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.

Yay.

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?

SHAME on PEPFAR.

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.

WHEN IS THIS GOING TO STOP???

ARE YOU LISTENING AAP?

ARE YOU LISTENING DOUGLAS DIEKEMA?


This child's blood is on YOUR HANDS.

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

ENOUGH OF THIS.

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

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"

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.

GET ON IT.

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.

Friday, May 19, 2017

MADERA, CA: Another Circumcision Complication


Saw this on my Facebook news feed.

This time the circumcision botch happened at Valley Children's Hospital in Madera, CA.

I keep making these posts. (See links below.)

What else can I say?

Male infant circumcision is cosmetic, elective, non-medical surgery.

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

It is unconscionable that healthy, non-consenting baby boys are being put at risk for complications for an elective, non-medical, radically altering genital surgery.

How many of these have to happen?

Valley Children's Hospital's website is down, but their Facebook page can be accessed here.

I close with my blog's Mission Statement:

Mission Statement
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, and much less expect to be reimbursed.

Genital integrity, autonomy and self-determination are inalienable human rights. I am against the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors because it violates these rights.

Genital mutilation, whether it be wrapped in culture, religion or “research” is still genital mutilation.

It is mistaken, the belief that the right amount of “science” can be used to legitimize the deliberate violation of basic human rights.

Relevant Links:


Complications that made the news and have surfaced on facebook
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"

Friday, April 21, 2017

DETROIT: Woman Doctor Faces Charges For FGM


Last month, I posted about an Ethiopian man who was deported after serving a 10-year prison sentence for cutting his daughter's genitals.

In recent news, a woman doctor was charged with performing female genital cutting on young girls between six and eight years of age. Apparently, she's being doing this for 12 years, and if found guilty, she faces life in prison.

Female genital cutting was made illegal in 1996 under the umbrella term "Female Genital Mutilation" (FGM). I assume that this law refers in particular to the forced genital cutting of girls for cultural or religious reasons, because women can go to doctors for "labiaplasty" and "vaginal rejuvenation" without a hitch.

In fact, there's a website openly running for a labiaplasty clinic in Cleveland, Ohio, right here.

My Thoughts
On the one hand, this ought to be the fate of any doctor who performs non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals.

On the other, whatever happened to "religious freedom" and "parental choice?"

If doctors are obliged to surgically alter the genitals of a male child on these grounds, then surely, they're obliged to alter the genitals of a female child, right?

I mean, at least for the case of male infant circumcision, the argument seems to be that doctors are these vassals who are supposed to respond to a parent's every beck and call.

What is the doctor in this case truly guilty of, other than honoring a parent's request and respecting their religious beliefs?

Whenever somebody objects to male infant circumcision, someone always has to defend it on the grounds that prohibiting it would be a "violation of religious freedom," and a "violation of parental rights."

Why the double-standards?

Why does it constitute "justice" to throw the book at a doctor who performs genital cutting in girls for "religious purposes" and honoring "parental prerogative," but "religious persecution" or "infringement on parental rights" to go after doctors who perform male genital cutting for the same reasons?

Why is it called "genital mutilation" to forcibly cut the genitals of healthy, non-consenting girls without exemption, but "religious freedom" or "parental choice" to forcibly cut the genitals of healthy, non-consenting boys?

For better or for worse, female genital cutting is a religious and/or cultural obligation for those who practice it. If this weren't so, people would not be risking their reputations, facing charges, being deported etc., to perform it.

Navigating the FGM problem without hypocrisy is impossible, and this is becoming increasingly obvious in this day and age.

Related Posts:

FGM: Ethiopian Man Deported For Cutting Daughter's Genitals

Thursday, March 16, 2017

FGM: Ethiopian Man Deported For Cutting Daughter's Genitals


According to New York Daily News, an Ethiopian man was deported after serving a 10-year prison sentence for cutting his 2-year-old's daughters genitals with scissors, highlighting American hypocrisy when it comes to genital cutting.

While this man has been deported for cutting his daughter's genitals, 1.3 million baby boys have their foreskins forcibly cut off at birth.

While it is taboo to question the practice of male genital cutting, people do not hesitate to openly condemn the practice of female genital cutting.

There seems to be two different yardsticks when measuring the forcible genital cutting of each sex.

While forced genital cutting in boys is defended on the grounds of "culture," "religion" and "parental choice," the same alibis fly out the window when it comes to the forced genital cutting of girls.

While the risks, complications and side-effects of forced male genital cutting are glossed over, if not ignored completely, those who oppose forced female genital cutting highlight and exaggerate them.

In either case, both of these practices are painted with broad strokes; while forced male circumcision is depicted harmless, benign, and there are ever adverse effects, female circumcision is always depicted as harmful, and its effects are always adverse, with every female, every time.

