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. 

"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" 

"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 

"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

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."
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.


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?


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.




This child's blood is on YOUR HANDS.

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


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

CIRCUMCISION BOTCHES: Colombia and Malaysia


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


FACEBOOK NEWS FEED: A Complication and a Death

INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves


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


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"

Friday, June 2, 2017

COURTROOM SHOWDOWN: Religious Freedom on Trial

If "religious freedom" and "parental choice" can be used as alibis to justify the forced genital cutting of healthy, non-consenting boys, can they be used to justify it in girls?

The world is about to find out.

There exists an inconsistent hypocrisy in this country when it comes to the forced genital cutting of minors.

We have a two-track system that says that forcibly cutting off the foreskin of a healthy, non-consenting male child is defensible under so-called "religious freedom," as well as so-called "parental choice," but it is "mutilation" to cut the genitals of a healthy, non-consenting female child in any way shape or form.

There is no exemption for parents who wish to have their daughters' genitals cut for "cultural" or "religious reasons," though with male circumcision, only "parental choice" suffices and a doctor can perform a circumcision in a male child with for no further reason than that a parent wanted it done.

In South-East Asian countries, girls are circumcised in infancy.

In different countries around the world, including regions of Africa and South-East Asia, girls are often circumcised in infancy in pretty much the same way as boys are in the US.

When media outlets present female genital cutting, it is often generalized that all of it takes place in the bush, performed by amateur tribal shamans with crude utensils such as rusty blades, tin can remnants and glass shards. (Which is funny, because male circumcision is often performed in these exact same settings in the exact same places where female circumcision is performed in this way.)

When you say "female circumcision," the default for most Americans is to correct you and say "no, it's mutilation," citing the above, and citing infibulation (AKA "pharaonic circumcision"), where the protruding part of the clitoris is excised, the outer and inner labia excised and the remnants sewn shut to leave but a small hole for menstruation.

While infibulation exists, this is actually the rarest form of FGM, constituting only about 15% of all female genital cutting.

Most FGM is not as severe.

"Severity" is not the issue here.

Yet there seems to be this unspoken rule that "the least severe of the practices is justifiable."

Most people in the West don't seem to be aware that infant girls can be circumcised in pretty much the same way as infant boys are, in the setting of a hospital, performed by a medical professional using pristine utensils, and excising only external, vestigial pieces of flesh, though in the Western mind, there is no acceptable amount of flesh that can be removed in a girl.

While the entire foreskin can be removed in a male for "religious" or "cultural" purposes in males, the removal of any amount of flesh in a female constitutes "mutilation" as is simply unacceptable.

Pictured here is the amount of flesh that was removed in a circumcision in South-East Asia.
The original blogger, the mother, claims it was the clitoris, which is barely visible on the blades.

 Pictured here is the freshly severed foreskin of a newborn infant in the US.

It is often claimed by female circumcision advocates that male infant circumcision as it is commonly performed in the United States is actually more severe than female circumcision is it is commonly performed in South-East Asian countries, and as readers can see for themselves, they wouldn't be exaggerating.

It is often claimed that the reason female circumcision is "more severe" in girls is supposedly because female circumcision removes the clitoris, and that without the clitoris sexual enjoyment and even orgasm aren't possible.

What is removed in female circumcision, if at all (not all FGM removes the clitoris), is the *tip* of the clitoris. Complete removal of the clitoris is actually impossible.

For this reason, even women who have undergone the most severe form of FGM can still enjoy sex and even experience orgasm, as documented by Johnsdotter and Catania.

FGM is not all the same. The WHO recognizes for different types, not all of which remove any part of the clitoris.

 FGM is not all one and the same.

For better or for worse, female infant circumcision is not seen as "mutilation" in the countries and cultures where it is performed.

In fact, it is often considered a religious requirement, known as "sunat" in South-East Asia.

Female circumcision is seen as a normal "non-issue" by South-East Asian parents, just as male circumcision is seen as a normal "non-issue" by American parents.

 If you ignore the fact that this is a South-East Asian parent talking about
circumcising her daughter, she would sound like any American parent on
a parenting forum like BabyCenter or BabyGaga.

