Wednesday, November 28, 2012

My response to "The Weal - Holding on to that Extra layer"

My response to "The Weal - Holding on to that Extra layer" - I tried to post as a comment, I don't know if it will go through moderation, so here it is.


Interesting how the choice of words denotes bias. The author fails to spell intactivism correctly. He spells "inactivist" not "intact", and he calls it a "group". It's not a group, it's a current of thought, a movement. There are several intactivist organizations and thousands of non-affiliated individuals. According to the author, the "inactivists" (sic) "declare", while the pro-circumcision brigade "explains". These words are carefully selected to express to sway the opinion.

Circumcision does not "prevent" HIV, no organization has said that. They say that it "reduces the risk" (cdc.gov), which is different, but even that statement has met criticism (When bad science kills, or how to spread AIDS) and is often misunderstood (most people ignore the fact that any reduction would be only for transmission from a female to a male, and that it wouldn't protect females from transmission by a male or males who have sex with males).

The mentioned health care costs come from a simulation by Aaron Tobian, who used data from Africa and extrapolated to the situation of the United States, rather than comparing to a more equivalent society such as Europe.

Dr. Weiss says that Langerhans cells are target for HIV, however a 2007 study by de Witte et al (Langerin is a natural barrier to HIV-1 transmission by Langerhans cells.), which most pro-circumcision researchers seem to ignore, found that Langerin is a naturall barrier to HIV-1 infection. And while Zimbabwe discusses making child circumcision compulsory (Infant circumcision could soon be compulsory ), people in Zimbabwe are starting to wonder if they were fooled by the circumcision researchers in light of recent reports that new cases of HIV are more prevalent among circumcised men (Were we fooled? ).

Some European medical organizations are preparing a statement to be presented next year as a rebuttal of the AAP's statement. Even more, the Royal Dutch Medical Association presented a viewpoint in 2010 which calls to discourage non-therapeutic circumcision of minors for its dubious benefits and the real possibility of physical and psychological damage (Royal Dutch Medical Association).

Back in the late XIX and early XX century, when "medical" circumcision started in the United States (as a way to "cure masturbation"), there were already doctors debating and opposing this "obsession". This debate has not finished, but it's time we recognize that children have the right to grow up with their whole body, and that they shouldn't be subjected to an amputation in lack of a condition that represents an immediate threat to their well-being, until they can provide their own, autonomous, informed consent.

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Response to a page on Circumcision and HPV Risk

Response to this page on Circumcision and HPV Risk

http://www.everydayhealth.com/sexual-health/circumcision-and-hpv-risk.aspx

(it appears that posting comments is not working)

"A Personal Decision" -- Parents forcing babies to become circumcised opposes the principle of personal decision. The child's penis is not the family's penis.

“I think there’s a good reason why it has stuck around,” -- Well, FGM has been around for a long time as well, hasn't it?

"Some also argue that: It reduces sexual pleasure in males." -- All you have to do is study the anatomy of the foreskin and you will see that it is not a belief, it's a fact that it affects male sexuality. Why do you think that institutions that promote circumcision NEVER talk about the functions and anatomy of the foreskin?

"It helps prevent foreskin infections." -- prevention by obliteration, good job! By the same logic we could amputate nipples to prevent paget's disease or breast buds to prevent breast cancer. What other parts of the body are we willing to give up to prevent conditions of those parts? Nails to prevent ingrown nails and fungal infections? Body parts in clearance.

"It helps prevent phimosis" -- Again, prevention by amputation. There are more conservative treatments for phimosis. We can prevent finger fracture by amputating fingers, how's that? Same logic!

"urinary tract infections" - How do uncircumcised males compare to females? How do we treat female babies with UTIs? What parts do we amputate from them to prevent the UTIs? Amputation is not proportional to the risk of a UTI.

"It is easier for men to practice proper genital hygiene." -- Yes, all of the 2 seconds that it takes to give a gentle pull to your member in the shower. Shouldn't we cut labia as well to facilitate genital hygiene? Or better, just teach everyone to wash properly. Are you sure you are not confusing physical hygiene with the moral hygiene of the Victorian doctors who promoted circumcision to cure masturbators back in the XIX century?

What about Gardasil for men?

And in fact, given that a condom is not full protection against HPV because there can be contact with parts of the skin not covered by the condom where the virus can reside, then how circumcision changes that, given that the treated area is precisely covered by the condom? That makes no sense.

"A Personal Decision" -- Parents forcing babies to become circumcised opposes the principle of personal decision. The child's penis is not the family's penis.

“I think there’s a good reason why it has stuck around,” -- Well, FGM has been around for a long time as well, hasn't it?

"Some also argue that: It reduces sexual pleasure in males." -- All you have to do is study the anatomy of the foreskin and you will see that it is not a belief, it's a fact that it affects male sexuality. Why do you think that institutions that promote circumcision NEVER talk about the functions and anatomy of the foreskin?

"It helps prevent foreskin infections." -- prevention by obliteration, good job! By the same logic we could amputate nipples to prevent paget's disease or breast buds to prevent breast cancer. What other parts of the body are we willing to give up to prevent conditions of those parts? Nails to prevent ingrown nails and fungal infections? Body parts in clearance.

"It helps prevent phimosis" -- Again, prevention by amputation. There are more conservative treatments for phimosis. We can prevent finger fracture by amputating fingers, how's that? Same logic!

"urinary tract infections" - How do uncircumcised males compare to females? How do we treat female babies with UTIs? What parts do we amputate from them to prevent the UTIs? Amputation is not proportional to the risk of a UTI.

"It is easier for men to practice proper genital hygiene." -- Yes, all of the 2 seconds that it takes to give a gentle pull to your member in the shower. Shouldn't we cut labia as well to facilitate genital hygiene? Or better, just teach everyone to wash properly. Are you sure you are not confusing physical hygiene with the moral hygiene of the Victorian doctors who promoted circumcision to cure masturbators back in the XIX century?

What about gardasil for men?

And in fact, given that a condom is not full protection against HPV because there can be contact with parts of the skin not covered by the condom where the virus can reside, then how circumcision changes that, given that the treated area is precisely covered by the condom? That makes no sense.

"A Personal Decision" -- Parents forcing babies to become circumcised opposes the principle of personal decision. The child's penis is not the family's penis.

“I think there’s a good reason why it has stuck around,” -- Well, FGM has been around for a long time as well, hasn't it?

