Thursday, May 15, 2014

A letter to J. Israel Balderas over his coverage of the South Florida case

Mr. Balderas,

You covered the case of the this controversial circumcision (Nebus vs Hironimus) in video and in writing. One thing I see missing from both places is the actual argument of the mother, who fears that general anesthesia could result in death. A note written by Scott T. Smith is also missing this part of the argument.

This fear is not unfounded, as in 2011 a Brooklyn toddler, Jamaal Coleson, 2 years old, died after circumcision as a reaction to the anesthesia used. An article published this week in JAMA Pediatrics also argues that the risks of circumcision increase up to 20 times after the first year of life.

I have noticed in other media coverage what I consider a deliberate effort to silence Heather's real fear over the procedure.

Can you explain me why your notes are missing references to her fear of death?




Some more considerations (not included in my letter)

Can anyone explain me this? Is it a taboo to say that somebody fears for the life of her son because general anesthesia used during a non neonatal circumcision may result in death?

Do we just don't want to think about this?

Do we ignore it?

And if we ignore it, isn't that the red flag that we shouldn't be ignoring?

How do we balance a possibility, low but not null, of death, with a father's wish to see his son receive the same body mark that he has? 

Why is it so difficult to understand that the child's best interest should prevail even over written agreements between parents?

No comments:

Post a Comment