GUEST BLOGGER: WHO Retrocedes 150 Years

In my last post, I wrote about the WHO and its codifying of a completely bogus diagnosis. I just read another blog post which goes into greater detail regarding the history of the diagnosis "adherent prepuce," and the normal development of anatomically correct male organs, which has already been well-documented in medical history. I thought it warranted a re-post on my blog, so I asked permission from the original blogger, dreamer, if he would allow me to do so and he complied. I feel it will be a good lesson in history and male anatomy for my readers.

The balanopreputial synechiae conspiration - or when medicine reverses 150 years thanks to a committee 

By dreamer - August 27, 2013

 

Or can the World Health Organization can be hijacked by special interest groups?

The description of the circumcision procedure often includes a step, described as follows in the circumcision advocacy site circinfo:

"The adhesions between glans and foreskin are divided with a hemastat (artery forceps). "

Yet Douglas Gairdner in his 1949 "The Fate of the Foreskin" article, indicated that "It will be seen that preputial "adhesions" is an inapposite term to apply to the incompletely separated prepuce, suggesting as it does that the prepuce and glans were formerly separate structures."

In Intactivist circles, these adhesions are often referred to as "balanopreputial synechiae", "balanopreputial lamina", "balanopreputial membrane".

"Balanopreputial" means specifically something that is related to the glans ("balano") and the foreskin ("prepuce").

Synechiae is defined as an adhesion between two parts of the body.

Lamina refers to a structure, particularly a flat structure (2D)

In Anatomy, a membrane may refer to a thin film that is primarily a separating structure.

Wikipedia used to have an article on the balanopreputial membrane. This article was marked for deletion in 2007. The argument for deletion is that these words basically are an expression used by "lobbying" groups (in other words, "anticircumcision" or intactivist groups) to refer to "the epithelial layer fusing the foreskin to the glans". There is no equivalent article describing the "epithelial layer fusing the foreskin to the glans".

While this term is difficult to find, I've found references to the process of "balanopreputial separation" as an external sign of puberty in rats! More details here.

A book on Pediatric Drug Development includes the term "balanopreputial separation" again in reference to rats.

What about people?
It is known and reference in literature even as old as 1933, that "the prepuce in the human penis is adherent to the glans at birth, a layer of stratified squamous epithelium being interposed, and shortly after birth these parts become separated so that the prepuce may be retracted.", and the presence of this epithelium is referenced in this article as being described as far back as 1860.

In 2012 a group of Brazilian researchers studied the development of the foreskin in the fetal period and found "the presence of preputial lamella and a large amount of mesenchymal tissue between the foreskin and glans"

The glandulopreputial lamella is defined as "a layer of embryonic epithelial tissue that gives rise to the prepuce."

A lamella is a thin plate-like structure.

The development of the balanopreputial cavity in one humped camels has also been studied, finding references to the same lamella.

A 2010 paper describes the Development of the Glandopreputial Lamella and Sulcus in Female Fetuses, including the presence of a "stratified squamous epithelium" - the same epithelium mentioned in 1933 and in 1860.

So, this epithelium as a normal part and stage of the development of the foreskin has been known for at least 150 years. Whether we call it epithelium, or membrane, or synechiae, or lamina, we are referring to the same thing. A normal structure that connects the glans and the foreskin during their development.

The same 1933 paper describes that "The separation of the prepuce in the human penis is essentially a process of keratization of the intervening epithelium. It begins anteriorly and posteriorly at about the same time and proceeds toward the center. When confined on all sides the separation manifests itself as an epithelial pearl formation. On the surface, as is possible in the anterior region, it appears as a desquamation."

What's more important is that the paper then indicates that "Separation is not completed at birth, but is accomplished sometime during infancy or early childhood."

The exact age of retraction has been a subject of debate. This old paper indicated that " Unless the prepuce has been retracted, slight adhesions may persist in the posterior regions of the glandar lamella at 5 and 6 months. Separation is sufficient at the 10-day stage to allow mechanical retraction without danger of a tear, apparently an important factor in completing the division."

