FACEBOOK: Two Botches and a Death

I have been on hiatus from the intactivist movement for the holidays. Now I'm back, and I'm going to make a quick post to report some of the male infant circumcision mayhem that has caught my eye on Facebook.

 

 

Folks, prayers and thoughts can only do so much.

We need to ask ourselves, is it conscionable that parents are asking for prayers and thoughts over something that could have been completely prevented?

Circumcision carries risks.

Risks that pro-circ American medical organizations either minimize or refuse to talk about completely.

American medical organizations have incentive to minimize risks, or tacitly advocate not talking about them at all with parents.

A good 80% of American men are circumcised from birth.

A good number of American physicians are either circumcised, or parents of circumcised children themselves.

For some parents and physicians alike, circumcision is a cherished religious tradition that they defend tooth and nail.

Furthermore, at 1.3 million male babies are being circumcised at birth in the US annually, a good number of American physicians benefit from a freebie procedure for which they need no medical diagnosis, only a signed consent form.

Hospitals charge thousands in fees for facilitating circumcision to parents.

In speaking the truth about the risks and complications of male infant circumcision, there is much at stake.

There is money to be lost.

Malpractice lawsuits to face.

Religious traditions to protect.

Mental sanity to preserve.

Circumcision has risks.

The risks of circumcision include infection complications, including MRSA, herpes and gangrene, a botched operation that may need correction later on, an aesthetically displeasing result for which there can be no correction (e.g. such as too much skin removed, pulling up hairy skin onto the shaft, uneven scars etc...), partial or full ablation of the glans (head of the penis) if not the entire shaft itself, hemorrhage and even death.

Considering that circumcision is not medically necessary in a healthy infant, how is putting a healthy child at these risks conscionable?

These are circumcision cases that parents have decided to post on Facebook.

Consider that there are other cases which, for reasons of shame or protection, remain secret.

The cases presented here and otherwise were perfectly preventable.

Otherwise healthy children don't need to be put at any of these risks.

Given that male infant circumcision is elective, non-medical surgery, how is it that any number of botches, complications and death is deemed "acceptable?"

When is American Medicine going to come clean about non-medically indicated infant circumcision?

TUNISIA: 6yo Loses His Penis to Circumcision

A child of 6 loses his entire penis to circumcision.

In countries outside of the United States, Muslims tend to circumcise their male children at much later ages. (Approx. 98% of Tunisia's population is Muslim)

The surgery was performed in a hospital setting by a licensed professional handling the latest technology.

The child was left for a week in excruciating pain as he suffered necrotic deterioration without any help for what was done.

A functional dildo attached subcutaneously is being considered as a replacement.

The main concerns seem to be that he be able to urinate standing up and that his future partners might "feel something."

Nevermind the child.

And let's forget about the fact that they're trying to repair a botch for a surgery that was never needed in the first place.

Read the article in French here.

TEXAS: 'Nother Circumcision Botch

Yet another circumcision botch has surfaced on Facebook, this time in Arlington, Texas.

ONTARIO CIRCUMCISION DEATH: The Plot Thickens

More details have emerged surrounding the circumcision death case in Ontario, and there are a lot of red flags that are going up for me.

I'm going to cut and paste relevant excerpts from a Toronto Star news article, commenting as I go along.

"One Toronto pediatrician was cautioned in writing and another told to get informed consent from parents after 22-day-old Ryan Heydari bled to death following a circumcision in 2013."

First red flag; one would think that informed consent was obtained from the child's parents before performing surgery. Am I missing something here?

"Details about the complaints against the two physicians made to the College of Physicians and Surgeons, including their identities, would have been kept secret had Ryan’s parents not sought a review by an appeals panel. That is a level of secrecy that critics say must change, even as the college is promising to improve transparency."

Second red flag; what is the reason that parents have to seek a review by an appeals panel to get details surrounding their own child's death?

How many other cases are being kept secret because parents didn't think to do what these parents have?

"Earlier this month, the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) upheld the decision made by the college’s inquiries, complaints and reports committee to “advise” Dr. Sheldon Wise, who performed the operation on Ryan following a referral by a family doctor, to document his consent procedure — including discussion of potential risks and complications around circumcision."

Why is he being asked to document the consent procedure after the fact?

Is there no obligation to document the child's diagnosis first?

Why aren't doctors required to have a diagnosis for medical indication for surgery?

"Death following circumcision is rare, a three-member panel of the board noted."

This worthless note is not helpful here.

A child has died.

Duly noting it doesn't help the child or his parents.

"The panel also found the committee’s order to be reasonable, that Dr. Jordan Carr, the North York General hospital pediatrician who saw Ryan after he started bleeding, should be cautioned in writing for “his failure to recognize the seriousness of the patient’s condition and to treat compensated shock.” Carr was also ordered by the committee to write a 2- to 4-page report on the possible complications of circumcision and on how to recognize and treat compensated shock"

This is rich.

They try to downplay this child's death, but somehow, the doctor who saw him should have "recognized the seriousness of the patient's condition."

So much weight on the doctor who had nothing to do with the child's surgery, nor with convincing his parents to have it done seems unfair to me.

Shouldn't the burden of having to outline the possible complications of circumcision be on the doctor who pushed it on the parents in the first place?

The message that "death following circumcision is rare," but that physicians ought to "recognize the seriousness of a circumcised child's condition" is a confusing one.

Scolding this doctor seems like backwards logic to me.

There was nothing wrong with the child.

A healthy child underwent elective, non-medical surgery because a doctor pushed it on reluctant parents.

Before a doctor suggest surgery, shouldn't there be a diagnosis of a medical condition for which surgical intervention is necessary?

It seems to be that medical necessity needs to be establish first.

Before eliciting consent from parents.

Before presenting them with the risks and complications.

Before advising a doctor to "recognize the seriousness" of a child's condition following surgery.

The first fault in the series of events is the doctor who convinced the parents that the child should undergo circumcision.

So why so much weight on the physician who saw him second?

And why should he be expected to believe the situation was "serious," when he has been most likely taught to believe that circumcision is "simple, fast, and risk-free?"

 "Wise told the complaints committee he routinely performs circumcisions, and the committee expressed no concerns about his technique or equipment, according to the HPARB decision. But it did feel that he should be obtaining and documenting informed consent before doing the operation."

This part really disturbs me.

A child has died, but  the fact that the doctor circumcised him performs this elective, non-medical procedure routinely seemingly voids any cause for concern.

More important than establishing a medical diagnosis for a condition that necessitates surgery is obtaining and documenting informed consent before doing the operation, is this group's decision.