It is not my intention to justify female circumcision, because this blogger opposes the forced genital cutting of either sex.

Rather, my intention is to show simply this:

Whatever can be said about the forcible cutting of one sex, applies directly to the forcible cutting of the other.

For this post, I'd like to take excerpts of this report and analyze them.

"...female genital mutilation [is] a ritualistic practice common in certain parts of the world, but widely condemned in western countries."

Male genital mutilation, euphemised as "circumcision," is also a ritualistic practice. It is worthy to note that it is common in precisely those same parts of the world where female circumcision, condemned as "mutilation," is practiced.

It must also be noted that while "holy ritual" seems to be a perfectly good justification for male circumcision, the same does not apply for female circumcision.

"A young girl's life has been forever scarred by this horrible crime... [t]he elimination of female genital mutilation/cutting has broad implications for the health and human rights of women and girls, as well as societies at large."

...says Sean Gallahgher, a director with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

Of course, when two-year-old male children are circumcised as this girl is, their lives are also scarred forever by this terrible... act. I have to call it an "act" here, because people don't want to condemn it as "crime" as they readily do female circumcision.

Let's not talk about the fact that boys are circumcised in the same countries girls are, at about the same ages.

"Ritualistic cutting is common in parts of the Middle East, Africa and Asia and some 200 million women and girls have been subjected to the practice, according to estimates from the World Health Organization."

Ritualistic cutting for boys is common in those same parts of the world. It's only a problem when it happens to girls.

"While genital cutting is seen as central to certain communities, WHO notes that the practice often leads to long-term health consequences, such as increased risk of newborn deaths, psychological distress, severe infections and problems urinating. Girls are typically cut before they turn 15."

This same statement can also be said of male circumcision.

And here I have to highlight how FGM is being painted with broad strokes.

The statement says "The WHO notes that the practice *often leads* to long-term health consequences..."

But doubtlessly, people are going to read this as "always leads" to "long-term health consequences."

This statement must be clarified, because even the WHO admits that there are various levels of severity when it comes to FGM.

When it comes to the most absolute brutal form of FGM, which is infibulation, a practice where the protruding part of the clitoris is cut off and the outer labia are cut off and sewn together to leave only a small hole for menstruation, yes, this can result in dire-consequences for the women involved.

The fact is, however, that infibulation only accounts for about 15% of all FGM cases globally.

In other parts of the world, such as countries in South East Asia, namely Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore as well as others, the female genital cutting that goes on there is not as severe. The girls and women there typically don't suffer ANY of the consequences noted here.

In fact, not too long ago, the AAP tried to approve a form of FGM that wouldn't have removed anything. A "ritual nick," as they called it.

In another recent paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, authors called for the legalization of some forms of FGM.

I'd like to contrast this with how forced male circumcision is treated in the West.

When "experts" talk about male circumcision, they say it's "mostly harmless" and "seldom results" in adverse effects.

Of course, most people take this to mean it's "always" harmless, and read that "seldom" part as "never."

The risks of male infant circumcision are infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage, and even death.

But these risks are always minimized, if ever even talked about.

While the fact that girls and women often suffer complications because they are circumcised by amateurs using crude utensils like rusty blades and glass shards in the bush is highlighted, we hardly hear of the same complications in males circumcised in the same conditions.

Every year, scores of men die as a result of their circumcision, and still, scores of others lose their penises to gangrene.

The boys, men and their families will be "scarred for life," but let's not talk about them.

After all, who are we to judge ageless tradition?

Instead, we hear highlighted all the "potential medical benefits" that "might result" from a boy being circumcised.

We read of all the "rigorous research" that has gone into male circumcision, "showing" that it "could reduce the risk of transmission" of every disease you can name.

"Research" that involved "thousands of men."

I have to ask, is there a "right" amount of research that would ever justify the forced genital cutting of girls and women?

What would we think of "research" where thousands of women had their labia removed, just to see how much STDs they *didn't* get?

What if the "results" showed that it could "reduce the transmission of HIV" in women by "60%?" Would we allow ourselves to change our minds?

What if that number were a more persuading "70%?" "80%?" "90%?"

Yes?

No?

Why is it we think differently when it comes to the forced genital cutting of boys?

The man in this case is being made an example of.

But while this is happening, why do we turn a blind eye when it comes to male infant circumcision?

Especially when it comes to complications?

I'm keeping a growing list of circumcision complications that surface on Facebook and in the news (scroll to the bottom of this post).

Why don't people care?

"Thoughts and prayers" for the parents of these poor boys who will be, in the words of Director Sean Gallagher, "scarred for life."

Deportation for this father, whose daughter is probably alive and well.

