Thursday, November 26, 2015

PLANNED PARENTHOOD OTTAWA: Teach Children "Consent" and "Bodily Autonomy"

So I'm scrolling through my Facebook news feed and I run across this poster put out by Planned Parenthood Ottawa, and I thought it was rather cute:

Or rather, I thought it was rather hypocritical considering what other Planned Parenthood chapters have done without contest or mitigation.

It was posted by a Facebook page/group called "Trustable Sluts" (Original post here. Last accessed Thursday, Thanksgiving Day 2015.) with the following caption:

"Children, just like everyone else, have the right to set boundaries about who can touch them and how."

This is so funny.

I mean, this is precisely what we, as intactivists, have been saying all along.

I replied on their post with this:

"Hey Planned Parenthood Ottawa. You know how you can teach parents about respecting a child's consent and bodily autonomy? Tell them to forgo male infant circumcision. Otherwise this graphic is pure lip service. Wait for the "that's different" arguments. You can't teach children "consent and bodily autonomy" when the first thing you do to them once they're born is strap them down and cut off part of their most private, intimate part of their bodies."

Our whole point is that children should be allowed to make decisions about their own bodies, their own boundaries, and that their wishes should be respected.

Tying a child down and forcibly cutting off a normal, healthy part of his body teaches him from day one that his body is not his own, that it is for others to do with as they please, and that they should sacrifice themselves for the need and satisfaction of others.

Let's see how long before this gets deleted, and I'm expecting it.

Lord forbid someone slap people with with their own hypocrisy.

Related Posts:
INTACTIVISTS: Planned Parenthood is Not Our Friend

 PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Mutilated is the New "Normal"

NEW HAMPSHIRE: Bill to Defund Circumcision Heard - Dissenters Included Planned Parenthood and a Rabbi

Monday, November 16, 2015

FLORIDA CIRCUMCISION SAGA: Child Forcibly Circumcised, Diagnosed With Leukemia

I am not going to recapitulate the entire Florida Circumcision Saga. Readers who are interested can read past posts which are posted below.

In short, a mother had been fighting to keep the father of her son from circumcising him, and she lost that battle when a judge ordered her to sign the consent forms under duress for the circumcision of the 4-year-old.

The most that the mother could hope for was that doctors acknowledge that it would be unethical for them to circumcise a healthy, non-consenting child against his wishes, knowing that her "assent" was obtained by force.
One doctor has threatened to file a complaint with the State Department of Health.

It has now come to light that the child has been forcibly circumcised against his wishes, and against his mother's wishes, as his father wanted.

The child was not allowed to see his mother for six months, and only recently was allowed one single, brief hospital visit with her.

And, as if this child weren't suffering enough, he has been diagnosed with leukemia and is beginning treatments.

Intactivist Speculation
Word on Facebook is that the child was circumcised with no pre-operation lab tests performed as part of his pre-surgery clearance. The child may have not been healing well or looking well after the surgery, which prompted doctors to run the tests, and that this is how they found out that the child had leukemia.

Unfortunately, this is all pure speculation; all of this is unknown, or information that has not been made public.

If these rumors are true, then it shows negligence on the part of all who facilitated this child's needless surgery, and that they were all interested in having this child undergo needless surgery above all else.

The whole lot of them.

The father, the father's doctor friends who gave him referrals to pediatric surgeons, the father's attorneys, the judge who made it possible for the boy to be snatched from his mother, and ultimately, the doctor who performed needless surgery on the child, all of them should be held responsible for negligence and malicious/selfish intent at the expense of a child's rights and his health.

Medical and Legal Battles Ahead
The mother will be facing more legal battles ahead, in addition to her child's new battle with cancer.

Readers can support this family's needs by:

1) Giving via PayPal directly to the family:

2) Giving a tax deductible donation to Chase's Family via Saving Our Sons: PayPal

3) Mailing a check directly to Heather's attorney with a memo that it is for Heather Hironimus:

Law Offices of Brian M. Moskowitz
Memo: Heather Hironimus
Boca Raton Divorce Lawyer
2295 NW Corporate Blvd, Suite 117
Boca Raton, FL 33431

4) Taking part in the Fight4CRH fundraisers.