This seems strange to me; it would seem to me that consent from the parents was obtained., albeit reluctantly.

But what's really disturbing is the fact that a child has died as a result of a needless, non-medical procedure, but that the group is more concerned that the doctor is able to absolve himself by pushing the burden of responsibility on the parents.

Am I misunderstanding something here?

"In Carr’s case, the committee found that he assessed Ryan in a timely manner, but 'overall, the committee was concerned by the lack of urgency and aggressiveness in (Carr’s) approach in this case, and his failure to recognize pending hypovolemic shock.'"

 Again, rather this is paradoxical. In one instance, the committee must establish that "death following circumcision is rare," but then they want to chastise this doctor for "lack of urgency and aggressiveness" in the next.

"None of this information can be found on profiles for Wise and Carr in the College of Physicians and Surgeons’ online registry, as the complaints against the doctors were made before the college changed its policies as to what information it releases to the public."

 So what else could they be hiding?

"'I think most people would agree that where there was a death of a 22-day old baby, there should be public disclosure where there was criticism found with relation to care,' said medical malpractice lawyer Paul Harte, who is pushing for the college to release information about all complaints against doctors, including their identities and the disposition in each case."

No, some fight to hide this information at all costs, and for good reason too.

What doctor is eager to face a malpractice lawsuit?

"College spokeswoman Kathryn Clarke said the penalty formerly known as a “written caution” no longer exists; only an oral caution, made by a panel of the complaints committee to the doctor. Since this year, this caution is included on the doctor’s profile in the college’s online registry."

Am I reading this correctly?

This physician's "advice," and his execution of this elective, non-medical procedure on a healthy, non-consenting minor has lead to his death, and all he gets away with is "caution," not written but oral?

"But the committee can also choose to issue advice or recommendations to the physician, or request that the doctor work with the college on developing an educational plan. “Both outcomes are considered of low risk to the public, and therefore they are not included on the physician’s profile on the public register,” Clarke said."

Both outcomes are merely a slap on the wrist, and don't take into account the gravity of the situation.

Let me repeat, a child has died as a result of this doctor's "advice" to have elective, non-medical surgery performed on him, and all he gets is "caution."

The parent's testimony is heartbreaking:

“We had Ryan circumcised for health reasons, based on the advice of our family doctor. We were initially very much against having Ryan circumcised, as we felt that Mother Nature had created us the way she had intended us to be...

Our family doctor convinced us though of the health benefits of this procedure, but we had no idea that the loss of Ryan’s life was one of the risks. The loss of Ryan, our only child, has made us realize that we cannot possess anything, even our hopes and dreams. We hope that this never happens to any baby, but losing your child is the only way to find out what effect this can have on your life.”

Before suggesting surgery, a doctor needs to establish medical necessity.

Then he needs to obtain informed consent from his patient, if not the patient's guardians.

The patient and patient's guardians ought to know all the risks and complications of the procedure.

Male infant circumcision carries risks.

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

In Closing

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.

Reaping profit from performing elective, non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals constitutes medical fraud, not to mention abuse and the violation of basic human rights.

CORRECTION (10/28/2015): I have just learned that the physician who convinced this couple to have their child circumcised and the physician who actually carried out the procedure are in fact two different people. I still think the doctor who convinced the couple should also be held responsible. Medical boards ought to begin to issue warnings to doctors not to advise parents to have their children circumcised unless there is diagnosis which indicates clear medical necessity for surgical intervention.

Related Post:

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Child Dies After Doctor Convinces Ontario Couple to Circumcise

Relevant Link:

Secrecy questioned about baby’s death after circumcision

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Child Dies After Doctor Convinces Ontario Couple to Circumcise

I'm just going to cut and paste relevant excerpts from the National Post article:

"...they did not even want the newborn circumcised — a view in line with longstanding recommendations from the Canadian Pediatric Society — but were persuaded to do so by a family physician."

"...the case only became public because the couple appealed the original Ontario College of Physician and Surgeons rulings, which were rendered in secret."

So how many more deaths haven't been made public?

"The pediatric society said in a recent report that death from bleeding caused by circumcision is 'extremely rare,' though it’s not completely unheard of. A five-week-old B.C. baby bled to death after being circumcised in 2003."

And another one was in the ER in Arizona just this month.

"She and husband John Heydari, who immigrated from Iran about 12 years ago, opposed having him circumcised, convinced that 'mother nature created us the way she intended us to be.'

But their family physician persuaded them it was a good idea for medical reasons, despite contrary advice from pediatric specialists."

Their failure to ignore their first impulse resulted in tragedy.

And what does this doctor get?

Why are doctors allowed to get away with soliciting elective, non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting minors like this?

"The pediatric society has long held that its risks – including pain to a small baby, bleeding and the chance of disfigurement of the penis – outweigh its benefits."

Opposite the AAP.

And yet, just like them, they simply fold their hands, whistle and look the other way...

"The group revisited the issue with a report just last month that addressed growing evidence circumcision helps prevent sexually transmitted disease, acting almost like a vaccine in countries with high rates of HIV."

"Almost" being the key word here.

Even the WHO says that circumcised men and their partners must be urged to continue to wear condoms.

This means circumcision FAILS to prevent anything and we're back at square one; men have to wear condoms either way for any real protection form STDs.

Let's be clear here; a healthy child has just died, but we need to rest assured that promiscuous men in Africa MIGHT be getting *possible* benefits from circumcision that are better obtained by wearing a condom.

Final Words
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.

Circumcision has risks.

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

Death is a risk of circumcision.

How many times do I have to say this?

Death is a risk of circumcision.

Are parents being adequately informed about this risk?

Had this couple known about this risk, would they have still changed their minds?

Death is a risk of circumcision.

Death is a risk of circumcision.

Are you listening AAP?

Death is a risk of circumcision.

Circumcision has claimed yet another child.

His blood is on the hands of the AAP and any other medical organization that dares parrot them.

Related Article:

Ontario newborn bleeds to death after family doctor persuades parents to get him circumcised

Related Posts:

CANADA: CPS Diverges from AAP on Infant Circumcision

CIRCUMCISION RISK: Two More Circumcision Botches

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: A Casual Report of a Circumcision Death Makes the News

The body of a 9-week old was found, and the news report only briefly mentions that the medical examiners found that he died from a kidney infection that resulted from a botched circumcision.

Death is a risk from circumcision.

It is difficult to pinpoint the exact rate of deaths caused by circumcision because people have incentive to hide the fact.

At 1.3 million infant circumcisions a year, circumcision is a money-maker for pediatricians and OB/GYNs, so trade organizations such as the AAP and ACOG have incentive to hide or downplay deaths due to circumcision.