"Some also argue that: It reduces sexual pleasure in males." -- All you have to do is study the anatomy of the foreskin and you will see that it is not a belief, it's a fact that it affects male sexuality. Why do you think that institutions that promote circumcision NEVER talk about the functions and anatomy of the foreskin?

"It helps prevent foreskin infections." -- prevention by obliteration, good job! By the same logic we could amputate nipples to prevent paget's disease or breast buds to prevent breast cancer. What other parts of the body are we willing to give up to prevent conditions of those parts? Nails to prevent ingrown nails and fungal infections? Body parts in clearance.

"It helps prevent phimosis" -- Again, prevention by amputation. There are more conservative treatments for phimosis. We can prevent finger fracture by amputating fingers, how's that? Same logic!

"urinary tract infections" - How do uncircumcised males compare to females? How do we treat female babies with UTIs? What parts do we amputate from them to prevent the UTIs? Amputation is not proportional to the risk of a UTI.

"It is easier for men to practice proper genital hygiene." -- Yes, all of the 2 seconds that it takes to give a gentle pull to your member in the shower. Shouldn't we cut labia as well to facilitate genital hygiene? Or better, just teach everyone to wash properly. Are you sure you are not confusing physical hygiene with the moral hygiene of the Victorian doctors who promoted circumcision to cure masturbators back in the XIX century?

What about gardasil for men?

And in fact, given that a condom is not full protection against HPV because there can be contact with parts of the skin not covered by the condom where the virus can reside, then how circumcision changes that, given that the treated area is precisely covered by the condom? That makes no sense.

"A Personal Decision" -- Parents forcing babies to become circumcised opposes the principle of personal decision. The child's penis is not the family's penis.

“I think there’s a good reason why it has stuck around,” -- Well, FGM has been around for a long time as well, hasn't it?

"Some also argue that: It reduces sexual pleasure in males." -- All you have to do is study the anatomy of the foreskin and you will see that it is not a belief, it's a fact that it affects male sexuality. Why do you think that institutions that promote circumcision NEVER talk about the functions and anatomy of the foreskin?

"It helps prevent foreskin infections." -- prevention by obliteration, good job! By the same logic we could amputate nipples to prevent paget's disease or breast buds to prevent breast cancer. What other parts of the body are we willing to give up to prevent conditions of those parts? Nails to prevent ingrown nails and fungal infections? Body parts in clearance.

"It helps prevent phimosis" -- Again, prevention by amputation. There are more conservative treatments for phimosis. We can prevent finger fracture by amputating fingers, how's that? Same logic!

"urinary tract infections" - How do uncircumcised males compare to females? How do we treat female babies with UTIs? What parts do we amputate from them to prevent the UTIs? Amputation is not proportional to the risk of a UTI.

"It is easier for men to practice proper genital hygiene." -- Yes, all of the 2 seconds that it takes to give a gentle pull to your member in the shower. Shouldn't we cut labia as well to facilitate genital hygiene? Or better, just teach everyone to wash properly. Are you sure you are not confusing physical hygiene with the moral hygiene of the Victorian doctors who promoted circumcision to cure masturbators back in the XIX century?

What about gardasil for men?

And in fact, given that a condom is not full protection against HPV because there can be contact with parts of the skin not covered by the condom where the virus can reside, then how circumcision changes that, given that the treated area is precisely covered by the condom? That makes no sense.

Monday, November 19, 2012

CDC Circumcision HIV Langerin Langerhans Cells

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CDC on their page on Male Circumcision (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/malecircumcision/) gives this explanation to the biological plausibility between circumcision status and HIV:

"Compared with the dry external skin surface of the glans penis and penile shaft, the inner mucosa of the foreskin has less keratinization (deposition of fibrous protein) and a higher density of target cells for HIV infection [2]. Some laboratory studies have shown the foreskin is more susceptible to HIV infection than other penile tissue [3], although others have failed to show any difference in the ability of HIV to penetrate inner compared with outer foreskin surface [4]. The foreskin may also have greater susceptibility to traumatic epithelial disruptions (tears) during intercourse, providing a portal of entry for pathogens, including HIV [5]. In addition, the microenvironment in the preputial sac between the unretracted foreskin and the glans penis may be conducive to viral survival [3]. Finally, the presence of other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), which independently may be more common in uncircumcised men, increase the risk for HIV acquisition [6-11]. "

What's interesting is that this ignores De witte L et al 2007, "Langerin is a natural barrier to HIV-1 transmission by Langerhans cells" which states that " Langerin is a natural barrier to HIV-1 infection, and strategies to combat infection must enhance, preserve or, at the very least, not interfere with Langerin expression and function."







De witte L, Nabatov A, Pion M et-al. Langerin is a natural barrier to HIV-1 transmission by Langerhans cells. Nat. Med. 2007;13 (3): 367-71. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nm1541">doi:10.1038/nm1541</a> - <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17334373">Pubmed citation</a><div class="ref_v2"></div>

Saturday, November 17, 2012

Former White House Doctor Connie Mariano promotes newborn circumcision

In a website called EmpowerHER, former White House Doctor Connie Mariano promotes newborn circumcision for the potential health benefits later in life. See http://www.empowher.com/parenting/content/circumcision-its-more-just-snip-her-health-minute-dr-connie

My comment on her article:


"in my opinion and the CDC's, a little snip is well worth the risk"
Well Dr. Connie, what if it was a little snip of your female body? What other parts of the body are we willing to forgo in the name of some potential medical benefits? What if we are men who don't sleep around with every STD-infected female out there? Should we still get cut?
Do you know the functions of the foreskin? Have you studied its anatomy?
It's not a little snip. It's 30% to 50% of the skin of the penis, which includes muscle tissue, special nerve endings called Meissner's corpuscles, immune cells, blood vessels... It permanently changes the perception and function of sex, by a) Removing the gliding function of the skin; b) Removing most of the nerve endings of the male organ; c) Exposing the glans to keratinization and drying, which makes it dull and cracked in the long term. The reason why most men "turned out okay" is because they don't even know that their perception of sex has been altered and their sexual practices are the result of the body compensating for the absence of the foreskin.
In fact, the common punch line in movies about hand lotions and lubricants is the result of not having the gliding function of the skin and not having the internal lubrication of the glans, so it has to be compensated by a commercial product. And of course, the early cases of ED and the soaring sales of ED medication can also be traced to the amputation of the foreskin.
Furthermore, there are babies who die as a result of the procedure (loss of blood, sepsis and other complications) and there are men who suffer permanent damage (damage to the nerves, lack of enough skin for comfortable arousal, hair on the surface of the shaft, urethral issues, skin adhesions on the glans, partial amputations of the glans) which can definitively have an impact on their sexual life, well being and self esteem.
So please re-think that "small snip". An adult foreskin is about 2 inches long (approximately 3.5 if you include the inner mucosa, since the foreskin is a surface that folds over itself), and close to 4 or 5 inches in perimeter. So this is close to 3x5 square inches of erogenous tissue.
Do you have that much erogenous tissue that you would be willing to give up for some potential benefits? If not, then why should men do it?
Why don't we Empower HIM to retain control of his sexuality and his body.

