Washington Daily News Publishes OBGYN Circumcision Misinformation Piece

I’d never heard of the Washington Daily News until today, when I saw this scroll up on my Facebook news feed:

 

 

 

I wanted to see if anything had changed in terms of the misinformation dispensed on American mass media. I clicked, and sure enough, it's a self-serving doctor repeating the same myths and misinformation regarding male infant genital cosmetic surgery.

 

I'm not sure exactly what kind of article this is supposed to be. Is it a news article? An opinion piece? It's not immediately obvious what this is supposed to be. It looks a lot like a paid advertisement. The user allowed to publish is one "Vidant Health." Scroll further down and it's one "Dr. Bonnie Corley of Vidant Women's Care." Presumably she's a doctor working for Vidant and she is plugging the business and attempting to justify a practice OB/GYNs hold the lion's share for; male infant circumcision.

 

 

 

One would think that a publication that calls itself "Washington Daily News" would be interested publishing factual, accurate, verifiable information they've thoroughly investigated.

You know? What most of us would call "journalism."

Instead, it seems they've given this "doctor" a carte blanche to publish self-serving lies and nonsense.

Why is an OB/GYN talking about male genital surgery?

First, it must be asked why a doctor whose purview is WOMEN’S HEALTH is pushing male infant surgery. It should strike readers as odd that a doctor who is supposed to deal in gynecology, the female reproductive system and women's health is pontificating on male anatomy and care.

This is supposed to be the territory of pediatricians and urologists. Yet here she is, spewing garbage she just doesn't know what she's talking about. Could they have not asked an actual expert in the field?

 

 

 

Pontificating in a field one has no business in has got to be against medical standards somehow. Why is this woman defending male infant genital mutilation? The answer is, as an OBGYN who attends pregnant women, they’ve got first dibs.

 

Not mentioned here is how much she makes per mutilation. Some hospitals charge up to $7,000 a pop. It is estimated that 1.4 million American baby boys are being circumcised a year. This means that, at $7,000 per circumcision, American hospitals can be making as much as $9,800,000,000 annually on circumcision alone. It's no wonder doctors and nurses gush on and on about male infant circumcision; there is money to be made, and OB/GYNs, pediatricians and urologists are in competition.

 

When Someone Says It's Not the Money... it's the money. It's always the money.

 

What Dr. Corley Omits and Why

As stated above, circumcision brings in a pretty penny, so there is financial incentive for American doctors to highlight all what's good and wonderful about circumcision to parents, while downplaying, if not omitting all the downsides. Upton Sinclair once said:

“It’s difficult to get a [wo]man to understand something when [her] salary depends on [her] not understanding it."

In other words, doctors who perform circumcision have a conflict of interest in actually conveying factual information to parents. Honest doctors worth their salt would outright say there is no medical reason for performing surgery on a healthy, non-consenting minor. They would refuse to perform surgery on healthy children. In the United States, male infant circumcision is the one exception to this rule. In all other cases, reaping profit from elective non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals constitutes "medical fraud."

 I'm going to go down the article refuting all the lies Dr. Corley tells, and filling in all the information she omits.

First, male infant circumcision is no "small procedure." It is the removal of up to 50% of the penile skin. In babies, the foreskin may be a few square centimeters, but in adults, it can be as big as a 3x5 card. 

 

How much skin is removed is different in every circumcision as there is no real way to tell how much skin to remove. This, in and of itself is a problem; a circumcision could result in too much skin being removed, resulting in painful erections and sex. Or, a circumcision could remove too little skin, resulting in a foreskin that heals itself to the head of the penis, needing correction later on. Parents ought to be informed that male infant circumcision botch jobs are so common that there are actually doctors who specialize in circumcision corrections; children going in for circumcision revisions because the first doctor screwed it up are not unheard of.

Even in a circumcision that goes "according to plan," the head of the penis is permanently exposed, where it would have been covered and kept warm and moist by the foreskin. This results in layers upon layers of keratin, necessarily resulting in desensitization. Not talked about here is the Sorrells study that showed that circumcised men were desensitized by a factor of four. Lack of a foreskin dries out the head of the penis and surrounding mucosa, necessitating the need for artificial lubrication, like K-Y, vaseline or astroglide for masturbation and sex.

