FACEBOOK: KENTUCKY - Botched Circumcision Gives Newborn Severe UTI

The latest tragedy that has come up in my Facebook news feed is that of a child whose circumcision has resulted in a serious UTI that is spreading throughout the child's body.

The child's aunt asking for prayers on Facebook (Names have been blotted out for privacy):

Yes, nevermind what the child is struggling through.
Pray for the mom and kids. Pay no attention to the kid.

These are common on Facebook.

Mothers and fathers are warned that circumcision has risks, they ignore us because, you know, we're not doctors, and who are we to tell them how to raise their kids right?

Then tragedy strikes, and no one wants to be told "We told you so."

They ask for prayers for something that could have been totally avoided.

Not to mention it says right there in the New Testament that circumcision is forbidden for gentiles.

What's interesting is that "reduced risk of UTIs" is given as an alibi for performing elective, non-medical circumcision on newborns.

Most UTIs can be remedied with anti-biotics, in boys as in girls.

Somehow I think this UTI will take a little bit more than that to fix.

Note that this UTI was iatrogenically induced.

When are parents, when are doctors going to learn?

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

In some cases, such as these, circumcision may cause the very problems it is said to prevent.

Because circumcision is elective, non-medical surgery, any number of complications above zero is unconscionable.

Were these parents warned of the risks?

Is the AAP keeping tracks of these incidents?

Because we sure are.

It really is too bad that children have to suffer needlessly like this.

This tragedy could have been avoided had the parents simply refused this for their child, had doctors simply left the child alone.

Reaping profit from non-medical surgery on non-consenting individuals constitutes medical fraud. In minors, clear abuse.

Without medical or clinical indication, doctors have no business performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting minors, let alone giving parents any kind of "choice."

They day is coming when doctors who perform this needless surgery on healthy newborns will be held responsible.

Related Posts:
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

Nurse Would Not Schedule Appointment for Intact Child

I had just finished posting the story of a doctor who insisted on forcibly retracting the foreskin of a baby boy.

I just browsed my Facebook news feed again, and it looks like a nurse has refused to schedule an appointment for a child unless it's his circumcision.

According to SavingOurSons on Facebook, his occured at the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center in Martinez, CA.

My presumptions seem to be true; the modus operandi in American medicine seems to be to make sure a  male child is circumcised above all else.

What is the order of operation when a female infant has UTI?

WHY IS THIS NOT THE SAME IN MALE INFANTS?

What happens in European, Australian, Asian countries when a case of UTI presents itself?

I ask again; what are they teaching at American medical schools?

Recently, I've seen this meme showing up on the internet everywhere:

I'm sorry, but it seems that these days, you're better off doing a Google search than consulting the guy with the M.D.

At least in the U.S.A.

This cup is right; don't confuse them.

What an embarrassment.

SavingOurSons has a good resource page on UTI here.

Related Post:

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

GUEST AUTHOR: Meatal Stenosis

OK.

So I've been following the ramblings of a knowledgeable intactivist on Facebook, and I've recently run across something in my news feed that I think merits a guest author post on my blog. I am trying to convince him to start his own blog, but until he does, I think his best should at least be posted SOMEWHERE.

I've seen elsewhere in medical literature that meatal stenosis is a problem most common in circumcised males, and I've understood that it is a narrowing of the meatus, or hole at the end of the penis, but I had no idea how much impact this may have on the well-being of men.

After reading this man's post on the matter, a lot of things suddenly make sense. For example, I myself have actually noticed that there is a different sound when men urinate. And I've often heard of men having problems with urine retention, the "drip" factor, and problems with the urination stream.

A friend of mine, who I know for a fact is circumcised, has confided to me that he has constant UTIs, and that doctors tell him he needs an operation to correct a problem with his urethra. OF COURSE! My friend's meatus and/or urethra are probably narrow, most likely due to his circumcision, causing him urine retention and his constant UTIs!

Learning about my friend, and learning about so many other cases, and reading these thoughts from my online friend gets very frustrating, as UTI reduction is one of the most prominent rationales used by circumcision advocates. According to some, a slight reduction of UTIs within the first few years of life, is quite possibly the only observable benefit of male infant circumcision, if the current body of medical literature is correct. (And many say it is questionable.)