Thursday, November 15, 2012

The decision to circumcise: functions of the foreskin


“The function of the foreskin is often missing from the debate over its fate. What is it there for? It’s there for pleasure and protection. Pleasure? The structures of the inner foreskin are all erogenous. Protection? Along with the glans, the inner foreskin is only exposed during excitement.
So what does circumcision do? It removes varying amounts of inner foreskin leaving what’s left exposed becoming desensitized over time. The glans dries out and develops a toughened surface. Circumcision also removes the mobility of the skin system of the penis making the skin taught and immobile during excitement. So why?
Non-religious infant circumcision in the USA started during the prudish Victorian era to prevent masturbation. It may not have worked but circumcision does make masturbation more difficult. A normal intact male masturbates by rolling his foreskin back and forth over his glans like this:
Image courtesy of http://penisprepuce.tumblr.com/
The foreskin is like a built-in masturbation sleeve. And the inner foreskin is all erogenous tissue so it feels fantastic as it rolls back and forth over the glans. Circumcised men are left with varying amounts of inner foreskin. It is that different colored skin running between the glans and the circumcision scar. But a circumcised man must rely on lube or friction for pleasure as the mobility is gone.
The rolling action of the foreskin aids with sexual intercourse. There is less friction and the rolling foreskin provides pleasure for both the man and his partner. Yes, women experienced with both report sex is better when a man has his foreskin. Penetration is easier as the glans is slippery and moist and foreskin unrolls as the penis penetrates.
Is it any wonder the anti-sex/anti-pleasure types were for circumcision?
So remember, the foreskin is much much more than just a piece of skin. It provides pleasure and protection often overlooked in the pros and the cons.
More information available at http://www.circumstitions.com/Sexuality.html ”
-The Family Penis (http://twitter.com/FamilyPenis)

Circumcision - is it cleaner? Don't they get infections?

American doctors seem to place no value on the anatomy and functions of the foreskin and seem clueless about its proper care - I would say due to lack of personal experience of it.

The American Academy of Pediatrics new statement on circumcision gives bad advice when it comes to caring for the intact (uncircumcised) penis.

The Pediatric Association of New Zealand has a page on CARE OF THE FORESKIN (notice the language, not care of the uncircumcised penis, care of the foreskin, meaning that circumcision is not normalized there; they are caring for the body, not for the body that has not been operated yet)

This is their page: Foreskin care

Key points to remember about foreskin care

  • the foreskin is the loose skin that covers and protects the end of the penis
  • the foreskin and penis of an infant or child need no special care
  • a child’s foreskin should never be retracted (pulled back) by force
  • there is no need to clean inside the foreskin in young boys; just wash the penis the same as any other part of your son’s body and be careful to wash off any soap
  • once the foreskin is ready to be retracted, your son will most probably discover this for himself
  • once the foreskin is easily retracted, your son should learn to do this as part of normal washing in the bath; make sure he rinses off any soap and pulls the foreskin back over the head of the penis afterwards
For lots of more detail, visit http://www.kidshealth.org.nz/foreskin-care


As to what the AAP says:  
This review found no systematic studies in infants and children on the care of the uncircumcised versus circumcised penis.

Parents of newborn boys should be instructed in the care of the penis at the time of discharge from the newborn hospital stay, regardless of whether they choose circumcision or not. The circumcised penis should be washed gently without any aggressive pulling back of the skin.24 The noncircumcised penis should be washed with soap and water. Most adhesions present at birth spontaneously resolve by age 2 to 4 months, and the foreskin should not be forcibly retracted. When these adhesions disappear physiologically (which occurs at an individual pace), the foreskin can be easily retracted, and the whole penis washed with soap and water.

The problems with this:

* Suggesting that the "adhesions" should resolve by 2 to 4 months. The adhesions are actually called synecchia or balanopreputial membrane (I guess saying that would require acknowledging something that is destroyed by circumcision), and its function is to keep the glans and foreskin sealed for protection. Quite often this membrane can take up to puberty before it dissolves. Trying to retract the foreskin forcefully (whether by parents OR BY DOCTORS) hurts this membrane and causes open wounds inside the foreskin - which can get infected or can develop scar tissue that may adhere to both the foreskin and the glans - making retraction even more difficult. Because of this parents should not retract the baby's or the child's foreskin. Leave it alone. He will discover it.

* They recommend using soap and water but make no mention of the importance of rinsing it properly, not leaving any soap, and if using soap using soft soaps. The foreskin has its own normal bacterial area or microscopic flora that should be unharmed. It's important to use only mild soaps outside, and if possible no soap at all inside the foreskin, only warm water and a gently massage, and this only by the owner of the penis himself. See:

SOAP WARNING: All soaps, shampoos, and bubble baths can irritate the sensitive inner foreskin, and are entirely unnecessary for cleanliness anyway. Even worse, they also destroy the beneficial pH balance and “friendly flora.” 8 

8. Bollinger D. The Penis-Care Information Gap: Preventing Improper Care of Intact Boys. Thymos, 2008;1(2), 205-219.

Source: http://circumcisiondecisionmaker.com/foreskin-facts/foreskin-washing-method/ 

Uncommon Sense from a Common Dad - The Whole Network - Parents deciding on circumcision

Do you remember what you wanted to do with your life as a child?  Most of us can clearly recall that memory, as can I.  My dad asked me the familiar question, “What do you want to be when you grow up?” Looking back at it now, maybe becoming a mad scientist was a little unrealistic.  However, I remember my father’s response better than the daydreams of glowing chemistry beakers.  He told me, “Just be a better man than me and be happy.” Now, as a father of two sons with a third on the way, I understand his sentiment completely… life is about progression.