Doctors have been known to deliberately misattribute the death of a child caused by circumcision to secondary causes, such as "bleeding," "hemorrhage" or "septic shock," so when a child dies as a direct result of circumcision, it is rarely reported as such. Parents are usually complicit with the doctor because they feel just as guilty for agreeing to have the procedure done.

Circumcision is an important ritual for Jews and Muslims, and religious communities have been known to be complicit in hiding culprits whenever deaths due to circumcision arise.

Whether it be avoiding lawsuits, or protecting a sacred ritual, there is great incentive to hide or downplay deaths caused by circumcision, so it is difficult to know exactly how many newborns succumb to death caused by circumcision.

Here, we witness a rare instance in which a death caused by circumcision actually makes the news.

Notice how nonchalant and casual the reporting of this fact is.

Readers will gloss over this fact as if it were no big deal.

Circumcision has risks.

They include infection, partial or full ablation and even death.

Death is a risk of circumcision.

Because male infant circumcision is elective, non-medical surgery, this risk is unconscionable.

Is the AAP counting?

Because we are.

Death is a risk of circumcision.

Are American doctors properly warning parents of this risk?

Relevant Link:

Body of 9-Week-Old Infant Allegedly Found Dead; Parents Under Custody

ARKANSAS: Another Baby in the ER After Circumcision

I don't have time for a long, drawn-out post today, so I'm making this brief.

Another newborn was in the ER due to hemorrhaging after his circumcision in Arkansas.

The AAP lists the percentage of risks and complications of male infant circumcision at 0.2%, though I don't believe them because they've got incentive to downplay that number; at 1.2 million male newborns circumcised a year, a great number of AAP members still reap profit from performing this elective, non-medical procedure on healthy, non-consenting minors. Given this reality, the AAP can't verily release data that disenfranchise their members.

The risks and complications of circumcision include infection (MRSA, herpes, etc.), hemorrhage, partial or full ablation and even death.

At 0.2%, that sounds like a small, negligible number, but apply it to the 1.2 million babies circumcised a year; because this surgery is completely elective and non-medical, the risk for it should be 0.

Here is another child admitted to the ER due to hemorrhaging. Is the AAP counting?

MALE INFANT CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Boy Dies

It breaks my heart every time I hear that yet another baby boy has succumbed to this needless surgery.

It had been a while since I've written one of these posts, though I'm sure many baby boys have died in the interim. However this one had been making the rounds on Facebook, and it kept showing up in my news feed, so I felt another circumcision death post was in order.

Four days ago, on the 23rd of this month, a baby who will go by the name of "Little Dave" bled to death through his circumcision wound. He was three days old.

Death is a Risk of Male Infant Circumcision
Circumcision advocacy groups try to downplay the risks of circumcision. The only ones most parents in this country will ever hear about, if physicians even bother mentioning them, are "pain and discomfort." Few will mention that circumcision could result in MRSA infection, a botched circumcision requiring future correction, partial or full ablation, and even death. Very few physicians will ever talk about death being a risk of circumcision.

It's sad, but this is what passes nowadays as "informed consent."

An estimated 117 deaths occur every year in the United States due to circumcision. This is a rough estimate, and more conservative than its predecessors; in the past, estimates have been as high as 200 or more deaths per year.

An accurate estimate on the number of deaths due to infant circumcision is admittedly difficult to pinpoint, because at least in America, hospitals are not required to release this information, and doctors often misattribute a child's death to secondary causes.

At 1.3 million circumcisions annually, circumcision is a money-maker for American medicine, and doctors have reputations and bankbooks to protect. Reporting adverse circumcision effects puts their yearly stipend in jeopardy, not to mention the disrepute it would bring to American medicine. With so much to lose, there is much incentive to hide the evidence and parents complicit in hiding their own guilt and shame will agree to mask the child's cause of death.

Reporting deaths from circumcision would open the floodgates to lawsuits by angry parents and angry men. Reporting deaths from circumcision means loss of revenue. Reporting deaths from circumcision means the "benefits" have to be reconsidered. Reporting deaths from circumcision means that American medical organizations are being irresponsible. Reporting deaths from circumcision means "culture and tradition" is put in danger.

For these reasons, we will never know for sure how many children die as a result of their circumcisions. There are reputations to protect, culture and tradition to safeguard, and malpractice lawsuit floodgates to keep sealed.


Death is a risk of male infant circumcision.

Let me repeat; Death is a risk of male infant circumcision.

Circumcision advocates try to minimize the risks and complications of circumcision. If they even mention death, they will say that the number of male children dying due to circumcision complications is "infinitesimally small."

But it must be asked, how is the death of even ONE healthy child conscionable, given that male infant circumcision is elective, non-medical surgery?

How is the death of even ONE healthy, non-consenting child conscionable, given that the so-called "benefits" of circumcision are already accessible by conventional, non-surgical means?

Little Dave bled to death at three days of age, and had he not been circumcised, he would have still been alive and well.

Let that sink in.

Death is a risk of male infant circumcision.

Are parents being informed of this risk?

Relevant Link:

Circumcision Insanity - Lizeth Sepulveda Zermeño from California

Related Posts: 

Circumcision Death: Another One Bites the Dust

Circumcision KILLS

CIRCUMCISION: The Silent Killer

CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies

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

Another Circumcision Death Comes to Light

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

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

Mogen Circumcision Clamp Manufacturers Face Civil Lawsuit

Three Mogen Manufacturers and Distributors Face A Civil Law Suit
Mogen Circumcision Instruments of New York, the makers of the Mogen circumcision clamp, went out of business five years ago, but a lawsuit has been filed against several companies that continue to sell and/or make the device, according to the Schmidt Law Firm.

The lawsuit has been filed on behalf of a boy whose penis was partially amputated during a circumcision procedure involving the use of a Mogen circumcision clamp. Doctors amputated the tip of the boy's penis during his circumcision, which took place one week after his birth. The boy was permanently injured, will require future corrective surgery, and will continue to experience significant complications.

The civil lawsuit was filed a week ago in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, against three Pennsylvania-based companies that sell the Mogen Clamp, including Misdom-Frank Corporation, Sklar Corporation, and Medco Inc.

The lawsuit can be accessed in PDF format here.

It's All Happened Before
Five years ago, Mogen Circumcision Instruments was put out of business by a 11-million dollar lawsuit it couldn't afford to pay. The company was already in default for not paying previous judgements, including one where it was ordered to pay $7.5 million by a jury in Massachusetts. The injury behind another lawsuit at Fulton County Superior Court had already put Mogen on notice about the danger of the device.

