If you support the intactivist cause of bodily integrity and basic human rights for all children, you've got to support Eric Clopper.
As I've already talked about in previous posts, Eric Clopper was fired from his job for having written and orchestrated what is probably the most devastating take-down of male infant circumcision of all time.
He takes apart the lastest pseudo-scientific circumcision alibis and holds the AAP's feet to the fire for citing them in their latest 2012 statement.
It is perhaps that his presentation is so compelling, so well-researched and indicting of American medicine that the administration at Harvard is seeing to it that this man be silenced.
Silence is not enough, as the Harvard administration has gone the extra step of shaming this man with illegally obtained intimate footage.
When you can't attack an argument, you attack the arguer, and it seems this is the path Harvard University has taken in regards to Eric Clopper.
But why let me tell you about it? I'm going to copy-paste his latest blog post here.
Thank you… And Next Steps
July 17, 2018
Thank You...
I have been overwhelmed by all the support you’ve all shown me following the release of my show, Sex & Circumcision: An American Love Story. From the bottom of my heart, thank you.
I’ve tried over the last couple days to keep up with everyone. To personally thank, or at least like, love, and haha (all the FB emojis) all the support you’ve shown me. I’ve been completely overwhelmed, and for that, I thank you.
The range of people’s reactions to my show have been as wide as they can be. From “powerful, amazing, informative, heartfelt, empowering, brilliant, stellar, and epic” to “nude, anti-Semitic rant.” Whatever your position is, I just ask that you watch my show in its entirety before coming to a conclusion (the latter “rant” review was written by two “reporters” Michael Xie and Lucy Wang who did not see my show.) Whatever other people’s reactions may be, the reason I put on this show was because I thought it was the right thing to do. Because I know on every level (historical, academic, medical, and personal) and in my bones that cutting into the flesh of and excising functional genital tissue from children is a profoundly evil thing to do. If you’re doing it to honor an ancient blood sacrifice, well, that’s an even stupider reason.
I don’t want to delve into genital-cutting though, you can see my show for that. I’m writing this to convey my thanks for your support in helping move this supremely important cause forward. The right to one’s own body is the fundamental human right we must all have if we are to consider ourselves a civilized society. Unfortunately, we cannot consider ourselves worthy of the title “civilized” yet.
Next Steps
I knew my show would be controversial, which is why I stressed multiple times I was only representing myself and not Harvard University. I had hoped that Harvard would live up to its adamant free speech policy as underscored by both its outgoing president, Drew Faust, and its recently inaugurated president, Lawrence Bacow. Unfortunately, I was wrong. Immediately following my show I was suspended without explanation, and after a lengthy inquisition, Harvard terminated me immediately following the release of my show.
I knew my show was controversial (because people don’t want to hear the truth, not the factual content), but even so, I thought Harvard had the integrity to live up to their published, stated, and often underscored commitment to free speech; I was wrong.
Although I loved my job, working with my coworkers, and the opportunities working at Harvard provided, I don’t regret giving my performance; it was the right thing to do.
What happens next? Well, now, there are consequences. Consequences for both me and Harvard.
For me? Well, I find myself unemployed and broke (I spent all my money on the show). I will have to find a way to get by in the interim until I get another job, monetize my intactivism, or do something along those lines to make money. I wish it never came to this.
For Harvard? Well, Harvard usually considers itself immune to most negative repercussions; they do have 38 billion dollars and a building full of attorneys on retainer.
But, how can anyone, especially alumni, faculty, and students, let “the greatest university” so disregard the principles they ostensibly defend? Freedom of speech, expression, and thought are pillars of any great university. Yet, they fire me immediately following the release of my show on pretextual grounds after stealing my sensitive tapes and disseminating them among senior administrators and compelling my colleagues to view it? It’s so egregious, it’s hard to believe.
I intend to hold Harvard accountable for their behavior and hypocrisy even if they have more money than many countries. To do this, though, I need your help… I need your help spreading the word, and I need your help in litigation. If you are down to join my team, please consider giving what you can to help me litigate against Harvard, the Goliath, and hold them accountable for their malfeasance and lack of integrity. In doing so, we can set a new precedent that drawing a firm line in the sand – that it is UNACCEPTABLE to cut into the flesh of newborn children – is not a just cause to get investigated and terminated over.
If you’d like to support my litigation efforts against Harvard, The Crimson, and Baystate Events (the company that stole my show and personal, sexually explicit content and sent them to Harvard), please find my GoFundMe here: https://www.gofundme.com/eric-cloppers-defense-fund
Please stay tuned to my blog and social media channels for new content and updates on how this David vs. Goliath battle plays out… and thank you again, from the bottom of my heart, for your help in this battle for the fundamental human rights of our kids.