            Like most fathers, I want better for my boys than what I experienced.  I also want them to grow up to be better men than me and to have a happy existence.  However, to achieve that noble goal, I had to examine the good and the bad about my life.  I couldn’t shy away from sensitive topics like my personal character flaws or topics that are normally not discussed at the dinner table.  One such subject, which is rarely brought up in public, is circumcision.  I know it’s an uncomfortable conversation, but it is in dire need of discussion for mainstream dads. [read more]

http://www.thewholenetwork.org/14/post/2011/12/uncommon-sense-from-a-common-dad.html

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Circumcision decision

If you took a random adult man in the street, restrained him and proceeded to cut part of his genitals off, you would be committing sexual battery and aggravated assault.

Yet this is what's happening to this baby and we tolerate it.

Is this parental choice?

Are there other parts of the body that the parents can choose to remove?

Is this preventive medicine - to cut parts of the body before they develop any condition?

Is it a birth defect to have a foreskin? Because I sure want mine back!

Is this prophylaxis? Create a open wound inside the diaper will be cleaner?

Doctors are being paid to commit sexual battery and aggravated assault on the adults of tomorrow, and they keep doing it.

Please wake up!


The circumstraint:

In less than 30 seconds, a nurse can immobilize the struggling infant securely in the correct position with Circumstraint. The immobilizer works on a proven principle of positive 4-point restraint. Soft wide Velcro® brand fastener straps encircle the infant's elbows and knees, depriving him/her of leverage. The child is held safely and securely without danger of escape. Circumstraint's comfortable contoured shape positions the infant, hips elevated, perfectly presenting the genitalia. The platform between the infant's legs provides support for a circumcision clamp. Without pins, towels, plastic shells or the threat of strangulation, Circumstraint snugly and securely immobilizes the infant with their entire torso visible.

http://www.quickmedical.com/olympicmedical/circumstraint/immobolizer.html

Circumcision and the AAP - when the risks outweigh the benefits

In the last week I posted a few of the worst case scenarios of medical circumcision:

The 4 year old boy in Texas who last year suffered bleeding, was cauterized, developed fistulas (holes) where urine would come out (with blood and pain). Begging to just have it cut off so he can be a girl. He will need more surgeries in the future. (This is the only non-fatal case I'm mentioning here but it's far from being a unique occurrence)

Brian M. Brandt, victim of a severely botched circumcision that left him mutilated. Committed suicide at 28 years, 2011.


Ryan White, born 1971, hemophiliac, bleeding uncontrollably after circumcision (which could have killed him). Injected with an experimental drug made from human blood, which ended up transmitting HIV to him. Died at 19 years.

Those cases are far from being alone, even if they are really bad.

David Reimer, raised as a girl after he lost his penis during circumcision at 4 months. His testicles were removed. Renamed and taught to be a girl but he never adjusted. In puberty he was told the truth, underwent breast reduction (he was in hormones), reconstruction of the penis. Got married. Never felt complete. Committed suicide in 2004 at 39 years.

Joshua Haskins, born with a severe heart condition. After heart surgeries, he was circumcised. He kept bleeding and died from cardiac arrest. 2010. He should have never been circumcised - the doctors should have know better than to circumcise a child with a severe heart condition. *

Jamaal Coleson, died at 2 years. He was supposed to have local anesthesia for his circumcision but was given general anesthesia. He awoke from the operation, but then felt bad and his condition deteriorated.

Ryleigh McWillis died at 1 month of age in Canada 2004. Bleeding from his circumcision wound.

More cases are documented here: http://www.cirp.org/library/death/

In light of this, I think it's interesting to compare what the AAP (American Academy of Pediatricians) and the KNMG (Royal Dutch Medical Association) say about the risks, including some "confidential" talking points from the AAP that were used as script for physicians when asked questions about the new Policy Statement in August 2012:

Statements from the AAP (taken from the Technical Report):

Financial costs of care, emotional tolls, or the need for future corrective surgery (with the attendant anesthetic risks, family stress, and expense) are unknown.

The majority of severe or even catastrophic injuries are so infrequent as to be reported as case reports (and were therefore excluded from this literature review).

Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks; furthermore, the benefits of newborn male circumcision justify access to this procedure for families who choose it.

Parents should weigh the health benefits and risks in light of their own religious, cultural, and personal preferences, as the medical benefits alone may not outweigh these other considerations for individual families.

Statements from the KNMG (from their Viewpoint on Non Therapeutic Circumcision of Male Minors):

There is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene. Partly in the light of the complications which can arise during or after circumcision, circumcision is not justifiable except on medical/therapeutic grounds.

Contrary to what is often thought, circumcision entails the risk of medical and psychological complications.

There are good reasons for a legal prohibition of non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors, as exists for female genital mutilation. However, the KNMG fears that a legal prohibition would result in the intervention being performed by non-medically qualified individuals in circumstances in which the quality of the intervention could not be sufficiently guaranteed.

Statements from AAP (taken from their "talking points" - the talking points require login, but for a leaked version...):

[T]he Royal Dutch Medical Association issued a statement in 2010 concluding that in light of the lack of convincing medical benefits, non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors conflicted with the child’s right to autonomy and physical integrity and that physicians should inform parents and caregivers seeking circumcision about the medical and psychological risks and the lack of convincing medical benefits. While this conclusion differs from the conclusions of the new AAP statement, it is important to recognize that the Dutch Medical Association statement does not include a comprehensive, systematic review of the scientific literature.

Circumcision is a procedure with few risks and considerable health benefits. Parents who make the decision in the best interests of their child’s health are within their child custody rights.

Male circumcision has been shown scientifically to provide benefits to the person being circumcised, and has a proven track record for safety.

And a HUGE LIE by the AAP in these Talking Points :

Isolated cases of morbidity and mortality after ritual circumcision have been reported in the U.S., and have been related to circumcisions that were not performed under sterile conditions. These cases and the practices that led to them have been limited to a specific group.

My note:

None of the cases highlighted above were religious circumcisions! All of them and many many more were medical procedures. The above statement from the AAP to the Physicians is misleading in suggesting that no morbidity or mortality has been recorded in medical settings in the United States. They don't say that, but they suggest it - basically using the Herpes related deaths caused by the Metzitzah b'Peh practice by Orthodox Jews in New York as a red herring, a distracting point to sweep all the other deaths and mutilations behind the rug. Wow they really underestimate the general public.

Conclusions

This entry highlights some of the cases that the AAP calls "case reports". Each "case report" meant one death or one person with severely damaged genitalia for life. If this "case report" was my child, how would I look him in the eye and tell him that it was for his own good? That his circumcision provided benefits and was safe? What would I write in the gravestone?