 Based on more recent observations, the Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne posted in 2013 that "The normal foreskin is attached to the glans and is non-retractile in most newborns. Over time the foreskin separates and becomes retractile. The proportion of boys with retractile foreskins is: 40% at 1 year, 90% at 4 years and 99% at 15 years."

By what means are the foreskin and the glans attached? By the presence of a synechiae, or a membrane, or a lamina, or an epithelium.

So basically, it doesn't matter if we call it a synechiae or a membrane or a lamine or an epithelium. There is a normal structure that appears during the normal development of the fetus (male or female), which later starts to dissolve and separate, and the final product, usually years after birth, is the presence of a separate glans and prepuce, either the glans penis and the foreskin on the male, or the clitoris and the clitoral hood on the female.

So there is no need to play thug of war over the use of one word or another. This structure exists, has been described, has been sufficiently observed and it's normal. There is no denying this.

Which is why it can only generate shock that the new 2013 ICD-10 codes of the World Health Organization, scheduled to go into effect in October 2014, include a code (N47.0) for "adherent prepuce, newborn" as part of the disorders of the male genitals.

With this new code, every human male will be born with a medical condition N47.0 - not because it's a medical condition, but because it has been codified as such. A normal stage of the human development has been pathologized by the World Health Organization.

And who can guess what procedure cures this condition?

If this doesn't sound like a conspiracy to circumcise the world, then I don't know what is it. I can only conclude that the World Health Organization has been hijacked by a special interest group.

Original post can be read here.

Related Links:
WHO: Codifying Medical Fraud

WHO: Codifying Medical Fraud

How do you justify the forced genital mutilation of minors?

1. Invent pathological conditions that make it indispensable.
2. Link anatomically correct male organs to the proliferation of disease.

It used to be that forced genital mutilation, particularly the forced genital mutilation of males at any age, was sanctioned under the immunity of "religious freedom." Additionally, parental privilege and cultural relativism could be invoked in order to justify the forcible amputation of a male child's foreskin.

Given other practices that fall under this category, however, the alibis of "religious freedom, "parental choice" and "cultural immunity," have lost validity.

Perhaps the best example of this is none other than female circumcision; a federal law makes the forced cutting of girls of any kind, and at any age, a punishable offense, and there are no exemptions for "religious" female genital cutting, or cultures where female genital cutting is practiced.

For this reason, advocates of circumcision, particularly male circumcision, have sought to, not only justify the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors, but to make the practice indispensable.

For over a century, circumcision "researchers" can be seen trying to link circumcision with the prevention of feared diseases; there is no shortage of "studies" that say that circumcision prevents this or that, all written by "researchers" who promote its universal adaption. They can also be seen trying to pathologize the presence of anatomically correct male genitalia, and the many stages of its development, setting arbitrary ages by which the foreskin should be "retractable for cleaning."

While there will never be enough "research" to justify the forced circumcision of girls, it seems circumcision advocates have made the covert contract with themselves, that the forced circumcision of boys will one day be justified, even made compulsory, if only they could come up with the right amount of "studies" that say circumcision prevents disease. We see them trying very hard today, promoting "mass circumcision" in Africa, in the so-called name of AIDS prevention.

Despite their hard work and efforts, however, not a single respected medical organization has found the latest HIV/circumcision propaganda to be convincing enough to recommend the circumcision of minors. In their latest statement, the AAP tries to sell the one-line "benefits outweigh the risks" slogan, but still concluding that the same "benefits" are "insufficient to recommend the practice."

Not quite having achieved the recommendation they wanted, it appears circumcision advocates are returning to the older tactic of trying to pathologize anatomically correct genitals.

WHO Codifies False Conditions Into Existence
The World Health Organization (WHO) has just released their new 2013 ICD-10 codes, which are scheduled to go into effect in October 2014. ICD, which stands for "International Classification of Diseases", is the global system for reporting morbidity and mortality statistics, for billing, and for health care automated decision support.