Just posting the latest tragedies, or near-tragedies that surfaced on my Facebook news feed.
(Unless there is medical or clinical indication, all male infant circumcision is a tragedy.)
First up, another story where a child nearly bleeds to death. The child is put in the NICU and the doctors had to cauterize the wound to stop the bleeding.
Another child turns black and blue, and is given urine retention problems by his circumcision. Apparently, the boy's bladder had to be drained with a neonatal feeding tube as a catheter.
This happened at Dothan, Alabama.
The poster "doesn't know what they did to cause these issues" (Really? You don't think the fact that the child was needlessly circumcised had ANYTHING to do with it?), but apparently the child now has iatrogenically induced UTI at 4 days old.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again.
I say these things every time I post tragic stories on here.
The risks of male infant circumcision include infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage and even death.
Unless there is medical or clinical indication, circumcision is purely cosmetic, non-medical surgery.
Under any other circumstance, reaping profit from performing non-medical procedures on healthy, non-consenting minors constitutes medical fraud.
Being an elective, non-medical procedure, any risk is unconscionable.
In 2012, the AAP admitted in their circumcision policy statement that the true rate of circumcision risrks is unknown.
What I post here are only stories that have surfaced on Facebook, but doctors and hospitals are not required to report on adverse circumcision outcomes, doctors have financial incentives to misatribute deaths and complications due to circumcision to something else, and parents agree to be complicite to hide their shame.
The risks and complications of circumcision are real, and it should concern Americans that organizations like the AAP are not interested in documenting them.
I wish the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors were recognized for the barbaric mutilation and the gross violation of basic human rights that it is.
I avoid my Facebook account because I know that the minute I sign on, my news feed is going to show that somewhere in the world, a child is suffering complications from this needless procedure.
At the end of this post, you can see all the cases I've documented on this blog.
And there are others.
There are others, but I've either been too busy to bother, or I'm just not on Facebook and I miss them.
I have a life, I need to get to work, I've got kids of my own to raise, and I can't dedicate as much time as I want to this cause.
Being an intactivist is hard work.
You have to see children suffer from complications, watch as parents mourn what was supposed to be one of the most joyful times in their lives.
And then, you have to watch as people dismiss the deaths and complications of circumcision, dismiss facts and information, have people tell you "Who are you to tell parents what to do?"
This.
This right here is why I "have the nerve" to have this blog, to speak out against what is in non-consenting individuals, male genital mutilation.
I had been studiously avoiding logging on to Facebook, but my phone tells me someone has messaged me, and so there I go checking it.
Ironically enough it's some woman trying to lecture me on how "uneducated" I am on the subject.
And before I can click on my private message icon, what do I see?
This.
The caption reads:
"The unexpected has happened!!!
A baby has died. I don't know how to take this.
His circumcision wouldn't stop bleeding. They went to the Beaumont ER they gave him meds and then sent home. THAT'S IT!!! Nothing else.
No parent should experience this pain ( and a hurricane/tropical storm). And I know that no one plans for a funeral when they have a new born.
I'm going to help financially with the services the best I can. The only way I know how to help lift some of the burden off of them.
Will you please pray for the family? This is a difficult time.
If you'd like to help with the financial burden please go here."
The link is to a YouCaring page, which can be accessed here as of 8-29-2017. Who knows when they will take it down.
I've taken a screen shot of it and am posting it here:
The caption here reads:
"Baby Zackery was born August 17th, 2017. He passed away August 28 from what is thought to be due to complications with his circumcision but we will not know more until later. Our family needs help with funeral costs to put this sweet baby boy to rest as his parents don't possess the proper funds and we would like to help take this burden from them so they don't have to worry about how to afford a funeral as they are dealing with the loss of their precious baby boy. Any and all donations will be greatly appreciated and God bless everyone for their help."
I don't want to spend too long on this post.
I'll be repeating what I've posted on every other death/complication post.
The risks of male infant circumcision include infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage and even death.
How is ANY risk conscionable for elective, cosmetic surgery?
Are parents being fully informed on this matter?
According to the 2012 AAP statement, the risks of male infant circumcision are unknown.
This is because hospitals are not required to release any information on adverse outcomes of circumcision. Doctors have incentive to attribute deaths due to circumcision to secondary causes of death, and parents are complicit in keeping deaths and complications under wraps.
That is until recently, where parents post their children's stories online.
With the advent of the internet, the risks and complications of male infant circumcision can no longer be ignored, and members of the AAP can no longer feign ignorance.
