January 24, 2022: Circumcision Sends Another Baby Boy to "Heaven"

 

It's happened before. And it will all happen again. But this time it happened in Texas.

I grow tired of writing these, so I'm just going to post the picture exactly as I found it on Facebook:

 

There's something cringe-worthy about parents who willingly allow their otherwise healthy child to have their genitals mutilated by a perfect stranger trying to somehow tie in their religion and "the will of god" into the picture.

"God needed him more than we did," the mother wrote. Yes. And apparently the doctor needed your child's foreskin more than he did. And you wanted your child to have a mutilated organ more than you wanted your child.

"He was always meant to be an angel." The deliberate justification of infanticide. So why don't we kill all children then? So that they all "get to heaven?"

And what do you mean "little did we know?" Did the doctors not explain the risks and complications of circumcision? Or he did and you signed the form anyway? One of these two things has to be true.

"Why do other babies get miracles but mine didn't? Why did this happen to us?"

So you wanted to have your child mutilated AND you wanted a miracle? Wonders never cease.

This is about as much as I can write on this. I'm not sure how long we intactivists have to say it or how many more babies have to die before we realize doctors shouldn't be doing this. The following is cut and paste. I can't anymore with this story.

Closing 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.

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

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.

Because male infant circumcision is elective, cosmetic surgery, any death above "zero" is unconscionable.

May one day the circumcision of healthy, non-consenting individuals be recognized for the medical fraud and violation of basic human rights that it is.

Related Posts:

NEW "STUDY": "Circumcision Risks Low in Newborns"

The Circumcision Blame Game

 

List of Deaths and Complications Documented on This Blog:

 

AUSTRALIA: One Child Dies, Another Nearly Bleeds to Death Post Circumcision

 

AFRICA: Two Boys Die Post-Circumcision Despite Thoughts and Prayers

 

FACEBOOK: Another Hemorrhaging Baby Post-Circumcision

FACEBOOK: Another Circumcision Death Surfaces

 

ITALY: Yet Another Circumcision Death

 

Another Circumcision Death - Wound Would Not Stop Bleeding

FACEBOOK: Another Baby Fighting For His Life Post Circumcision

MADERA, CA: Another Circumcision Complication

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

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

Facebook Chronicles: Mothers Struggle With Circumcision Problems - Another Child Dies

One of the most common excuses for male infant circumcision is that it's supposed to "prevent problems."

Well, recently, on my Facebook news feed I read about a mother who was struggling with problems that circumcision is supposed to prevent.

The irony is that circumcision is supposed to make a child's penis "easier to clean," and here we observe a situation where it's actually making it difficult.

Woah. It's "normal for it to hurt?"

Is crusty, smelly stuff supposed to cake around the child's penis too?

Unbelievable.

A child with normal, inviolate organs is easy to care for and needs no more care than cleaning the genital organs externally.

Are parents being made aware of this?

How come this mother is barely reading about this online?

Aren't the people who are supposed to be giving her "clear answers?"

Isn't this complication something she should have been made aware of BEFORE she decided to go through with the surgery?

A blue and purple penis is "normal?"

Um, this doesn't happen with normal, intact children.

These mothers want "no judgement" and "no bashing," but how exactly do you explain to them that these problems are caused by circumcision, and that they would have been avoided if they simply left their child alone, without hurting their feelings?

"No one wants advice - only corroboration."
~John Steinbeck

Many parenting groups on Facebook and elsewhere warn that people who "bash" and "harass" are automatically banned.  But sadly, dispensing factual, verifiable information constitutes "bashing" and "harassment," because it makes parents feel terrible for having made an irrevocable decision.

Yes, I'm sure other parents could give possible solutions to the problems presented here, but shouldn't other parents hear possible ways to avoid these problems?

So sad.

To prevent some parents from feeling guilty and "judged," factual and pertinent information parents need to hear is prohibited.

What a disservice.

These problems and more can be prevented if only parents knew of these risks, and that not circumcising is also an option.

And finally, yes, another death.

I'm not going to comment further on the last post.

I've already written a number of posts of deaths I read about on my Facebook news feed, so readers can search "death" up in the search bar, or click here if they want to read other posts I've written on the subject.

Conclusion
Circumcision is an elective, non-medical procedure.

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

Currently, American medical organizations minimize the risks, but a) hospitals aren't required to release this information, and b) there is financial incentive on the part of doctors, hospitals and the medical organizations to which they belong to minimize these risks.

You will only read about these on Facebook, because they rarely, if ever, make the news.

