Friday, May 19, 2017

MADERA, CA: Another Circumcision Complication


Saw this on my Facebook news feed.

This time the circumcision botch happened at Valley Children's Hospital in Madera, CA.

I keep making these posts. (See links below.)

What else can I say?

Male infant circumcision is cosmetic, elective, non-medical surgery.

The risks of male infant circumcision include infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage, and even death.

It is unconscionable that healthy, non-consenting baby boys are being put at risk for complications for an elective, non-medical, radically altering genital surgery.

How many of these have to happen?

Valley Children's Hospital's website is down, but their Facebook page can be accessed here.

I close with my blog's Mission Statement:

Mission Statement
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, and much less expect to be reimbursed.

Genital integrity, autonomy and self-determination are inalienable human rights. I am against the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors because it violates these rights.

Genital mutilation, whether it be wrapped in culture, religion or “research” is still genital mutilation.

It is mistaken, the belief that the right amount of “science” can be used to legitimize the deliberate violation of basic human rights.

Relevant Links:


Complications that made the news and have surfaced on facebook
CIRCUMCISION BOTCH: Another Post-Circumcision Hemorrhage Case Surfaces on Facebook

LAW SUIT: Child Loses "Significant Portion" of Penis During Circumcision

CIRCUMCISION BOTCHES: Colombia and Malaysia

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: This Time in Russia

FACEBOOK: KENTUCKY - Botched Circumcision Gives Newborn Severe UTI

FACEBOOK: Circumcision Sends Another Child to NICU - This Time in LA

GEORGIA: Circumcision Sends a Baby to the NICU

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: This Time in Italy

FACEBOOK NEWS FEED: A Complication and a Death

INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves

MALE INFANT CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Boy Dies

CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yet Another One (I Hate Writing These)

Another Circumcision Death Comes to Light

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yes, Another One - This Time in Israel

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

FACEBOOK: Two More Babies Nearly Succumb to Post Circumcision Hemorrhage

FACEBOOK: Another Circumcision Mishap - Baby Hemorrhaging After Circumcision

What Your Dr. Doesn't Know Could Hurt Your Child

FACEBOOK: Child in NICU After Lung Collapses During Circumcision

EMIRATES: Circumcision Claims Another Life

BabyCenter Keeping US Parents In the Dark About Circumcision

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: Circumcision Claims Another Life

TEXAS: 'Nother Circumcision Botch


New York Herpes Circumcision Problem:
NYC: More Herpes Circumcision Cases Since de Blasio Lifted Metzitzah B'Peh Regulations

BUSTED: Agudath Israel of America's Antics Revealed

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

NEW YORK: Two More Herpes Babies, One With HIV

NEW YORK: Metzitzah: Two mohelim stopped after babies get herpes

NEW YORK: Yet Another Herpes Baby

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

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

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

New York: Oral Mohel Tests Positive for Herpes

Herpes Circumcision Babies: Another One? Geez!

Mohels Spreading Herpes: New York Looks the Other Way

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

Friday, April 21, 2017

DETROIT: Woman Doctor Faces Charges For FGM


Last month, I posted about an Ethiopian man who was deported after serving a 10-year prison sentence for cutting his daughter's genitals.

In recent news, a woman doctor was charged with performing female genital cutting on young girls between six and eight years of age. Apparently, she's being doing this for 12 years, and if found guilty, she faces life in prison.

Female genital cutting was made illegal in 1996 under the umbrella term "Female Genital Mutilation" (FGM). I assume that this law refers in particular to the forced genital cutting of girls for cultural or religious reasons, because women can go to doctors for "labiaplasty" and "vaginal rejuvenation" without a hitch.

In fact, there's a website openly running for a labiaplasty clinic in Cleveland, Ohio, right here.

My Thoughts
On the one hand, this ought to be the fate of any doctor who performs non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals.

On the other, whatever happened to "religious freedom" and "parental choice?"

If doctors are obliged to surgically alter the genitals of a male child on these grounds, then surely, they're obliged to alter the genitals of a female child, right?

I mean, at least for the case of male infant circumcision, the argument seems to be that doctors are these vassals who are supposed to respond to a parent's every beck and call.

What is the doctor in this case truly guilty of, other than honoring a parent's request and respecting their religious beliefs?