We intactivists have always asked, if "religious freedom" and "parental choice" can be used to justify the forced genital cutting of healthy, non-consenting male children, why can't it be used to justify the forced genital cutting of healthy, non-consenting female children?

The question is often circumvented with assertions that "they are not the same," because "one is more severe than the other," not to mention "the potential medical benefits of which there are zero in female circumcision."

These may or may not be true, but true or not, they would be irrelevant conclusions to the question posed.

Either "religious freedom" or "parental choice" can be used to justify the cutting of flesh in healthy, non-consenting minors, or they cannot.

Actually, as shown here, female circumcision can be more severe than male circumcision, and removing the labia can prevent the accumulation of smegma in females, as removing the foreskin can in males.

The fact that we do not circumcise females is testament to the fact that surgery is not necessary for hygiene.

And here, before I go on any further, I'd like to point out how in the face of scrutiny, "religious freedom" and "parental choice" have to be abandoned as alibis.

These arguments are so weak and frail that after their demise, male infant circumcision advocates have to look elsewhere for recourse, in this case being "disease prevention," as if their concern for public health were genuine.

As with male infant circumcision advocates, female infant circumcision advocates are ready, complete with published "research" showing how female circumcision may be able to prevent this or that disease.

Again, because "religious freedom" and "parental choice" fail.

It's Here
Anti-FGM advocates have up until today sidelined and ignored anyone who dare ask the above question, hoping we go away, but I think that by now, they're realizing that they can only do that so much.

Today, that question is staring them directly in the face, and they have to make a decision.

America has to make a decision.

Very soon, doctors, lawyers, ethicists, members on committee boards of respected medical organizations, our entire justice system will be faced with the question; how far can "religious freedom" and "parental choice" justify the needless cutting of flesh in healthy, non-consenting minors?

How far can something be justified before it constitutes "abuse?"

Female genital cutting in any way shape or form has been illegal in the US since a federal ban against it was instituted in 1996.

No such ban exists for male genital cutting.

This insconsistency, this sexist two-track system is finally going to be challenged in a court of law.

The State of Affairs
The situation is as follows; a woman is facing charges for FGM performed in Detroit.

Not too long before that, an Ethiopian Man had been deported after serving a sentence for having her daughter circumcised.
According to Detroit News, Dr. Jumana Nagarwala of Northville is accused of mutilating the genitalia of two girls from Minnesota on Feb. 3 at a Livonia clinic owned by Dr. Fakhruddin Attar.

The Farmington Hills man has been indicted along with his wife, Farida Attar, who is accused of helping arrange the procedure and being in the examination room during the procedure.

Defense lawyers are saying the girls underwent a benign religious procedure, and that the government is overreaching. (E.g., it's not genital mutilation because it was religious.)

Nagarwala’s lawyer Shannon Smith said the doctor merely removed mucous membrane from the girls’ genitalia, placed the material on gauze pads and gave it to their families for burial. (There is a federal ban against any form of FGM regardless.)

All three are members of the Dawoodi Bohra community, a religious and cultural community based in India where FGM is practiced.

They are being held without bond pending a trial in federal court in Detroit on October 10th this year.

Fakhruddin Attar, 52, and Nagarwala, 44, face up to life in prison if convicted of conspiracy to transport minors with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity.

Farida Attar, 50, faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted of conspiring to obstruct the investigation.

The trio is accused of committing female genital mutilation, trying to cover up the crime and conspiring to cut girls as part of a procedure practiced by the Dawoodi Bohra.

Top Laywers on the Case
Famed constitutional law scholar and attorney Alan Dershowitz and prominent Birmingham defense attorney Mayer Morganroth were hired about three weeks ago by the Dawat-e-Hadiyah, an international religious organization overseeing a small sect of Shia Muslim mosques around the world.

According to Morganroth, they were hired "to protect the people charged and to represent the religious organization."

Morganroth has represented numerous high-profile clients, including ex-Detroit Mayor Coleman A. Young, auto executive John DeLorean and Jack Kevorkian.

Dershowitz is a retired Harvard Law School professor and lawyer who defended celebrity clients in some of the country's highest profile criminal cases. His client list includes O.J. Simpson, Mike Tyson and British socialite Claus von Bulow.