To contrast with the fact that 80% of American men are circumcised from birth, the doctor should have mentioned that 70% of men are intact globally. American parents ought to know that most men in the world are not circumcised and live their lives just fine. She doesn't talk about the fact that, according to the CDC, male infant circumcision rates in the US have dropped to about 56%, and still falling. But of course she doesn't say this; Corley is appealing to the "everybody's doing it" alibi.

This focus on “parents having circumcision performed on their children for perceived medical benefits in the US” is wrong.

 

DOCTORS push this non-medical surgery on parents for these reasons and then absolve themselves from this medical fraud by asking them to sign a consent form.

 

Male infant circumcision is the only cosmetic, non-essential surgery American doctors will perform on healthy, non-consenting minors. All other medical procedures require medical indication. Otherwise it’s medical fraud.

Let’s talk about the so-called “benefits,” shall we?

“Urinary tract infections are 90% less common in males who have been circumcised.”

How much less?

It takes around 100 circumcisions to prevent a single UTI, and UTIs can be treated easily by other less invasive ways, like antibiotics. Not to mention, it is easily prevented with basic hygiene. 

“Circumcised men have a lower risk of developing cancer of the penis, HIV and probably herpes," Corley says.

“Probably?”

First off, again, what is this difference? Is the doctor going to cite any medical literature?

 

Here is what the American Cancer Society has to say about the matter:

"In the past, circumcision (removing the foreskin on the penis) was suggested as a way to lower penile cancer risk. This was based on studies that reported much lower penile cancer rates among circumcised men than among uncircumcised men. But in some studies, the protective effect of circumcision wasn't seen after factors like smegma and phimosis were taken into account. Still, some experts have said that circumcision prevents penile cancer.

In the US, the risk of penile cancer is low even among uncircumcised men. Men who aren’t circumcised can help lower their risk of penile cancer by practicing good genital hygiene."

 

Scrutinize the medical literature; a causal link between having a foreskin and a “higher risk of HIV” simply does not exist.

Looking at world HIV data, the United States has one of the highest rates of HIV transmission in the world in spite of 80% of men being circumcised from birth. We have more HIV than Mexico.

The CDC reports the US has higher STD rates than European countries where circumcision is rare or not practiced.

Research actually shows circumcised males are at a higher risk for HPV. In case you are “probably” worried about herpes or cervical cancer.

What’s more, and here is the kicker, is that there simply isn’t a global epidemic for all of these things. 70% of men are intact globally and there simply isn’t a world epidemic of men’s penises rotting off, or women with cervical cancer in non-circumcising countries. Boys and men aren’t lining up at urologist’s office clamoring for circumcision.

She’s right about penile cancer being rare and there now being HPV vaccines. In which case, what’s the point?

She minimizes the risks as "usually not serious."

 

The risks include infection, a botched circumcision that may have needed correction later on, loss of part or all of his penis, hemorrhage, septic shock, a penis that was mutilated beyond what is deemed “acceptable,” , painful erections and death, not to mention the inevitability of keratinization and eventual desensitization. Hemorrhage is THE MOST common complication that sends circumcised children to the ER.

 

Injury to the penis has not only been reported, there have been very public million dollar lawsuits. Just Google them. “Appear very rare” to whom? A greedy OB/GYN with dollar signs in her eyes? Serious complications are COMMON. SO common that there are lawyers who specialize in taking circumcision cases.

 

The following is a comment taken from the comment section, written by known circumcision David Llewellyn:

 

 