Whenever somebody objects to male infant circumcision, someone always has to defend it on the grounds that prohibiting it would be a "violation of religious freedom," and a "violation of parental rights."

Why the double-standards?

Why does it constitute "justice" to throw the book at a doctor who performs genital cutting in girls for "religious purposes" and honoring "parental prerogative," but "religious persecution" or "infringement on parental rights" to go after doctors who perform male genital cutting for the same reasons?

Why is it called "genital mutilation" to forcibly cut the genitals of healthy, non-consenting girls without exemption, but "religious freedom" or "parental choice" to forcibly cut the genitals of healthy, non-consenting boys?

For better or for worse, female genital cutting is a religious and/or cultural obligation for those who practice it. If this weren't so, people would not be risking their reputations, facing charges, being deported etc., to perform it.

Navigating the FGM problem without hypocrisy is impossible, and this is becoming increasingly obvious in this day and age.

Related Posts:

FGM: Ethiopian Man Deported For Cutting Daughter's Genitals

Thursday, March 16, 2017

FGM: Ethiopian Man Deported For Cutting Daughter's Genitals


According to New York Daily News, an Ethiopian man was deported after serving a 10-year prison sentence for cutting his 2-year-old's daughters genitals with scissors, highlighting American hypocrisy when it comes to genital cutting.

While this man has been deported for cutting his daughter's genitals, 1.3 million baby boys have their foreskins forcibly cut off at birth.

While it is taboo to question the practice of male genital cutting, people do not hesitate to openly condemn the practice of female genital cutting.

There seems to be two different yardsticks when measuring the forcible genital cutting of each sex.

While forced genital cutting in boys is defended on the grounds of "culture," "religion" and "parental choice," the same alibis fly out the window when it comes to the forced genital cutting of girls.

While the risks, complications and side-effects of forced male genital cutting are glossed over, if not ignored completely, those who oppose forced female genital cutting highlight and exaggerate them.

In either case, both of these practices are painted with broad strokes; while forced male circumcision is depicted harmless, benign, and there are ever adverse effects, female circumcision is always depicted as harmful, and its effects are always adverse, with every female, every time.

It is not my intention to justify female circumcision, because this blogger opposes the forced genital cutting of either sex.

Rather, my intention is to show simply this:

Whatever can be said about the forcible cutting of one sex, applies directly to the forcible cutting of the other.

For this post, I'd like to take excerpts of this report and analyze them.

"...female genital mutilation [is] a ritualistic practice common in certain parts of the world, but widely condemned in western countries."

Male genital mutilation, euphemised as "circumcision," is also a ritualistic practice. It is worthy to note that it is common in precisely those same parts of the world where female circumcision, condemned as "mutilation," is practiced.

It must also be noted that while "holy ritual" seems to be a perfectly good justification for male circumcision, the same does not apply for female circumcision.

"A young girl's life has been forever scarred by this horrible crime... [t]he elimination of female genital mutilation/cutting has broad implications for the health and human rights of women and girls, as well as societies at large."

...says Sean Gallahgher, a director with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

Of course, when two-year-old male children are circumcised as this girl is, their lives are also scarred forever by this terrible... act. I have to call it an "act" here, because people don't want to condemn it as "crime" as they readily do female circumcision.

Let's not talk about the fact that boys are circumcised in the same countries girls are, at about the same ages.

"Ritualistic cutting is common in parts of the Middle East, Africa and Asia and some 200 million women and girls have been subjected to the practice, according to estimates from the World Health Organization."

Ritualistic cutting for boys is common in those same parts of the world. It's only a problem when it happens to girls.

"While genital cutting is seen as central to certain communities, WHO notes that the practice often leads to long-term health consequences, such as increased risk of newborn deaths, psychological distress, severe infections and problems urinating. Girls are typically cut before they turn 15."

This same statement can also be said of male circumcision.

And here I have to highlight how FGM is being painted with broad strokes.

The statement says "The WHO notes that the practice *often leads* to long-term health consequences..."

But doubtlessly, people are going to read this as "always leads" to "long-term health consequences."

This statement must be clarified, because even the WHO admits that there are various levels of severity when it comes to FGM.

When it comes to the most absolute brutal form of FGM, which is infibulation, a practice where the protruding part of the clitoris is cut off and the outer labia are cut off and sewn together to leave only a small hole for menstruation, yes, this can result in dire-consequences for the women involved.