Members of the AAP, if the risks of male infant circumcision are unknown, WHY PRAY TELL AREN'T YOU INVESTIGATING???
How is a single death due to elective, cosmetic surgery concsionable?
In 2012, you reviewed the current body of medical literature and you could not commit to a recommendation based on it, because in your own words "the benefits of circumcision weren't great enough."
And yet, somehow, you expect parents, the great majority of who don't have a medical degree, to somehow arrive at a more reasonable conclusion.
At this point I must ask, what are you people at the AAP SMOKING???
Death is a risk of male infant circumcision.
This, and other children were needlessly killed by the elective, cosmetic, non-medical surgery.
WHY aren't doctors required to fully inform parents about this?
More importantly, without medical or clinical indication, how is it that doctors are able to get way with reaping profit from performing elective, cosmetic, non-medical surgery on a healthy, non-consenting minor, let alone pretend to be able to offer parents any kind of "choice" in this matter?
Reaping profit from performing elective, non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals constitutes medical fraud in any other case.
Why is male infant genital mutilation the lone exception?
That doctors are able to reap profit at the expense of a child's basic human rights, even as children DIE is absolutely DESPICABLE.
WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO DO YOUR JOBS AND DEDICATE YOUR EXISTENCE TO THE HEALTH OF ALL CHILDREN???
AAP???
This child's blood, and the blood of other children before him is in YOUR hands.
Particularly in the United States, suing for circumcision malpractice is an uphill battle.
About 80% of US males are circumcised from birth, and though male infant circumcision rates have fallen in the past years, to about about 56% if CDC numbers are to be believed, the practice is still quite prevalent, at about 1.3 million boys circumcised a year.
This means that male infant circumcision is viewed favorably by a considerable number of the population.
The country is exposed to a constant drizzle of news articles and "studies" saying that circumcising male infants is "beneficial," and that adverse effects of it are "negligible."
So we, as a nation, are predisposed to believe that circumcision is a benign, "harmless" procedure and that nothing could ever go wrong.
It's no surprise, then, that any adverse results that do present themselves are minimized, and those who are at fault for negligence or malpractice are often absolved, boys and men who have to live with the consequences of a circumcision gone wrong be damned.
Connecticut Mogen Clamp Case
A circumcision malpractice case is currently stirring up controversy on Facebook, where at least one user who posted the case on his timeline has been punished with a 30 day ban.
The case in question is Mahoney v. Smith, a case in Connecticut where parents sued Dr. Lori Storch Smith over malpractice for a circumcision performed at Norwalk Hospital on December 29, 2010.
During this procedure, Dr. Smith used a Mogen Clamp, and then realized that she had cut off approximately 30% of the glans of the baby's penis. The baby was subsequently transported to Yale-New Haven Hospital where he had the amputated portion reattached.
The trial began on April 15, 2015 – and the jury cleared the defendant. The verdict was appealed, and the Appellate Court ruled against the plaintiffs on July 13, 2017.
Long story short, the jury was presented with evidence, and despite the fact that the child's circumcision resulted in 30% of his glans being amputated, decided that the Bay Street Pediatrics doctor should be cleared of medical negligence.
The Devil in the Details
The parents tried appealing the court decision but were unsuccessful.
They tried to argue that a video shown in court was unfairly allowed by the trial judge, which may have swayed or confused the jurors.
The video shows a Mogen procedure being completed successfully without any complications.
Furthermore, details that were never an issue or point of contention were addressed, namely that anesthesia and the right surgical tools to control bleeding were used. (The end result was 30% of the child's glans being severed, regardless of how much anesthesia or which tools were used.)
According to the appellate court, rather than confuse, the video likely illustrated for the jury the testimony given by the Mahoneys’ own expert witness, Dr. David Weiss, describing a circumcision using a Mogen clamp, an allegation that can't be true, given the fact that the child's circumcision was a botched surgery, not one completed successfully as shown in the video.
The problem lies in the technicality that the Mahoneys' counsel identified the video as acceptable evidence for presentation prior to the trial.
The Mahoneys are apparently at fault for not having requested to see the video before it as presented and rejected it as evidence.
According to Law360, "The plaintiffs could have asked to watch the video prior to its introduction at trial, but did not do so; nor did they file a motion in limine seeking to preclude its admission into evidence, move for a continuance after it was marked for identification or recall Dr. Weiss to serve as a rebuttal witness concerning the video," the panel wrote in a nine-page opinion.
The Mahoneys tried to argue that use of the video violated the court rules regarding disclosure of expert testimony, but the panel rejected this argument saying the plaintiffs did not specifically make those claims in their motions to set aside the verdict for a new trial.