Death is a risk of circumcision.

Circumcision does not guarantee a problem-free penis.

As highlighted in these and other cases, circumcision may even cause the very problems it's meant to prevent.

Not circumcising is also an option; children with anatomically correct genitals require no special care.

70% of the world's men are not circumcised. Of the 30% that are, only about 1% were circumcised out of medical necessity. The great majority of circumcised males were circumcised out of religious or cultural custom.

Even in countries where circumcision is a norm, male infant circumcision, as it is performed in the US, is rare. The great majority of circumcised males in the world were circumcised at later ages. This means that these males make it past their early years of life without any "problems" the foreskin is said to cause.

Respected medical organizations around the globe do not recommend male infant circumcision based on the current body of medical literature.

The AAP inched very close to a recommendation, but couldn't commit to one in the end. Their 2012 statement was rejected by respected medical organizations in the rest of the world.

For American parents wishing to educate themselves on circumcision and not circumcising, it is advisable to look for resources outside of the United States, as those written by American doctors and medical organizations may be biased in favor of circumcision, and may be skewing, if not omitting information regarding care for circumcised and intact infants.

As can be observed, one of the mothers in a case above is searching for answers she should have had before making a decision.

Related Posts:

Joseph4GI: The "Mommy Page" Wars

Joseph4GI: GRANOLA BABIES: BIG MISTAKE

INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves

"I Did My Research" - The Quest for Scientific Vindication

Phony Phimosis: How American Doctors Get Away With Medical Fraud

What Your Dr. Doesn't Know Could Hurt Your Child

OUT OF LINE: AAP Circumcision Policy Statement Formally Rejected

Mogen Circumcision Clamp Manufacturers Face Civil Lawsuit

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Child Dies After Doctor Convinces Ontario Couple to Circumcise

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?

ONTARIO CIRCUMCISION DEATH: The Plot Thickens

More details have emerged surrounding the circumcision death case in Ontario, and there are a lot of red flags that are going up for me.

I'm going to cut and paste relevant excerpts from a Toronto Star news article, commenting as I go along.

"One Toronto pediatrician was cautioned in writing and another told to get informed consent from parents after 22-day-old Ryan Heydari bled to death following a circumcision in 2013."

First red flag; one would think that informed consent was obtained from the child's parents before performing surgery. Am I missing something here?

"Details about the complaints against the two physicians made to the College of Physicians and Surgeons, including their identities, would have been kept secret had Ryan’s parents not sought a review by an appeals panel. That is a level of secrecy that critics say must change, even as the college is promising to improve transparency."

Second red flag; what is the reason that parents have to seek a review by an appeals panel to get details surrounding their own child's death?

How many other cases are being kept secret because parents didn't think to do what these parents have?

"Earlier this month, the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) upheld the decision made by the college’s inquiries, complaints and reports committee to “advise” Dr. Sheldon Wise, who performed the operation on Ryan following a referral by a family doctor, to document his consent procedure — including discussion of potential risks and complications around circumcision."

Why is he being asked to document the consent procedure after the fact?

Is there no obligation to document the child's diagnosis first?

Why aren't doctors required to have a diagnosis for medical indication for surgery?

"Death following circumcision is rare, a three-member panel of the board noted."

This worthless note is not helpful here.

A child has died.

Duly noting it doesn't help the child or his parents.

"The panel also found the committee’s order to be reasonable, that Dr. Jordan Carr, the North York General hospital pediatrician who saw Ryan after he started bleeding, should be cautioned in writing for “his failure to recognize the seriousness of the patient’s condition and to treat compensated shock.” Carr was also ordered by the committee to write a 2- to 4-page report on the possible complications of circumcision and on how to recognize and treat compensated shock"

This is rich.

They try to downplay this child's death, but somehow, the doctor who saw him should have "recognized the seriousness of the patient's condition."

So much weight on the doctor who had nothing to do with the child's surgery, nor with convincing his parents to have it done seems unfair to me.

Shouldn't the burden of having to outline the possible complications of circumcision be on the doctor who pushed it on the parents in the first place?

The message that "death following circumcision is rare," but that physicians ought to "recognize the seriousness of a circumcised child's condition" is a confusing one.

Scolding this doctor seems like backwards logic to me.

There was nothing wrong with the child.

A healthy child underwent elective, non-medical surgery because a doctor pushed it on reluctant parents.

Before a doctor suggest surgery, shouldn't there be a diagnosis of a medical condition for which surgical intervention is necessary?

