Sunday, March 27, 2016

LUTON UK: Circumcision Censorship?


So last week, on Wednesday, March 23rd, Men Do Complain, an intactivist group in the UK held a protest in front of Thornhill Clinic, Luton, Bedfordshire, England, a clinic notorious for performing forcible male circumcision on minors.

 Apparently, the clinic pulled down the blinds and closed up shop for the duration of the protest.

The group received news coverage for their protest which was initially published, but has since been pulled.

The Luton Herald & Post had published two articles about the demonstration in front of Thornhill Clinic, but for unexplained reasons they've decided to pull them from their website, along with comments section which was accumulating much support of the group and their demonstration.




An original link to one of the articles, now defunct, is available here.

Men Do Complain members claim to have archived copies of the articles

Men Do Complain have a website and a Facebook page. Click on the links for more details.

Tuesday, March 15, 2016

FACEBOOK: Another Circumcision Mishap - Baby Hemorrhaging After Circumcision



Yet another tragedy from my Facebook news feed...

It breaks my heart every time I read these and parents are begging online for "prayers."

Did doctors not tell them what the risks of newborn circumcision are?

Did these parents do any research concerning what they were going to allow on their perfectly healthy newborn son?

If they are asking for "prayers," the family is most likely Christian. Are they not aware that circumcising a child is not a Christian virtue?

NO ONE should be asking for "prayers" regarding these perfectly preventable tragedies.

Here are the risks doctors should be warning EVERY PARENT about.

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 (HELLO???) and even death.

Circumcision is not medically necessary in a healthy newborn; it is purely elective, cosmetic surgery.

In most other cases, performing non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals constitutes medical fraud. In children, it is deliberate child abuse.

Without medical or clinical indication, how is it that doctors are performing non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting minors, let alone eliciting any kind of "decision" from parents?

These are circumcision cases that manage to surface 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 conscionable that any number of botches, complications and deaths is deemed "acceptable?"

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





Saving Our Sons is an intactivist non-profit organization engaged in an effort to provide parents and practitioners with research-based information on intact care and circumcision. Visit their homepage or like them on Facebook.

Friday, March 4, 2016

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: Circumcision Claims Another Life


A child of four has died after being circumcised, and his parents are left searching for answers.

Below is the online news article translated from Spanish:

Child dies after being circumcised

A child died on Tuesday morning after being circumcised at the Maternal Infant Center. The 4-year-old Yeidy Ramírez Beato was son of Johanna Beato and Anyelo Ramírez.

The directors at the clinic located an Rosario Street still haven't found reasonable explanation as to what caused the death of the minor.

The child's body was taken to INACIF of Santiago to carry out an autopsy to determine the cause of the child's death. (As if this weren't immediately obvious?)

According to the police report and certificate issued by medical examiner Cinencio Uribe, the minor died after being operated by Dr. Nelson Aybar, and anesthesiologist Dr. Abrahán García Gómez.


The child's family told LosMocanos.com, that supposedly it's about medical malpractice, and they seek an explanation as to why their son died.

On the video, the mother was crying uncontrollably as she asked herself "Why my son?"

The child died after having been circumcised.

Hundreds of curious members of the press were inquiring over the sad tragedy, as one can see in the video.




Video uploaded on March 2, 2016

The question is, why was this child operated on?

What illness was the child suffering that he needed to be circumcised?

Was the child suffering a disease for which there was no other solution?

Or did doctors recommend this to the parents for supposed "medical benefits?"

Did the doctors tell the parents that their 4-year-old was suffering "phimosis?"

Were the risks of circumcision clearly explained to the child's parents?

If there was no medical indication, then clearly here, the doctors are to blame, for offering this "choice" to the child's parents.

Reaping profit from non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals constitutes medical fraud. In children, clear child abuse.

The saddest part of this is that without clear medical or clinical indication, basically this child died in vain.

Had the child not been submitted to this needless procedure, he would still be alive.

