I had been trying to avoid Facebook.
I don't like being an intactivist.
Do you know this?
I wish the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors were recognized for the barbaric mutilation and the gross violation of basic human rights that it is.
I avoid my Facebook account because I know that the minute I sign on, my news feed is going to show that somewhere in the world, a child is suffering complications from this needless procedure.
At the end of this post, you can see all the cases I've documented on this blog.
And there are others.
There are others, but I've either been too busy to bother, or I'm just not on Facebook and I miss them.
I have a life, I need to get to work, I've got kids of my own to raise, and I can't dedicate as much time as I want to this cause.
Being an intactivist is hard work.
You have to see children suffer from complications, watch as parents mourn what was supposed to be one of the most joyful times in their lives.
And then, you have to watch as people dismiss the deaths and complications of circumcision, dismiss facts and information, have people tell you "Who are you to tell parents what to do?"
This.
This right here is why I "have the nerve" to have this blog, to speak out against what is in non-consenting individuals, male genital mutilation.
I had been studiously avoiding logging on to Facebook, but my phone tells me someone has messaged me, and so there I go checking it.
Ironically enough it's some woman trying to lecture me on how "uneducated" I am on the subject.
And before I can click on my private message icon, what do I see?
This.
The caption reads:
"The unexpected has happened!!!
A baby has died. I don't know how to take this.
His circumcision wouldn't stop bleeding. They went to the Beaumont ER they gave him meds and then sent home. THAT'S IT!!! Nothing else.
No parent should experience this pain ( and a hurricane/tropical storm). And I know that no one plans for a funeral when they have a new born.
I'm going to help financially with the services the best I can. The only way I know how to help lift some of the burden off of them.
Will you please pray for the family? This is a difficult time.
If you'd like to help with the financial burden please go here."
The link is to a YouCaring page, which can be accessed here as of 8-29-2017. Who knows when they will take it down.
I've taken a screen shot of it and am posting it here:
The caption here reads:
"Baby Zackery was born August 17th, 2017. He passed away August 28 from what is thought to be due to complications with his circumcision but we will not know more until later. Our family needs help with funeral costs to put this sweet baby boy to rest as his parents don't possess the proper funds and we would like to help take this burden from them so they don't have to worry about how to afford a funeral as they are dealing with the loss of their precious baby boy. Any and all donations will be greatly appreciated and God bless everyone for their help."
I don't want to spend too long on this post.
I'll be repeating what I've posted on every other death/complication post.
The risks of male infant circumcision include infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage and even death.
How is ANY risk conscionable for elective, cosmetic surgery?
Are parents being fully informed on this matter?
According to the 2012 AAP statement, the risks of male infant circumcision are unknown.
This is because hospitals are not required to release any information on adverse outcomes of circumcision. Doctors have incentive to attribute deaths due to circumcision to secondary causes of death, and parents are complicit in keeping deaths and complications under wraps.
That is until recently, where parents post their children's stories online.
With the advent of the internet, the risks and complications of male infant circumcision can no longer be ignored, and members of the AAP can no longer feign ignorance.
Members of the AAP, if the risks of male infant circumcision are unknown, WHY PRAY TELL AREN'T YOU INVESTIGATING???
How is a single death due to elective, cosmetic surgery concsionable?
In 2012, you reviewed the current body of medical literature and you could not commit to a recommendation based on it, because in your own words "the benefits of circumcision weren't great enough."
And yet, somehow, you expect parents, the great majority of who don't have a medical degree, to somehow arrive at a more reasonable conclusion.
At this point I must ask, what are you people at the AAP SMOKING???
Death is a risk of male infant circumcision.
This, and other children were needlessly killed by the elective, cosmetic, non-medical surgery.
WHY aren't doctors required to fully inform parents about this?
More importantly, without medical or clinical indication, how is it that doctors are able to get way with reaping profit from performing elective, cosmetic, non-medical surgery on a healthy, non-consenting minor, let alone pretend to be able to offer parents any kind of "choice" in this matter?
Reaping profit from performing elective, non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals constitutes medical fraud in any other case.
Why is male infant genital mutilation the lone exception?
That doctors are able to reap profit at the expense of a child's basic human rights, even as children DIE is absolutely DESPICABLE.
WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO DO YOUR JOBS AND DEDICATE YOUR EXISTENCE TO THE HEALTH OF ALL CHILDREN???
AAP???
This child's blood, and the blood of other children before him is in YOUR hands.
List of Deaths and Complications Documented on This Blog:
FACEBOOK: Another Baby Fighting For His Life Post Circumcision
MADERA, CA: Another Circumcision Complication
CIRCUMCISION BOTCH: Another Post-Circumcision Hemorrhage Case Surfaces on Facebook
LAW SUIT: Child Loses "Significant Portion" of Penis During Circumcision
CIRCUMCISION BOTCHES: Colombia and Malaysia
CIRCUMCISION DEATH: This Time in Russia
FACEBOOK: KENTUCKY - Botched Circumcision Gives Newborn Severe UTI
FACEBOOK: Circumcision Sends Another Child to NICU - This Time in LA
GEORGIA: Circumcision Sends a Baby to the NICU
CIRCUMCISION DEATH: This Time in Italy
FACEBOOK NEWS FEED: A Complication and a Death
INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves
MALE INFANT CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Boy Dies
CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies
CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yet Another One (I Hate Writing These)
Another Circumcision Death Comes to Light
CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yes, Another One - This Time in Israel
FACEBOOK: Two Botches and a Death
CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Child Dies After Doctor Convinces Ontario Couple to Circumcise
ONTARIO CIRCUMCISION DEATH: The Plot Thickens
Joseph4GI: The Circumcision Blame Game
Phony Phimosis: How American Doctors Get Away With Medical Fraud
FACEBOOK: Two More Babies Nearly Succumb to Post Circumcision Hemorrhage
FACEBOOK: Another Circumcision Mishap - Baby Hemorrhaging After Circumcision
What Your Dr. Doesn't Know Could Hurt Your Child
FACEBOOK: Child in NICU After Lung Collapses During Circumcision
EMIRATES: Circumcision Claims Another Life
BabyCenter Keeping US Parents In the Dark About Circumcision
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: Circumcision Claims Another Life
TEXAS: 'Nother Circumcision Botch
New York Herpes Circumcision Problem:
NYC: More Herpes Circumcision Cases Since de Blasio Lifted Metzitzah B'Peh Regulations
BUSTED: Agudath Israel of America's Antics Revealed
NEW STUDY: Ultra-Orthodox Mohels Don't Give Babies Herpes
NEW YORK: Two More Herpes Babies, One With HIV
NEW YORK: Metzitzah: Two mohelim stopped after babies get herpes
NEW YORK: Yet Another Herpes Baby
Rabbis Delay NYC's Metzitzah B'Peh Regulations - Meanwhile, in Israel...
