TEXAS: 'Nother Circumcision Botch

Yet another circumcision botch has surfaced on Facebook, this time in Arlington, Texas.

ONTARIO CIRCUMCISION DEATH: The Plot Thickens

More details have emerged surrounding the circumcision death case in Ontario, and there are a lot of red flags that are going up for me.

I'm going to cut and paste relevant excerpts from a Toronto Star news article, commenting as I go along.

"One Toronto pediatrician was cautioned in writing and another told to get informed consent from parents after 22-day-old Ryan Heydari bled to death following a circumcision in 2013."

First red flag; one would think that informed consent was obtained from the child's parents before performing surgery. Am I missing something here?

"Details about the complaints against the two physicians made to the College of Physicians and Surgeons, including their identities, would have been kept secret had Ryan’s parents not sought a review by an appeals panel. That is a level of secrecy that critics say must change, even as the college is promising to improve transparency."

Second red flag; what is the reason that parents have to seek a review by an appeals panel to get details surrounding their own child's death?

How many other cases are being kept secret because parents didn't think to do what these parents have?

"Earlier this month, the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) upheld the decision made by the college’s inquiries, complaints and reports committee to “advise” Dr. Sheldon Wise, who performed the operation on Ryan following a referral by a family doctor, to document his consent procedure — including discussion of potential risks and complications around circumcision."

Why is he being asked to document the consent procedure after the fact?

Is there no obligation to document the child's diagnosis first?

Why aren't doctors required to have a diagnosis for medical indication for surgery?

"Death following circumcision is rare, a three-member panel of the board noted."

This worthless note is not helpful here.

A child has died.

Duly noting it doesn't help the child or his parents.

"The panel also found the committee’s order to be reasonable, that Dr. Jordan Carr, the North York General hospital pediatrician who saw Ryan after he started bleeding, should be cautioned in writing for “his failure to recognize the seriousness of the patient’s condition and to treat compensated shock.” Carr was also ordered by the committee to write a 2- to 4-page report on the possible complications of circumcision and on how to recognize and treat compensated shock"

This is rich.

They try to downplay this child's death, but somehow, the doctor who saw him should have "recognized the seriousness of the patient's condition."

So much weight on the doctor who had nothing to do with the child's surgery, nor with convincing his parents to have it done seems unfair to me.

Shouldn't the burden of having to outline the possible complications of circumcision be on the doctor who pushed it on the parents in the first place?

The message that "death following circumcision is rare," but that physicians ought to "recognize the seriousness of a circumcised child's condition" is a confusing one.

Scolding this doctor seems like backwards logic to me.

There was nothing wrong with the child.

A healthy child underwent elective, non-medical surgery because a doctor pushed it on reluctant parents.

Before a doctor suggest surgery, shouldn't there be a diagnosis of a medical condition for which surgical intervention is necessary?

It seems to be that medical necessity needs to be establish first.

Before eliciting consent from parents.

Before presenting them with the risks and complications.

Before advising a doctor to "recognize the seriousness" of a child's condition following surgery.

The first fault in the series of events is the doctor who convinced the parents that the child should undergo circumcision.

So why so much weight on the physician who saw him second?

And why should he be expected to believe the situation was "serious," when he has been most likely taught to believe that circumcision is "simple, fast, and risk-free?"

 "Wise told the complaints committee he routinely performs circumcisions, and the committee expressed no concerns about his technique or equipment, according to the HPARB decision. But it did feel that he should be obtaining and documenting informed consent before doing the operation."

This part really disturbs me.

A child has died, but  the fact that the doctor circumcised him performs this elective, non-medical procedure routinely seemingly voids any cause for concern.

More important than establishing a medical diagnosis for a condition that necessitates surgery is obtaining and documenting informed consent before doing the operation, is this group's decision.

This seems strange to me; it would seem to me that consent from the parents was obtained., albeit reluctantly.

But what's really disturbing is the fact that a child has died as a result of a needless, non-medical procedure, but that the group is more concerned that the doctor is able to absolve himself by pushing the burden of responsibility on the parents.

Am I misunderstanding something here?

"In Carr’s case, the committee found that he assessed Ryan in a timely manner, but 'overall, the committee was concerned by the lack of urgency and aggressiveness in (Carr’s) approach in this case, and his failure to recognize pending hypovolemic shock.'"

 Again, rather this is paradoxical. In one instance, the committee must establish that "death following circumcision is rare," but then they want to chastise this doctor for "lack of urgency and aggressiveness" in the next.