"As a lawyer I have represented many boys and men who have either lost too much shaft skin or lost part of the end of the penis (and in one case all of the end) as a result of a botched circumcision or bad post circumcision care. From what I can tell I expect that 30% or so of boys and men who were circumcised at birth have had too much skin removed from their penile shafts. So, even though there are no really good studies on errors, I think the error rate is quite high. In my experience deposing doctors I have found that few docs understand the penile skin system. Also,the article is in error when it states that there are no studies showing a decrease in sensitivity. The article by Sorrells, et al. in BJU International in 2007 showed that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. This article has never been refuted. It defies common sense to think that you can remove the protective covering of the glans, tissue that is full of specialized nerve endings, and not reduce sensitivity. A study from Belgium by Bronselaer, et atl in BJU Int'l in 2013 showed a decrease in sensitivity. In fact, reduction in sensitivity was one of the initial reasons given for circumcision in this country in the late 19th Century. In summary, circumcision is risky and damaging and should not be performed unless there is a real medical necessity, which is very, very rare. Most of the world is not circumcised and gets along just fine. Uncircumcised Europe has less STDs and other penile problems than does the heavily circumcised U.S. Sadly, this article merely repeats the prejudiced views of circumcised U.S. doctors who profit from the continuation of this needless and damaging surgery."

His website is: David J Llewellyn: The Circumcision Lawyer

 

“The risk of not having a circumcision in infancy is largely related to difficulties in keeping the uncircumcised penis clean,” says Corley, but again, real world data shows that this simply isn’t a problem. Care during menstruation is more meticulous and complex. Boys and men in the world simply have no difficulty cleaning themselves.

“When bacteria and debris are trapped between the foreskin and glans, infections can result causing scarring known as phimosis, which prevents the foreskin from being retracted.” she continues.

This speaks to Corley's ignorance, willful or genuine, on the matter.

 

Phimosis is a fibrotic ring caused by lesions as a result of an infection of balanitis xerotica obliterans, or BXO for short. It is not caused by “bacteria and debris being trapped between the foreskin and the glans.”

And this can’t happen to newborns and children, where the foreskin is adhered to the glans until puberty by a bio-preputial lamina known as “synechia.” The foreskin not retracting during infancy is not “phimosis” but a normal stage in male development.

True phimosis is vanishingly rare, at less than 1%, and it occurs in adults.

“Another condition is paraphimosis, in which the foreskin retracts and cannot be returned to its normal position," Corley says.

This is usually caused by the doctor or the parents he instructs, insisting a child should have his foreskin retracted for “cleaning.”

 

Please see this post for information this doctor SHOULD have been taught and SHOULD BE telling parents. 

“These conditions may need to be eventually treated with circumcision, and the procedure is likely more painful and traumatizing to older children and adults than it is for infants,” Corley goes on.

Self-serving scare tactics.

These conditions are rare, iatrogenic and completely preventable.

Note; 70% of men are not circumcised globally. The rest are usually circumcised out of religious or cultural custom. Where is the epidemic of “problems” causing world-wide circumcise demand?

And the “more painful and traumatizing” canard is appeal to emotion; ALL surgery is traumatizing to an older child or an adult. Let’s imagine, for a moment, a reality where all surgery a child may go through as an adult is administered to him in infancy to “spare him the pain.” Ridiculous.

Very few men have conditions for which circumcision is medically indicated. In children it should NEVER be a problem; children who “need to be circumcised” are usually GIVEN their problems by American doctors and their harmful advice. As already mentioned before, there isn’t an epidemic of children or men with “problems” in non-circumcising countries.

“There is no data available on the number of males who are circumcised for medical reasons after the newborn period.”

Which is a testament to how vanishingly rare these cases are. And here, Corley is lying, because yes there is, albeit limited.

“Uncircumcised boys should be taught the importance of washing beneath the foreskin on a regular basis once the foreskin is fully retractable.” says Corley.

Just as uncircumcised women must be taught to clean out their labia and vulva. Actually, male hygiene is much simpler. This doctor is an OBGYN. She ought to know.

“One of the best arguments against circumcision is that the child is being subjected to a surgical procedure that he cannot consent to and which is often being performed as a culturally accepted cosmetic procedure.” Corley continues.

Let’s talk about FGM. That’s also a culturally accepted cosmetic procedure where it is performed. And let’s talk about a doctor’s duty to medicine, not cultural brokerage.

Lack of consent for elective, non-medical procedure is quite possibly the biggest problem for doctors like Corley; in any other case, reaping profit from non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals constitutes medical fraud.

But this isn’t the only problem; the risks of infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage and even death are also important arguments against circumcision. Because male infant circumcision is elective, cosmetic surgery, any risk above zero is unconscionable.