The new codes for conditions of the foreskin include a prominent (first on the list) billable code, for a condition whoever wrote these codes want to call "adherent prepuce in the newborn." If these codes go into effect, it means that doctors and hospitals will be able to claim "adherent prepuce" as a valid medical diagnosis in neonates (valid in the sense that a billable code exists in the WHO ICD system, not that it is an actual medical condition necessitating surgical correction), and be able to legally charge to "correct" it, thereby possibly justifying routine infant circumcision.

The new proposed codes under classification N47, "Disorders of the Prepuce," can be seen here. (To view, click on the hyperlink for "9 codes" in the second bullet point to read the full list of nine, beginning with N47.0 - Adherent Prepuce, Newborn.)

Without medical or clinical indication, doctors have no business performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting newborns, let alone asking parents to make any kind of "decision." However, if these codes, which the US Centers for Medicaid and Medicare use, go into effect, doctors will have a code available to justify routine infant circumcision, starting next year unless the new code is rescinded. A whole new ICD-11 code system is slated to be introduced for 2015.

Who Did It?
Research documents the normal development of anatomically correct male organs,(1-5) and there is no such thing as a pathological condition known as "adherent prepuce in the newborn"; all boys are born with the prepuce fused to the glans at birth, and if we are to believe the WHO, then all boys are born with a pathological condition which doctors can charge for "correcting." In essence, the WHO's board of physicians has declared the newborn foreskin, which is normally fused to the glans at birth, to be a disorder.

"How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg." - Abraham Lincoln

The fact that the WHO's board of physicians have decided to call a normal stage of development in the male infant penis a medical disorder, and have even made an ICD code for it does not make it a medical disorder. The foreskin is not a congenital birth defect. 

What I want to know is, who was responsible for writing these codes?

I suspect it was Americans who are in cahoots with fellows at the American Academy of Pediatrics; judging from their last statement, the AAP would like nothing more than to force the 18 state Medicaid programs who dropped coverage for male infant circumcision to start covering it again.

It is despicable to know that interested individuals at the WHO can use their ICD system to codify anatomically correct organs as pathological disorders, in order to warrant medical reimbursement for their "correction."

Who wrote these codes?

Who is responsible for this deplorable travesty? 

Why would a Geneva-based international organization do such a thing as pathologize all males at birth? I would expect that coming from a country where circumcision is rare, that the people of Switzerland would have a better understanding of anatomically correct male genitalia.

The WHO needs to be called on this immedeiately.

1. Kayaba H, Tamura H, Kitajima S, et al. Analysis of shape and retractability of the prepuce in 603 Japanese boys. J Urol 1996;156(5):1813-5.
2. Imamura E. Phimosis of infants and young children in Japan. Acta Paediatr Jpn 1997;39(4):403-5.
3. Ishikawa E, Kawakita M. [Preputial development in Japanese boys]. Hinyokika Kiyo 2004;50(5):305-8.
4. Øster J. Further fate of the foreskin: incidence of preputial adhesions, phimosis, and smegma among Danish schoolboys. Arch Dis Child 1968;43:200-3.
5. Thorvaldsen MA, Meyhoff H. Patologisk eller fysiologisk fimose? Ugeskr Læger 2005;167(17):1858-62.

Related Posts:

Politically Correct Research: When Science, Morals and Political Agendas Collide

AAP: Around the Bush and Closer to Nowhere

GREAT BRITAIN: Jewish Circumcision Advocates Grope for Celebrity Endorsement

A new prince has been born to Duchess Kate Middleton and Prince William, and Jewish circumcision advocates are already trying to use this opportunity to seek celebrity endorsement for circumcision.

Reads a headline from jewishpress.com:

"Duchess Kate Had a Boy, Call the Mohel"

The last time I checked, the Royals weren't Jewish. What does the Jewish Press care whether the new prince is circumcised or not?