"None of this information can be found on profiles for Wise and Carr in the College of Physicians and Surgeons’ online registry, as the complaints against the doctors were made before the college changed its policies as to what information it releases to the public."

 So what else could they be hiding?

"'I think most people would agree that where there was a death of a 22-day old baby, there should be public disclosure where there was criticism found with relation to care,' said medical malpractice lawyer Paul Harte, who is pushing for the college to release information about all complaints against doctors, including their identities and the disposition in each case."

No, some fight to hide this information at all costs, and for good reason too.

What doctor is eager to face a malpractice lawsuit?

"College spokeswoman Kathryn Clarke said the penalty formerly known as a “written caution” no longer exists; only an oral caution, made by a panel of the complaints committee to the doctor. Since this year, this caution is included on the doctor’s profile in the college’s online registry."

Am I reading this correctly?

This physician's "advice," and his execution of this elective, non-medical procedure on a healthy, non-consenting minor has lead to his death, and all he gets away with is "caution," not written but oral?

"But the committee can also choose to issue advice or recommendations to the physician, or request that the doctor work with the college on developing an educational plan. “Both outcomes are considered of low risk to the public, and therefore they are not included on the physician’s profile on the public register,” Clarke said."

Both outcomes are merely a slap on the wrist, and don't take into account the gravity of the situation.

Let me repeat, a child has died as a result of this doctor's "advice" to have elective, non-medical surgery performed on him, and all he gets is "caution."

The parent's testimony is heartbreaking:

“We had Ryan circumcised for health reasons, based on the advice of our family doctor. We were initially very much against having Ryan circumcised, as we felt that Mother Nature had created us the way she had intended us to be...

Our family doctor convinced us though of the health benefits of this procedure, but we had no idea that the loss of Ryan’s life was one of the risks. The loss of Ryan, our only child, has made us realize that we cannot possess anything, even our hopes and dreams. We hope that this never happens to any baby, but losing your child is the only way to find out what effect this can have on your life.”

Before suggesting surgery, a doctor needs to establish medical necessity.

Then he needs to obtain informed consent from his patient, if not the patient's guardians.

The patient and patient's guardians ought to know all the risks and complications of the procedure.

Male infant circumcision carries risks.

These risks include infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage and even death.

In Closing

The foreskin is not a birth defect. Neither is it a congenital deformity or genetic anomaly akin to a 6th finger or a cleft. Neither is it a medical condition like a ruptured appendix or diseased gall bladder. Neither is it a dead part of the body, like the umbilical cord, hair, or fingernails.

The foreskin is not "extra skin." The foreskin is normal, natural, healthy, functioning tissue, present in all males at birth; it is as intrinsic to male genitalia as labia are to female genitalia.

Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of a healthy, non-consenting individuals is a deliberate wound; it is the destruction of normal, healthy tissue, the permanent disfigurement of normal, healthy organs, and by very definition, infant genital mutilation, and a violation of the most basic of human rights.

Without medical or clinical indication, doctors have absolutely no business performing surgery in healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less be eliciting any kind of "decision" from parents.

Reaping profit from performing elective, non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals constitutes medical fraud, not to mention abuse and the violation of basic human rights.

CORRECTION (10/28/2015): I have just learned that the physician who convinced this couple to have their child circumcised and the physician who actually carried out the procedure are in fact two different people. I still think the doctor who convinced the couple should also be held responsible. Medical boards ought to begin to issue warnings to doctors not to advise parents to have their children circumcised unless there is diagnosis which indicates clear medical necessity for surgical intervention.

Related Post:

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

Relevant Link:

Secrecy questioned about baby’s death after circumcision

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

I'm just going to cut and paste relevant excerpts from the National Post article:

"...they did not even want the newborn circumcised — a view in line with longstanding recommendations from the Canadian Pediatric Society — but were persuaded to do so by a family physician."

"...the case only became public because the couple appealed the original Ontario College of Physician and Surgeons rulings, which were rendered in secret."

So how many more deaths haven't been made public?

"The pediatric society said in a recent report that death from bleeding caused by circumcision is 'extremely rare,' though it’s not completely unheard of. A five-week-old B.C. baby bled to death after being circumcised in 2003."

And another one was in the ER in Arizona just this month.

"She and husband John Heydari, who immigrated from Iran about 12 years ago, opposed having him circumcised, convinced that 'mother nature created us the way she intended us to be.'

But their family physician persuaded them it was a good idea for medical reasons, despite contrary advice from pediatric specialists."

Their failure to ignore their first impulse resulted in tragedy.

And what does this doctor get?

Why are doctors allowed to get away with soliciting elective, non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting minors like this?

"The pediatric society has long held that its risks – including pain to a small baby, bleeding and the chance of disfigurement of the penis – outweigh its benefits."

Opposite the AAP.

And yet, just like them, they simply fold their hands, whistle and look the other way...

"The group revisited the issue with a report just last month that addressed growing evidence circumcision helps prevent sexually transmitted disease, acting almost like a vaccine in countries with high rates of HIV."

"Almost" being the key word here.

Even the WHO says that circumcised men and their partners must be urged to continue to wear condoms.

This means circumcision FAILS to prevent anything and we're back at square one; men have to wear condoms either way for any real protection form STDs.

Let's be clear here; a healthy child has just died, but we need to rest assured that promiscuous men in Africa MIGHT be getting *possible* benefits from circumcision that are better obtained by wearing a condom.

Final Words
The foreskin is not a birth defect. Neither is it a congenital deformity or genetic anomaly akin to a 6th finger or a cleft. Neither is it a medical condition like a ruptured appendix or diseased gall bladder. Neither is it a dead part of the body, like the umbilical cord, hair, or fingernails.

The foreskin is not "extra skin." The foreskin is normal, natural, healthy, functioning tissue, present in all males at birth; it is as intrinsic to male genitalia as labia are to female genitalia.

Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of a healthy, non-consenting individuals is a deliberate wound; it is the destruction of normal, healthy tissue, the permanent disfigurement of normal, healthy organs, and by very definition, infant genital mutilation, and a violation of the most basic of human rights.

Without medical or clinical indication, doctors have absolutely no business performing surgery in healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less be eliciting any kind of "decision" from parents.

Circumcision has risks.

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

Death is a risk of circumcision.

How many times do I have to say this?

Death is a risk of circumcision.

Are parents being adequately informed about this risk?

Had this couple known about this risk, would they have still changed their minds?

Death is a risk of circumcision.

Death is a risk of circumcision.

Are you listening AAP?

Death is a risk of circumcision.

Circumcision has claimed yet another child.

His blood is on the hands of the AAP and any other medical organization that dares parrot them.

Related Article:

Ontario newborn bleeds to death after family doctor persuades parents to get him circumcised

Related Posts:

CANADA: CPS Diverges from AAP on Infant Circumcision

CIRCUMCISION RISK: Two More Circumcision Botches

CIRCUMCISION RISK: Two More Circumcision Botches

I can't keep writing long drawn out posts for these...

What I'm gonna do from now on with circumcision mishaps is just write quick blurbs about them unless they warrant longer commentary.

When necessary I'll consolidate.

There's just so many being reported at a time and I just don't have the time to write a post for each and everyone.

Let's see we have a child admitted to the ER in Arizona because he wouldn't stop bleeding...

...and an infection in Illinois the mother wants to sue for.

This last one was actually cropped from the original because it's too graphic to post. If you really want to see it, click here at your own risk. CAUTION: GRAPHIC

You won't find these in the news, because they rarely, if ever, make it.

Instead you'll read about them on Facebook, where they'll surface for a bit while a parent is actually reacting the way they should at every circumcision, and then you never hear about them again. (Perhaps doctors get them to settle and keep quiet about it? Who knows...)

The AAP and friends repeat a 0.2% risk in circumcision complications and they really don't get into what they are.

Is that number accurate?

Has the AAP actually looked into it, or are they just pulling it out of thin air so as to minimize the risk to cover their circumcising members' rear ends?

Circumcision has risks.

They include infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage and even death.

Here are yet two more botch cases that have surfaced on the internet.

Is the AAP counting?

Because we are.

Shit floats, and the AAP is going to look very bad if real numbers don't reflect their 0.2% figure.

But even so, what does 0.2% of 1.3 million newborn infants look like?

Unless my math skills completely suck, and someone correct me here, that's approximately 2600 babies that will suffer some sort of mishap.

Really? That's an acceptable risk for an elective, non-medical procedure?

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: A Casual Report of a Circumcision Death Makes the News

The body of a 9-week old was found, and the news report only briefly mentions that the medical examiners found that he died from a kidney infection that resulted from a botched circumcision.

Death is a risk from circumcision.

It is difficult to pinpoint the exact rate of deaths caused by circumcision because people have incentive to hide the fact.

At 1.3 million infant circumcisions a year, circumcision is a money-maker for pediatricians and OB/GYNs, so trade organizations such as the AAP and ACOG have incentive to hide or downplay deaths due to circumcision.

Doctors have been known to deliberately misattribute the death of a child caused by circumcision to secondary causes, such as "bleeding," "hemorrhage" or "septic shock," so when a child dies as a direct result of circumcision, it is rarely reported as such. Parents are usually complicit with the doctor because they feel just as guilty for agreeing to have the procedure done.

Circumcision is an important ritual for Jews and Muslims, and religious communities have been known to be complicit in hiding culprits whenever deaths due to circumcision arise.

Whether it be avoiding lawsuits, or protecting a sacred ritual, there is great incentive to hide or downplay deaths caused by circumcision, so it is difficult to know exactly how many newborns succumb to death caused by circumcision.

Here, we witness a rare instance in which a death caused by circumcision actually makes the news.

Notice how nonchalant and casual the reporting of this fact is.

Readers will gloss over this fact as if it were no big deal.

Circumcision has risks.

They include infection, partial or full ablation and even death.

Death is a risk of circumcision.

Because male infant circumcision is elective, non-medical surgery, this risk is unconscionable.

Is the AAP counting?

Because we are.

Death is a risk of circumcision.

Are American doctors properly warning parents of this risk?

Relevant Link:

Body of 9-Week-Old Infant Allegedly Found Dead; Parents Under Custody

OREGON: Couple Face Prison for Denying Their Child Medical Care

An Oregon couple refused to look for medical help for their child citing their religious faith in prayer over doctors. Their child died, and now they face prison.

I want readers to note how "religious freedom" and/or "parental choice" couldn't save this couple.

This is yet another example of how "freedom of religion" and parental prerogative are not absolute.

Related Link:

Oregon couple who chose prayer over doctors will go to prison for child’s death

ARKANSAS: Another Baby in the ER After Circumcision

I don't have time for a long, drawn-out post today, so I'm making this brief.

Another newborn was in the ER due to hemorrhaging after his circumcision in Arkansas.

The AAP lists the percentage of risks and complications of male infant circumcision at 0.2%, though I don't believe them because they've got incentive to downplay that number; at 1.2 million male newborns circumcised a year, a great number of AAP members still reap profit from performing this elective, non-medical procedure on healthy, non-consenting minors. Given this reality, the AAP can't verily release data that disenfranchise their members.

The risks and complications of circumcision include infection (MRSA, herpes, etc.), hemorrhage, partial or full ablation and even death.

At 0.2%, that sounds like a small, negligible number, but apply it to the 1.2 million babies circumcised a year; because this surgery is completely elective and non-medical, the risk for it should be 0.

Here is another child admitted to the ER due to hemorrhaging. Is the AAP counting?

INTACTIVISTS: Planned Parenthood is Not Our Friend

Some controversial videos have been released, and now Planned Parenthood is in the hot seat. The videos depict Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood's medical director, casually discussing the sale of aborted fetal organs to researchers for profit, and how abortion procedures could be performed in a way that the organs remain intact, and now pro-life groups are lobbying to cut their federal funds.

It's hard for me to agree one way or another whether Planned Parenthood should lose federal funding or not. On the one hand, I feel that there are a lot of good health services they provide which benefit both men and women. I don't have a problem with providing couples with contraception and detecting services for life-threatening diseases like breast cancer. On the other, I'm going to declare a conflict of interest right here and say that generally, I am pro-life.

I know that sometimes abortion is inevitable, so I don't think there should be a complete ban on it, but generally, I oppose abortion, as I do view it as taking a life. On the whole, I oppose the killing of a child that may as well survive outside its mother's body, let alone selling its body parts off to research facilities; that just creates demands for more abortions, and creates incentive in organizations like Planned Parenthood to gear parents towards abortion. Instead, I am fully supportive of providing education in sex and contraception.

I wouldn't say that Planned Parenthood should lose federal funding based on my views on abortion and the contents of the released videos alone; as an intactivist, there is another reason why I would agree that Planned Parenthood should be defunded.

Women's Health at the Expense of Boys and Men
My own personal disdain for Planned Parenthood began with the release of a video they made targeting teens, in which they inadvertently, or perhaps quite deliberately, it's hard to tell, try to portray having a circumcised penis as "normal," while portraying having a foreskin as some kind of genetic variation, and as the cause for angst in some teens who might be worried about being viewed "normal," like a big nose or ears that stand out.