In a separate case, a judge approved a $4.6 million settlement on a behalf of a boy who lost the head of his penis in a botched circumcision attempt, this time against Miltex Inc. and its parent company, Integra Life Sciences Holding Corp. The doctor who performed the circumcision used a Mogen clamp, though manufactured by Miltex Inc.

According to the plaintiff's court papers filed regarding the settlement:

"Because of the defective design of the circumcision clamp, there was no protection for the head of the penis, and [the doctor] was unable to visualize the glans (or head of the penis) when excising the foreskin."

In this case, the boy, age 8 at the time of the lawsuit, lost 80% of his penis, according to the suit.

Data from Attorneys for the Rights of the Child, ARCLaw, show over 80 million dollars paid on settlements over botched circumcisions since 1985. Beyond the economic value (when compared to a billion dollar a year industry), those numbers represent children whose lives will have been impacted for the rest of their lives due to a non-medical elective surgery.

Notorious for Glans Amputations
The Mogen circumcision clamp is known for glans amputations, even when used by professionals.

In August 2000, the FDA issued the following Safety Communication:

“The clamp may allow too much tissue to be drawn through the opening of the device, thus facilitating the removal of an excessive amount of foreskin and in some cases, a portion of the glans penis. … We received 105 reports of injuries involving circumcision clamps between July 1996 and January 2000. These have included laceration, hemorrhage, penile amputation, and urethral damage.”

The "Manual for early infant male circumcision under local anaesthesia,"published by the World Health organization in 2010, details that both the Mogen clamp and the Gomco clamp have a risk for penile laceration and amputation, but extends to say that "penile amputation can occur even under ideal circumstances" with the Mogen clamp.

In a 2013 study in Botswana, the Mogen clamp and the Plastibell were compared. The adverse events with the Mogen clamp were considered to be more frequent but "minor" (removal of too little skin and development of skin bridges and adhesions). Bleeding was more frequent with the Mogen clamp as well.

Unlike other circumcision devices, the Mogen Clamp has two major design flaws:

• The head of the penis is not protected by a shield or bell
• The doctor cannot see the head of the penis when cutting the foreskin with a scalpel.

Common Mogen Problem: The circumciser is blind to the condition of the child's glans. Some or all of the glans is pulled up along with the foreskin, resulting in partial or full glans amputations.

Despite the Mogen clamp's notoriety for glans amputations, and despite the FDA warning given 10 years prior, Mogen Circumcision Instruments insisted 'till the very end that injury was impossible with the use of their clamp. When called for interview, the secretary for the company who was served the papers of the lawsuit that would put them out of business, said that the Mogen circumcision clamp was "painless and safe when used properly."

The Mogen Legacy Continues Today
5 years after the Mogen company was put out of business, and 15 years after the FDA issued their warning, other companies continue to manufacture and sell the Mogen clamp, doctors continue to use it, and the botches continue to happen. In addition, the devices are easily accessible. As of now, Mogen clamps can be purchased on eBay for under $15, and anyone with a credit card can buy them without license.

The FDA gave their warning in 2000, but the clamps were never recalled or modified, doctors kept using them, and the injuries kept on occurring. It wasn't until last year, in December of 2014, that the FDA recalled a number of Mogen clamps from a number of manufacturers, including Boss Instruments, Millennium Surgical, Symmetry Surgical, Medline Industries, CareFusion and others. The reason given in the text for the recall, however, was that “Instrumed did not market these devices prior to September 26, 1976, and therefore, does not meet all FDA requirements to market the devices as 'Pre-Amendment' devices." Certain companies, however, such as Misdom-Frank Corporation, Sklar Corporation, and Medco Inc., continue to sell and/or make the device.

Although the Mogen clamp itself was invented in 1954, it is actually one of many successors to a much older, traditional barzel device. Even so, a number of interested doctors who use the device, try to market the Mogen clamp as "a new and innovative approach."

 The Mogen clamp's design is based on

a traditional tool used by Jewish mohels.

The word "mogen" is derived from the

Hebrew word for "shield," or "magain."

Neil Pollock, Murray Katz, Pierre Crouse and other doctors who specialize in male infant circumcision, boast their use of the Mogen clamp, and claim their "technique" to be "new and innovative," going as far as saying that the circumcisions they perform are "bloodless, painless and taking under 30 seconds."

Neil Pollock, flashing the tools of his trade

Neil Pollock in particular, has taken it upon himself to promote the use of the Mogen clamp as far away as Rwanda in Africa, and Haiti in the Carribean Rim. In fact, the WHO has approved the Mogen clamp for use in infant circumcision in Africa, under the pretext of HIV prevention. They're currently being used in Kenya, Rwanda and Botswana.

Even given the disreputable history of the Mogen clamp, somehow, "researchers" at TriHealth Good Samaritan Hospital in Cincinnati thought it was necessary to conduct a comparative "study" to see what was the "better circumcision clamp." Given what is known about the Mogen clamp, the lawsuits, the FDA warning, the WHO etc., somehow the "researchers" have the audacity to begin with the hypothesis that the Mogen clamp is the superior circumcision device.

Conclusion
Even given the numerous reports of injury, even given the FDA warnings, even given the numerous lawsuits that put Mogen Circumcision Instruments out of business, even given the lawsuits against secondary manufacturers, even given the known design flaws of the clamp, even given the known risks for penile laceration and amputation even under the most ideal circumstances, the Mogen clamp continues to be made, sold, used and promoted as "medically acceptable."

It must be asked, why?

Related News Articles:

Schmidt Law - Mogen Clamp Circumcision Lawsuit Filed for Penis Amputation

AJC - Atlanta lawyer wins $11 million lawsuit for family in botched circumcision

WCPO Cincinnati - Cincinnati protesters demand end to circumcisions at Good Samaritan Hospital

Journal of Perinatology - Pain During Mogen or PlastiBell Circumcision

Related Posts:

The Ghost of Mogen

CINCINNATI: Intactivists Protest Circumcision "Experiment" at Good Samaritan Hospital

Letter to Editors at the Vancouver Sun

AFRICA: Botwsana to Implement Controversial Infant Circumcision Devices

CANADA: Circumcision Evangelist Sets His Sights for Haiti, Caribbean

CIRCUMCISION PHALLUSIES BLOG SERIES: Ad Antiquitam

CIRCUMCISION PHALLUSIES BLOG SERIES: Ad Novitam

CANADA: Circumcision Evangelist Sets His Sights for Haiti, Caribbean

Neil Pollock, flashing the tools of his trade

In a recent article on the Jewish Independent, Neil Pollock expresses his intentions to fly to Haiti, with the goal of proselytizing doctors there, training them to perform circumcisions, hoping those doctors will train other doctors in the region, and that thus, that circumcision will flourish under the guise of HIV prevention. A very lovely thought, if you're a stark Jewish advocate of infant circumcision, or if you're a doctor whose main source of income happens to be infant circumcision (Neil Pollock happens to be BOTH), but is this endeavor feasible? Practical? Realistic? Based on sound evidence? Honest?