Reads another headline, this time on MSN:

"Whether the royal baby is getting the royal snip is our new obsession"

Well, at least the authors of this little piece are honest about the fact that they are obsessed. The article goes on:

"Sure we're curious about what the royal baby's name will be, but what we really want to know is: Will there be a royal mohel?"

Why on earth?

And who's "we?"

There doesn't seem to be a name attached to this article. I'd like to know who was the obsessed author of this piece.

This part is rather interesting:

"Princess Diana apparently wasn't a fan, however, and her boys weren't given the snip (there were whispers that Prince Charles had both boys circumcised after Diana's death, but that remains unproven)."

Whispers where? Amongst whom?

Very recently, Prince William was caught taking a wee, and there are pictures where it can clearly be seen that he has an anatomically correct organ.

Those interested in taking a glance at the royal peen can visit this link.

This "whisper" is nothing more than circumfetishist fantasy and Jewish wishful thinking.

Haaretz writes a more reasonable article, but still asks:

"Little prince in the U.K.: What about the bris?"

Again, what in the world do Jews care whether the British goy prince is having a Jewish bris or not? Are they so desperate for validation of their blood ritual that they have to hope the new prince will be made into an unwitting poster boy?

Though the headline fails to conceal a hope that the child is circumcised, by a mohel in a bris no less, this author has integrity, pointing out the lengths to which some have gone to insist that the new prince must be circumcised:

"One group that will not try to claim the prince for its own is the Jewish community."

Will not? Or should not? Judging from other headlines, the above statement is but wishful thinking.

"In a bizarre episode last month a former BBC reporter claimed that Kate, the royal mother, was of matrilineal Jewish descent, making the new prince also a member of the tribe... But serious Jewish genealogists were quick to quash the theory explaining that the Jewish-sounding names in Kate's lineage meant nothing and the prince would not be kosher."

Thank goodness there are Jewish scholars with enough integrity to admit reality.


Still, the author seems to be hopeful that Prince William was ultimately circumcised, going as far as MSN has, quoting "a multitude of sources," this time citing medical necessity instead of Charles rushing the children to be circumcised in Diana's untimely absence.


"If a multitude of sources are to be trusted, then William was circumcised in a medical procedure (according to some versions of his own choice at a much later date) and Harry's foreskin is still intact."

Indeed, who is this "multitude" being cited here as a trustworthy source?

Much to the chagrin of hopeful Jews and circumfetishists, I'm afraid there is visual evidence that Prince William remains as his mother brought him to the world.


Jews and other circumcision advocates want so badly for the new British heir to be ritually circumcised for their own vainglory. Let us hope Kate and William will have the good sense Princess Diana had and spare their child needless mutilation.

UPDATE (7-31-2013):
I just had to post another headline that caught my eye; this time a mohel from the so-called "Initiation Society" eagers to cut the new prince's penis. Reads the Jewish Chronicle online:

"Bring me the royal baby and I’ll give him the snip, says top mohel"

Again, why?

How absolutely revolting.

UPDATE (8-11-2013):
FINALLY, a voice of reason from the UK:

"Prince George Being Circumcised? What Total TOSH!"

Everyone wants to know whether the new prince will be genitally mutilated except the Brits.

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.

Related Posts:  

Circumcision vs. Foreskin: Which Is the Fetish?

Related Link:
When the Queen is Dead: Long Live the Patriarchy?

Circumcision vs. Foreskin: Which Is the Fetish?

Among the smear tactics that circumcision advocates use to try to discredit intactivists, the accusation that they have an erotic fixation with the foreskin, to the point of a fetish, is not uncommon. I do believe that it may come second, the anti-Semite card being the first.

This notion that opponents of circumcision have an ulterior "foreskin fetish" is ridiculous in more ways than one, beginning with the fallacious logic that being opposed to the forced removal of a body part must automatically mean there is a sexual fixation with it. Under this same logic, those who oppose female genital cutting must have some sort of sexual fixation with the labia and/or clitoris. Perhaps those who devote themselves to creating breast cancer awareness must have an erotic fixation with breasts as well.