The AAP criticizes the KNMG's statement by saying that it doesn't include a comprehensive review of scientific literature. But the KNMG's statement is written from an ethical and human rights perspective. When you risk killing or damaging a person's life, how acceptable are those benefits?

Are those benefits so great that we can ignore (or exclude) those case reports? Are those cases really so rare? What is the tolerance level? How many yearly deaths are acceptable? How many yearly severe mutilations are acceptable?

I've read the AAP's technical report many times and I don't find the answer to my questions. All they say is that the costs of those cases is unknown and cases like these are excluded from the review.

Case reports = The children that the AAP failed to protect.










* Extra information on the cae of Joshua Haskins: The case of Joshua Haskins is one of special public sensitivity. His mother is a blogger, and she was documenting the birth, the procedures and everything online. When his health deteriorated and she documented it, many intactivists reacted angrily leaving rude comments. Unfortunately this is one bad side of intactivism: many activists are so emotional about it that they lack sensibility and compassion to treat other people, especially parents who had their children circumcised (after all, many activists happen to be males who are emotionally, physically or psychologically hurt by their circumcision or parents who regret circumcising their children - so emotions run high). Joshua and his parents deserved compassion in that sad moment - not guilt. The doctors are the ones to blame - they should have know better than to circumcise a baby with a severe heart defect.

This case was also recently misrepresented by Douglas Diekema bioethicist and member of the AAP Task Force that wrote the new Policy Statement, in an interview presenting the document. Diekema said: "for example, there's at least one of these cases that gets trotted out that involved a very sick baby that was likely to die anyway and his parents wanted him circumcised before his death. And to attribute that to a circumcision is silly." http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201208290900


Doug Diekema's lies:

"his parents wanted him circumcised before his death": No. Big lie. His parents believed he was going to live. Otherwise they wouldn't have been subjecting him to hearth surgeries. If they believed their child was going to die, they would have let him die peacefully. But they chose to fight the fight, to fight for his life. And stating differently only disrespects their pain.

"to attribute that to a circumcision is silly". The baby kept bleeding after circumcision. Without circumcision, he wouldn't have bleed through a non-existing wound on his penis. Without bleeding, his heart wouldn't have stopped at that time. Maybe he wouldn't have had a long life, or maybe yes, we don't know. But circumcision certainly didn't give him any health benefit. It caused profuse bleeding, and the bleeding caused his heart to stop. The doctors should have known that a baby with a heart defect is not a good candidate for circumcision. The doctors should have discouraged the procedure.

Saturday, November 10, 2012

Circumcision: The risks outweigh the benefits - loss of the penis


This is outrageous. This is not a penis. This is a tube for urination to replace the penis of a child circumcised with Gomco clamp and electrocautery, resulting in total loss of the penis. This is a tube created from a skin graft, with no erectile tissue and no nerves for sexual sensation. This happened 30 years ago. I wonder if he is even alive today.

I saw this image on http://www.facebook.com/BoysDeserveBetter

The photo comes from http://noharmm.org/problem.htm

Friday, November 9, 2012

Circumcision in Texas 2011: "Just cut it off, and I can be a girl"

The American Academy of Pediatrics says that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks. Yet, a 4 year old child now asks to have his penis just cut off so he can be a girl, after a botched circumcision in 2011.

Careful reading of the AAP's Technical Report reveals that "Financial costs of care, emotional tolls, or the need for future corrective surgery (with the attendant anesthetic risks, family stress, and expense) are unknown."
Please read more about this awful case: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/11/09/52144.htm
And while it is true that every surgery has risks, circumcision of infants and toddlers is normally not done to treat a condition or disease. So when you have a healthy patient, this kind of damage is unacceptable.
The most common risks of circumcision according to most circumcising institutions are "bleeding and infection", and "bleeding can normally be controlled with some pressure". We've all read those lines a thousand times. In this case, the problem started with bleeding that could not be controlled, and turned into a surgeon cauterizing the area of the penis to the point where she created damage to the urethra, including fistulas. When the child urinates, there are now two streams of urine. The child underwent reconstructive surgery, but he will need more surgeries in the future.
American Academy of Pediatricians, this is what you are promoting. Retract your Statement Policy on Circumcision. Come clean for once. Do tell the country that the damage and risks of circumcision far outweigh any circumstantial benefit. Do tell that it is time to finish the cultural custom of altering the genitals of baby boys. Join us in the XXI Century please.

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Ironies of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and circumcision

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists denied Intact America permission to exhibit at their convention in Washington, DC, last May (2011). Their reasoning? IA’s “product and services” (advocacy concerning the harm and the ethics of neonatal circumcision) was “beyond the scope of the practice of obstetrics and gynecology.”

They had two sessions on circumcision:

A Cost-Effective Analysis of Male Circumcision for the Prevention of
HIV in the United States
Monday, May 7 – 3:10 PM – 3:20 PM
Room 23BC, San Diego Convention Center

Early Male Infant Circumcision Using Mogen* or Gomco Circumcision Clamps
Tuesday, May 8 – 3:21 PM – 3:35 PM

(* Incidentally, Mogen Circumcision Instruments went into default due to too many lawsuits after partial or total amputations of the glans)

Intact America responded by posting an open letter in the Washington Post, telling Obstetricians to "Put down the knife and stop circumcising babies"

If circumcision is "beyond the scope of the practice of obstetrics and gynecology", one would have to wonder why the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has endorsed the AAP Policy Statement on Circumcision 2012.

A circumcision suicide

Brian Mathew Brandt, born on October 7th, 1983. Victim of a botched circumcision shortly after birth. He felt that he was mutilated and could never have sexual relations.

On November 2, 2011, Brian passed away in his home.  He took his life at 28 years. His obituary.


A letter to NOCIRC from gym friends, telling of his suicide.

A note on tumblr.

His Twitter account is a memory of his anger:



Self-anger, self-hate, self-prosecution. I know what I’ve done to myself, and I know why. Innocence is naïve, until it learns to know better


The fact I cry out about being circumcised makes people laugh.. They love to show me hate.. 

I WAS CIRCUMCISED AGAINST MY WILL I WAS RAPED AND MUTILATED. 

Circumcision promotes more disease, because after I shave my penis to have sex I can have open wounds from the razor. 

I just got banned off facebook for trying to get votes to make circumcision illegal. 

What seems to remain from his facebook account.