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 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 Posts:
MALE INFANT CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Boy Dies

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

CANADA: CPS Diverges from AAP on Infant Circumcision

CIRCUMCISION RISK: Two More Circumcision Botches

FACEBOOK: Two Botches and a Death

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

ONTARIO CIRCUMCISION DEATH: The Plot Thickens

Joseph4GI: The Circumcision Blame Game

Phony Phimosis: How American Doctors Get Away With Medical Fraud


Thursday, March 3, 2016

Israel Ahead of New York in Recommending Against Metzitzah B'Peh



Following the deaths of two newborns as a direct result of herpes infection through metzitzah b'peh, an ultra-orthodox practice where a mohel sucks blood from the circumcision wound of a newly circumcised newborn, and the infection of several others, the New York City Health Department issued a mandate that would require parents to sign a consent form before allowing a mohel to perform metztizah b’peh on their sons, as a measure to protect further boys from being infected.

Had the measure actually been implemented, the health commission would have imposed penalties at its own discretion. They would respond to public complaints and investigate the claims, and that repercussions would have ranged from a phone call or a formal warning letter, to fines of up to $2,000 for each violation.

The mandate was more of a gesture, because there was no actual ban or regulation of metzitzah b'peh, and mohels would face no penalties whatsoever if the waivers were not signed.

Despite the mandate having been essentially impotent, ultra-orthodox rabbis were intolerant of what they saw as an "unconstitutional, shocking governmental overreach." Rabbi William Handler, leader of Traditional Bris Milah, a self-proclaimed group formed to “protect Jewish ritual circumcision,” declared this mandate to be "the first step in completely taking away traditional bris milah from the Jewish people in New York City.”

To prevent this mandate from taking effect, several rabbis and Jewish organizations, including Agudath Israel of America and the International Bris Association, filed a lawsuit at the Federal District Court in Manhattan. They accused mayor Bloomberg of "blood libel," and the New York City Health Department of "trying to enforce erroneous opinions on the people of New York City." They claim the city lacked “any definitive proof” that metzitzah b’peh “poses health risks of any kind," despite the fact that the CDC found a total of 11 baby Jewish boys in NYC were infected with herpes.

Concerned Rabbis kept fighting to push back the date of the regulation's actual implementation, and after much ado, NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio finally annulled the regulation enforced by the Bloomberg administration on the practice of Metzitzah B’peh last year.

Essentially, babies died of herpes infections, several others were infected, and it's as if nothing actually ever happened.

In Israel, on the other hand, the Israeli Health Ministry is planning to go as far and distribute a detailed document dealing with the risks and advantages of metzitsah b'peh to new parents.

According to the Jewish Press, many doctors say the practice increases by 350% the chance of infecting the newborn baby with herpes simplex.

Some members of the chief rabbinate were concerned that the move might harm mohels, the Jewish Press says.

And I ask, what, pray tell, about the babies?

Nonetheless, I must say, how interesting the turn of events. What the health ministry in New York couldn't do, they're actually doing in Israel.

Related Posts:

Rabbis Delay NYC's Metzitzah B'Peh Regulations - Meanwhile, in Israel...

While PACE Holds a Hearing on Circumcision, Another Baby Contracts Herpes in NYC

Mohels Spreading Herpes: New York Looks the Other Way

NEW STUDY: Ultra-Orthodox Mohels Don't Give Babies Herpes

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

NEW YORK: Yet Another Herpes Baby

 Herpes Circumcision Babies: Another One? Geez!

BUSTED: Agudath Israel of America's Antics Revealed

Monday, February 29, 2016

FACEBOOK: Child in NICU After Lung Collapses During Circumcision


Another tragedy from my Facebook news feed...

This won't be on the news.

Leonardo DiCaprio's Oscar and Donald Trump's latest profanity are more important.

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.

Circumcision is not medically necessary in a healthy newborn; it is purely elective, cosmetic surgery.

