Friday, January 8, 2016

FACEBOOK: Two Botches and a Death

I have been on hiatus from the intactivist movement for the holidays. Now I'm back, and I'm going to make a quick post to report some of the male infant circumcision mayhem that has caught my eye on Facebook.



Folks, prayers and thoughts can only do so much.

We need to ask ourselves, is it conscionable that parents are asking for prayers and thoughts over something that could have been completely prevented?

Circumcision carries risks.

Risks that pro-circ American medical organizations either minimize or refuse to talk about completely.

American medical organizations have incentive to minimize risks, or tacitly advocate not talking about them at all with parents.

A good 80% of American men are circumcised from birth.

A good number of American physicians are either circumcised, or parents of circumcised children themselves.

For some parents and physicians alike, circumcision is a cherished religious tradition that they defend tooth and nail.

Furthermore, at 1.3 million male babies are being circumcised at birth in the US annually, a good number of American physicians benefit from a freebie procedure for which they need no medical diagnosis, only a signed consent form.

Hospitals charge thousands in fees for facilitating circumcision to parents.

In speaking the truth about the risks and complications of male infant circumcision, there is much at stake.

There is money to be lost.

Malpractice lawsuits to face.

Religious traditions to protect.

Mental sanity to preserve.

Circumcision has risks.

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 and even death.

Considering that circumcision is not medically necessary in a healthy infant, how is putting a healthy child at these risks conscionable?

These are circumcision cases that parents have decided to post 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 that any number of botches, complications and death is deemed "acceptable?"

When is American Medicine going to come clean about non-medically indicated infant circumcision?

No comments:

Post a Comment