Two comments on the deactivation of his facebook, posted here:


(this comment is no longer visible in the original page)

Brian Mathew Brandt on April 21st, 2011 9:42 pm
Hi, I’m 27 years old and was circumcised for the purpose to remove sexual pleasure. I want to get more involved, I want to open a chapter in my town, and I want to do it for many reasons. One of the most important reasons is because one of my great teammates for online gaming committed suicide with circumcision being a major factor for his conclusion.
I have ability to address this topic with out embarrassment, as I was a victim of a malicious circumcision that has left me scared, damaged emotionally and physically. I can apply and prove reasoning to defeat any reason for a routine circumcision. If speaking with people who enjoy cruelty, and want to destroy others pleasure I will be able to identify. I wont let them waste my time, when people speak out of logical reasoning I believe I will prove to provide a view point that will change their perspective.


 
and here:





I was disabled for showing a non sexually provocative photo of a circumcised penis to get votes to make circumcision illegal, or to show a serious complication that actually happened to me and a friend of mine whom is Nathan, and I began actively speaking his story and my own after he committed suicide. I recently just took a 3 month break from my job in order to try and push the legislation as much as possible, and depending on the grounds I can get my feet on, I will try and fight this on an international level. If I succeed I want to talk to our Geneva convention: Having circumcision honored as a violation of human rights. This is something I’ve chose to dedicate my life to. My mom doesn’t understand and thinks I should live a selfish life, and I’m selfless. It’s not about me it’s about our future generations, one hundred years from now I want those people to walk in their home and feel euphoric bliss, I want their life to be more beautiful than anything euphonious that I’ve heard, for our youth we share love and gratitude! In our youth we work so hard and some understand so little. I’ve recognized people who want to bring others down, I’m not that person. If you throw grabs in a bucket, I’m the one trying to get out.. When others pinch on me to bring me down, I pray: I’m strong enough to pull myself out of the bucket with others attached. Please don’t bring me down, understand my picture was none sexually proactive, and you shouldn’t have the right to tell me it’s too political. I live right here in Santa Cruz county, Your headcourters isn’t much of an hour away. I intend on having respect from you, and if I’m not respected that will be quite unfortunate for me, Because then I will be stuck in the bucket. This is why I’m praying that you will hear me out, and I know you god damn faggot fucking billionaires aint give a shit about no brown eyed spick, well guess what amigo, I got a job at 8 years old. I worked from the ages of ten to twelve and a half saving on average $100 a month, yeah it took me twenty six months to buy a computer at the age of twelve I purchased a intel Pentium 2 processor with 8ram and that was the number one computer in pc magazine. I earn my money, even if I open up a lemonade stand, even if I’m that ten year old pushing a lawn mower, if I’m that twelve year old with a paper boy route, the teenager working at the board walk. …so on.. You know who I am not? I’m not a collage graduate fuck! Not because my family didn’t have enough money, because I have no one to blame but myself. I educate myself, and I merit myself when I make my own achievements, its not about me. I just need to know how to know how to know what needs to be known! I get shit done, I learn quick, I’m highly motivated and dedicated. They call me: Strive. Ich Bin Streben! I hope you will understand how pissed off I am, and that I actually have the ability to keep my composure. I will deeply appreciate your support in the attempt of sharing love and gratitude.
1 2 3 4 5
I posted a picture on my wall, and some one reported it as sexual content. The picture was of a mutilated penis, although it was more of the lack of a penis as no actual penis is being show because it was cut off. What is shown looks like hairy arm and there was nothing erogenous about the picture. I will becoming out to Palo Alto to speak in person. I will appreciate your support in resuming my face book account and social network. The point of my post was to get votes to make circumcision illegal. This is extremely important to me as some one very close to me crumbled from their own narcissistic debauchery from their self discovery of what happened to them. I speak for my self and the dead men who cant tell tails. Squelching my voice is just going to cause me to grow louder at this time, I’ve been passive for ten years, and right now we have wind in our sails. I’m coming with the power of truth within love and gratitude, and I’m going to combat these political pirates. Un-squelch my voice and support the cause to protect innocence of our future. I’m not looking for a fight, I’m stuck in the struggle. The source of my power is my adroitness to strive. Please help change laws, allow my voice to be heard!
1 2 3 4 5

Rest in peace Brian.





Cutting babies is not nice

Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Was this a circumcision death?

Some stories are just far too strange, I'm overwhelmed by this one.

Ryan White, born Dec. 6 1971 was circumcised 3 days later. The bleeding didn't stop, even after stitches. He was found to be hemophiliac (hemophilia is a severe risk factor for circumcision, known since the old time of the Jews). He received weekly transfusions of Factor VIII, a blood product created from a pool of blood of non-hemophiliacs.

On December of 1984 (13 years later) he became ill with pneumonia and had part of his lung removed. At that time he was found to have HIV. He died in April 1990.

One question is, is this a circumcision death?

Being hemophiliac, he was very likely to have bled to death through the circumcision wound. Factor VIII may have stopped him from dying at that moment, but ultimately caused his death by infecting him with HIV.

Many people (usually parents who have circumcised and would not consider that circumcision may be harmful) point that every surgery has risks (i.e., the mother whose blog entry I re-posted yesterday). While this is true, it's also true that circumcision of a baby is an elective surgery. It's not done to treat a disease or condition. If you leave the baby in his natural state (intact, or not circumcised) he won't die from being left intact and he won't suffer a major complication. Compared to that, the alternative of performing an unneeded surgery demands zero tolerance for errors or complications.

Under the expectation of benefits or cultural compliance, parents who circumcise their babies are not expecting their baby to suffer a major complication or die, not when doctors keep saying how safe the procedure is.

In this case, circumcision was very likely to cause Ryan's death just from uncontrollable bleeding. And circumcision was ultimately the original reason why he ever needed a drug made from blood, which would be the reason why he became infected with HIV.

Ryan, you would be my age. I wish this had not happened to you.

I learned about this in this facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/CircumcisionKILLS 

I also read about it in Circumstitions News and in The Ball State University Daily News

Circumchat

At twitter, #circumchat


What about the ethics question? Is it ethical to remove a healthy functioning body part from a non consenting child?

Modified question from : Do you think it's ethical to remove a healthy body part from a child?  

You removed the word "functioning". Do you think it doesn't function? I find that manipulative.  

And u removed the words non-consenting. Do u think the child consented? I know I didn't. I did refuse.