How is conscionable that doctors are performing non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting minors, let alone eliciting any kind of "decision" from parents?

These are circumcision cases that manage to surface 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 deaths is deemed "acceptable?"

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





Saving Our Sons is an intactivist non-profit organization engaged in an effort to provide parents and practitioners with research-based information on intact care and circumcision. Visit their homepage or like them on Facebook.

Thursday, February 25, 2016

FGM NEWS: Gynecologysts Urge a "Nick" as Compromise for FGM


As of 1996, federal law condemns the forced cutting of female genitals in any way, shape or form, and there is no exemption for any form of female genital cutting for religious purposes.

Even the smallest "ritual nick" constitutes "female genital mutilation" (FGM) under the law, and it is a punishable criminal offense.

In contrast, male infant circumcision can be freely performed by anyone, from a doctor with a scalpel, to a parent wielding an X-acto knife. The arguments are that parents have "parental choice," and/or "religious freedom" to cut off their child's foreskin.

For whatever reason "parental choice" as an excuse to cut up a child's genitals seems to be privilege bestowed upon parents, only if their religion is Judaism, and/or only if the child is male.

If you happen to be Muslim and you believe your religious beliefs command you to cut up your daughter, or if you happen to be a parent from Africa, whose tribe dictates that female members must undergo some sort of genital cutting ritual, you're out of luck.

But a couple of gynecologists have just published a paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics urging for compromise, proposing what they call a "nick."

The argument is that this could be a substitute for "more severe" forms of FGM.

Several news sources have already started weighing in on the matter.

Perhaps thanks to intactivism, the comparison of female genital cutting and female genital cutting is becoming almost compulsory in news outlets, if but only to insist that there actually be no comparison.

On some news articles, the authors seem to have forgotten the history of male circumcision in this country, or simply didn't bother to check.

And then, almost as if by clockwork, the obligatory reference to the WHO or AAP giving their non-committal endorsement of male circumcision is made, forgetting the fact that, at least in the case of the WHO, male circumcision is endorsed on males who voluntarily comply to be circumcised, which is slightly different than forcibly performing ritual cutting on a non-consenting minor.

From the CNN article:
"...all forms of FGM are rooted in the control of female sexuality. Male circumcision has its roots in cultural and religious practices involved in enforcing cleanliness, practices that have since been validated by the World Health Organization and the American Academy of Pediatrics."

Actually, male genital cutting, or "circumcision" as the authors prefer to euphemize it here, has roots in cultural and religious practices involved in attempting to curb masturbation in males, and to make them "more focused on god." The "validation," if one can even call it that, is a relatively recent phenomenon.

What is the implication here?

That it's merely a matter of changing the motives?

That if those who wished to perform female genital cutting would do it under pretense of "cleanliness," it would be more acceptable?

And why are the WHO and AAP invoked here?

I think it is interesting that they do; is the difference between female genital cutting and male genital cutting really whether or not the WHO and/or AAP "validate" it?

Or would female genital cutting be morally reprehensible regardless?

Incidentally, it seems organizations like the WHO and AAP are precisely the kind of people they're trying to woo.

These women better be careful what they wish for, or they just might get it.

Newsweek has this to say on the matter:
"Despite being perceived as a practice linked to Islam, FGM is a cultural practice that has no basis in religion. No religious texts prescribe FGM, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), while Human Rights Watch says the practice is “erroneously linked” to religion and “is not particular to any religious faith."

This is rather ballsy to be dictating people's beliefs, is it not?

The religiosity of male infant genital cutting seems to be off limits as a discussion point.

The WHO and HRW, however, will not hesitate to dictate what the beliefs of those who practice female genital cutting will be.

To be sure, the Qur'an makes no mention of either male or female genital cutting as a religious sacrament.