“Some opponents of circumcision suggest that the procedure should not be performed until the child is old enough to understand the risks and give consent to the procedure. However as previously noted, at that time it will be more painful and expensive, and the recovery period needed after surgery will be longer.” - More self-serving promotion.

The pain and recovery are true of any surgery. Medically necessary circumcision is vanishingly rare. In contrast, complications are common. A child could end up with an aesthetically displeasing penis, lose it completely, or his life.

“Because there are known health benefits from male circumcision, its use has been supported by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2012, and also by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.”

False.

In 2012, the AAP concluded that the “benefits” of circumcision were “not enough to recommend the procedure.” In the same policy statement, they said that “the true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision is unknown.”

And ACOG only support it because it’s a money maker for them. The AAP released a policy statement in 2012 after a review of all existing medical literature on the matter; ACOG did no such review and only ever cite the AAP for “support.”

“Overall it is seen as potentially beneficial and rarely harmful, but every family should weigh the risks and benefits of this procedure and decide if it is right for them,” she continues.

Absolving the doctor of any responsibility.

Isn’t “weigh the risks and benefits” of a medical procedure and determining its necessity the DOCTOR’s job?

And where does Corley get “rarely harmful” from?

Let me repeat; In 2012, the AAP concluded that the “benefits” of circumcision were “not enough to recommend the procedure.” In the same policy statement, they said that “the true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision is unknown.”

How are lay parents expected to come to a more reasonable conclusion?

 

“In the end most people probably make the choice based on cultural values," Corley concludes.

In any other case, reaping profit from performing elective, non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals constitutes “medical fraud.”

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?

This OB/GYN is nothing more than a charlatan, and this is nothing more than a paid ad.

Washington Daily News is colluding with a charlatan in perpetuating blatant misinformation. Rather than merely publish a self-serving business plug, the Washington Daily News ought to engage in journalism and publish the truth about this matter.

“It’s difficult to get a [wo]man to understand something when her salary depends on [her] not understanding it.”

Publishing circumcision information from a woman who makes her living performing them is probably not the best idea for neutral, objective, unbiased, dispassionate reporting.

Do better, Washington Daily News.

Related Posts:

The Circumcision Blame Game

 

When Someone Says It's Not the Money...

 

Circumcision Botches and the Elephant in the Room

 

CIRCUMCISION "RESEARCH": Rehashed Findings and Misleading Headlines

 

Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV II

 

PHIMOSIS: Lost Knowledge Missing In American Medicine

 

AAP: Around the Bush and Closer to Nowhere

External Links:

Washington Daily News - Health Beat: What to know about circumcision

 

American Cancer Society: Can Penile Cancer Be Prevented? 

 

US News: America's STD Rate at Record High Again: CDC 

 

Healio: Circumcised men at twice the risk for cancer-causing HPV, study shows 

 

National Post: Ontario newborn bleeds to death after family doctor persuades parents to get him circumcised 

Atlanta lawyer wins $11 million lawsuit for family in botched circumcision

David J Llewellyn: The Circumcision Lawyer

The Circumcision Blame Game

In all my years as an intactivist (I've been against circumcision since I was about 16, I'm 31 now), I often come across the dilemma of who is responsible for the circumcision of children in America. Who's fault is it if you are circumcised and not happy with it?

Who should you blame?

Before going on, I'd like to introduce the above image. It was uploaded to Facebook by one Jonathon Conte, who is a pro-active intactivist in the San Francisco area, and belongs to the local group Bay Area Intactivists.

The caption read:

"This is the pattern that I continue to see when doing various intactivist protests and events. Nobody wants to accept responsibility and the blame goes round and round.

"Talk to the parents!" "Talk to the obstetricians!" "We don't do them. Talk to the pediatricians!" "Nobody told me it wasn't necessary!"

On the bright side, they used to all defend the practice, now they pass blame. Blame acknowledges a shameful act. Progress."

And Jonathon is right.

There is something suspicious going on when, instead of owning responsibility, it is being passed around like a hot potato.