Conflicts of Interest
It looks like Alan Dershowitz is Orthodox Jewish. I couldn't find much on Morganroth, except that Morganroth is a Jewish surname.

Why is this important?

Male infant circumcision is seen as divine commandment in Judaism.

They have personal stake in this case, because if the federal government wins this landmark case against a physician performing genital cutting on children at the request of religious parents, then the legality of Jewish circumcision would be put in question.

A Delicate Dance
So much hangs in the balance in this case.

The defense lawyers have a delicate dance to perform; the dance around the candle that FGM activists and male infant circumcision advocates have been struggling to perform for decades, only now, it's being performed in federal court.

On the one hand, a landmark win is a win for "religious freedom," and the legality of Jewish circumcision will remain unquestioned.

It also means, however, that this may result in the Federal FGM Ban of 1996 to be lifted, opening the door for other forms of FGM, and possibly other abusive practices, to be legally performed in the US.

For the Holy Day of Ashura, parents cut the tops of childrens' heads.
Harmless, really...

In some cultures, children marry early.
It's religiously sanctioned of course...

 In some cultures, children's faces are scarified.
Some belief the scars provide religious protection. Does that count?

 What if I want to tattoo my faith on my child?

What if, instead of taking my child to the doctor, I insist on praying for him?
Because I believe only god can and should heal my child from diseases?

 Where does it end?
What if I invent a new religion that says that all children
must have their ears modified to look like Princess Zelda?

On the other hand, a landmark loss means the legality of Jewish circumcision would be put in question.

This also means, however, that parents can't just do abusive things to their children and get away with it under "religious freedom."

So these lawyers have to decide what's more important: protecting the most basic human rights of healthy, non-consenting minors, or sacrificing them on the altar of "religious freedom."

You can't have it both ways.
Choose wisely.

While it seems like it's a lose-lose for them, I can't help but seeing it as a win-win for basic human rights.

As a human rights activist, I want the judge uphold the federal ban on FGM to rule in favor of basic human rights, and to condemn the actions of the people involved.

On the other, a rule in favor of "religious freedom" is a tacit admission that genital cutting is the same issue, male or female.

Actually, male circumcision and female circumcision will be legally recognized as being parallel, and neither FGM activists nor circumcision advocates will be able to deny it.

The firewall between the forced genital cutting of males and females will have been officially broken down.

Normalizing and even legalizing FGM will force the public to take a closer look at the issue, and to recognize that male and female circumcision are both one and the same, for they violate the exact same principles and are defended on the exact same grounds.

In either case, I see nothing but progress in the fight for basic human rights.

Sunday, May 28, 2017

FORCED RETRACTION: American Doctors Perpetuate Harmful Quackery

As if it weren't bad enough that American doctors are reaping profit from elective, non-medical surgery at the expense of the basic human rights of healthy, non-consenting minors, they're also perpetuating misinformation, inadvertently or quite deliberately, that almost guarantees the necessity for corrective genital surgery.

I ask myself, do these doctors know what they're doing? Or are they simply ignorant and merely perpetuating the misinformation they were taught in American medical schools?

Are American doctors innocently spreading lies and destroying children's' genitals?

Or do they do this with malice in their hearts, knowing full well what they do?

That's what I'd like to know.

The following account was taken from Facebook (My own commentary in parenteses):

"I took my nine-month-old baby in yesterday for his well baby check up and the doctor forcibly retracted his foreskin. She had a student with her and they both went on to tell me that I needed to be doing this daily. (???) She also made me do it. He cried and I asked if it hurt him and they said yes but he will get used to it. I told them I was unaware of this procedure and thought this was a natural occurrence. They said it needed to be retracted to prevent the skin from growing over and not allowing him to pee. The student even said he had seen cases like that. (The student was lying. 70% of all men in the world are not circumcised. There is simply no epidemic of foreskins "growing over and not allowing them to pee.")

The rest of the day my son was extremely irritated and uncomfortable. I began to notice that he hadn't had any wet diapers in a while. We put him in a warm bath to hopefully help him pee but it was hard to tell if it worked. That night I put him down in his pajamas with no diaper so I'd know when he peed. I checked on him periodically and nothing. (I had also called an on-call dr at this point and they said he would be fine).