I was 5y/o. I told the Ped: Don't cut me, I like it like that. Tried to run. He sedated and cut me. Tell me about proxy consent
 

Monday, November 5, 2012

Adhesions: a common complication



A mother posted a blog back in 2010 telling how her circumcised twins both developed adhesions. Her story was meant to tell about a common complication. What I was surprised was that even after that, she still defended the decision to circumcise as a parental right, and as being of easier hygiene, and as prevention of UTIs, prevention of phimosis (prevention by obliteration I call that), prevention of penile cancer and of STIs, you know, the common garbage.

I think the text is actually quite valuable, so here it is:

What's worse than one bleeding penis? Two of them. 

Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20100129205905/http://www.louisvillemojo.com/blogs/Louisville_blogs/84368/What_s_worse_than_one_bleeding_penis__Two_of_them_

Original URL (deleted) http://www.louisvillemojo.com/blogs/Louisville_blogs/84368/What_s_worse_than_one_bleeding_penis__Two_of_them_

Author- I'm going to assume she does not want her name on it as she deleted her profile from that website.

Jan 26, 2010

There I stood in the exam room with two seemingly healthy twin boys. One minute i'm talking about their diets and weights...the next I look down and see Max's penis is....bleeding. That's right it's bleeding. The doctor has his large thumb and index finger around my son's penis and there is actual blood coming out. Max is shrieking and I'm clutching the exam table thinking I'd fallen down Alice's rabbit hole. Without thinking I uttered, "What the hell are you doing??" He calmly told me he was pushing down an adhesion. An ad-what? I'm sorry, my kid's itty bitty penis is pooling with blood...care to talk in mommy terms about why that's happened?

He said, "It's very common. It's called a penile adhesion." Now unless you're the parent of a boy baby, odds are you've never heard of the term. I'll admit it sounds mildly pornographic. But since I have two boys I'm well acquainted with the term and for six months I've had some dealings with the condition. Here's the technical definition:

"A penile or prepuce adhesion can occur after a circumcision if the remaining skin is not retracted after the circumcision has healed. When a circumcision is done, tissue which would normally be intact is split. Unless proper care is taken, the epithelium of the inner prepuce at the point where the foreskin was removed can reattach to the epithelium of the glans. The result of this is a penile adhesion. Usually the adhesions can be released by simple retraction. Sometimes, however, the fusion is so complete that simple retraction will not work, and the child must be referred to a urologist."

So when you get handed a baby there's no book. Sure they give you the basics at the hospital, but in my case different rules applied. Our babies were 3 and 5 pounds when we took them home. that's TINY. and so cleaning a nearly non existent penis was, well, tricky. We did our best, tried our hardest, but in the end, Max had a penile adhesion. It wasn't a big deal but good Lord Almighty I about fainted when our pediatrician "fixed" it....As I stated before, he did this by taking his huge fingers and literally peeled back the foreskin from my son's circumcised penis. Then, all of a sudden, it started to bleed. I thought something tragic had just occurred. So then we had to keep a close eye on it...clean it religiously..which we did. Boy did we. And it happened again. Next visit, same problem. See once the skin is peeled back it's bleeding...the body senses this as a wound and wants to heal it. Hence the adhesion.

I thought we were out of the woods with this problem though...I really did. Last week I went back to the doctor for the boys' six month check up...He checked their penises and, lo and behold, they BOTH had a minor adhesion. I guess I just had no idea that this was a recurring thing. I mean, once it healed, I figured we were through with this nasty little secret. But alas, it continues. To add to that, the rim around Max's member is so red and inflamed now from the peel back that he cries whenever I go near it with a wipe.

So let this be a lesson to all you parents of boy babies...well, hell, I don't even know what the lesson is...just take note and take heart if you have the same problem with your wee ones wee one. now I get why men are so obsessed with their ... friend. It starts early and innocently enough. 

 For any reader who doesn't know what a penile adhesion (or skin bridge) looks like:







This would already defeat any purpose of "hygiene" as this creates another hidden space (between the skin bridge and the glans). In the case of this photo, this is an adult person and if he wants to remove this he would have to get a surgery, which is likely to leave a scar on his glans.

Some of the comments from the author:

Asked "why the useless mutilation of the penis", she said: "ah....humbug...i wondered when this subject would rear its ugly head...no pun intended. circumcision is a personal decision based on either religious or personal beliefs. to each his own..."

Asked again about the purpose of circumcision by an user who saw it as "backward and unnecessary", she says:

Josh, it's my decision because i'm their mother. here are some other good reasons i researched before making this decision...

Easier hygiene. Circumcision makes it easy to wash the penis — although it's simple to clean an uncircumcised penis, too.


Decreased risk of urinary tract infections. The risk of urinary tract infections in the first year is low, but these infections may be up to 10 times as common in uncircumcised baby boys. Severe infections early in life can lead to kidney problems later on.


Prevention of penile problems. Occasionally, the foreskin on an uncircumcised penis may be difficult or impossible to retract (phimosis). This can also lead to inflammation of the head of the penis.


Decreased risk of penile cancer. Although cancer of the penis is rare, it's less common in circumcised men.


Decreased risk of sexually transmitted diseases. Safe sexual practices remain essential, but circumcised men may have a slightly lower risk of certain sexually transmitted diseases — including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.
 I can't imagine if having to rip the remnant foreskin from the glans several times in both babies amounts to easier hygiene and decreased risk of UTI's, given the recurrent open wounds.

Then she goes on this tirade:

i was asked for my reasoning, and while i don't have to give it, i did. it's a personal choice, a family choice, and it's mine and my husband's to make. 60% of all american born children are circumcised. that's not to say to do so or not to is right or wrong, i'm simply stating that i'm not the only person who's circumcised their child. congrats on not being circumcised...that's great...but you didn't make that choice, your parents did. and i respect either decision. 
Most intactivists would find "personal choice" and "family choice" to be different. Personal choice is what a person decides to do on his own body, not what the parents decide to do for you.

And when someone supports her, she goes:

Thanks...I appreciate the kind words. I don't have any problem with people posing the question as long as there's as much respect for my opinion as their own. I'm not going to talk about lobbing off breasts or labias. it's accepted practice. deal with it. and i won't apologize for doing what's best for my boys. it's a difference of opinion and, last i checked, this is America, where we're allowed to have our own opinions. 

So after everything she still thinks it was the best to do. Unfortunately I've found this reaction quite common: "I won't apologize". I find this arrogant. I've actually met several men who as teenagers or young adults became angered about being circumcised, and some of them having been unable to find a sensitive response from their parents ended up cutting all their relationship to them. Something to think about is that your children may come to see their circumcision in different eyes from what you saw it, and may not appreciate having a part of their bodies cut off.