Except, I think the above image is wrong. It places undue weight on parents, with them at the top and the doctors at the bottom. It implies parents are entitled to a choice, and physicians are loyal subjects who merely listen and obey.

But since when does medicine work this way?

For what other medical treatment or procedure are parents in a position of entitlement to "decide" at whim, without any kind of clinical indication or medical diagnosis? For what other surgery are surgeons slaves to demanding parents? Do parents actually wield so much power?

Aren't parents usually given the power to choose a method of treatment for their children AFTER a doctor has determined that there is some kind of clinical or medical necessity?

For these reasons and more, I believe Jonathon's image is a false paradigm. This delusion of "parental choice" is a false paradigm invented by doctors, the trade unions they belong to, and it is perpetuated by the media.

The image looks something more like this:

Doctors would like to pretend as if parents had this power over them, and they are nothing but loyal subjects at their beck and call. But let's analyze the balance of power here.

Professional Responsibility
First off, it must be be asked; who holds the professional license?

To earn the title of "doctor," physicians must go to school for a number of years. Additionally, they are also responsible for keeping their information up to date. They hang their certifications proudly on their office wall and constantly remind others that they are not to drop the title of "doctor" when being referred to.

It is a doctor's professional responsibility to know better than his patients. It is his professional responsibility to determine the presence or absence of a pathogen, and to determine whether or not treatment, surgical or non-surgical, is medically or clinically indicated.

It is why he is visited, and it is why he gets a paycheck.

And yet, when it comes to circumcision, they are suddenly clueless.

So clueless, that they must pawn the burden of determining the medical necessity of circumcision on parents, most of whom unfamiliar with medical literature.

The mighty and powerful doctor is suddenly too stupid to do his job, and thus hands it off to naive parents he, in most other circumstances, views as intellectually inferior to himself.

Who Wields the Knife?
Let's analyze the areas of medical expertise. Who performs circumcisions for parents?

Here, we see two types of physicians vying for a piece of the circumcision pie; pediatricians and obstetricians/gynecologists (AKA: OB/GYNs) It makes sense that pediatricians are performing surgery on children; a pediatrician's area of expertise is the health and well-being of children.

But wait, this is weird, OB/GYNs are trained in the health and well-being of WOMEN. Vulvas, vaginas, cervixes and ovaries (and much much more). One wonders why OB/GYNs are even part of the picture in the first place.

And yet, according to national surveys, OB/GYNs perform the bulk of infant circumcisions.

The only relation OB/GYNs seem to have with MALE infant babies is that, as caretakers of pregnant women, they are closest in proximity to intact male newborns, and thus have first dibs at cashing in on the procedure; pediatricians deal with the child once he's already out. As experts in FEMALE healthcare, it would actually make more sense for OB/GYNs to be offering sunat operations to expectant mothers.

Why are physicians, whose primary expertise is the health and well-being of WOMEN, profiting from performing non-medical surgery on healthy MALE children?

"You take care of a woman through her pregnancy, for nearly a year...and you're lucky if you see $1500. But a circumcision is 15 minutes, and it's $300 a pop. It's candy."
~OB writing in 'Parents' Place' on the circumcision turf war between OB/GYNs and pediatricians 

So Who's To Blame?
As medical scholars, as bearers of professional licenses, but most of all, as actual facilitators of the procedure itself, the answer is that it is physicians who bear full responsibility for circumcision.

Before treatment can be administered, it is the responsibility of a physician to perform a diagnosis, to determine the presence or absence of a pathogen or medical condition, and to determine whether or not surgical intervention is necessary to treat said medical condition.

The standard of care for therapeutic surgery in most of the rest of the world requires the medical benefits of the surgery to far outweigh the medical risks and harms, or for the surgery to correct a congenital abnormality. Unnecessarily invasive procedures should not be used where alternative, less invasive techniques, are equally efficient and available. It is unethical and inappropriate to perform surgery for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown there to be other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive.

Circumcision seems to be the only instance in medicine where standards of care are overridden in lieu of "parental choice."

How Physicians Absolve Themselves
It is the professional duty of a physician to determine the validity of the treatment they administer, and of the procedures they conduct.