Update (11/16/2015)
Intact America has posted the following statement on their Facebook page, and I felt it needed to be repeated here:

The collective heart of the intactivist movement is breaking for Chase Hironimus, barely five years old. First, he was ripped from his mother’s arms by a father and a court system that judged her to be an unfit parent for daring to protect her son from medically unnecessary circumcision. Then, he was handed over to a father obsessed with the desire to mutilate his genitals. In turn, Chase’s father delivered him to doctors eager to violate his rights and his body by carrying out that mutilation for a fee. Only when Chase’s circumcision wound did not heal did those doctors begin to worry about the child’s well-being, conducting tests which led to the discovery that Chase has leukemia

Our country, the United States of America, has passed laws prohibiting any genital cutting of girl children. But our courts, hospitals, and medical professionals (who have taken an oath to “do no harm”) assiduously promote the amputation of normal, sensitive body parts from innocent boys whose “consent” is a fantasy made possible because of the ease with which children are overpowered. 

We are sickened almost beyond words at the genital mutilation and serious illness of this innocent child. But we also know that both Chase and his mother Heather are in intense need of support. Please send your cards filled with love and best wishes to Chase Hironimus, c/o Brian Moskowitz, 2295 Corporate Blvd NW, Ste 117, Boca Raton, FL 33431.

Mr. Moskowitz, Heather’s attorney, will see that the cards are delivered to Heather and Chase.
Please share this post widely.
What a sad, sad day it is in this country...

Past Posts:
FLORIDA UPDATE: Father Intent on Circumcising 4-yo Son Seeks to Legally Paralyze Mother
FLORIDA: What Happened Today As Per Intact America
FLORIDA BULLETIN: Circumcision Scheduled for 4-yo - Anonymous User Discloses Details
FLORIDA: Joe DiMaggio Children's Hospital Complicit in Medical Fraud, Child Abuse?
 FLORIDA CIRCUMCISION SAGA: Mother May Get Monitored Visits With Her Son

Wednesday, November 11, 2015

TUNISIA: 6yo Loses His Penis to Circumcision

A child of 6 loses his entire penis to circumcision.

In countries outside of the United States, Muslims tend to circumcise their male children at much later ages. (Approx. 98% of Tunisia's population is Muslim)

The surgery was performed in a hospital setting by a licensed professional handling the latest technology.

The child was left for a week in excruciating pain as he suffered necrotic deterioration without any help for what was done.

A functional dildo attached subcutaneously is being considered as a replacement.

The main concerns seem to be that he be able to urinate standing up and that his future partners might "feel something."

Nevermind the child.

And let's forget about the fact that they're trying to repair a botch for a surgery that was never needed in the first place.

Read the article in French here.

Wednesday, October 28, 2015

TEXAS: 'Nother Circumcision Botch

Yet another circumcision botch has surfaced on Facebook, this time in Arlington, Texas.


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:

Monday, October 26, 2015

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:

Related Posts:

CANADA: CPS Diverges from AAP on Infant Circumcision

CIRCUMCISION RISK: Two More Circumcision Botches

Thursday, October 22, 2015

CIRCUMCISION RISK: Two More Circumcision Botches

I can't keep writing long drawn out posts for these...

What I'm gonna do from now on with circumcision mishaps is just write quick blurbs about them unless they warrant longer commentary.

When necessary I'll consolidate.

There's just so many being reported at a time and I just don't have the time to write a post for each and everyone.

Let's see we have a child admitted to the ER in Arizona because he wouldn't stop bleeding...

...and an infection in Illinois the mother wants to sue for.

This last one was actually cropped from the original because it's too graphic to post. If you really want to see it, click here at your own risk. CAUTION: GRAPHIC

You won't find these in the news, because they rarely, if ever, make it.

Instead you'll read about them on Facebook, where they'll surface for a bit while a parent is actually reacting the way they should at every circumcision, and then you never hear about them again. (Perhaps doctors get them to settle and keep quiet about it? Who knows...)

The AAP and friends repeat a 0.2% risk in circumcision complications and they really don't get into what they are.

Is that number accurate?

Has the AAP actually looked into it, or are they just pulling it out of thin air so as to minimize the risk to cover their circumcising members' rear ends?

Circumcision has risks.

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

Here are yet two more botch cases that have surfaced on the internet.

Is the AAP counting?

Because we are.

Shit floats, and the AAP is going to look very bad if real numbers don't reflect their 0.2% figure.

But even so, what does 0.2% of 1.3 million newborn infants look like?

Unless my math skills completely suck, and someone correct me here, that's approximately 2600 babies that will suffer some sort of mishap.

Really? That's an acceptable risk for an elective, non-medical procedure?