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 Posts:
No comments:
Post a Comment