Fetish - What Does It Mean?
To understand what the word "fetish" means, as it relates to sexuality, let us analyze its definition from a few different sources.

Dictionary.com defines (sexual) "fetish" as:

3. any object or nongenital part of the body that causes a habitual erotic response or fixation.

This definition is straightforward, but something is missing. "Any object" is accurate, as this includes all objects, any object, that might not normally trigger a "habitual erotic response or fixation" in most people, such as shoes, neckties and aluminum foil. "Nongenital part of the body" is not clear enough; the breasts and buttocks are "nongenital parts of the body," although these elicit a a "habitual erotic response or fixation" in most males, at least in Western society. At least to me, "fetish" refers to "nongenital parts of the body" which do not normally cause a "habitual erotic response or fixation" in most people, such as the feet, the space behind the knee, or the underarms. This definition is close, but, in my opinion, incomplete.


The Free Dictionary defines (sexual) "fetish" as:

3. Something, such as a material object or a nonsexual part of the body, that arouses sexual desire and may become necessary for sexual gratification.

This definition comes closer, except that it is, in my opinion, forgiving. At least to me, "fetish" not something that "may become necessary for sexual gratification," but something without which sexual gratification is not possible. In this sense, Dictionary.com is more accurate, with its inclusion of "fixation."


Finally, Merriam-Webster defines "fetish" as:

1 - c : an object or bodily part whose real or fantasied presence is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification and that is an object of fixation to the extent that it may interfere with complete sexual expression

Merriam-Webster is much less forgiving, but still forgiving, with its usage of "may." It conflicts with "is necessary" in the first part of the definition. Since its real or fantasied presence "is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification," then a fetish most certainly does interfere with "complete sexual expression."

So Who Has a Fetish?
Now, let's analyze the realities surrounding the state of the circumcised and anatomically correct male human penis. While the presence of a foreskin is normal in all males at birth, the circumcised penis is a forced, artificial phenomenon. A subversion of what would otherwise be anatomically correct male genitalia, the circumcised penis is a contrived vision of what the male human penis is supposed to look like, which doesn't actually occur normally in nature; being born without a foreskin is considered a congenital anomaly, known as "aposthia."

Those who follow the exchanges between circumcision advocates and intactivists will notice that, while circumcision advocates accuse intactivists of having a "foreskin fetish," at the same time they argue ad populum that "women prefer circumcised penises," and that, furthermore they would not have sexual relations with men who were not circumcised.

"Foreskins gross me out. I would never have sex with a man who wasn't circumcised. My son's future wife will thank me because I didn't leave my son with a gross-looking anteater."

Let me reiterate Merriam-Webster's definition of "fetish":

1 - c : an object or bodily part whose real or fantasied presence is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification and that is an object of fixation to the extent that it may interfere with complete sexual expression

If not being circumcised is a problem to the extent that a person cannot have sex with a man with anatomically correct organs, and to the extent that such a person encourages others to refuse sex with genitally intact men, and that others circumcise their children to produce "sexually desirable men with circumcised penises," then I'd have to say that circumcision advocates have an obsession with circumcision that goes beyond a "fetish."

It's a Two-way Street, BUT...
The fetish accusation can go both ways; if a person cannot be sexually gratified unless a man has anatomically correct genitalia, if being circumcised is a deal-breaker, if that person is turned off by pornography with circumcised men in it, then it could be said that a person may have a "foreskin fetish." Therefore, only someone who for whom circumcision or the foreskin poses no obstacle for sexual gratification, one way or the other, can be said to not be harboring any kind of "fetish."

But something does not sit well with me; while those who prefer circumcised penises can be said to be "obsessed" with an artificial absence of a perfectly normal body part, those who prefer intact members would be "obsessed" with naturally occurring male genitals.

Let's change the body part and see what happens; if a man is attracted to women who are missing a breast due to a mastectomy, it could be said that that man has a fetish for women with a mastectomy. Could it be said, then, that a man has a "fetish" if he has a preference for a woman with both of her breasts, and is sexually turned off by a woman who is missing a breast?

Bluntly, my question is this; how can a sexual preference for normal body parts as they occur in nature, sexual body parts, mind you, be considered a "fetish?"

How is it "normal" to feel that sex without a foreskin is "complete sexual expression," and that the presence of a normal, healthy body part poses an obstacle for sexual gratification?

In what backwards society is the preference for normal, healthy genitals considered a "fetish," and a preference for maimed, mutilated organs, to the point of being unable to achieve sexual gratification otherwise, considered "normal?" 

The Rabbit Hole Goes Deeper... 

In addition to having a sexual fixation for the circumcised penis, there are those who derive sexual gratification from the act of circumcision itself (see apotemnophilia and acrotomophilia). They have sexual fantasies of power and control, that often involve minors and infants. These people, dubbed "circumfetishists" by those who know about them, have a few clubs and websites where they get together to discuss the erotic stimulation they experience by performing circumcision on others, voluntary or otherwise and/or watching other males being circumcised, swap fiction about it, and trade in videotapes of actual circumcisions.

Groups such as the Acorn Society, the Gilgal Society, and the Cutting Club openly admit to a morbid fascination with circumcision to the point of sado-masochistic fetish. These groups advertise that doctors are among their members; there are anecdotal accounts of doctors becoming sexually aroused when circumcising boys.

For those who can stomach it, the comments and behaviors of proponents of circumcision would make a fruitful area of psychological study. Circumcision certainly provides an opportunity not only to handle boys' penises without the condemnation that a sexual assault (in the sense that phrase is normally used) would attract, but also the opportunity to exercise power over another human being, to alter the penis and to control it and the boy's future sexual life.

In Closing
So who are the fetishists?

Is it those say children should be circumcised to make them "sexually attractive?"

Or is it those who insist children should be left alone?

Could it be that when circumcision advocates accuse intactivists of having a "foreskin fetish," the pot is calling the kettle black?

Related Posts:
CIRCUMGATE: UK Circumfetish Czar Finally Caught Red-Handed

NYTimes Plugs PrePex, Consorts With Known Circumfetish Organization

Of Ecstacy and Rape, Surgery and Mutilation

External Links:
CircLeaks - Circumfetish

CircLeaks - Gilgal Society

CircLeaks - CircList

CircLeaks - Vernon Quaintance 

CircLeaks - Brian J. Morris 

CircLeaks - Jake Waskett

Wikipedia - Apotemnophilia

Wikipedia - Acrotomophilia

CIRCUMCISION: For or Against? (NO BASHING!!!)

Much to the chagrin of circumcision advocates who spend endless hours trying to convince you that circumcision is a "non-issue," circumcision is highly controversial, and a guaranteed attention getter.

No parenting forum, webpage or Facebook group is complete without the obligatory circumcision thread, which always asks a question to the effect of "Are you pro or anti-circumcision?" Or "Circumcision: For or against?", and which is usually coupled with some sort of "NO BASHING!!!" warning.

These threads and the pages they're on are something of a paradox; asking for "no bashing," they posit a question that, because of its very nature, will elicit just that. Answering "no" or "anti" is going to be perceived as "bashing" by those who are "pro." Parents who circumcised their children invariably say "it's none of your business!" as they brag on a public parenting forum about having had their children circumcised.

But I digress, and I've already written a separate post about mommy pages and the "no bashing!!!" phenomenon.

"Do you support or oppose circumcision?" asks many a thread on public parenting forums, but this kind of bifurcation ignores many important factors that are relevant to the debate.

For example, is there a medical need? Are other alternatives available? Have they been tried? Shouldn't surgery be reserved as a very last resort?

As a thought experiment, let's replace "circumcision" with any other medical procedure.