The fact is, however, that infibulation only accounts for about 15% of all FGM cases globally.

In other parts of the world, such as countries in South East Asia, namely Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore as well as others, the female genital cutting that goes on there is not as severe. The girls and women there typically don't suffer ANY of the consequences noted here.

In fact, not too long ago, the AAP tried to approve a form of FGM that wouldn't have removed anything. A "ritual nick," as they called it.

In another recent paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, authors called for the legalization of some forms of FGM.

I'd like to contrast this with how forced male circumcision is treated in the West.

When "experts" talk about male circumcision, they say it's "mostly harmless" and "seldom results" in adverse effects.

Of course, most people take this to mean it's "always" harmless, and read that "seldom" part as "never."

The risks of male infant circumcision are infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage, and even death.

But these risks are always minimized, if ever even talked about.

While the fact that girls and women often suffer complications because they are circumcised by amateurs using crude utensils like rusty blades and glass shards in the bush is highlighted, we hardly hear of the same complications in males circumcised in the same conditions.

Every year, scores of men die as a result of their circumcision, and still, scores of others lose their penises to gangrene.

The boys, men and their families will be "scarred for life," but let's not talk about them.

After all, who are we to judge ageless tradition?

Instead, we hear highlighted all the "potential medical benefits" that "might result" from a boy being circumcised.

We read of all the "rigorous research" that has gone into male circumcision, "showing" that it "could reduce the risk of transmission" of every disease you can name.

"Research" that involved "thousands of men."

I have to ask, is there a "right" amount of research that would ever justify the forced genital cutting of girls and women?

What would we think of "research" where thousands of women had their labia removed, just to see how much STDs they *didn't* get?

What if the "results" showed that it could "reduce the transmission of HIV" in women by "60%?" Would we allow ourselves to change our minds?

What if that number were a more persuading "70%?" "80%?" "90%?"

Yes?

No?

Why is it we think differently when it comes to the forced genital cutting of boys?

The man in this case is being made an example of.

But while this is happening, why do we turn a blind eye when it comes to male infant circumcision?

Especially when it comes to complications?

I'm keeping a growing list of circumcision complications that surface on Facebook and in the news (scroll to the bottom of this post).

Why don't people care?

"Thoughts and prayers" for the parents of these poor boys who will be, in the words of Director Sean Gallagher, "scarred for life."

Deportation for this father, whose daughter is probably alive and well.

Not too long ago, a mother was forced to sign consent papers for the forced genital cutting of her son.


 Contrast this picture with the one above

A father is deported for cutting his daughter.

A mother is jailed, separated from her son and forced to sign his circumcision consent papers.

While one parent is guilty of mutilating his daughter, another is "guilty" of trying to protect her son.

Yes, let's not talk about how the boy will be "scarred for life."

This is the country we live in today.

"Thousands more have been sent abroad for so-called "vacation cutting" — a human rights violating practice that involves sending American-born females overseas to be cut. More than 380 people have been arrested in the U.S. for facilitating such crimes since 2003, according to ICE."

Yes, let's pat our selves on the back.

While we ignore the fact that 1.3 million male baby boys are circumcised in this country a year.

American medical boards such as the AAP minimize the number of complications regarding male infant circumcision.

The number presented is a conservative one, at about 2.0%.

This number is rather questionable, because hospitals are not required to release this data, and because parents are often accomplices with doctors who have reputations to protect to keep this information under wraps, but let's just go with it for the sake of argument.

Even at 2.0%, with 1.3 million babies circumcised a year, that is still 26,000 baby boys who will have suffered adverse effects.

How is this conscionable for an elective, non-medical procedure?

Whose "benefits" are already affordable by less invasive, more effective means?

Conclusion
Don't get me wrong; this father is getting what he deserves.


I am dead against the forcible genital cutting of all sexes.

However, I will not let this case go by without highlighting American, if not Western hypocrisy on this matter.

The following questions must be asked:

How far are actions justified by "culture?"

Are we picking which "cultures" or "religions" are more important now?

Is a doctor's duty to practice "medicine," or "culture?"

Since when are doctors obligated to participate in brokering "culture" or "religion?"

What other "religious cuttings" are doctors obliged to participate in?