Around 6 am he woke up crying. When I went in to see him he had finally peed, a lot, but there was also lots of blood! I waited until the dr opened at 8 and called in. They said it was a normal reaction and he would be fine. (This is anything but "normal.")

After lots of research I realized this is not okay and that doctor had no right to do that to my son. I'm worried he has been hurt or his skin is damaged. I've reached out to multiple sources and am more at ease now knowing that he will be okay. He is not swollen, no longer bleeding and is frequently urinating. But he has developed a bad diaper rash and still is uncomfortable I can tell.

I also got back in touch with the dr (nurse practitioner) who did this and told her it was not supposed to be done. She said she'd never heard that. I told her all I did was simple research to realize and I'd appreciate some medical research on why it needed to be done. She later called back and said she was shocked to see all the research that said not to retract. But that it still needed to be done to prevent infection and phimosis. (We're wrong, but keep following this advice anyway. WHAT???) But I know now after talking to a reliable source who specializes in this that those risks are usually only caused because of the forced retraction.

Needless to say I need to now find a new pediatrician. I'm hoping to find one that offers a more natural approach to the body and healing and is not intrusive.

Also I will be filing a formal complaint." ~A midwest mom

All I've got to say is that we no longer live in the dark ages. We live in the age of Google, where a quick search will allow you to find peer-reviewed research and statements on forced retraction from respected medical organizations from around the world.

On the matter of forcible premature foreskin retraction (PFFR), medical associations advise not to forcibly retract the foreskin of an infant, as this interferes with normal penile development, and may result in scarring or injury.(1)(2).

Camille et al (2002), in their guidance for parents, state that:
"[t]he foreskin should never be forcibly retracted, as this can cause pain and bleeding and may result in scarring and trouble with natural retraction."(3)
Simpson & Barraclough (1998) state that:
"[n]o attempt should be made to retract a foreskin in a child unless significant separation of the subpreputial adhesions has occurred. Failure to observe this basic rule may result in tearing with subsequent fibrosis and consequent [iatrogenically induced] phimosis. ..."(4)
The American Academy of Pediatrics cautions parents not to retract their son's foreskin, but suggest that once he reaches puberty, he should retract and gently wash with soap and water.(5) The Royal Australasian College of Physician as well as the Canadian Paediatric Society emphasize that the infant foreskin should be left alone and requires no special care.(6)

This knowledge isn't hidden or ambiguous information; these are well-known facts recognized my respected medical organizations around the world.

What is wrong with American doctors?

What are they learning in school?

Why are they being taught to do this?

In any case, something must be done about the spread of this quackery which is resulting in the harm of baby boys across the nation, possibly across the world.

I've seen the following meme on Facebook:

And it's right on the money.

Why shouldn't you confuse a Google search with a Medical Degree?

Because a Google Search may actually be of more value.

America, your medical knowledge on male reproductive organs is a little outdated.


Related Posts:
What Your Dr. Doesn't Know Could Hurt Your Child

PHIMOSIS: Lost Knowledge Missing In American Medicine

External Link
Has your doctor forcibly retracted your child's foreskin even after you asked him or her not to? Visit the following link for some steps that you can take in order to take action.
Doctors Opposing Circumcision

Medical References:
1. "Care of the Uncircumcised Penis". Guide for parents. American Academy of Pediatrics. September 2007. http://www.healthychildren.org/English/ages-stages/baby/bathing-skin-care/Pages/Care-for-an-Uncircumcised-Penis.aspx.

2. "Caring for an uncircumcised penis". Information for parents. Canadian Paediatric Society. July 2012. http://www.caringforkids.cps.ca/handouts/circumcision.

3. Camille CJ, Kuo RL, Wiener JS. Caring for the uncircumcised penis: What parents (and you) need to know. Contemp Pediatr 2002;11:61.

4. Simpson ET, Barraclough P. The management of the paediatric foreskin. Aust Fam Physician 1998;27(5):381-3.

5. American Academy of Pediatrics: Care of the uncircumcised penis, 2007

6. Royal Australasian College of Physicians. (2010) Circumcision of Infant Males.