The jury, while deliberating, wanted to see the video again. However, this request was denied because the video itself was not part of the evidence, because it was not produced as evidence and was not a recording of the actual botched surgery. (Begging the question of why it was allowed to be shown in the first place.)
The jury then requested to hear again the declaration of the expert witness, the one that presented the video. They were told they could get a transcript but that would take about 2 days to just listen to the transcript again.
It must be asked, what was the purpose of showing a video where the procedure went how it was supposed to in the first place?
How was it significant enough to show it to the jury the first time, but suddenly not significant enough to request to see it a second?
So if your blogger read the appellation correctly, the court discouraged the jury from re-hearing this testimony. In my opinion, this is necessarily the result of judges who are already circumcised themselves, and/or have circumcised children, working with a jury whose members are likely to be circumcised/parents of circumcised children themselves, both of whom already want believe circumcision is benign and could never go wrong, and want to see this case dismissed, so that they can go back to believing circumcision is "harmless" and "good."
In the end, a child's glans was partially amputated, and the jury believed the doctor wasn't negligent and performed the circumcision "properly" because that's what they saw in a video.
And it's the parents' fault for not requesting to see the video before it was presented.
A Mogen clamp; the circumcision clamp used in this case
We can go on and on quibbling about the details in this case, how the judges, jury, lawyers handled it etc., but that is beating around the bush.
The fact isa mogen clamp was used in 2010, when it was already clear that there is potential for injury even in the best case.
I have already written numerous posts on this before, but the Mogen Clamp is notorious for glans amputations.
Common Mogen Problem: The circumciser is blind to the
conditionof the child's glans. Some or all of the glans is pulled up
along with the foreskin, resulting in partial or full glans amputations.
Back in August, 2000, the FDA issued a warning regarding the potential for injury employing the use of the Mogen and Gomco clamps, after 105 reports of injuries between July 1996 and January 2000.
On July of 2010, six months before this botched procedure, an Atlanta Lawyer won a $10.8 million lawsuit for the family of a baby whose glans was amputated during a Mogen clamp circumcision.
Mogen Circumcision Instruments of New York was already $7 million in default on another lawsuit, and was thus forced out of business.
Another baby, born on March of 2010 (9 months before this botched circumcision) also had the glans of his penis removed during a Mogen clamp circumcision. His parents filed a lawsuit on April of 2015.
The FDA warning was later archived, but remained accessible on their website for some time.
(Incidentally, your blogger tried accessing that warning today, but it is nowhere to be seen. The failed search even offers to search the FDA archive, but this is also a dead end. Fortunately, a copy of the warning can be found archived on the CIRP webpage.)
AAP Silent
In 2012, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued their policy statement on circumcision, in which they make the self-contradictory statement that “the benefits outweigh the risks”, but that “the benefits are not enough to recommend circumcision.”
In their statement, the AAP tries to minimize the risks and complications of male infant circumcision, including the most catastrophic risks, which include partial or full ablation of the penis, hemorrhage and even death. Reported incidences of adverse effects of circumcision are dismissed as "case reports" because of the lack of statistics.
The AAP admits in their 2012 statement that "the true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision is unknown."
The AAP policy statement on circumcision is turning 5 years next month.
Will they reaffirm it?
Will they present a new one?
Are they even trying to document the actual number of catastrophic injuries?
The fact is, physicians and hospitals are not required to report adverse outcomes of circumcision procedures.
It's also a fact that the AAP is first and foremost a trade union, whose primary interest is the welfare of their members, a great deal of who profit from the business of male infant circumcision.
Something tells me they're not interested in conducting investigations that could prove devastating to their members.
The bottom line is that male infant circumcision is elective, cosmetic non medical surgery whose risks and complications are no longer deniable.
Are parents being warned of these risks?
But more importantly, can doctors get away with reaping profit performing non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals?
Were it the amputation or extraction of any other part of the body, the medical fraud would be undeniable.
Why is it that doctors who perform male infant circumcision get a free pass?
You see, in their 2012 statement on circumcision, the AAP did everything they could to vindicate male infant circumcision, but in the end stopped short of a recommendation because in their own words, "the benefits [of male infant circumcision] aren't great enough to recommend" it.
So what do you do?
You get ambitious pediatricians to give them that extra push.
In a YouTube video published by First Choice Pediatrics, one can see Esther Song brazenly saying the AAP actually does recommend male infant circumcision, and boasting that they use a sucrose solution to help with pain management among other things.