Shouldn't doctors be sticking to medicine only?

What about "parental choice?"

How far are actions justified by "parental choice?"

How are we deciding what is "abusive" and what is "parenting?"

How far are doctors supposed to honor the wishes of a parent to have something cut off?

In the name of "culture?"

In the name of "religion?"

Why do we condemn one father for cutting is daughter, while we award another father for wanting to take his son to have his foreskin cut off?

Shouldn't we be condemning the forced genital cutting of children of BOTH sexes equally?

Relevant Links:
Complications that made the news and have surfaced on facebook
CIRCUMCISION BOTCH: Another Post-Circumcision Hemorrhage Case Surfaces on Facebook

LAW SUIT: Child Loses "Significant Portion" of Penis During Circumcision

CIRCUMCISION BOTCHES: Colombia and Malaysia

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: This Time in Russia

FACEBOOK: KENTUCKY - Botched Circumcision Gives Newborn Severe UTI

FACEBOOK: Circumcision Sends Another Child to NICU - This Time in LA

GEORGIA: Circumcision Sends a Baby to the NICU

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: This Time in Italy

FACEBOOK NEWS FEED: A Complication and a Death

INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves

MALE INFANT CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Boy Dies

CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yet Another One (I Hate Writing These)

Another Circumcision Death Comes to Light

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yes, Another One - This Time in Israel

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

FACEBOOK: Two More Babies Nearly Succumb to Post Circumcision Hemorrhage

FACEBOOK: Another Circumcision Mishap - Baby Hemorrhaging After Circumcision

What Your Dr. Doesn't Know Could Hurt Your Child

FACEBOOK: Child in NICU After Lung Collapses During Circumcision

EMIRATES: Circumcision Claims Another Life

BabyCenter Keeping US Parents In the Dark About Circumcision

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: Circumcision Claims Another Life

TEXAS: 'Nother Circumcision Botch


New York Herpes Circumcision Problem:
NYC: More Herpes Circumcision Cases Since de Blasio Lifted Metzitzah B'Peh Regulations

BUSTED: Agudath Israel of America's Antics Revealed

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

NEW YORK: Two More Herpes Babies, One With HIV

NEW YORK: Metzitzah: Two mohelim stopped after babies get herpes

NEW YORK: Yet Another Herpes Baby

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

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

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

New York: Oral Mohel Tests Positive for Herpes

Herpes Circumcision Babies: Another One? Geez!

Mohels Spreading Herpes: New York Looks the Other Way

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

Thursday, March 9, 2017

NYC: More Herpes Circumcision Cases Since de Blasio Lifted Metzitzah B'Peh Regulations

CDC, AAP, NYC Health Department

No one wants to come right out and say it, because doing so gets you labeled an "anti-Semite," but a particularly Jewish tradition, specifically the ultra-orthodox Jewish tradition of sucking a child's freshly circumcised penis to "cleanse the wound," is resulting in the spread of herpes in infants.

No one wants to actually write a law against this, because no governing body wants to be the first to write a law that regulates Jewish practice.

Actually, not too long ago, the NYC Health Department tried to instate a mandate to regulate the practice of metzitzah b'peh, otherwise known as "oral suction."

 Ultra-orthodox mohel sucking on a child's freshly circumcised penis

The mandate, which was supposed to be a measure to protect further boys from being infected, was pretty much toothless to begin with, because all it did was require parents to sign a consent form before allowing a mohel to perform metztizah b’peh on their sons. Furthermore, there was no real penalty or consequences for mohels if they didn't comply.

Despite the mandate being essentially impotent, ultra-orthodox rabbis were intolerant of what they saw as an "unconstitutional, shocking governmental overreach," and they managed to convince NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio to lift the mandate. In exchange for this, however, the ultra-orthodox community vowed to report the cases of herpes that resulted due to metzitzah b'peh, and to name the mohels and rabbis involved as part of a deal.
According to a recent report, there have been six cases of infants contracting herpes as a result of the traditional practice of oral suction, since Mayor de Blasio decided to lift the previously instated mandate.

Two of the mohels involved remain a mystery despite the ultra-orthodox community's agreement to help the city identify, and isolate any mohels responsible for infecting infants with herpes through oral suction.

