    Circumcision as HIV prevention FAILS.

    This is why circumcised men and their partners must be compelled to continue to use condoms.

    A good father remains FAITHFUL to his wife, thereby preventing HIV transmission to her and/or any future children.

    What kind of message does "going for circumcision" send?

    That he intends to sleep around and possibly contract the disease?

    And what further that it say?

    That a father may infect his daughter somehow?

    Circumcision does NOT BELONG in a message congratulating fathers on this day

     It tarnishes the message of PEPFAR, it tarnishes Father's Day.

    How absolutely disgusting that circumcision advocates are taking this opportunity to promote a dubious, failed HIV prevention method.

    In America, 80% of men are all circumcised. Yet, according to the CIA World Factbook, we have a higher HIV prevalence than 53 countries where circumcision is rare or not practiced.

    If circumcision "reduces HIV transmission," this is not evident in America.

    It's not evident in 10 out of 18 African countries, where HIV is more prevalent among the circumcised.

    Why is PEPFAR pushing this?

    What does promoting HIV prevention have to do with Father's Day?

    What message does it send?

    SHAME on PEPFAR.

    Lately, president Trump has been canceling programs that don't put "America First."

    I hope President Trump defunds this next.

    Using millions if not billions of our tax dollars to push dubious forms of HIV prevention that have never worked, to push insulting and dangerous propaganda is a complete waste of money.

    Related Posts:
    10 Years Later, UNAIDS Still Hell Bent on Circumcising Africa

     Related Posts:

    Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV II

    UNITED STATES: Infant Circumcision Fails as STI Prophylaxis
    CIRCUMCISION "RESEARCH": Rehashed Findings and Misleading Headlines

    MASS CIRCUMCISION CAMPAIGNS: The Emasculation and Harassment of Africa

    Posts on how circumcision may actually be worsening the HIV problem:


    Posts on underhanded circumcision "upscale strategies" BOTSWANA: Men Shunning Circumcision a "Mistery"


    AFRICA: Creating Circumcision "Volunteers"
     
    AFRICA: NGO's Taking Children from School to Circumcise Them Without Parents' Knowledge
    MALAWI: USAID-Funded Program Kidnapping Children for Circumcision - Boy Loses Penis

    Tuesday, June 13, 2017

    FACEBOOK: Another Baby Fighting For His Life Post Circumcision


    This was in my Facebook news feed today:

    TRAGEDY IN AMERICA, A BABY BORN May 23rd, 2017, FIGHTING FOR HIS LIFE: "A beautiful boy, with a head full of gorgeous hair: Two weeks after his birth, during circumcision, strep passed the blood barrier and he became septic. He now has sepsis, pneumonia, and bacterial meningitis, with seizures. Neurology has put him on antiseizure meds. A feeding tube into his belly and breathing assistance from a ventilator." ~Mom's statements, current as of today, Tuesday, June 13, 2017
    These keep happening. (See the list of other posts to similar stories down below.)

    What else can I say?

    The risks of circumcision include infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage and even death.

    The risks are real, American medical organizations keep this information from parents.

    Doctors and hospitals are not legally obligated to report adverse circumcision outcome, and guilty parents are complicit in keeping the death of their child who died from needless surgery under wraps.

    American medical organizations often minimize the risks and complications of male infant circumcision, but who is actually counting?

    Can we actually trust the numbers they give us, given that a great majority of their members profit from male infant circumcision, and their duty is to the well-being of their MEMBERS?

    Given that doctors and hospitals are not required to report this information?

    And even if the risks were as low as they say, how is anything above ZERO conscionable for elective, non-medical cosmetic surgery on a healthy, non-consenting child?

    The risks are real, and here is the proof.

    We don't hear about this because they hardly make the news, and they barely surface on social media like Facebook.

    For the same reasons; people want to hide these.

    Slide them under the carpet.

    WHEN IS THIS GOING TO STOP???

    ARE YOU LISTENING AAP?

    ARE YOU LISTENING DOUGLAS DIEKEMA?


    This child's blood is on YOUR HANDS.

    When reports like these surface on Facebook etc. make them go VIRAL.

    ENOUGH OF THIS.

    Related Posts:
     
    Complications that made the news and have surfaced on facebook
     

    CIRCUMCISION BOTCHES: Colombia and Malaysia

    CIRCUMCISION DEATH: This Time in Russia

    FACEBOOK: KENTUCKY - Botched Circumcision Gives Newborn Severe UTI

    FACEBOOK: Circumcision Sends Another Child to NICU - This Time in LA

    GEORGIA: Circumcision Sends a Baby to the NICU

    CIRCUMCISION DEATH: This Time in Italy

    FACEBOOK NEWS FEED: A Complication and a Death

    INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves

    MALE INFANT CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Boy Dies

    CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies

    CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yet Another One (I Hate Writing These)

    Another Circumcision Death Comes to Light

    CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yes, Another One - This Time in Israel

    FACEBOOK: Two Botches and a Death

    CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Child Dies After Doctor Convinces Ontario Couple to Circumcise

    ONTARIO CIRCUMCISION DEATH: The Plot Thickens

    Joseph4GI: The Circumcision Blame Game

    Phony Phimosis: How American Doctors Get Away With Medical Fraud

    FACEBOOK: Two More Babies Nearly Succumb to Post Circumcision Hemorrhage

    FACEBOOK: Another Circumcision Mishap - Baby Hemorrhaging After Circumcision

    What Your Dr. Doesn't Know Could Hurt Your Child

    FACEBOOK: Child in NICU After Lung Collapses During Circumcision

    EMIRATES: Circumcision Claims Another Life

    BabyCenter Keeping US Parents In the Dark About Circumcision

    DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: Circumcision Claims Another Life

    TEXAS: 'Nother Circumcision Botch


    New York Herpes Circumcision Problem:
    NYC: More Herpes Circumcision Cases Since de Blasio Lifted Metzitzah B'Peh Regulations

    BUSTED: Agudath Israel of America's Antics Revealed

    NEW STUDY: Ultra-Orthodox Mohels Don't Give Babies Herpes

    NEW YORK: Two More Herpes Babies, One With HIV

    NEW YORK: Metzitzah: Two mohelim stopped after babies get herpes

    NEW YORK: Yet Another Herpes Baby

    Rabbis Delay NYC's Metzitzah B'Peh Regulations - Meanwhile, in Israel...

    While PACE Holds a Hearing on Circumcision, Another Baby Contracts Herpes in NYC

    Israel Ahead of New York in Recommending Against Metzitzah B'Peh

    New York: Oral Mohel Tests Positive for Herpes

    Herpes Circumcision Babies: Another One? Geez!

    Mohels Spreading Herpes: New York Looks the Other Way

    Circumcision Indicted in Yet Another Death: Rabbis and Mohels are "Upset"