Female genital cutting, along with male genital cutting is, however, discussed in Hadith:
Abu Hurayrah said: I heard the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: “The fitrah is five things – or five things are part of the fitrah – circumcision, shaving the pubes, trimming the moustache, cutting the nails and plucking the armpit hairs.”Bukhari 5891; Muslim 527

(Note that gender is not specified.)
Abu al- Malih ibn `Usama's father relates that the Prophet said: "Circumcision is a law for men and a preservation of honour for women."
Ahmad Ibn Hanbal 5:75; Abu Dawud, Adab 167.
Narrated Umm Atiyyah al-Ansariyyah: A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said to her: Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband.
Abu Dawud 41:5251

So note, women should be cut, just not "severely."

Well. At least according to Hadith.

So the claims that "no religious texts prescribe FGM" and that it is "erroneously linked" to religion, and "not particular to any religious faith" are wishful thinking and categorically false.

The question is, however, does it really matter?

Dr. Gillian Einstein is on to something.

This is an excerpt from the article at Global News:


“I think there’s a confusion over who controls the practice. So it’s women who control the practice, not men,” she said. 

“The practice itself does give women a lot of power. And so figuring out other sources of power is a culture change, and I think cultures that have thought about it from that perspective had been a lot more successful in changing the practice.”

Who controls the practice of male genital cutting?

Who would necessarily feel "power" by practicing it?

If males used this model of "power," what would stop females from the same society from adopting the same principle, only on their daughters, as fathers and male members with their sons?

Sadly Adwoa Kwateng-Kluvitse, head of global advocacy at the charity FORWARD, which campaigns against FGM in Africa and Europe, repeats falsehoods to serve her own ends:
“This is very different to male circumcision. With male circumcision there is no intention to attenuate sexual desire, control sexuality or enforce chastity.”

No, these were precisely the goals of John Harvey Kellogg and Sylvester Graham, the champions of male genital cutting in America.

Rabbi Maimonides tells us that desensitizing the male organ was precisely the purpose of male genital cutting as this would make its owner focused on more important things, like god and religious scripture.

This bold-faced, self-serving revision of history is appalling.

Arianne Shahvisi, a lecturer in medical ethics at Britain’s University of Sussex, drives home the point that "It comes down to women and girls being able to have a say in what happens to their bodies. One must not cause irreversible changes to the body of another person without their consent."

This is precisely our argument as intactivists.

Aurora and Jacobs, the authors of the paper advocating for the "nick" are actually inadvertently helping intactivists.

How?

They're actually coming out and admitting on a published journal that there are forms of female genital cutting that are less severe than male genital cutting as commonly practiced in the US and elsewhere.

An excerpt from Raw Story:

Arora and Jacobs have proposed new sub-categories of genital cutting.

Category One would entail procedures with no long-lasting effect on the appearance or function of the genitalia, such as a “small nick” in the skin.

Procedures under Category Two may affect appearance, but not reproductive capacity or sexual enjoyment, they said. This could include removing the “hood” or skin-fold covering the clitoris or trimming the labia (labiaplasty).


The first two categories, they said, should be reclassified as female genital “alteration” (FGA) rather than “mutilation”.

“These procedures are equivalent or less extensive than male circumcision in procedure, scope and effect,” they wrote.

“Indeed, they are equivalent or less extensive than orthodontia, breast implantation or even the elective labiaplasty for which affluent women pay thousands of dollars.”

It took long enough, but finally people, notably women, in the academic field, are actually coming out and saying it.

This has all happened before.

Not too long ago, the AAP also tried to endorse a "ritual nick."

The arguments were identical; allow a less-severe form of female genital cutting, even less severe than male genital cutting as practiced in the west, in lieu of more severe forms.

The move was short-lived, as a world outcry caused them to renege.

Aurora and Jacobs go a step further and play the name game.

"Call it alteration instead," they say.

Does calling it something else really change what it is?

A forced, permanent violation of another, unwilling person's body?

The forced cutting up of a healthy, non-consenting person's most private, most intimate organs?