At least on paper, all cases of neonatal herpes are required to be reported to the city's Health Department shortly after they occur. In response to each case, health officials were supposed to issue a “health alert” notifying medical practitioners in an effort to educate them about the potential hazards of the practice.

It looks like this too, like the policy before it, was mere gesture to keep people happy.

I think the problem here is obvious.

Nobody is willing to call a spade a spade for fear of looking like "the bad guy."

Meanwhile, healthy children are getting infected with herpes, in some cases, resulting in death.

It really must be asked; when deciding these things, whose interests do people really have at heart?

Related Posts:
BUSTED: Agudath Israel of America's Antics Revealed

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

NEW YORK: Two More Herpes Babies, One With HIV

NEW YORK: Metzitzah: Two mohelim stopped after babies get herpes

NEW YORK: Yet Another Herpes Baby

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

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

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

New York: Oral Mohel Tests Positive for Herpes

Herpes Circumcision Babies: Another One? Geez!

Mohels Spreading Herpes: New York Looks the Other Way

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

Wednesday, March 1, 2017

CIRCUMCISION BOTCH: Another Post-Circumcision Hemorrhage Case Surfaces on Facebook


The American Academy of Pediatrics minimizes the risks and complications of male infant circumcision.

What are the risks?

And are parents being properly informed about them?

The risks of male infant circumcision include infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage, and even death.

As minimal as those risks may be, they are real, and parents ought to be informed about them.

The following case managed to appear on Facebook recently:


Are these risks worth it for non-medical, elective surgery on healthy, non-consenting minors?

Without medical or clinical indication, how is it possible doctors are even performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting minors, let alone giving parents any kind of "choice?"

This is just one case, and I constantly read about them on my Facebook news feed.

As it stands, doctors and hospitals are not required to report adverse effects of circumcision, and they have financial incentive to keep this information under wraps.

No one is counting, so the true risks of circumcision are unknown.

Because male infant circumcision is elective, non-medical surgery, how is anything above zero conscionable?

Related Posts:
LAW SUIT: Child Loses "Significant Portion" of Penis During Circumcision

CIRCUMCISION BOTCHES: Colombia and Malaysia


CIRCUMCISION DEATH: This Time in Russia 
FACEBOOK: KENTUCKY - Botched Circumcision Gives Newborn Severe UTI


MALE INFANT CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Boy Dies

CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies
CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yet Another One (I Hate Writing These)
Another Circumcision Death Comes to Light

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yes, Another One - This Time in Israel

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  
 
FACEBOOK: Another Circumcision Mishap - Baby Hemorrhaging After Circumcision
 
What Your Dr. Doesn't Know Could Hurt Your Child
 
FACEBOOK: Child in NICU After Lung Collapses During Circumcision
 
EMIRATES: Circumcision Claims Another Life
 
 
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: Circumcision Claims Another Life
 
TEXAS: 'Nother Circumcision Botch

Tuesday, February 28, 2017

LAW SUIT: Child Loses "Significant Portion" of Penis During Circumcision


According to a recent news report, parents in Carbon County PA have filed a lawsuit seeking damages for negligence, after a doctor cuts off a 0.3-inch portion of their child's penis, permanently scarring and disfiguring him. (Circumcision already permanently scars and disfigures, but this one would be particularly scar and disfigure beyond what is acceptable.)

The lawsuit names Dr. Stephen R. Glicken, who carried out the procedure on July 20th of last year, three days after the child's birth. Additionally it names Lehigh Valley Hospital Hazleton, Lehigh Valley Physician Group Hazleton and the Lehigh Valley Hospital and Health Network as defendants.

The lawsuit alleges that the medical staff failed to transfer the partially amputated part of their son's penis on ice, causing it to be in a condition that would make its reattachment to be "unlikely to succeed and could result in additional complications."

The parents have been told that their child's penis will never have a normal appearance, and will never achieve the size it would have achieved otherwise.

Thoughts
Without medical or clinical indication, how is it that doctors can be performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting minors?

Let alone give parents any kind of "choice?"

Male infant circumcision carries risks.

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

Were this child's parents fully informed of these risks?

How is it conscionable that a child be put at these risks for elective, non-medical surgery?

The AAP and other American medical organizations whose members stand to gain from the procedure like to downplay the risks of male infant circumcision.