Are Neil Pollock's intentions based on a genuine concern for public health? Or is this nothing more than a PR project to redeem infant circumcision by making it relevant to medicine? After all, it looks real good for your business to go to other countries training doctors in infant circumcision under the guise of medicine, if you happen to be a doctor who makes a living entirely from infant circumcision. Not to mention the fact that Pollock also happens to be a Jewish mohel, is affiliated with other mohels, not to mention other Jewish physicians that promote infant circumcision as medicine, where ritual infant circumcision is seen as divine commandment.

Male infant circumcision has been increasingly under fire from human rights groups, not to mention the recent herpes scandals in New York, and the latest developments in Europe zeroing in on infant circumcision.

So is this about HIV prevention?

Or about the continuous fight for Jews and gentile circumcision doctors to redeem the dying practice of infant genital mutilation?

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. ~Upton Sinclair

I'm going to go through the Jewish Independent article on this blog post and post my insights about it bit by bit.

The headline is already dubious, as it starts with a definite claim:

Vancouver doctor will train physicians in Haiti in circumcision

If one reads the article to the end, one realizes whether or not Pollock flies to Haiti depends on whether or not he can collect funding for his project. So the headline would be more accurate if it read something more like "Vancouver circumcision doctor asking for funds to train physicians in Haiti".

Begins the article:

"Dr. Neil Pollock specializes in circumcision, from newborn to adult, and adult vasectomy."

This is the first time I've heard of Pollock "specializing" in anything other than newborn circumcision and adult vasectomy. To my knowledge, he is first and foremost a mohel, who doubles as a circumciser of gentile newborns on the side. I guess he's trying to make more money now?

"As a leading expert in circumcision, he has traveled around the world to train physicians and, this summer, he will head to Port-au-Prince, Haiti, to teach a team of doctors in medical newborn and infant circumcision."

Not if he doesn't raise enough funds, he won't...

Now let's look at that first sentence; "...he has traveled around the world..." I know he went on a circumcision tour in Rwanda once, but I haven't heard of him going anywhere else... A rather modest exaggeration if I do say so myself...

“'After carrying out 50,000 infant circumcisions and traveling recently to Turkey, China and Africa to exchange ideas, I have evolved my technique to make it applicable to infants, children, teenagers and adults,' Pollock told the Independent in a recent interview."

The story changes a bit here. So he HAS traveled "around the world." He has traveled to Turkey, China and Africa "to exchange ideas," but that's slightly different than "to train physicians." Rather wishy-washy here.

But here we read that Pollock has "evolved his technique." He attempts to sound so matter-of-fact and so sure of himself, and most people reading this would be forgiven if they believed that Pollock came up with something totally new, unique and original that only he could do. Not mentioned here is his so-called "technique," which, if people cared to investigate, is nothing more than a glorification of the Mogen clamp technique, which is in and of itself, a circumcision method that dates back hundreds of years.

I'm sitting here asking myself... Pollock isn't actually using a Mogen clamp to circumcise children, teenagers and adults, is he?

“I have developed a technique to do circumcision in this older age group under local anesthetic without using sutures and using, instead, a cyanocrylate skin glue that closes the wound. Being able to do the procedure under local anesthetic and with skin glue instead of a general anesthetic in hospital provides for a much simpler, easier, quicker, safer and improved cosmetic outcome for patients.”

Ad novitam.

Here, Pollock is trying to sound "new" and "innovative." Let's not forget that circumcision is a few thousand years old.

Not addressed here are the questions of, why are children and teenagers being circumcised? Were these circumcisions medically necessary? Or were these healthy minors being forcibly circumcised at the whim of their parents?

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

Maybe what he does is "much simpler, easier, quicker, safer," etc., but isn't reaping profit from performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals the epitome of medical fraud?

Let's ask a different question; would female circumcision ever be justified if someone came up with a "simple, easy and safe" way to perform it?

"This method, he said, is unique. 'I’m unaware of this approach being used anywhere in [Canada] except in my clinics. The older age group is currently requesting circumcision for reasons like reduction in disease transmission, preference of their partners and improved hygiene.'"

What about the younger age group? Are they requesting it? Or is he performing circumcision on them against their express wishes?

"In 2008, Dr. David Patrick was the head of the B.C. Centre for Disease Control. Pollock said he was asked by his colleague “to teach my surgical techniques for circumcision in Rwanda, where they were using scissors and stitches, without anesthetic, and their surgeons desperately required training in an alternative quick, safe and painless infant circumcision technique that would be accepted by their population. In coordination with their surgeons, I planned with my team a five-day surgical training mission that year and flew to Rwanda. I have been in contact with these surgeons by email since my trip and they have informed me that they are using my technique effectively and safely throughout the country now."

Here, Pollock toots his own horn; he tries to make his "work" indispensable. Towards the end of my post, we will look at another circumcision technique which basically makes Pollock and his "new and improved techniques" obsolete.

“'The impact of our humanitarian effort became known in the international medical community, which led to Dr. Jeffrey Klausner, professor at [the University of California, Los Angeles] Medical School, contacting me recently and asking me to essentially replicate the work I did in Rwanda, but this time in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, where they are being overwhelmed by the number of patients requiring treatment for AIDS and would receive huge benefit from introducing a preventative strategy to reduce AIDS transmission, such as infant circumcision, which will reduce the risk of their circumcised infants later contracting AIDS when they hit sexual age, by over 60 percent.'"

This sounds rather fictitious to me!

I'd be interested to know who this Jeffrey Klausner is, what his religious affiliations are, and whether or not he had any affiliations with Pollock prior to his so-called "humanitarian effort." Methinks Klausner is nothing more than another circumcision enthusiast, trying to look for venues to take advantage of to push circumcision, particularly infant circumcision.

Who IS Klausner? And does he also just "happen" to have ties with Edgar Schoen?

I have a hard time believing that Pollock was such a prominent figure in the international medical community a man in UCLA just "happened" to take notice. Klausner might not happen to have any affiliations with Arleen Leibowitz, who is working to try and restore Medicaid coverage in states that no longer pay for infant circumcision, does he?