Somebody apparently used the M word because then she says:

Mutilate a baby? Give me a break. and what, you think it's some vast conspiracy by doctors? a multi-billion dollar industry? Where do they perform circumcisions in your world...the grassy knoll as Kennedy rides by.
 I think some of the comments were deleted. But someone mentioned foreskin restoration. Because then she goes on to say:
and no i would not apologize for circumcising my children. and i've never met anyone who wished they'd had their foreskin and asked to have it restored. but if YOU do...try manual tugging. you may already be most of the way there lol. and thanks for read
 And her friend (another mom supporting her with comments) picks up:

There are so many decisions to be made for babies:breast milk vs. formula,cloth diapers vs. disposable diapers,paci or no paci,let em cry it out vs. pick em up.In the end its the parents decision.I believe they would be the most qualified anyway.So far I have no regrets as to any of my decisions. I stick to the uniform rule of stay out of my business I'll stay out of yours
 Someone says that blogging about what happened to her kids' penis seems a weird topic. She says:

lol..thanks swift...here's the thing...i would give ANYTHING for someone to have blogged about this when i was pregnant, when i was searching for answers...but no one was. i'm not trying to say i'm some stellar example of a selfless helper, but seriously, i hope it helps other people. it's a really really common thing and it would've been nice if someone had clued me in..so i'm trying to do that for others...i had no idea it would turn into a rant about circumcision...go figure. but i respect what you're saying. i get it. i guess i just hope it'll help someone else...and hell, the headline was great right? lol.
No I don't think that the headline is great, because it's what really happened. No man wants to see blood on his penis, whether in present time, or in the past. She thinks that because the adhesions are common they are no big deal. She doesn't seem to understand that they would not have happened if circumcision was not done.

Then she says:
you know what i find most amusing? circumcised males aren't crying foul and posting rants. it's the uncircumcised who seem to want to start a club and wave a banner. This is not mutilation. It is a standard procedure performed on more than half the male babies in this country. and no one took down any comments from this page. no one. unless the poster did it.
Which is actually quite wrong - but I guess she didn't look hard enough. Yes, there are many of us circumcised males blogging about it. Come on, she even read about foreskin restoration. Does she think it's something that "uncircumcised" males do? No, it's us circumcised men. Why does she think we are doing it?

 Then someone tells her exactly what I just wrote, that the adhesions wouldn't have occurred if the babies had been left intact. Her answer is:
the same could be said for any infection or complication arising from any medical procedure. if it hadn't been performed, it would not have occurred. that's like saying, if you hadn't been born, you would not be able to post on this blog. i don't get it. 1.5 million boys are circumcised in the u.s. each year.
 Added to the fact that she considers it "standard procedure", she just seems to consider it a slight issue in the quest for the "benefits" (or more accurately potential benefits) of circumcision.

Apparently someone insisted on calling mutilation because she answers (to a deleted comment):

.last i checked both their penises are not destroyed, are in one piece, and look exactly as they did prior to the circumcision minus a piece of skin
 If you take one thing and cut part of it, you don't have just one piece. You have two pieces. If you discard one of them, you still have two pieces - it just happens that one of them is in the garbage. What she calls "a piece of skin" includes muscle tissue, includes apocrine glands, includes veins, includes a high concentration of specialized nerve endings (part of the nervous system).

And a second response:
sigh...cyn...I have every right to act on behalf of my sons. the day i don't ... we have lost our freedom. I have all kinds of rights. the right to raise them as I see fit and proper. The right to raise them to believe in God. I have the right to get them medical attention. I have the right to act in what i feel are their best interests. and nothing has "radically" changed after their circumcision. they do not have a flap of skin. that's it. no mutilation
 I guess cyn must have mentioned FGM because she then says:

last i checked it is not accepted practice to change any part of the female anatomy. that's like asking, if cats were dogs would you still like them? it's idiotic.
 Interesting enough, it was accepted and commonly done in the 50's. It was even accepted in 1996 even if not commonly done, which means that by the time she was born, this was still a legal practice.

As the name calling advances from posters and author, another lady jumps in:

Am I lost?? This Blog is not about "Circumcision" why is everyone making about that? Why would you bash someone for trying to help someone else? Abby's Blog is a personal experience that she didn't have to share but chose to.I have to admit the word "Penis" drew my attention to this blog...having read it I now have the information.
I am surprised by the attacks at one another. Lets stick to the issue and enjoy the blog.

**I personally am grossed by an uncircumcised penis...ewwww..lol BUT to each their own..just like everything else in life.
But, is it not about circumcision to speak about a "common" complication of it? And what if someone was grossed by her intact vagina, how would she feel about it? Oh, these debates get ugly always because everyone is so defensive and so stuck on their state of mind.

Oh, then this new commenter also adds:

not fot nuthin': I think ginas are ugly too.
 For a while people go on about aesthetics, FGM, dubious benefits, etc.

The guy who asked why the circumcision (at the beginning) appears again to state:

for the record...I was circumcised by parents who only did it because it was the standard procedure and I am against it. For my kids anyway. I don't care about anyone else's kids. You can alter them like a puppy all you want.

I've learned a lot though. My original post was made because I really didn't understand what the point of circumcision REALLY is. Now I understand. There is none.
    

So now the author has just heard it from a male himself who is circumcised and against it. To which the author says:

even though i submit there are a lot of reasons. you just don't agree with them. :0)            
And her friend adds:   ·
      
    there were points made,so maybe they were things that just weren't a priority to you.I think thats what it all comes down to is priorities.    

This comment by another user was interesting:

Circumcision may reduce the risks of things that are incredibly rare.

However, the penile adhesion that shocked you is a very common side effect, and apparently one that few people hear about when choosing whether or not to circumcise.


Do the risks really outweight the benefits here? Wouldn't it just be easier to teach them how to clean their penis, than perform cosmetic surgery on their genitals?
Graphic from Boys Deserve Better (facebook), they also keep this page: http://www.boysdeservebetter.com/ and this one in tumblr: http://boysdeservebetter.tumblr.com/


Friday, November 2, 2012

Why circumcision is unnecessary - John Travis, M.D.

Pediatrician on Circumcision

In a way I feel bad for this pediatrician. He obviously doesn't know better. He obviously cannot elaborate on his criteria to determine when "the orifice is too narrow". He obviously cannot get beyond his religious bias. He is obviously a victim, but he's also perpetrating and perpetuating the cycle.

Does he know about the functions of the foreskin? How can he?