"American Academy of Pediatrics do recommend circumcision for the babies... there's some controversies and the problem is that insurance are not covering it, they're still considering it as cosmetic procedure, but we do believe that it is better for their hygiene, and there's other studies showing that it does decrease rates of sexually transmitted infections... and its' actually quicker healing, and we do use this sucrose solution to calm them down and it is very effective and doctors do use local anesthesia to help with the pain also, so I do recommend getting the circumcision and we do offer the surgery here..." ~Esther Song, Pediatrician, First Choice Pediatrics
So many things wrong here, beginning with the fact that actually, no, the AAP does not recommend male infant circumcision. They stopped short in their 2012 statement stating that the "benefits are not sufficient."
Second, babies don't have sex, so why a possible reduction in sexually transmitted diseases is relevant to tell parents is questionable.
Third, she is talking about pain management that has been shown by studies to actually be quite ineffective.
Here is what one study on "sucrose solution," or sugar water has to say on the matter:
Additionally, here are two studies on local pain management:
"...more than half of the study group had what we considered excessive
pain/discomfort over the course of the entire procedure.". Taeusch, H William; Alma M Martinez, J
Colin Partridge, Susan Sniderman, Jennifer Armstrong-Wells, Elena
Fuentes-Afflick (April/May 2002). "Pain During Mogen or PlastiBell Circumcision". Journal of Perinatology22 (3): 214-218. http://www.nature.com/jp/journal/v22/n3/full/7210653a.html. Retrieved 2011-04-08.
I think it is clever how she makes the controversy about "insurance companies not covering it," and doesn't get into how human rights groups consider it to be mutilation and a human rights violation outside a valid medical necessity.
Will she inform parents about how circumcision has been abandoned by pretty much every other English-speaking country?
I guess you can't talk about that if you're trying to sell circumcision to parents, can't you...
One of the persons in the videos said that babies "sleep through the procedure." I'm guessing she thinks, or she hopes, YouTube videos aren't available for parents to watch, and that parents wouldn't bother to see them, because no, babies don't sleep through the procedure. And they certainly aren't asleep during the post-operation diaper changes when the babies scream their lungs out. There are YouTube videos for that too.
How stupid do the folks at First Choice think parents are?
Hurray for fully informing parents!
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
~Upton Sinclair
So the only thing really going for First Choice is their "belief" that male infant circumcision is more "hygienic." Why they don't believe in soap and water like the rest of the English-speaking world is puzzling.
I wonder what the American Academy of Pediatric thinks about medical groups deliberately misquoting them for profit...
For their own benefit, we do hope the folks at First Choice are willing to rectify the deliberate misinformation they're feed parents.
Statements by Other Organizations
Just for fun, here is a list of statements on circumcision released by medical organizations around the world.
USA
"The British Medical Association has a longstanding recommendation
that circumcision should be performed only for medical reasons... Recent
policy statements issued by professional societies representing
Australian, Canadian, and American pediatricians do not recommend
routine circumcision of male newborns".
~AMA Report 10 of the Council on Scientific Affairs
"...benefits are not sufficient for the American Academy of Pediatrics to recommend that all infant boys be circumcised."
~American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)
"...the association between having a sexually transmitted disease
(STD) - excluding human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and being
circumcised are inconclusive... most of the studies [of the effect of
circumcision on HIV] ...have been conducted in developing countries,
particularly those in Africa. Because of the challenges with maintaining
good hygiene and access to condoms, these results are probably not
generalizable to the U.S. population".
~AAFP "Position Paper on Neonatal Circumcision"
Canada
"Current understanding of the benefits, risks and potential harm of
this procedure no longer supports this practice for prophylactic health
benefit. Routine infant male circumcision performed on a healthy infant
is now considered a non-therapeutic and medically unnecessary
intervention."
~College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia
"[We] do not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns."
"Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed."
~The Canadian Paediatric Society
Britain
"The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefits from
non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a
justification for doing it."
~The British Medical Association
Australia
Australia
The Royal Australasian College of Physicians stated in 2010 that the foreskin "exists to protect the glans" and that it is a "primary sensory part of the penis, containing some of the most sensitive areas of the penis."
According to the Australasian Academy of Paediatric Surgeons:
"The Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons does not support
the routine circumcision of male neonates, infants or children in
Australia. It is considered to be inappropriate and unnecessary as a
routine to remove the prepuce, based on the current evidence available."
"We do not support the removal of a normal part of the body, unless
there are definite indications to justify the complications and risks
which may arise. In particular, we are opposed to male children being
subjected to a procedure, which had they been old enough to consider the
advantages and disadvantages, may well have opted to reject the
operation and retain their prepuce."
"Neonatal male circumcision has no medical indication. It is a
traumatic procedure performed without anaesthesia to remove a normal
functional and protective prepuce. At birth, the prepuce has not
separated from the underlying glans and must be forcibly torn apart to
deliver the glans, prior to removal of the prepuce distal to the coronal
groove."