It seems to be that medical necessity needs to be establish first.

Before eliciting consent from parents.

Before presenting them with the risks and complications.

Before advising a doctor to "recognize the seriousness" of a child's condition following surgery.

The first fault in the series of events is the doctor who convinced the parents that the child should undergo circumcision.

So why so much weight on the physician who saw him second?

And why should he be expected to believe the situation was "serious," when he has been most likely taught to believe that circumcision is "simple, fast, and risk-free?"

 "Wise told the complaints committee he routinely performs circumcisions, and the committee expressed no concerns about his technique or equipment, according to the HPARB decision. But it did feel that he should be obtaining and documenting informed consent before doing the operation."

This part really disturbs me.

A child has died, but  the fact that the doctor circumcised him performs this elective, non-medical procedure routinely seemingly voids any cause for concern.

More important than establishing a medical diagnosis for a condition that necessitates surgery is obtaining and documenting informed consent before doing the operation, is this group's decision.

This seems strange to me; it would seem to me that consent from the parents was obtained., albeit reluctantly.

But what's really disturbing is the fact that a child has died as a result of a needless, non-medical procedure, but that the group is more concerned that the doctor is able to absolve himself by pushing the burden of responsibility on the parents.

Am I misunderstanding something here?

"In Carr’s case, the committee found that he assessed Ryan in a timely manner, but 'overall, the committee was concerned by the lack of urgency and aggressiveness in (Carr’s) approach in this case, and his failure to recognize pending hypovolemic shock.'"

 Again, rather this is paradoxical. In one instance, the committee must establish that "death following circumcision is rare," but then they want to chastise this doctor for "lack of urgency and aggressiveness" in the next.

"None of this information can be found on profiles for Wise and Carr in the College of Physicians and Surgeons’ online registry, as the complaints against the doctors were made before the college changed its policies as to what information it releases to the public."

 So what else could they be hiding?

"'I think most people would agree that where there was a death of a 22-day old baby, there should be public disclosure where there was criticism found with relation to care,' said medical malpractice lawyer Paul Harte, who is pushing for the college to release information about all complaints against doctors, including their identities and the disposition in each case."

No, some fight to hide this information at all costs, and for good reason too.

What doctor is eager to face a malpractice lawsuit?

"College spokeswoman Kathryn Clarke said the penalty formerly known as a “written caution” no longer exists; only an oral caution, made by a panel of the complaints committee to the doctor. Since this year, this caution is included on the doctor’s profile in the college’s online registry."

Am I reading this correctly?

This physician's "advice," and his execution of this elective, non-medical procedure on a healthy, non-consenting minor has lead to his death, and all he gets away with is "caution," not written but oral?

"But the committee can also choose to issue advice or recommendations to the physician, or request that the doctor work with the college on developing an educational plan. “Both outcomes are considered of low risk to the public, and therefore they are not included on the physician’s profile on the public register,” Clarke said."

Both outcomes are merely a slap on the wrist, and don't take into account the gravity of the situation.

Let me repeat, a child has died as a result of this doctor's "advice" to have elective, non-medical surgery performed on him, and all he gets is "caution."

The parent's testimony is heartbreaking:

“We had Ryan circumcised for health reasons, based on the advice of our family doctor. We were initially very much against having Ryan circumcised, as we felt that Mother Nature had created us the way she had intended us to be...

Our family doctor convinced us though of the health benefits of this procedure, but we had no idea that the loss of Ryan’s life was one of the risks. The loss of Ryan, our only child, has made us realize that we cannot possess anything, even our hopes and dreams. We hope that this never happens to any baby, but losing your child is the only way to find out what effect this can have on your life.”

Before suggesting surgery, a doctor needs to establish medical necessity.

Then he needs to obtain informed consent from his patient, if not the patient's guardians.

The patient and patient's guardians ought to know all the risks and complications of the procedure.

Male infant circumcision carries risks.

These risks include infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage and even death.

In Closing

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.

Reaping profit from performing elective, non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals constitutes medical fraud, not to mention abuse and the violation of basic human rights.

CORRECTION (10/28/2015): I have just learned that the physician who convinced this couple to have their child circumcised and the physician who actually carried out the procedure are in fact two different people. I still think the doctor who convinced the couple should also be held responsible. Medical boards ought to begin to issue warnings to doctors not to advise parents to have their children circumcised unless there is diagnosis which indicates clear medical necessity for surgical intervention.