A quick Google search reveals that Klausner has published with circumcision "researcher" Daniel Halperin, another circumcision advocate in Africa who wants to make circumcision as HIV prevention his legacy. (Halperin also happens to be Jewish and is quoted saying he wants to make his mohel grandfather proud.) He has also published with Australian circumcision enthusiast Brian Morris, whose reputation we all know about. Klausner has been "researching" was to increase circumcision in India and elsewhere. Is it really any wonder that Pollock and his "work" caught his eye?

No, this was no coincidence; all of these so-called circumcision/HIV "experts" know each other and sniff each others rear ends. I don't believe for a second that Klausner contacted Pollock "out of the blue," asking for his "assistance." They're probably on each other's contact lists and sat around on Skype or Facetime brainstorming the whole thing. They must look at every country with HIV prevalence and sit around thinking "How can we make circumcision part of the picture?"

For the record, there is simply no evidence whatsoever that infant circumcision has any effect on HIV transmission. Additionally, there is no scientifically demonstrable causal link between male circumcision and reduced HIV transmission. Unproven and disproven theories abound, but it cannot be demonstrably shown that circumcision reduces HIV transmission at all, let alone by the fabled 60%.

Interesting fact; according to American circumcision pundit Edgar Schoen (good friends with Pollock), 80% of US males are already circumcised from birth. And yet, according to the CIA Factbook, we have a higher HIV prevalence rate than 53 countries where circumcision is rare (below 20%) or not practice. The United States has a higher HIV prevalence than MEXICO.

Pollock continues:

"'Its impact and effectiveness has been referenced metaphorically to be like a vaccine.' Circumcision, he added, 'works to reduce AIDS by removing the portal of entry of the virus, which is the foreskin.'"

Referenced by WHOM?

And here, we have Pollock spewing an unproven, if not disproven theory as matter-of-fact. It simply cannot be demonstrated under a microscope that the foreskin facilitates HIV transmission, nor that removing it reduces it. Actually, the Langerhans cells, which have been indicted as "the main port of entry" for HIV have been shown to actually effectively destroy the HIV virus. Pollock is hoping to ride the HIV gravy train to redeem infant circumcision, to which he has religious convictions, and to promote his business.

"Klausner, a professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases and the program in global health at UCLA, is an advocate in the use of medical male circumcision for the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases and HIV. He volunteers with GHESKIO, an organization run out of the Centre for Global Health at Weill Cornell Medical College in partnership with the Haitian government. Operating primarily in Port-au-Prince, their work is supported by Haiti’s first lady and has a mission to combat HIV and improve conditions of maternal and child health. GHESKIO will host Pollock’s training in Port-au-Prince."

It will be interesting what more information I will find on this Klausner fellow and this GHESKIO. A question that rises in my head is, if Pollock is to be hosted by GHESKIO, why is Pollock asking for funds? Are there not enough funds at Weill Cornell or the Haitian government?

"Raised in Winnipeg, Pollock explained that he decided to become a doctor 'because I had a strong interest in sciences, medicine and surgery from a young age.'"

Really? As someone raised in the Jewish faith, he wasn't interested in brit milah first, and vindicating it through medicalization second? It makes me wonder, what is his area of focus? Urology? Does he treat penile problems? Or is cutting up babies and neutering men all he does for a living?

 "Early in his career, he decided to create a special focus on circumcision and vasectomy, and built a highly focused practice and a well-tested – and respected – technique."

"Respected" by whom?

What is this "technique," and did he actually come up with it?

Answer: He is using the Mogen clamp technique, and it is not his own original idea. The Mogen company has been put out of business by million dollar circumcision mishap lawsuits it couldn't afford to pay. The Mogen clamp is notorious for partial or full glans amputations, even in the hands of skilled practitioners.

A common mishap in the Mogen clamp circumcision method

is that part of, or all of the glans gets pulled up into the clamp,

resulting in the partial or full ablation of the glans penis.

Will one week of training provide enough experience to prevent these injuries? And if it isn't, are hospitals in Haiti equipped to deal with these life altering complications? 

"'My interest in developing a safe, quick and painless approach to circumcision for the medical community in B.C. arose initially from some of the rabbis approaching me approximately 20 years ago and encouraging me to become a mohel in Vancouver,' Pollock said."

I'm sure it did not arise because he's Jewish and he has a religious conviction to defend circumcision. And I'm sure this has nothing with wanting to cash in on the business of mutilating the genitals of healthy, non-consenting minors.

"The benefits of newborn and infant circumcision are many, but the rates of the procedure vary from region to region, and remain contentious to those opposed to what’s seen as elective (non-consenting) surgeries for babies"

The "benefits" have not convinced a single medical organization in the world to recommend infant circumcision. Circumcision in healthy, non-consenting minors IS elective, non-medical surgery.

"Pollock noted, 'The most important change recently in how the medical community has come to view circumcision is expressed in the … consensus statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics released in late 2012 declaring that ‘the medical benefits of infant circumcision outweigh the risks.’ This is the strongest statement of support ever issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics.'"

Though the AAP  tries to make the claim that "the benefits outweigh the risks," it falls short of a recommendation. (Not to mention it was formally rejected by 38 pediatricians, urologists, epidemiologists, and professors, representing 20 medical organizations and 15 universities and hospitals in 17 countries.) But Pollock will not be telling us that.

And here, Pollock gives his circumcision sales pitch:

"'The benefits of circumcision are multiple; they include reduction in the risk of urinary tract infection, which can lead to kidney infection and renal failure (How common is UTI, and furthermore, these complications? When and if they occur, are there non-surgical intervetions?), reduced risk of cancer of the penis (Which is already quite rare at approximately 1 in 100,000 males; according to the American Cancer Society, 1 in 6 US males will be diagnosed with prostate cancer annually. They also do not recommend circumcision as a way to prevent cancer by the way...), cancer of the cervix in partners (...for which there are already effective vaccines), reduced risk of balanitis (which is a [rare] infection of the foreskin), and other foreskin-related problems, like phimosis (Which is already rare, and does not always require surgery for treatment).'  As well, circumcised males also experience a 'reduction of multiple sexually transmitted diseases, like HPV, herpes and AIDS transmission. The latter is exponentially more important in places like Haiti and Africa, where a large number of the population has AIDS in comparison to other regions of the world where AIDS is less common.' (According to USAID, HIV was more prevalent among circumcised men in 10 out of 18 countries. Real world data shows that circumcision does not correlate with a lower HIV prevalence rate.) Possible risks include 'bleeding and infection,' he added, 'but, in experienced hands (Like his, right?), risks are extremely low.'