Netherlands
In the Netherlands, the Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) issued a statement in 2010 stating that "The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organizations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity." Circumcision can cause complications, including infection and bleeding, and are asking doctors to insistently inform parents that the procedure lacks medical benefits and has a danger of complications. In addition to there not being any convincing evidence that circumcision is necessary or useful for hygiene or prevention, circumcision is not justifiable and is reasonable to put off until an age where any risk is relevant, and the boy can decide himself about possible intervention, or opt for available alternatives. They went on to say "There are good reasons for a legal prohibition of non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors, as exists for female genital mutilation."
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?
Yet another circumcision botch from my Facebook news feed. These are way more common than circumcision advocates would like others to believe.
This one is unknown; the names have been blotted out for privacy.
What else can I say?
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, child abuse, 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.
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.
The fact is 70% of the men in the world have anatomically correct penises, and there simply isn't an epidemic of "problems."
The highest prevalence of STDs including HIV can be observed in the US, where 80% of males are already circumcised from birth.
Only about 1% of males will ever need to be circumcised.
STDs are already better prevented with sex education and condoms.
The circumcision of healthy male infants is not medically necessary.
The risks of male infant circumcision include infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage, and even death.
Are American doctors fully informing parents of these facts?
DISCLAIMER:Before I begin, I'd like to make a disclaimer, because I know that as soon as I post this, there will not be a shortage of people using claims of anti-Semitism to dismiss me, and to dismiss the rest of the intactivist movement. Let it be clear: I speak out against the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting
minors in any way, shape or form. I make no exception for "religion" nor
"cultural practice" of any kind. For me, unless there is clear medical or clinical indication, forcibly performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting minors is always medical fraud, always child abuse, and always a violation of the most basic, the most precious of human rights. Please do not conflate my disdain for
the forced circumcision of minors with a hate for Jews. The views I express in this blog are my own
individual opinion, and they do not necessarily reflect the views of all
intactivists. I am but an individual with one opinion, and I do not
pretend to speak for the intactivist movement as a whole, thank you.
~Joseph4GI
Advocates of genital integrity can now breathe a sigh of relief; it appears as though America's foremost advocate of male circumcision has finally kicked the bucket.
Interestingly enough, his obituary mentions nothing of male circumcision, although it could be said that the defense, advocacy and active promotion of male infant circumcision in America was his legacy.
I'll take care of that.
Edgar Schoen's Legacy: America's Male Infant Circumcision Champion
There was a time when the routine circumcision of newborn baby boys was a near-universal practice in the British Commonwealth. The practice has nearly vanished, however, but it remains popular in the United States, where 80% of all US males are circumcised from birth.*
But how could this be?
How is it that in other Commonwealth nations such as the UK, Australia and New Zealand, male infant circumcision has all but disappeared, but in America it's doing so well?
This man alone may be solely responsible for male infant circumcision's survival in the United States.
Read on to see why this may be the case.
Let's go back in time to before there was ever such a thing as the "American Academy of Pediatrics Circumcision Task Force."
*Actually, the rate of male infant circumcision has been declining recently, as low as 56% according to the CDC, and Schoen and friends had been busy trying to change that.
The Very First AAP Task Force on Circumcision
The year is 1970.
Recognizing the need for an authoritative statement on routine neonatal circumcision, the American Academy of Pediatrics' Committee on Fetus and Newborn issued a statement saying that there were "no valid medical indications" for performing circumcisions on newborns.
This bold statement, released in 1971, was met with objections from some physicians, leading the AAP to create their very first Task Force on Circumcision in 1975 to reconsider the previous position.
A First in American Medicine; The Parents Will Decide
The AAP Task Force published their report in Pediatrics in October 1975, saying they had found "no basis" for changing their statement. There was "No absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn."
However they added the following qualification:
Nevertheless, traditional, cultural and religious factors play a role in the decision made by parents, pediatrician, obstetrician, or family practitioner on behalf of a son. It is the responsibility of the physician to provide parents with factual and informative medical options regarding circumcision. The final decision is theirs, and should be based on true informed consent. It is advantageous or discussion to take place well in advance of deliver, when the capacity for clear response is more likely.
This statement is an extraordinarily unique instance in the history of American medicine.
The pediatricians declared that their colleagues should be willing to perform surgery lacking adequate medical rationale, provided only that parents request, or agree to it.
In short, a group of credentialed, well-qualified, learned pediatricians gave parents exclusive right to authorize physicians to perform surgery for explicitly non-medical reasons.