Should there be a compromise?

I think readers already know what my position on the subject is.

I'll end this one here and let you ponder for yourselves.

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

Male and Female Infant Circumcision: Which One is Worse?

Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

Friday, February 5, 2016

FACEBOOK: A Long-Time Friend Questions Male Infant Circumcision


So I was scrolling down my Facebook news feed, when I notice that someone had shared an interesting post about a hypothetical scenario comparing male infant circumcision and rhinoplasty.

This shouldn't be too surprising; I have a lot of intactivist friends that post and/share intactivist posts, news articles and memes all the time.

The peculiar thing about this one particular share was that it was done by a friend who I least suspected would ever share such a thing.

We had discussed male infant circumcision on other occasions, and although she wasn't a militant pro-circumcision advocate, she lead on that she believed that circumcision was a parent's choice, and wasn't too keen on the idea of challenging what is known to be a fairly common procedure and taking away that "choice."

We hadn't touched on the subject for a while. We sometimes make contact on Facebook, but never more than a the occasional "like" or comment on a picture or post.

Well, when I saw that this friend shared the story you are about to read, I was grinning from ear to ear.

I'm glad to know that at least one more person I know has come to not only question male infant circumcision, but also to share posts like these and spread awareness among her circle of friends.

Could it be that our previous conversation made a difference?

In the interest of privacy, I'm not going to name any names, but I just wanted to share the story my friend re-posted on my blog.

So, I took my newborn in for a nose-job…

and his pediatrician flipped out on me. Can you freaking believe it?!?!


I told her that his nose looked different than my husband’s, and I’d like them to look the same. This should avoid any awkward questions when he’s older. The doc looked at me like I was insane and told me that was no reason to perform elective surgery on a neonate.


I told her that the girls would probably like him better when he started dating if he had a nose-job. Again, baffled, the doctor told me that she could not, and would not, perform cosmetic surgery on a newborn for such a ridiculous reason.


I told the doc that I had heard a rumor that my son would be less likely to get rhinitis later in life if we removed a little of his schnozola. Starting to show a little concern for my parenting, she told me that there was no conclusive evidence to support elective surgery as a means of effectively preventing complications or infection in adulthood.


Starting to get impatient, I told her that I just wanted to get this over with. After all, my son would probably decide later in life that he’d like a designer nose, so it was better to just have it done now while he was too little to remember, and probably couldn't feel it anyway. Looking at me like I was bonkers, she asked me what made me think that this perfectly formed little person wasn’t capable of feeling pain. Hadn’t he shrieked when he had a tiny pin-prick to draw blood from his heel? Of course he could feel pain!


I told her that I thought it would be easier for him to keep his nose clean if we just took a tiny bit off. I could see the doc making a mental note to call child protective services on my crazy ass, but she humored me and explained that it’s very easy to teach a child how to properly clean his nose.


I told her that I was afraid that years later, all of his friends at school might have a certain kind of nose, and that he would be ridiculed. The doctor told me that everyone’s nose is different, and that she would not be performing elective surgery on a newborn for such an asinine reason.


I told her that I heard that lots of people were having their newborns’ noses done. She didn’t even have an answer for this one… she was just so shocked that her jaw hung open!


I told her that this was my baby, and I wanted this nose-job done today! After all, how risky could it be?!?! The doc told me that performing surgery on a newborn is always risky, and should only be done when absolutely necessary for the well-being of the baby.


END OF DISCUSSION.


No nose-job would be happening for my baby today.


Disappointed, I began to leave.


But then I remembered the other reason I had brought my baby in to the pediatrician’s office that day.


“When can we have him circumcised?” I asked.


“We can fit him in today if you’d like!” replied the doc. “Although your insurance doesn't cover it any longer, because it's considered cosmetic, so you’ll have to pay the full $500 up front. Is that okay?”


-Author Unknown


As long as you have the ability to process information, this should make you THINK.

Related Post: