So last week, on Wednesday, March 23rd, Men Do Complain, an intactivist group in the UK held a protest in front of Thornhill Clinic, Luton, Bedfordshire, England, a clinic notorious for performing forcible male circumcision on minors.
Apparently, the clinic pulled down the blinds and closed up shop for the duration of the protest.
The group received news coverage for their protest which was initially published, but has since been pulled.
The Luton Herald & Post had published two articles about the demonstration in front of Thornhill Clinic, but for unexplained reasons they've decided to pull them from their website, along with comments section which was accumulating much support of the group and their demonstration.
An original link to one of the articles, now defunct, is available here.
Men Do Complain members claim to have archived copies of the articles
Men Do Complain have a website and a Facebook page. Click on the links for more details.
It breaks my heart every time I read these and parents are begging online for "prayers."
Did doctors not tell them what the risks of newborn circumcision are?
Did these parents do any research concerning what they were going to allow on their perfectly healthy newborn son?
If they are asking for "prayers," the family is most likely Christian. Are they not aware that circumcising a child is not a Christian virtue?
NO ONE should be asking for "prayers" regarding these perfectly preventable tragedies.
Here are the risks doctors should be warning EVERY PARENT about.
The risks of circumcision include infection complications, including
MRSA, herpes and gangrene, a botched operation that may need correction
later on, an aesthetically displeasing result for which there can be no
correction (e.g. such as too much skin removed, pulling up hairy skin
onto the shaft, uneven scars etc...), partial or full ablation of the
glans (head of the penis) if not the entire shaft itself, hemorrhage (HELLO???) and
even death.
Circumcision is not medically necessary in a healthy newborn; it is purely elective, cosmetic surgery.
In most other cases, performing non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals constitutes medical fraud. In children, it is deliberate child abuse.
Without medical or clinical indication, how
is it that doctors are performing non-medical surgery on
healthy, non-consenting minors, let alone eliciting any kind of
"decision" from parents?
These are circumcision cases that manage to surface on Facebook.
Consider that there are other cases which, for reasons of shame or protection, remain secret.
The cases presented here and otherwise were perfectly preventable.
Otherwise healthy children don't need to be put at any of these risks.
Given that male infant circumcision is elective, non-medical surgery,
how is it conscionable that any number of botches, complications and deaths is deemed
"acceptable?"
When is American Medicine going to come clean about non-medically indicated infant circumcision?
Saving Our Sons is an intactivist non-profit organization engaged in an effort to provide parents and
practitioners with research-based information on intact care and
circumcision. Visit their homepage or like them on Facebook.
Child dies after being circumcised A child died on Tuesday morning after being circumcised at the Maternal Infant Center. The 4-year-old Yeidy Ramírez Beato was son of Johanna Beato and Anyelo Ramírez. The directors at the clinic located an Rosario Street still haven't found reasonable explanation as to what caused the death of the minor. The child's body was taken to INACIF of Santiago to carry out an autopsy to determine the cause of the child's death. (As if this weren't immediately obvious?)
According to the police report and certificate issued by medical examiner Cinencio Uribe, the minor died after being operated by Dr. Nelson Aybar, and anesthesiologist Dr. Abrahán García Gómez. The child's family told LosMocanos.com, that supposedly it's about medical malpractice, and they seek an explanation as to why their son died. On the video, the mother was crying uncontrollably as she asked herself "Why my son?" The child died after having been circumcised. Hundreds of curious members of the press were inquiring over the sad tragedy, as one can see in the video.
Video uploaded on March 2, 2016
The question is, why was this child operated on?
What illness was the child suffering that he needed to be circumcised?
Was the child suffering a disease for which there was no other solution?
Or did doctors recommend this to the parents for supposed "medical benefits?"
Did the doctors tell the parents that their 4-year-old was suffering "phimosis?"
Were the risks of circumcision clearly explained to the child's parents?
If there was no medical indication, then clearly here, the doctors are to blame, for offering this "choice" to the child's parents.
Reaping profit from non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals constitutes medical fraud. In children, clear child abuse.
The saddest part of this is that without clear medical or clinical indication, basically this child died in vain.
Had the child not been submitted to this needless procedure, he would still be alive.
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 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.
Following the deaths of two newborns as a direct result of herpes infection through metzitzah b'peh, an ultra-orthodox practice where a mohel sucks blood from the circumcision wound of a newly circumcised newborn, and the infection of several others, the New York City Health Department issued a mandate that would require parents to sign a consent form before allowing a mohel to perform metztizah b’peh on their sons, as a measure to protect further boys from being infected.
Had the measure actually been implemented, the health commission would have imposed penalties at its own discretion.
They would respond to public complaints and investigate
the claims,
and that repercussions would have ranged from a phone call or a
formal warning letter, to fines of up to $2,000 for each violation.
The mandate was more of a gesture, because there was no actual ban or regulation
of metzitzah b'peh, and mohels would face no penalties whatsoever if
the waivers were not signed.
Despite the mandate having been essentially impotent, ultra-orthodox
rabbis were intolerant of what they saw as an "unconstitutional,
shocking governmental overreach." Rabbi William Handler,
leader of Traditional Bris Milah, a self-proclaimed group formed to
“protect Jewish ritual circumcision,” declared this mandate to be "the first step in
completely taking away traditional bris milah from the Jewish people in
New York City.”
To prevent this mandate from taking effect, several rabbis and Jewish
organizations, including Agudath Israel of America and the International
Bris Association, filed a lawsuit at the Federal District Court in Manhattan.
They accused mayor Bloomberg of "blood libel," and the New York City
Health Department of "trying to enforce erroneous opinions on the people
of New York City." They claim the city lacked “any definitive proof”
that metzitzah b’peh “poses
health risks of any kind," despite the fact that the CDC found a total
of 11 baby Jewish boys in NYC were infected with herpes.
Essentially, babies died of herpes infections, several others were infected, and it's as if nothing actually ever happened.
In Israel, on the other hand, the Israeli Health Ministry is planning to go as far and distribute a detailed document dealing with the risks and advantages of metzitsah b'peh to new parents.
According to the Jewish Press, many doctors say the practice
increases by 350% the chance of infecting the newborn baby with herpes
simplex.
Some members of the chief rabbinate were concerned that the move
might harm mohels, the Jewish Press says.
And I ask, what, pray tell, about the babies?
Nonetheless, I must say, how interesting the turn of events. What the health ministry in New York couldn't do, they're actually doing in Israel.