The creators of the video take great care to show all the different variations of the female vulva (e.g. large labia, small labia, uneven labia, large clitorises, small clitorises, etc.) and reassure their female viewers that "all are normal." For males, you're either circumcised or not, those are the only two options, and not being circumcised is portrayed as some kind of deformity only some males are born with, when in actuality, a penis with a foreskin is standard equipment when it comes to human male anatomy, and not having one is not even a genetic variation but a deliberately forced phenomenon. Somehow, I don't think Planned Parenthood would ever depict vulvas with missing labia and/or clitorises as "normal variations of female genitals."

Planned Parenthood's tacit advocacy for forced male genital cutting wouldn't end there; in opposition to a proposed bill to defund elective, non-medical infant circumcision in New Hampshire, Planned Parenthood was ready to fire back that "[C]ircumcision carries public health benefits, including lowered risk of urinary tract infections and some sexually transmitted diseases."

Even in their 2012 statement, the AAP stopped short of a recommendation for male infant circumcision because "the benefits are not great enough." Somehow Planned Parenthood is above them?

Of what business is Planned Parenthood's that funding is cut for an elective, non-medical procedure on healthy, non-consenting minors that they don't even provide?

Their business is with adult men and women. Cutting funding for an elective, non-medical procedure that is forced on healthy, non-consenting minors should be of zero consequence to them.

WHY did they stand in the way of this bill?

What are the implications?

"Having a foreskin is normal, except for having one automatically makes you a promiscuous male likely to have STDs and are prone to UTIs?"

"Having a foreskin in normal, but better cut it off?"

Does Planned Parenthood plan on denying their services to intact males and their partners unless the man opts to get circumcised and any male offspring that are born as a result of their services must be circumcised also?

But it doesn't stop there.

Planned Parenthood can be seen jumping onto the circumcision/HIV bandwagon, as, apparently, they're also in Lesotho, Africa, pushing male circumcision there.

My guess is, it has to do with securing funds from HIV organizations who make pushing male circumcision as prevention one of their conditions.

It seems funding is what it all boils down to.

While in this recent case they are fighting to secure their own funding on the grounds that cutting federal funding is "an assault on women's rights," because they should have this "choice" on what to do their bodies, on the other hand they worked to deny this same "choice" for male children, the same "choice" they claim women are entitled to.

Ultimately, it seems like planned parenthood is willing to throw the rights of boys and men under the bus in the so-called name of "women's health."

Until I see them change this stance, I'm afraid I can only agree that federal funds should be cut.

As a taxpayer, I don't want to be paying into an organization that tacitly approves of, advocates for, even facilitates male genital cutting, and promotes "women's health" at the expense of men's health and choices.

Would Planned Parenthood Ever Promote Female Circumcision?
Some may argue that Planned Parenthood is only going by what "studies say," but is there a number of "studies" that would ever cause Planned Parenthood to push female circumcision in any way, shape or form? Offer it to mothers of daughters? Push it in Africa?

What if it were made "safe?"

What if new gadgets were made that would make it "quick and easy?"

What if doctors were trained to do it with sterile utensils in pristine clinics?

Or is all they care about funding at the expense of males?

What if female genital cutting provided some "benefit" to males?

Would they ever promote female circumcision if it "prevented prostate cancer" in males?

Here's a question about "gender inequality" for you, how come there are millions of dollars going into circumcision "studies" to see what "benefits" it has? Why isn't there the same amount being allocated for female circumcision, if  we're so concerned with "finding benefits?" So much "vigorous research" to see just what diseases male circumcision can prevent. Why is "research" on male circumcision given the go-ahead, while on female circumcision is automatically considered to be "unethical?"

Self-serving sexist double-standards.

Planned Parenthood defends male genital mutilation. Why should I support an organization which opposes the right to autonomy over the bodies of healthy, non-consenting male children?

Defending "women's health" and "women's choices" while defending forced male genital cutting in healthy, non-consenting minors is pure hypocrisy.

As long as Planned Parenthood approves of, defends and facilitates male genital cutting, I can't approve of them getting federal funds.

Related Posts:
PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Mutilated is the New "Normal"

NEW HAMPSHIRE: Bill to Defund Circumcision Heard - Dissenters Included Planned Parenthood and a Rabbi

RED HERRING: The Abortion Debate