In the special case of circumcision, however, physicians get away with profiting from this non-medical procedure on healthy, non-consenting individuals, by pawning off their responsibility on parents. Doctors push the paradigm of "the great parental decision" forward, and the media helps perpetuate it.

In their latest statement, the American Academy of Pediatrics came very close to, but stopped short of recommending infant circumcision for all infants (contrary to popular belief). Despite touting over and over again that "the benefits out weigh the risks," they must still admit that the "benefits are not enough to recommend the procedure," concluding that "the final decision should be made by parents." (This was their exact position in their last statement in 1999.)

The result is a spineless, non-committal statement that sounds like an endorsement, if not outright recommendation, but is actually nothing more than self-absolution of professional responsibility, and the undue placement of an onus on parents.

Let me run this by readers again; the AAP, a professional medical organization, could not use the latest "benefits" in order to issue a recommendation for circumcision. Yet, parents, most of whom are incapable of discerning medical literature, are expected to take the same information, that medical professionals could not use to recommend circumcision, and somehow come up with a more reasonable conclusion (than medical professionals with professional licenses???).

Parents are being given the duty to make the medical value judgements, that actually belongs to the professionals carrying out the procedure.

The doctor stokes in parents a false sense of entitlement, convinces them to sign a ready-made release form, and thus he is legally (or illegally?) absolved from any responsibility whatsoever.

Thus, doctors profit at the expense of healthy, non-consenting individuals.

Our legal court system seems to be deliberately looking the other way at this practice.

Is This Actually Legal?
Currently having parents sign a consent form for non-therapeutic surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals seems perfectly legal. But is it?

Without medical or clinical indication, can doctors actually be performing surgery in healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less be eliciting any kind of "decision" from parents?

How is approaching parents of a healthy, non-consenting child, and soliciting a non-therapeutic, permanently altering procedure and eliciting some kind of "decision" NOT charlatanism or medical fraud?

How is it not a criminal act to physicians to place the duty of making a medical value judgement on naive parents, who are trusting them for non-interested medical advice?

What parents WOULDN'T choose circumcision for their children, being told that they would succumb to cancer and AIDS otherwise?

Doesn't it strike people as odd that doctors are asking parents to weigh "benefits and risks" that could not bring medical organizations in or outside the US to endorse infant circumcision?

Why don't doctors inform parents of this fact, instead of stoking in them a false sense if entitlement?

Shouldn't doctors know better than to realize a procedure they know has no therapeutic value in healthy, non-consenting children?

Even if the parents demand circumcision for their children, isn't it the duty of a physician with integrity to refuse to do this? (As he would with any other non-medical procedure a parent would demand?)

Why are physicians able to absolve themselves by pointing to parents and saying "They made me do it?"

Cut Parents Some Slack
On various mediums where the circumcision debate is happening, it seems the prevailing attitude amongst people against circumcision, and even amongst angry circumcised men themselves, is to blame parents. On foreskin restoration forums, on Facebook, on news commentaries, I often read about angry circumcised men who resent their parents, who have had nasty fights with them to the point of breaking off relationships.

It doesn't help that there is also this attitude amongst parents who have circumcised their children, or plan on circumcising their future children, to have a sense of entitlement to having their children circumcised. "I'm the parent, I decide," seems to be the prevailing attitude amongst parents who advocate for infant circumcision. Of course this attitude draws the ire of angry men and angry intactivists, aggravating the situation.

Adding to the situation is that, as already mentioned, medical professionals place the onus of "the great decision" on parents. Angry intactivists, angry sons, and the very medical profession fleeing from professional responsibility. So much weight on parents' shoulders!

But what do parents say when asked as to why they had their sons circumcised?

Most parents have their sons circumcised out of tradition, because it is a religious conviction, or because the father and his father were circumcised. But, almost as if parents knew this weren't enough, these alibis are reinforced with "My doctor told me it was best." Or "My doctor told me it's cleaner and it prevents many diseases."

I say, parents should be cut some slack.

It would be one thing if parents actually ponied up, bought an exacto knife and attempted to perform the procedure themselves. Most just agree to it because they are told not doing so will result in penile cancer or AIDS. I believe that most parents actually have the well-being of their children in mind. I believe that most parents, being given the facts not being disclosed to them by their physicians, would refuse to have this done to their children. I believe that most parents, once they understood what circumcision is, would take it all back if they could.