After all is said and done, no medical organization recommends infant circumcision. All of them, including the AAP, say that the "benefits" are simply not great enough.

"Rwanda and Haiti share a history of national trauma, which has led in both countries to poor health outcomes. In 1994, at least 800,000 Rwandans were massacred by their countrymen in a genocide. In 2010, Haiti, already the victim of more than two centuries of extreme poverty, dictatorships and U.S.-led military interventions, experienced a 7.0 earthquake that resulted in the deaths of more than 100,000, and displaced 1.5 million of the tiny country’s 10 million people. Since then, Haitians have been hit by serious outbreaks of preventable disease, including cholera, tuberculosis and AIDS. According to the United Nations, life expectancy is 61 years for men and 64 for women."

Poor, poor Haiti... Let's circumcise them and worry about feeding them and improving conditions for them later!

"The health challenges that Haitians are very similar to those experienced in Africa, and the training is seen as critical in addressing those obstacles. 'Like there was in Rwanda, there is a need to train surgeons in Haiti to carry out a quick, safe and painless infant circumcision technique,' Pollock explained."

 More like "Hatians are as vulnerable as the Rwandans, I know a good PR opportunity when I see one, and I need to be there to take advantage."

"'In regards to what accounts to gaps in circumcision rates, there may be a deficiency in trained surgeons to carry out the surgery in an acceptable manner, along with variations in social and cultural norms that influence the choice to have circumcision.'"

That Haiti's problems are attributable to "gaps in circumcision rates" and "deficiency in trained surgeons" and that "the social and cultural norms that influence the choice to have circumcision"(because having circumcision is the only acceptable choice?) are Pollock's own conjecture. Here, we see Pollock trying to justify and necessitate himself. Haitians "need" circumcision, and he's the man they should send to give it to them.

"The ultimate intention of the training, Pollock said, is 'to set up a national program accepted by the population, to introduce infant circumcision safely and effectively, and have it evolve to become a widespread practice throughout the country, thereby reducing the transmission of multiple diseases, including AIDS.'"

What he means to say, of course is that his ultimate objective is to proselytize Haiti, and to install infant circumcision as part of their culture, under the pretense of HIV prevention. He hopes to complete the training, and then be able to boast about it on newspapers, whatever the outcome. The training hasn't even happened yet; Pollock is asking for funds in this article, but he is already boasting the project as eminent.

"Pollock’s visit to Haiti will involve intensive training. 'My goal is to carry out a similar plan to what we executed in Rwanda. I worked with physicians there weeks ahead to set up a surgical schedule of 20-to-30 infants per day, over four-to-five days of operating. After working with doctors on models that I brought to demonstrate the technique and do the primary teaching, they moved to assist me with the surgeries and eventually carry them out under my supervision on the infants booked for circumcision.'"

He hopes to replicate in Haiti, what he did in Rwanda, but there is a huge difference; whereas circumcision is already a part of the culture in Rwanda and the rest of Africa, it is not part of the culture in Haiti, or the rest of the Caribbean. It has been very easy for circumcision advocates to get people on-board the circumcision gravy train in countries in Africa where circumcision is already prevalent as a cultural practice, but it is proving to be a challenge in areas where it is not; Swaziland, where the Soka Unkobe project failed to yield results, is a good example. Whether or not Pollock achieves the same results in Rwanda will remain to be seen; will he be able to convince enough Haitians to circumcise their newborns, enough to yield his 20-to-30 infants per day?

Here are some more interesting facts; while HIV prevalence rates are high in both Rwanda and Haiti (2.9% and 2.1% respectively) as well as a low prevalence of circumcision (less than 20%), the HIV prevalence rates in both of these countries are relatively lower than in Swaziland (HIV rate 26.5%) as well as other countries with higher circumcision prevalence (25-50%). Kenya and Tanzania, with circumcision rates of 84% and 70% respectively, also higher rates of HIV (6.1% and 5.1%).

And here's where it gets interesting...

"The training in Haiti, part of a nongovernmental public health initiative, will be partially supported by charitable donations."

 In other words, it hasn't happened yet...

"The commitment from my end for Haiti will include a week away from my practice and the commitment to help raise the $25,000 for the mission to take place. The plan is to raise $25,000 from the Vancouver community in the next seven days or so as to be able to launch the teaching mission in Haiti by the end of the summer."

"If you build it... they will come..."

"'During the week in Haiti, I will train two physicians, who will then train other physicians once our team leaves. I will maintain follow-up with these physicians to help them manage any issues that should arise.'" The goal is to create a sustainable public health campaign and donated funds not only will go towards covering the costs for the week, but also for 'the next 500 infants once we leave.

Readers who would like to donate to the effort “will support an initiative, which will undoubtedly over the years save thousands and thousands of lives,” Pollock said. “It’s intended that Haiti will become a training centre for circumcision in the Caribbean. It is likely that my technique, once taught in Haiti, will soon be shared with multiple countries throughout the Caribbean, multiplying its effect to save lives throughout the entire region.'"

Tho goal is clear:
Pollock hopes to drop a circumcision PR bombshell in Haiti. He hopes this will start a brushfire, which will then spread to the rest of the Caribbean. He has pipe dreams that his little project will plant a seed that will flourish and that he'll be given credit for circumcising the whole of the Caribbean.

I like how he uses the term "saving lives" as a euphemism for getting everyone circumcised, as if circumcision actually did anything to prevent HIV; the sad reality is that circumcision does not, cannot prevent HIV transmission. Not a single doctor or "researcher" can deny this fact. It fails so terribly that circumcised men must still be urged to wear condoms if they want any real protection.

Pollock must be on crack; in Africa it's very easy to convince people in cultures where circumcision is already present, that circumcising their children as newborns is a good idea. What is more likely to happen is that he'll go to Haiti, he'll go back to Canada, and instead of flourishing his project would fizzle, because people would be horrified at the proposition of having the genitals of their children mutilated for dubious benefits no medical organization in the world deems sufficient. And what other Caribbean countries in the right mind would listen to Haiti for anything?

Continues Pollock:

"'So, I’m asking readers and members of the community to reach deep and consider making a financial donation to help us raise $25,000 in the next [several] days to allow this mission to proceed.'"

So in short, this entire article can be summarized as thus; Pollock sees a circumcision PR opportunity in Haiti and he wants people and/or organizations to give him money to do it.

It ought to interest readers that Pollock went to Rwanda on the dime of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Shusterman Foundation, whose vision, by the way is "To help the Jewish people flourish by spreading the joy of Jewish living, giving and learning," and their mission is "ensuring vibrant Jewish life by empowering young Jews to embrace the joy of Judaism, build inclusive Jewish communities, support the State of Israel and repair the world."