In collaboration with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the AAP's Committee on Fetus and Newborn issued Guidelines for Prenatal Care in 1983, which repeated the 1975 recommendations.
Enter Edgar J. Schoen
The ACOG/AAP publication attracted Schoen's attention, and in 1989, Schoen was made chair of another Task Force on Circumcision who released yet another statement, this one highly biased in favor of male infant circumcision.
Due attention was paid to "contraindications" and "complications," but the report discussed the prevention of phimosis, paraphimosis, cancer of the penis and cervix, infections as "potential medical benefits."
It characterized circumcision as "a rapid and generally safe procedure when performed by an experienced operator." Infants were said to respond with "transient behavioral and physiologic changes."
The conclusion was studiously ambiguous:
"Newborn circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks. When circumcision is being considered, the benefits and risks should be explained to the parents and informed consent obtained."
Notably absent was the 1975 statement about "no valid medical indications."
Where did it go?
It is clear that, while not exactly a brief for circumcision, the AAP 1975 Circumcision Policy Statement was much more biased in favor of circumcision than the previous statements.
1999 - Schoen Is Dissatisfied
The Schoen-chaired statement drew objections from circumcision opponents, leading to the creation of yet another task force in 1999, and the issuance of a new "circumcision policy statement," this one evaluating all claims in greater detail, and introducing the new and noteworthy topic of medical ethics.
The concluding statement was basically a compilation of the last few statements, which seemed to try and satisfy everyone:
"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interests of the child... It is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious and ethnic traditions, in addition to the medical factors, when making this decision."
It seems the best solution any group of pediatricians can come to is to shirk their responsibilities and issue temporary PhD's to parents.
It must be asked, what "medical factors" exist when assessing a perfectly healthy, non-consenting newborn?
Since when are physicians expected to facilitate religious and/or cultural incisions/extirpations?
Needless to say, Schoen was not happy with the 1999 statement.
He soon teamed up with Thomas Wiswell and Stephen Moses, both known circumcision advocates, Moses pushing circumcision as HIV prevention.
Schoen's circumcision dream team called the new statement a "cause for concern," and presented arguments in favor of circumcision, from penile cancer to HIV, calling on the AAP leadership to "quickly address the narrow, biased and inadequate data analysis as well as the inappropriate conclusions."
The AAP Task Force at that time replied by reiterating that while they recognized "potential medical benefits" of circumcision, they were "not sufficiently compelling" when weighed against the "evidence of low incidence, high-morbidity problems." They repeated that they favored "leaving it up to the family to decide whether circumcision is in the best interests of the child."
2003 - Schoen Comes Back
In June 2003, Schoen returns to the scene by writing a letter to Pediatrics, arguing that "new data" had accumulated supporting the claims that circumcision protected against penile cancer, HIV infection, UTIs, phimosis and penile skin lesions, as well as arguing that circumcision "improved genital hygiene throughout life."
In his letter, he urged the AAP revise its 1999 statement, and that a new report be issued to provide "a comprehensive picture of disease prevention from birth through old age."
The next AAP statement on circumcision was to be released 13 years later in 2012, when a policy statement on male infant circumcision was long overdue.
It should be noted that while the 2012 AAP statement does dance around "new, updated data," the statement does little more than repeat the compiled
conclusions of it's predecessors, citing "potential benefits," but never quite committing to a
recommendation because, in their own words "the benefits are not great enough," placing the onus of responsibility on parents.
Incidentally, the AAP 2012 statement was formally rejected by well-respected pediatric organizations and senior pediatricians from around the world.
Thus, much to Schoen's chagrin, it continues to be fact; No respected medical board in the world recommends circumcision for infants, not even the AAP.
Unanswered Questions
The AAP statements raise more questions than they answer.
The questions are these:
Without medical or clinical indication, can a doctor even be performing elective, non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting minors?
Let alone be offering parents any kind of a "choice?"
If the answer is "yes," then the next question would be, what other surgery are physicians expected to perform merely because a parent requests it?
The AAP's biggest mistake was deciding to shirk their responsibilities and put them on parents.
How is it possible that lay parents, the majority of whom never went to medical school, could come up with a more reasonable conclusion than the people holding credentials in the medical field?
How is it physicians are suddenly too stupid to do their jobs, and parents suddenly more learned on medical matters than qualified doctors with degrees?
The AAP should have never opened that can of worms.