Parents shouldn't be blamed.

(They also shouldn't be congratulated and/or encouraged to "celebrate" their ignorance, but I already address this on another blog post.)

Maybe some can, but most simply don't know.

Remember who holds the professional license.

Remember whose professional duty it is to know better.

Remember who ultimately holds the knife.

The following pie chart demonstrates how many circumcisions are carried out by parents in this country.

It's physicians in which parents place their trust.

And it's physicians who betray this trust.

This Is Not About Judging Parents
I think it needs to be made clear to both intactivists and parents of circumcised children alike; the point of intactivism is not to be making parents feel guilty.

One of the greatest obstacles for intactivism is that parents who circumcised their chidlren will often get on the defense, accusing those who oppose circumcision of "judging" and trying to make parents feel guilty, when that's not the point at all.

The point of intactivism is to bring attention to the fact that the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors is a violation of the most basic of human rights, and to educate and enlighten both doctors and parents alike, so that this madness ends.

Parents who honestly wanted the best for their children need not feel judged. If I didn't know what I know now, and a doctor told me that my son would surely develop penile cancer and die of AIDS, I think I would probably choose circumcision too.

Can parents be blamed because they were asked to make choices based on skewed or limited information? If they were even given information at all?

No.

As I express in this blog post, the burden of responsibility rests in physicians who disseminate misinformation, and who profit at the expense of parental naivete, and the fact that children cannot speak for themselves. While parents, at least for the time being, are given the final say, it is doctors who choose what information to give to, and not give to parents. Doctors are either guilty of dispensing misinformation, or failing to update their information databases. (Actually, they're guilty of even bringing the subject up in the absence of medical necessity.)

In avenues where I have expressed this, I have often been berated by angry intactivists and men. They tell me:

"The information is out there. Maybe one day parents could claim ignorance, but now we have the Internet. You've got to be real dumb, or willfully ignorant if you say you don't know better."

This is true to a certain extent. Yes, the information is out there, and people can look if they wanted. Parents, if they took the time, could sift through all the medical gobbledygook, and come to their own conclusions.

But whose job is that?

Isn't it doctors who are paid big bucks to determine the medical validity of a surgical procedure?

Doctors are supposed to have gone to school for many years to learn their trade.

Why would parents, most of whom never went to medical school, be more qualified than a learned doctor to determine the medical necessity of a surgical procedure?

That's what I don't understand, and I've asked this above.

The AAP has concluded, as it did in its last statement, that the "benefits are not enough to recommend circumcision." They still place the onus on parents to weigh the "pros and cons," and make a "decision." "Pros and cons" that could not convince an entire body of qualified medical professionals to endorse circumcision. But suddenly, parents will have better knowledge and the power to discern the medical literature an entire professional medical organization could not?

The bottom line is that parents, and most people, would still rather believe a man in a white lab coat than they would some website on the Internet, or some angry activist who can be easily dismissed as a conspiracy theorist. That people place too much trust in doctors, putting them up on a pedestal and deifying them is a sad state of affairs, but its reality.

It's also why doctors, of all people, are responsible. They are given trust by well meaning parents. And they, taking advantage of their position of power, betray this trust.

So intactivists, go easy parents.

Angry men, don't judge your parents so harshly.

They are not to blame.

Instead, blame physicians who continue to profit at the expense of the basic human rights of healthy, non-consenting individuals and their parents.

Blame the complacent system that allows this kind of charlatanism and medical fraud to continue unchecked.

Challenge institutions of higher education and professional medical organizations that continuously shirk their professional responsibilities and pawning them off on naive parents.

I close with my Mission Statement, which can always be viewed in my About page:

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, with which all boys are born; 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 individual 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 individual, much less be eliciting any kind of "decision" from parents.

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.

DISCLAIMER:
The views I express in this blog are my own individual opinion, and they do not necessarily reflect the views of all intactivists. I am but an individual with one opinion, and I do not pretend to speak for the intactivist movement as a whole, thank you.