What is the meatus? What is meatal stenosis? How does this impact a man's well-being?

Ladies and Gentlemen, Jason F.!

The following was copied and pasted from a status on the Facebook wall of Jason F. with his permission.

Meatal Stenosis and Its Impact on the Well-being of Males
Jason F.

Hey boys and girls,

Time for my periodic rant about circumcision and meatal stenosis.

Most of us know that meatal stenosis is a routine undesired consequence of infant circumcision. However, even many people who include it in their list of complications don't really know what it is, how it looks, or how it actually affects males.

Stenosis means narrowing. The urinary meatus (in English pronounced mee-AY-tus or mee-AT-us) is the peehole. Many people mistakenly call this the urethra, but the urethra is the tube that carries urine from the bladder to the meatus. The meatus is the terminus of the frenulum, which in turn is the distal end of the male raphe, the seam that runs from the anus, across the perinaeum, across the scrotum, up the ventral side of the penis, and forms the peak of the frenulum and meatus.

First thing to understand about the meatus is that it is supposed to be large. The design of the male urethra is that it becomes linearly larger in diameter from the bladder to the meatus, allowing urine flow to accelerate as it moves through. The widest part of the urethra is just at the meatus, and actually the amazing design of the distal urethra prompts a vortex effect to help pull urine outward. This allows the male to empty his bladder efficiently and completely.

Meatal stenosis occurs when irritation, abrasion, infection or injury allow scar tissue to form and the urinary meatus to narrow. The size of the opening may decrease by half or more. The effect on urination, or ejaculation, is obstruction. What was previously a wide-open highway narrows to a lane or two at the terminus. This disrupts the flow of anything coming down the urethra and creates churn in the fluid dynamics of the urethral chamber toward the end. The effect is a certain amount of reflux, and occasionally backward pressure on the bladder. This can result in retained urine in both the bladder and urethra, as well as damage over time to the bladder muscle. Plain English: cut boys and men drip more.

If there is enough back pressure from meatal stenosis on the central urethra itself, the body may respond with some degree of scar tissue and formation of urethral stricture. This risk is heightened somewhat by urethral infections, which may be more common in circumcised boys because of greater ease of pathogens entering the constantly-exposed meatus and less-efficient flushing of the meatus during micturition.

Friends of mine know that I have been saying for years that I can nearly always tell whether the guy at the urinal next to me is circumcised or intact merely by the sound of his urine stream. Intact males have on average a notably more forceful stream. They generally empty their bladders more rapidly and more thoroughly than circumcised males.

Meatal stenosis risk is much higher in boys circumcised in infancy versus later in childhood, and almost unknown in intact boys and men. The phenomenon is rare where infant circumcision is not routine, so many urologists worldwide have seldom or never encountered it. The medical profession in the United States has begun to grudgingly acknowledge that meatal stenosis is common, but they tend to put the figure low at 5-15% of boys. They decline to admit that it is limited almost exclusively to circumcised boys.

In my personal experience, about ½ to ¾ of all neonatally circumcised males undergo some degree of unnatural meatal narrowing by adulthood. That means about 700,000 new cases every year, a national disgrace. Thousands of American boys undergo surgery to address their advancing meatal stenosis, making it one of the most common surgeries after circumcision. This, along with surgery for readherent prepuce remnant, skin bridges, skin tags and iatrogenic chordee, is just part of the US circumcision industry. It's a booming, if depressing, business for pediatric urologists and a never-ending tragedy for American boys and their families.

The presence and absence of meatal stenosis side-by-side

Photo from the Global Survey of Circumcision Harm.

Circumcision and UTI

"Circumcision prevents UTIs," I am told. "It's better when a mohel does it," I am told.

http://www.circumcisionandhiv.com/2011/04/imaj-a-costly-covenant-ritual-circumcision-and-urinary-tract-infection.html

As far as I'm aware, UTIs are much more common in girls than they are in boys, whether the boys have been circumcised or not. They're already quite rare in boys, and they're already quite easily treatable with antibiotics.

It boggles the mind how having newer, better treatment and prevention methods for a disease, people cling to older, radical surgery as "prevention." It's simply illogical how instead of trying to look for ways to make a surgical procedure absolete, "researchers" grope for ways to keep it around.

Oh when will this madness end?