Circumcisionist Ambitions Realised
As if calling circumcision an HIV prevention method, and implementing "mass circumcision campaigns" in the so-called name of HIV prevention weren't controversial enough, Botswana is one of those countries whose medical authorities have been convinced to take it a step further, and start campaigns to circumcise newborn boys. Perhaps they see this as the next step, seeing as adult men aren't falling for the propaganda, and some countries, such as Japan, have begun to stop funding adult male circumcision programs?
It should be no surprise that babies are finally being targeted for circumcision under the pretext of HIV prevention. The justification of male infant circumcision is what circumcision "researchers" have been aiming for all along. Circumcision is not this medical "solution" that "researchers" supposedly "discovered" merely 30 years ago; the fight to justify male infant circumcision has been raging on since Greco-Roman rule.
Circumcision, particularly male infant circumcision, is a cherished tradition in Judaism, and it's a money-maker for American physicians. The goal isn't to stop HIV in Africa; the goal is, and has always been, to justify male infant circumcision in the US, and elsewhere. Circumcision "researchers" want for medical organizations, such as the AAP, to point to Africa and say "Male infant circumcision prevents HIV in Africa, therefore we recommend infant circumcision for American babies." Is it any wonder that much of the funding for "mass medical male circumcision," or any similar variant, happens to be American money?
Implementation of Controversial Infant Circumcision Devices
Circumcising male infants should be controversial enough, as amputative surgery in healthy, non-consenting minors is unethical. There goes the "voluntary" part of the so-called "Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision" slogan...
The plot should thicken when, not only are baby boys being circumcised, but they're being circumcised with controversial devices.
According to StarAfrica, the Botswana Ministry of Health has adopted the Mogen clamp and AccuCirc device, to be administered to healthy, non-consenting, non-sexually-active children. National coordinator Conrad Ntsuape told state-run Radio Botswana that the two devices were the best that Botswana opted for.
The following passage is disconcerting:
"Ntsuape noted that the entire procedure would be bloodless, requiring no anaesthesia, suturing or a sterile setting."It sounds very similar to the lines of a certain Neil Pollock.
Of course there is no such thing as a "bloodless" circumcision, requiring no anaesthesia, nor a sterile setting. Even the latest AAP statement features a lengthy passage on adequate pain management for infants undergoing circumcision. A sterile setting is necessary to avoid infections, such as those with MRSA.
Let's continue further:
"Ntsuape said the decision to adopt the two devices followed a lengthy consultation process that focused on acceptability of infant male circumcision as part of HIV prevention and male reproductive health efforts that was conducted by Botswana and the United States through Harvard Institute in 2008."
Instead of the acceptability of male infant circumcision, shouldn't it have focused on other things? Like, for example, whether or not male infant circumcision is effective in reducing HIV? (There are no studies that exist on this subject, and world data shows that it does not.) Shouldn't there have been an actual evaluation of the risks involved, especially given the devices being considered?
"Ntsuape said the results of the survey indicated that 96 per cent of mothers in Botswana accepted early infant circumcision while the remaining four per cent were undecided or not interested."
Before considering what mothers have to say in a survey after being told that circumcision would prevent HIV in their sons, where is the proof that infant circumcision reduces HIV transmission? Were the risks of circumcision discussed with these mothers? Were the risks of each device disclosed to these mothers? Was the fact that circumcision cannot prevent HIV transmission, and therefore even circumcised men have to wear condoms discussed with the mothers?
What Botswana Circumcision Advocates May Not Tell Parents
The Mogen device being marketed here has a terrible track record for circumcision mishaps, including glans amputations. So infamous is the Mogen clamp for circumcision mishaps that numerous million-dollar lawsuits put the company out of business.
Common Mogen Problem: The circumciser is blind to the condition of the child's glans. Some or all of the glans is pulled up along with the foreskin, resulting in partial or full glans amputations.
What mothers have to say about circumcision has no bearing on the fact that there is no scientific evidence that circumcising newborns will prevent HIV transmission, but would the women in this survey answer the same, if they were given this information?
The AccuCirc device is a recent invention that doesn't have much of a history, not that it needs any, as we know its intended purpose of cutting off part of a healthy child's penis.
I hate discussing the better or worse of two evils, and discussing what is the "better" male infant circumcision method is no different than discussing which is the "better" female infant circumcision method. There simply isn't a "right" way to mutilate a perfectly healthy, non-consenting child. However, there is a good critique on why the AccuCirc is particularly terrible here.
Conflict of Interest
David R. Tomlinson
"Chief Expert on Circumcision," WHO
Inventor of AccuCirc
The citizens of Botswana may be interested to know that the inventor of the AccuCirc device also happens to be "chief expert on circumcision" at the World Health Organization. He develops, implements and evaluates male circumcision training programs in Africa, and he wrote the WHO's manual for male infant circumcision. (Reference here.) Is it any wonder that the AccuCirc device is included in many African "surveys?"
Adopting a device known to cause problems is not very wise, not to mention circumcising healthy, non-consenting newborns who are at zero risk for HIV transmission is ethically repugnant no matter what methods employed. Botswana is complicit in implementing what is effectively male infant genital mutilation, under the deceptive guise of HIV prevention.
The Ghost of Mogen
This is so sickening.ReplyDelete
Got my boy circumcised today and myself last week, so happy to get rid of the problematic foreskin even though my was "healthy". This article is pure propaganda, all leading research shows that a cut penis is healthier. Men who circ in adulthood agree,I'm one of them! CheersReplyDelete
Hello, "Unknown," for all me or my readers know, you could be a fake person posting, ahem, "propaganda."Delete
So! The foreskin is "problematic," eh?
70 to 80% of the world's men aren't circumcised.
So according to you, there should be this worldwide epidemic of "problems," and I'm sure you have the medical literature that documents it. I'm sure you will be more than happy to provide a link to said literature.
A cut penis is "healthier?" Again, it sounds like you're saying that pretty much men in the rest of the world are all UN-healthy. And, again, I invite you to please provide the evidence, which I'm sure is all well-document in the "leading research."
So you were circumcised in adulthood. You were sick before, and now you are "better?" What did you have? What were you "cured" of?
How much are you getting paid to spam my blog?
Sorry to break it to you, but if you're real, you were mutilated, and you allowed your son to be mutilated. You nor your son "gained" nothing, save a mutilated penis.
The bottom line is, you still have to wear condoms; this remains the same, circumcision or not.
Even circumcised men and their partners must be urged to wear condoms, because circumcision fails to prevent anything.
I'm afraid what you, your son, and others go through is pretty much pointless.
I hope you and your son enjoy erectile dysfunction. Hopefully your doctor supplies Viagra along with those condoms...
Were you aware that not even medical organizations in America can bring themselves to push circumcision in America using HIV prevention as an alibi?Delete
Were you aware that 80% of American men were already circumcised, but that in the United States, we have more HIV than 53 countries where circumcision is rare or not practiced?
Were you aware of all the risks circumcision entails? Were you aware that the inventors of a clamp being pushed in Africa for male infants was put out of business by million dollar lawsuits?
Poor, poor Africans. America is experimenting, and you are nothing more than guinea pigs...
I'm sure now that you are circumcised, everything you touch turns into food and water.