Related Post:

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Child Dies After Doctor Convinces Ontario Couple to Circumcise

Relevant Link:

Secrecy questioned about baby’s death after circumcision

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Child Dies After Doctor Convinces Ontario Couple to Circumcise

I'm just going to cut and paste relevant excerpts from the National Post article:

"...they did not even want the newborn circumcised — a view in line with longstanding recommendations from the Canadian Pediatric Society — but were persuaded to do so by a family physician."

"...the case only became public because the couple appealed the original Ontario College of Physician and Surgeons rulings, which were rendered in secret."

So how many more deaths haven't been made public?

"The pediatric society said in a recent report that death from bleeding caused by circumcision is 'extremely rare,' though it’s not completely unheard of. A five-week-old B.C. baby bled to death after being circumcised in 2003."

And another one was in the ER in Arizona just this month.

"She and husband John Heydari, who immigrated from Iran about 12 years ago, opposed having him circumcised, convinced that 'mother nature created us the way she intended us to be.'

But their family physician persuaded them it was a good idea for medical reasons, despite contrary advice from pediatric specialists."

Their failure to ignore their first impulse resulted in tragedy.

And what does this doctor get?

Why are doctors allowed to get away with soliciting elective, non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting minors like this?

"The pediatric society has long held that its risks – including pain to a small baby, bleeding and the chance of disfigurement of the penis – outweigh its benefits."

Opposite the AAP.

And yet, just like them, they simply fold their hands, whistle and look the other way...

"The group revisited the issue with a report just last month that addressed growing evidence circumcision helps prevent sexually transmitted disease, acting almost like a vaccine in countries with high rates of HIV."

"Almost" being the key word here.

Even the WHO says that circumcised men and their partners must be urged to continue to wear condoms.

This means circumcision FAILS to prevent anything and we're back at square one; men have to wear condoms either way for any real protection form STDs.

Let's be clear here; a healthy child has just died, but we need to rest assured that promiscuous men in Africa MIGHT be getting *possible* benefits from circumcision that are better obtained by wearing a condom.

Final Words
The foreskin is not a birth defect. Neither is it a congenital deformity or genetic anomaly akin to a 6th finger or a cleft. Neither is it a medical condition like a ruptured appendix or diseased gall bladder. Neither is it a dead part of the body, like the umbilical cord, hair, or fingernails.

The foreskin is not "extra skin." The foreskin is normal, natural, healthy, functioning tissue, present in all males at birth; it is as intrinsic to male genitalia as labia are to female genitalia.

Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of a healthy, non-consenting individuals is a deliberate wound; it is the destruction of normal, healthy tissue, the permanent disfigurement of normal, healthy organs, and by very definition, infant genital mutilation, and a violation of the most basic of human rights.

Without medical or clinical indication, doctors have absolutely no business performing surgery in healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less be eliciting any kind of "decision" from parents.

Circumcision has risks.

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

Death is a risk of circumcision.

How many times do I have to say this?

Death is a risk of circumcision.

Are parents being adequately informed about this risk?

Had this couple known about this risk, would they have still changed their minds?

Death is a risk of circumcision.

Death is a risk of circumcision.

Are you listening AAP?

Death is a risk of circumcision.

Circumcision has claimed yet another child.

His blood is on the hands of the AAP and any other medical organization that dares parrot them.

Related Article:

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

Related Posts:

CANADA: CPS Diverges from AAP on Infant Circumcision

CIRCUMCISION RISK: Two More Circumcision Botches

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: A Casual Report of a Circumcision Death Makes the News

The body of a 9-week old was found, and the news report only briefly mentions that the medical examiners found that he died from a kidney infection that resulted from a botched circumcision.

Death is a risk from circumcision.

It is difficult to pinpoint the exact rate of deaths caused by circumcision because people have incentive to hide the fact.

At 1.3 million infant circumcisions a year, circumcision is a money-maker for pediatricians and OB/GYNs, so trade organizations such as the AAP and ACOG have incentive to hide or downplay deaths due to circumcision.

Doctors have been known to deliberately misattribute the death of a child caused by circumcision to secondary causes, such as "bleeding," "hemorrhage" or "septic shock," so when a child dies as a direct result of circumcision, it is rarely reported as such. Parents are usually complicit with the doctor because they feel just as guilty for agreeing to have the procedure done.

Circumcision is an important ritual for Jews and Muslims, and religious communities have been known to be complicit in hiding culprits whenever deaths due to circumcision arise.

Whether it be avoiding lawsuits, or protecting a sacred ritual, there is great incentive to hide or downplay deaths caused by circumcision, so it is difficult to know exactly how many newborns succumb to death caused by circumcision.