As much as they want to deny the risks even exist, the risks are real, and it's sad that people only get to hear about them when stories like these make the news.

It must be remembered that not all the botches and deaths make the news.

Doctors and hospitals have financial incentive to keep these stories under wraps, and they're not required to report their number of deaths and complications.

Is the AAP etc. actually counting?
Related Posts: 
CIRCUMCISION BOTCHES: Colombia and Malaysia

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: This Time in Russia 

FACEBOOK: KENTUCKY - Botched Circumcision Gives Newborn Severe UTI


MALE INFANT CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Boy Dies

CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yet Another One (I Hate Writing These)

Another Circumcision Death Comes to Light

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yes, Another One - This Time in Israel

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  
 
FACEBOOK: Another Circumcision Mishap - Baby Hemorrhaging After Circumcision
 
What Your Dr. Doesn't Know Could Hurt Your Child
 
FACEBOOK: Child in NICU After Lung Collapses During Circumcision
 
EMIRATES: Circumcision Claims Another Life
 
 
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: Circumcision Claims Another Life
 
TEXAS: 'Nother Circumcision Botch

Thursday, January 26, 2017

Mayo Clinic Proposes Training Neonatal Nurses to Cut Circumcision Costs


According to a recent news article, a new "study" authored by Mayo Clinic suggests that training neonatal nurse practitioners to perform circumcisions instead of having specialists do them could save somewhere between 100 to 200 million dollars every decade.

"If we could get our colleagues across town to do it, (and) if we could get people in New York to do it, this would save a lot of money for society," said author of the study Dr. Dennis Costakos.

There are a few problems with this line of thinking.

First, attention needs to be brought to the fact that cutting costs for a non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals is being considered.

Since male infant circumcision is non-medical surgery conducted without any medical indication whatsoever, not to mention that the procedure is not without the risk of complications, one must wonder why money is being spent, even being made on the procedure at all.

Circumcision is performed on 1.3 million babies in the US yearly. At a dollar each, that's already a 1.3 million dollar a year industry. Hospitals can charge as much as $2000.00 for a circumcision. That's as much as 2,600,000,000 dollars a year.

For non-medical surgery.

Second, enough complications due to circumcision already occur as it is with specialists performing this non-medical surgery. The risks include infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage and even death.

Different sources cite different complication rates for different reasons. For one, doctors can't seem to agree as what constitutes a "serious complication." For another, complications aren't always reported, as doctors nor hospitals are required to disclose this information, and they have financial incentive, as can be seen above, to minimize, even hide this data.

But even if we were to go with the commonly cited conservative number of 2%, at 1.3 million babies, that's 26,000 babies who will suffer adverse affects.

For non-medical surgery.

And that's with "specialists" on the job.

Now Mayo is suggesting the job should be pawned off on nurse practitioners?

To save 100 to 200 dollars a decade?

That's 10 years.

Circumcision is worth as much as 2.6 trillion.

Thirdly, the only "cost" doctors at Mayo seem to be considering when it comes to male infant circumcision is the procedure itself. Should there be complications, and it happens to at least 2% of males circumcised a year, repair and treatment would also be an added cost.

Because circumcision would not be performed by specialists, wouldn't it be expected for this rate to rise?

Thereby actually increasing costs?

Because repairing circumcisions isn't free?

So hold the phone.

Instead of working to shave off a few mil, why aren't doctors calling to end this practice which is basically a freebie for American doctors?

70% of the world's men aren't circumcised, and there simply isn't an epidemic of all the horrific diseases circumcision advocates try to scare American parents with.

In the industrialized world, the US is the only country still routinely circumcising its male newborns.

The great majority of the circumcised 30% were circumcised out of cultural or religious custom.

Less than 1% of men ever have a medical problem that calls for circumcision.

Any "benefit" circumcision is supposed to afford is already easily afforded by less invasive, more effective means.

So why isn't it a problem that doctors are reaping profit from circumcision at all?

Billions, if not trillions of dollars a year could be saved if doctors simply stopped soliciting this non-medical surgery.

There are millions who need health care resources for medical needs.

Why are we spending millions on this ethically questionable practice with "benefits" already easily affordable without surgery?

It's amazing how disconnected educated medical professionals can be.

Clearly the doctors at Mayo are out of touch with reality.


Related Posts:
Circumcision Botches and the Elephant in the Room