Not too long ago, a mother was forced to sign consent papers for the forced genital cutting of her son.


 Contrast this picture with the one above

A father is deported for cutting his daughter.

A mother is jailed, separated from her son and forced to sign his circumcision consent papers.

While one parent is guilty of mutilating his daughter, another is "guilty" of trying to protect her son.

Yes, let's not talk about how the boy will be "scarred for life."

This is the country we live in today.

"Thousands more have been sent abroad for so-called "vacation cutting" — a human rights violating practice that involves sending American-born females overseas to be cut. More than 380 people have been arrested in the U.S. for facilitating such crimes since 2003, according to ICE."

Yes, let's pat our selves on the back.

While we ignore the fact that 1.3 million male baby boys are circumcised in this country a year.

American medical boards such as the AAP minimize the number of complications regarding male infant circumcision.

The number presented is a conservative one, at about 2.0%.

This number is rather questionable, because hospitals are not required to release this data, and because parents are often accomplices with doctors who have reputations to protect to keep this information under wraps, but let's just go with it for the sake of argument.

Even at 2.0%, with 1.3 million babies circumcised a year, that is still 26,000 baby boys who will have suffered adverse effects.

How is this conscionable for an elective, non-medical procedure?

Whose "benefits" are already affordable by less invasive, more effective means?

Conclusion
Don't get me wrong; this father is getting what he deserves.


I am dead against the forcible genital cutting of all sexes.

However, I will not let this case go by without highlighting American, if not Western hypocrisy on this matter.

The following questions must be asked:

How far are actions justified by "culture?"

Are we picking which "cultures" or "religions" are more important now?

Is a doctor's duty to practice "medicine," or "culture?"

Since when are doctors obligated to participate in brokering "culture" or "religion?"

What other "religious cuttings" are doctors obliged to participate in?

Shouldn't doctors be sticking to medicine only?

What about "parental choice?"

How far are actions justified by "parental choice?"

How are we deciding what is "abusive" and what is "parenting?"

How far are doctors supposed to honor the wishes of a parent to have something cut off?

In the name of "culture?"

In the name of "religion?"

Why do we condemn one father for cutting is daughter, while we award another father for wanting to take his son to have his foreskin cut off?

Shouldn't we be condemning the forced genital cutting of children of BOTH sexes equally?

Relevant Links:
Complications that made the news and have surfaced on facebook
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"

Thursday, March 9, 2017

NYC: More Herpes Circumcision Cases Since de Blasio Lifted Metzitzah B'Peh Regulations

CDC, AAP, NYC Health Department

No one wants to come right out and say it, because doing so gets you labeled an "anti-Semite," but a particularly Jewish tradition, specifically the ultra-orthodox Jewish tradition of sucking a child's freshly circumcised penis to "cleanse the wound," is resulting in the spread of herpes in infants.

No one wants to actually write a law against this, because no governing body wants to be the first to write a law that regulates Jewish practice.

Actually, not too long ago, the NYC Health Department tried to instate a mandate to regulate the practice of metzitzah b'peh, otherwise known as "oral suction."

 Ultra-orthodox mohel sucking on a child's freshly circumcised penis

The mandate, which was supposed to be a measure to protect further boys from being infected, was pretty much toothless to begin with, because all it did was require parents to sign a consent form before allowing a mohel to perform metztizah b’peh on their sons. Furthermore, there was no real penalty or consequences for mohels if they didn't comply.

Despite the mandate being essentially impotent, ultra-orthodox rabbis were intolerant of what they saw as an "unconstitutional, shocking governmental overreach," and they managed to convince NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio to lift the mandate. In exchange for this, however, the ultra-orthodox community vowed to report the cases of herpes that resulted due to metzitzah b'peh, and to name the mohels and rabbis involved as part of a deal.
According to a recent report, there have been six cases of infants contracting herpes as a result of the traditional practice of oral suction, since Mayor de Blasio decided to lift the previously instated mandate.

Two of the mohels involved remain a mystery despite the ultra-orthodox community's agreement to help the city identify, and isolate any mohels responsible for infecting infants with herpes through oral suction.

At least on paper, all cases of neonatal herpes are required to be reported to the city's Health Department shortly after they occur. In response to each case, health officials were supposed to issue a “health alert” notifying medical practitioners in an effort to educate them about the potential hazards of the practice.

It looks like this too, like the policy before it, was mere gesture to keep people happy.

I think the problem here is obvious.

Nobody is willing to call a spade a spade for fear of looking like "the bad guy."

Meanwhile, healthy children are getting infected with herpes, in some cases, resulting in death.

It really must be asked; when deciding these things, whose interests do people really have at heart?

Related Posts:
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"