Here, we witness a rare instance in which a death caused by circumcision actually makes the news.

Notice how nonchalant and casual the reporting of this fact is.

Readers will gloss over this fact as if it were no big deal.

Circumcision has risks.

They include infection, partial or full ablation and even death.

Death is a risk of circumcision.

Because male infant circumcision is elective, non-medical surgery, this risk is unconscionable.

Is the AAP counting?

Because we are.

Death is a risk of circumcision.

Are American doctors properly warning parents of this risk?

Relevant Link:

Body of 9-Week-Old Infant Allegedly Found Dead; Parents Under Custody

MALE INFANT CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Boy Dies

It breaks my heart every time I hear that yet another baby boy has succumbed to this needless surgery.

It had been a while since I've written one of these posts, though I'm sure many baby boys have died in the interim. However this one had been making the rounds on Facebook, and it kept showing up in my news feed, so I felt another circumcision death post was in order.

Four days ago, on the 23rd of this month, a baby who will go by the name of "Little Dave" bled to death through his circumcision wound. He was three days old.

Death is a Risk of Male Infant Circumcision
Circumcision advocacy groups try to downplay the risks of circumcision. The only ones most parents in this country will ever hear about, if physicians even bother mentioning them, are "pain and discomfort." Few will mention that circumcision could result in MRSA infection, a botched circumcision requiring future correction, partial or full ablation, and even death. Very few physicians will ever talk about death being a risk of circumcision.

It's sad, but this is what passes nowadays as "informed consent."

An estimated 117 deaths occur every year in the United States due to circumcision. This is a rough estimate, and more conservative than its predecessors; in the past, estimates have been as high as 200 or more deaths per year.

An accurate estimate on the number of deaths due to infant circumcision is admittedly difficult to pinpoint, because at least in America, hospitals are not required to release this information, and doctors often misattribute a child's death to secondary causes.

At 1.3 million circumcisions annually, circumcision is a money-maker for American medicine, and doctors have reputations and bankbooks to protect. Reporting adverse circumcision effects puts their yearly stipend in jeopardy, not to mention the disrepute it would bring to American medicine. With so much to lose, there is much incentive to hide the evidence and parents complicit in hiding their own guilt and shame will agree to mask the child's cause of death.

Reporting deaths from circumcision would open the floodgates to lawsuits by angry parents and angry men. Reporting deaths from circumcision means loss of revenue. Reporting deaths from circumcision means the "benefits" have to be reconsidered. Reporting deaths from circumcision means that American medical organizations are being irresponsible. Reporting deaths from circumcision means "culture and tradition" is put in danger.

For these reasons, we will never know for sure how many children die as a result of their circumcisions. There are reputations to protect, culture and tradition to safeguard, and malpractice lawsuit floodgates to keep sealed.


Death is a risk of male infant circumcision.

Let me repeat; Death is a risk of male infant circumcision.

Circumcision advocates try to minimize the risks and complications of circumcision. If they even mention death, they will say that the number of male children dying due to circumcision complications is "infinitesimally small."

But it must be asked, how is the death of even ONE healthy child conscionable, given that male infant circumcision is elective, non-medical surgery?

How is the death of even ONE healthy, non-consenting child conscionable, given that the so-called "benefits" of circumcision are already accessible by conventional, non-surgical means?

Little Dave bled to death at three days of age, and had he not been circumcised, he would have still been alive and well.

Let that sink in.

Death is a risk of male infant circumcision.

Are parents being informed of this risk?

Relevant Link:

Circumcision Insanity - Lizeth Sepulveda Zermeño from California

Related Posts: 

Circumcision Death: Another One Bites the Dust

Circumcision KILLS

CIRCUMCISION: The Silent Killer

CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yet Another One (I Hate Writing These)

Another Circumcision Death Comes to Light

Circumcision Indicted in Yet Another Death: Rabbis and Mohels are "Upset"

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yes, Another One - This Time in Israel

Another Circumcision Death Comes to Light

I've made many posts regarding circumcision death on this blog. I hate writing them. I wish the genital mutilation of children and the deaths that attend it would stop.

I won't write long; I think I've already written enough circumcision death posts this year. Somehow, I don't think it will be the last.

This case happened back in 2008-2009 and is just now coming to light, which should lead the reader to ask, if this one is only just now surfacing, how many others have been buried and just sort of forgotten?