Are you for or against appendectomies?

Do you support or oppose coronary bypasses?

Are you in favor of gall bladder removal?

Kidney transplants?

Suddenly, medical necessity becomes relevant, and whether you're "for or against" becomes a moot point, doesn't it.

Am I for or against circumcision?
I am against the forced circumcision of minors unless there is a legit medical need for it, and all other alternatives have failed.

This is standard medical practice governing all other medical procedures though.

If informed, conscientious adult males choose to be circumcised for non-medical reasons, I have no problem with this.


Bottom Line
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.


Related Posts:

The "Mommy Page" Wars

REPOST: If You Can't Stand the Heat...

The Circumcision Blame Game

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

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

The battle for genital integrity and basic human rights for boys has come a long way. Advocates of circumcision have come to realize that appeals to antiquity, tradition and religion simply aren't enough to justify the forced genital mutilation of healthy, non-consenting minors. They now call and plead with the gods of science and research to vindicate male infant circumcision, and to placate human rights activists, such as myself, as if science and research could be used to make an ethically repugnant practice morally acceptable.

While in the past, most parents confronted about the issue made appeals to their religion, or the fact that "this is what's been done in our family for generations," today, no circumcision apology is complete without appeals to knowledge and scientific research.

"Don't you insult us by posting links to studies and papers," retorts many a parent defensively; "We've done our research."

There are a few things wrong with this type of reasoning, beginning with the notion that an ethically repugnant practice can be made justifiable with "the right amount of research."

The second thing I find wrong with this kind of reasoning is the delusion that parents can demand procedures for their children as long as they can dig up the "research" that suits them, and that doctors are obliged to comply, like servants at their beck and call. For any other medical treatment and procedure, it is usually the doctor's professional responsibility to "do the research," and determine the medical validity of a procedure. Only after a doctor has issued a diagnosis and prescribed treatment can a parent be asked to consent to treatment. Circumcision seems to be the only instance in American medicine where it is lay parents, not doctors, who are expected to determine the medical validity of a surgical procedure, and then doctors are expected to act on this judgement, whether it be consistent or inconsistent with the medical trends of the time.

But thirdly, what I find particularly disconcerting about about "we've done our research" is the fact that, if current position statements from the most respected medical authorities in the world are correct, this is simply not possible.

The fact is that the trend of opinion on routine male circumcision is overwhelmingly negative in industrialized nations. No respected medical board in the world, not even the AAP, recommends circumcision for infants. All of them, including the AAP in their latest statement, state that there isn't sufficient evidence to warrant this endorsement, much to the chagrin of circumcision advocates.

It is simply not possible, then, that parents who defend their decision to have their male children circumcised "did their research."

Parents who claim having "done their research" and choose in favor of circumcision take an unfounded position against the best medical authorities of the West.

"We've done our research" is, then, a poor attempt at sounding intelligent, that human rights activists in the know will see through rather quickly.

Let it be clear...
No respected medical organization endorses male infant circumcision, not even the AAP. The most respected medical organizations in the West have weighed the current body of evidence, and have found it to be insufficient to recommend the circumcision of infants.

It is simply not possible, then, that parents who choose in favor of circumcision "did their research."

It is fallacious to expect lay parents to examine the same body of evidence, and come up with a more reasonable conclusion than that of entire organizations of medical professionals.


It is medically fraudulent that parents are being allowed to make a "choice" that is inconsistent with the conclusions of entire organizations of medical professionals, that doctors pretend that they can comply with such a "choice," and that public coffers are expected to reimburse them.

Without medical or clinical indication doctors have no business performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting minors, let alone be giving parents any kind of a “choice.”

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.

Related Posts:
Politically Correct Research: When Science, Morals and Political Agendas Collide

AAP: Around the Bush and Closer to Nowhere
 

OUT OF LINE: AAP Circumcision Policy Statement Formally Rejected

TU QUOQUE: The AAP Fends Off Accusations of Bias

The Circumcision Blame Game