Edgar Schoen: Rejected Circumcision Evangelist
America is not the only place where Schoen tried to establish his circumcision legacy. Schoen was a circumcision evangelist who tried to
(unsuccessfully) spread circumcision to other parts of the world. The
following is an excerpt of a letter written against him in the
publication Disease in Childhood:
Schoen’s claims have been rejected wherever he goes. When he
published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1990, his views were
opposed by Poland. When he published in Acta Paediatrica Scandinavia in
1991, his views were rebutted by Bollgren and Winberg. When Schoen
published in this journal in 1997, his views were countered by
Hitchcock and also by Nicoll. In the present instance, his views are
offset by Malone.
When the Canadian Paediatric Society published their position
statement on neonatal circumcision in 1996, they followed the views of
Poland, not those of Schoen. Although Schoen was chairman of the
American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) taskforce on circumcision that
published in 1989, he did not serve on the AAP taskforce on circumcision
that published in 1999. That second taskforce distanced the AAP from
the views published by Schoen’s taskforce a decade earlier.
Schoen’s present views on circumcision are strikingly similar to
those of Wolbarst, which were published nearly a century ago. This
suggests that Schoen’s views are founded in a desire to preserve his
culture of origin, not in medical science.
Conflict of Interest - Public Health? Or Cultural/Religious Preservation?
Daring to point out that a physician who advocates for neonatal circumcision might be partial to the practice out of religious conviction invariably gets you labeled an "anti-Semite."
But what's so anti-Semitic about pointing out that a person might have religious conviction to put circumcision in a positive light? That a person may be predisposed to welcome evidence that the most particular and problematic religious
custom of Judaism might be medically beneficial, and to dismiss arguments
to the contrary?
According to a MEDLINE search, Edgar Schoen
has been published 20 times in the medical literature on the subject of
circumcision.
He also happened to be Jewish, where male infant circumcision is considered to be a divine commandment.
This being the case, he may have had a conviction to defend a cherished tradition that has been under fire since the time of the Maccabees, and which has been falling out of favor in this country, even among Jews themselves.
So it must be asked, did Edgar Schoen's actions stem from a true and genuine interest in public health?
Or did they stem from a religious conviction to protect and promote male infant circumcision under the guise of medical advice?
which aired live from 1979 until December 10, 2010.
Dean Edell is a Jewish-American physician and broadcaster
who became one of the most outspoken opponents of
circumcision.
It is generally well accepted that
an "authority," especially a medical one, needs to be objective and impartial, and that an
audience can only evaluate information from a source if they know about
conflicts of interest that may affect the objectivity of the source.
Does it not follow that a physician's religious convictions for circumcision ought to be disclosed?
My Thoughts
It is my opinion thatSchoen's religious conviction to male infant circumcision is in direct
conflict with a feigned interest in disease prevention and public
health.
Edgar Schoen was a Jewish doctor who protected and promoted forced circumcision for Jewish reasons, while disguising these reasons as medical advice.
Schoen used his credentials and prestigious position of AAP Task Force chair to ensure the survival of a Jewish religious tradition, and thus couldn't care any less about public health and the well-being of children.
Edgar Schoen had ulterior motives for promoting male infant circumcision.
He sought to supplant American culture with his own culture of origin, where being circumcised is a mark of being Jewish, and not being circumcised makes you an outcast.
To a certain degree he has been successful; in America having anatomically correct genitals carries social stigma, as it is seen as "dirty" or "disgusting."
I'd be lying if I said I'm sad that Edgar Schoen died.
He did nothing more than participate in the perpetuation of child abuse and violation of basic human rights in this country.
His legacy will live in infamy as that of America's ultimate circumcision champion.
I feel grief, but not for him...
I feel grief and regret men who are angry at what has happened to them didn't get to see the day when this man were held responsible for his actions; the promotion of male genital mutilation... The mental anguish caused to American men with anatomically correct genitals, by the institutionalized profanity against the natural male body...
I feel an evil man has died without being made to face justice.
I can only imagine this is how holocaust survivors might feel when they learn a Nazi who participated in the execution of Jews has died without having been brought to justice...
The millions of needless surgeries...
The countless infections, partial or full ablations, hemorrhages, deaths, this man is responsible for...
The many lives he ruined...
The many men who have to live their lives with deformed penises... marred bodies...
The many men who have to live with the reality that they must live in a body they did not ask for...
That they must live with an artificial, forced phenomenon...
That they will never know what sex as nature intended it would be...
That they will live with a sense that the body which they were born with was never their own...
That they will never know the feeling of having a whole, intact body...
For the rest of their lives...
It is clear that he left an indelible mark upon American medicine, and upon millions of American males across the country, whether they wanted it or not.
A perpetuator of charlatanism, child abuse and the violation of the most basic and sacred of human rights has died.
Good riddance.
I can't wait for others like him to die off and be relegated to one of the darkest eras in American history.