While PACE Holds a Hearing on Circumcision, Another Baby Contracts Herpes in NYC
Israel Ahead of New York in Recommending Against Metzitzah B'Peh
New York: Oral Mohel Tests Positive for Herpes
Herpes Circumcision Babies: Another One? Geez!
Mohels Spreading Herpes: New York Looks the Other Way
Circumcision Indicted in Yet Another Death: Rabbis and Mohels are "Upset"
Related Post:
If this had happened in my country Sweden that a tiny baby had bled to Death following unnessesary cosmetic surgery all major newspapers and TV-channels would have reported, stirring up a national debate. Joseph can you explain why US major newsmedia are uninterested in reporting and debating the suffering and death of this innocent baby. Why isn´t the practise questioned on a national level? Acccording to the AAP, doctors should discuss circumcision with parents and give unbiased information. Do they inform parents that outside USA circumcision is not offerded to parents, no one is asking for it and foreskin problems are virtually unheard of at all ages?
ReplyDeleteIt's complicated.
DeleteFor one, circumcision is just so engrained in our culture that having a baby boy circumcised is simply a matter of course.
Additionally, Judeo-Christianity has a great influence, where male infant circumcision is seen as a Christian virtue, despite this very thing being dispelled in the New Testament.
Not to mention circumcision *is* seen as divine commandment for Jews.
The AAP has a delicate balancing act to perform. On the one hand, as a respected medical authority, it has the responsibility of overseeing the dissemination of factual, up-to-date information to both doctors, patients and parents. It cannot take a position that contradicts other respected medical organizations.
On the other hand, the AAP is a trade organization whose first priority is the welfare of its members, and cannot take positions or make statements that disenfranchises its members, a great majority who perform circumcisions on newborns.
Taking a stance against male infant circumcision would put physicians in the awkward position of having to tell parents who want their child circumcised how to raise their children and to forgo a culturally ingrained, possibly religious custom. It would also put physicians who reap profit from the practice in an awkward position. The medical fraud that is reaping profit from non-medical procedures on healthy, non-consenting individuals would be more obvious.
So in a culture that already sees circumcision in a favorable light (a Christian virtue, a Jewish tradition, aesthetically pleasing) or as simply "not a big deal," I think I could see why people would be disinterested in reporting a circumcision death. People have personal, religious, or financial conviction to downplay or ignore adverse circumcision outcomes.
Delete"My children survived," some may say. "Circumcision is a tradition that has been around for thousands of years," others may say. What doctor wants to face a fraud or malpractice lawsuit?
I don't know what AAP members are obliged to tell parents anymore. Supposedly doctors are supposed to give parents "unbiased information," but their advice to doctors and physicians in their 2012 statement is so self-contradictory and convoluted, it seems doctors are free to tell parents whatever they wish. Worse, despite not being able to commit to a recommendation, their 2012 statement gives doctors who circumcise the words "the benefits outweigh the risks" to feed parents. The AAP statement says "the benefits aren't enough to recommend circumcision," and that the risks and complications of circumcision are "unknown." The current body of medical literature wasn't enough for the AAP circumcision committee to recommend circumcision, yet somehow, parents are asked to come up with a more reasonable conclusion.
Why doesn't the AAP come out against male infant circumcision? Why isn't this practice questioned on a national level? Are parents being given unbiased information?
DeleteI suspect that it has something to do with the fact that 80% of US males are circumcised from birth, and that people are predisposed to see only so-called "benefits," while downplaying, or outright ignoring detriments and adverse effects of the practice.
I don't think doctors are fully informing parents, and even if they tried, I'm not sure parents are interested, as their minds are usually already made up.
The more important question for me is, without medical or clinical indication, how is it doctors are performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting minors? Let alone giving parents any kind of "choice?"
DeleteUnder any other circumstances, reaping profit from performing non-medical procedures on healthy, non-consenting individuals constitutes medical fraud.
Why this one exception?
The AAP rigorously reviewed the current body of medical literature surrounding the subject, and while trying to say "the benefits outweigh the risks," they could arrive at a recommendation because in their words, "the benefits weren't great enough."
How is it then, that parents are expected to arrive at a more reasonable conclusion?
That's what gets me, is how what is supposed to be one of the most respected medical organizations in the world can get away placing the onus of the one job they're supposed to be doing on parents, most of whom don't hold degrees in medicine?
Meanwhile children live with botched procedures or even die?
Why isn't this questioned at a national level?
The short answer is because 80% of us are circumcised from birth and we'd rather look the other way on the national level.
That's why.
I wonder how many more deaths and complications it will have to take...