Basically a boy was circumcised, he lost 40% of his blood which was never replenished. His doctors tried to remain cool and calm about it, saying the boy didn't need a blood transfusion, and that he didn't need to be rushed anywhere. They acted as if the boy's condition wasn't any kind of emergency that needed immediate treatment. The boy suffered cardiac arrest while he was being transfered between hospitals by his parents in their car. In the end, the boy ended up completely brain dead due to the little oxygen reaching his brain.

Asked if they would have done anything differently, his doctors say they wouldn't have changed a thing, and still would have reacted the way they did.

"The boy had a pre-existing condition," it could be said.

"He would have died anyway."

Did the doctors test for any potential danger before having done the procedure? (Without medical or clinical indication, how could they even have elicited parental consent?)

Did the doctors act appropriately following this child's complications?

Had they acted differently, would this child have still been alive?

Did the doctors intentionally try to keep this child's case low-key?

Are the doctors acting in complete denial to save their own skins?

Read the whole story and judge for yourself:

Healthy Newborn Dies Post Circumcision Hemorrhage

Death is a risk for circumcision.

We do not know how big of a risk there is, because doctors and mohels tend to attribute circumcision deaths to something else to protect their trade, and medical organizations like the AAP can't be bothered to collect data that would jeopardize their fellows.

How many deaths due to circumcision are "acceptable," especially given the fact that this is elective, medically unnecessary procedure?

Related Posts:
CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yes, Another One - This Time in Israel

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yet Another One (I Hate Writing These)

CIRCUMCISION: The Silent Killer
  

Circumcision KILLS

CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yes, Another One - This Time in Israel

And the story repeats itself, yet again.

Another baby dies following his circumcision, and, again, circumcision didn't kill him, it was something else.

It's always something else, isn't it.

The men with the knives are never to blame.

Reads the Jewish Press article:

"It was reported by the rabbinate that “since the initial diagnosis, the doctors who treated the baby were convinced that the complication in the baby’s condition was not the result of the circumcision but resulted from a previously existing medical condition."

What could it have been, then? Was there anything done to determine there were any "previously existing medical conditions" prior to the boy's mutilation?

“An investigation revealed that the mohel who performed the circumcision is a veteran, certified mohel,” said the Rabbinate’s statement. “The mohel followed procedure and performed a test on the baby after the rite. Only about half an hour after circumcision did signs of the medical complication in the child began to appear, not related to the circumcision itself. The mohel accompanied the family to the hospital.”

Yes, being a "certified veteran" already puts one beyond suspicion, doesn't it. What is the reason this "veteran" performed the "test" after, not before the procedure?

Read it again:

"Only about half an hour after circumcision did signs of the medical complication in the child began to appear, not related to the circumcision itself."

The deliberate denial in this story is absolutely unbelievable.

"A week ago, at about 11 AM, MDA paramedics were called to a synagogue in Holon, after an infant who had undergone a rite of circumcision there had stopped breathing and lost consciousness, shortly after the ceremony. The rescue crew took him to Wolfson Medical Center. After resuscitation in the hospital shock room, the baby’s condition stabilized."

Yes, I'm sure the fact this child died had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he was submitted to a needless, excruciatingly painful circumcision prior. This sounds awfully familiar to the Amitai Moshe case that happened in England.

"After investigating the circumstances of the case, it was discovered that the circumcision had actually been performed flawlessly..."

Yes, "flawlessly." So "flawlessly" that the child is now dead.

I wonder what constitutes as "flawless." Is that anything like a "flawless" female sunat?

"...and apparently baby choked during feeding.

'The bris had concluded safely and then everyone sat down to eat,” Abraham, a friend of the family, related. 'He was nursing from his mother and then she put him in his cart. At some point we noticed that the child was not responding and had turned blue.'"

Got that? It was the mother's fault. She should have known better than to feed him.

It is simply beyond belief the way the painfully obvious is ignored here to protect tradition and evade responsibility.

This wasn't the first time this has happened, and, until people have the honesty and integrity to call a spade a spade, it won't be the last.

In the UK, another boy, Amitai Moshe, goes into cardiac arrest immediately after his bris. The verdict of his inquest a few years later? Amitai Moshe died of "natural causes," and the fact that he started having breathing problems and started bleeding through his nose and mouth had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he was ritually circumcised just minutes before.

Read the shameless story here.

(Read Jewish Press article on the current incident in Israel here.)

Related Posts:

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yet Another One (I Hate Writing These)

CIRCUMCISION: The Silent Killer
 

Circumcision KILLS

CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies

Intactivism: It's Not Just for Gentiles Anymore