At least for me, the question is, with financial guarantors like Shusterman Foundation, what is Pollock really up to? With this article published on a news outlet that primarily targets Jewish readers, what kind of donors is he hoping to attract for funds? My guess is that Pollock is hoping to attract monies from other Jewish advocates of circumcision, who share his vision of redeeming infant circumcision. Safeguarding a cherished tradition that is increasingly under public scrutiny (not to mention Pollock's main source of income) is the goal, and "saving lives" is the pretext.

Other questions arise...
So in this article, Pollock is both plugging himself, AND he's asking for money. Which leads to asking, if Pollock is performing so many circumcisions, why is he simply not flipping the bill himself? Pollock is trying to come off as if he would be doing the world a favor by traveling to evangelize circumcision in Haiti, but it doesn't sound like he could be too generous if he's basically asking to be reimbursed.

I have two theories:
a) With increasing intactivist activity in the US, and the latest developments in Europe, pickings are slim for him and other mohels, and he feels he should do a kind of PR tour. Since he's not making too much money, he needs the funds.

b) Having others pay his way is simply more PR for him; he can later claim that not only he was "asked" to go to Haiti (like I believe that), he was also given a full ride by "generous people in the international community" who wanted him to go to Haiti that bad.

But lastly, and here's the kicker, with the technological innovations the race to circumcise Africa has spawned, of what use are his "techniques" to circumcise older males? PrePex, for example, boasts a painless, bloodless technique to circumcise older males, which doesn't have to be performed by doctors. Why pay Pollock $25,000 to train doctors to perform cumbersome surgery when the money could be used for PrePex devices? (Not to mention that even if the latest "research" held any water, condoms would still be much cheaper, less invasive and more effective than circumcision?)

In short, given the new technology that doesn't require doctors, aren't Pollock's "techniques" pretty much obsolete?

Indeed, they are. But then Pollock couldn't take advantage of HIV-afflicted Haiti to PR infant circumcision, which is what actually matters to Pollock and his financial supporters.

Neil Pollock's conflicts of interest should be immediately obvious to anyone who investigates his background. He's not interested in HIV prevention or public health. He's concerned with staying in business, not to mention vindicating circumcision to which he has a religious conviction for. This is nothing more than a thinly-veiled circumcision crusade and Haitians ought to be put on alert. It is clear who would donate funds for him, and what their true intentions are.

"All abuse of babies is easier. They are powerless and history will judge us by how we protect the powerless." -Paul Mason, Commissioner for Children, Tasmania, Australia 2007-2010

Related Posts: 
Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV

Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV II

MASS CIRCUMCISION CAMPAIGNS: The Emasculation and Harassment of Africa

CIRCUMCISION "RESEARCH": Rehashed Findings and Misleading Headlines

Edgar Schoen Showing His Age

AUSTRALIA: "Circumcision Debate" - Australian Sensationalism?

OUT OF LINE: AAP Circumcision Policy Statement Formally Rejected

AAP: Around the Bush and Closer to Nowhere

The Cologne Ruling and the Limitations of Religious Freedom

COUNCIL OF EUROPE: Non-Medical Circumcision a Human Rights Violation

The Ghost of Mogen

CINCINNATI: Intactivists Protest Circumcision "Experiment" at Good Samaritan Hospital

NYTimes Plugs PrePex, Consorts With Known Circumfetish Organization

NEW "STUDY": "Circumcision Risks Low in Newborns" - OK, Well Just What Are They?

So there's a new circumcision "study" making waves in the media. And do you know what it found?

Take a wild guess!

You only get one.

Were you thinking "circumcision is beneficial?"

HAH!

Close, but no cigar.

Try again.

Were you thinking "the benefits outweigh the risks?"

Nice try, but the AAP already said that. (Strangely enough they didn't recommend it in newborns.)

Alright I'll tell you; the "study" (if it can even be called that; all it is is just a review of cherry picked data, just like all the rest...), "found" that "the risks of circumcision are few in newborns and increase with age."

Surprise!

But were you, really?

Is it any wonder that a "study" written by a circumcision monkey at an American health organization "discovered" that the best time to circumcise a child is (surprise again!) when American doctors do it?

But let's just run with it.

OK, great! So they found the best time to perform circumcision. Is that anything like "the best time" to perform a prostatectomy? Appendectomy? Maybe there's a prime age to perform a heart transplant.

Do you see what I'm getting at here?

This article raises more questions than it answers.

Perhaps circumcising a child is "less risky" (actually, some argue this is patently false), but what is the likelihood that a child will need circumcision in adulthood? Does this increase with age?

Without clinical or medical indication, how would this piece of knowledge be relevant?

Even if...
In the opening statements of this study, the lead author, Charbel El Bcheraoui, estimates that 1.4 million circumcisions are performed in American hospitals annually. (This contradicts a previous statement by none other than El Bcheraoui himself, claiming a rate of 32.5% in 2009.)

The study reviewed the medical history of approximately 1.4 million males circumcised between 2001 and 2010, and the researchers calculate the rate of complications (euphemised as "adverse events") to be less than 0.5%

 0.5% sounds infinitesimally small and tolerable level of complications, but given the author's own estimate of 1.4 million infants circumcised annually, that's between 5,600 (0.4%) to 7,000 (0.5%) baby boys that will suffer "adverse effects" from circumcision.

The AAP said in their last statement that “The true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision is unknown, in part due to differing definitions of “complication” and differing standards for determining the timing of when a complication has occurred (eg, early or late).” The statement also indicates that “Financial costs of care, emotional tolls, or the need for future corrective surgery (with the attendant anesthetic risks, family stress, and expenses) are unknown.” Additionally, catastrophic injuries were excluded from the report because they were reported only as case reports, not as statistics. (In other words, no one has bothered to collect them; it would not be in the interests of circumcising doctors to collect and report this data.)

For this new "study," researchers note that some complications might not have been picked up because they were reviewing claims data on problems that typically occurred within the first month following the circumcisions.

This would exclude complications undetected by the parents, such as skin tags, skin bridges and/or uneven scarring. A good deal of revisions for circumcision botches happen well outside the one-month bracket in this "study." This would exclude those complications that will not be detected until adulthood, such as painful erections caused by the removal of too much skin, lack of sensitivity, etc.. This would likely exclude meatal stenosis, where there is a high prevalence in circumcised males (see here and here), possibly as consequence of ischemia (poor blood supply) to the meatus or permanent irritation of the meatus caused by friction with the diaper and resulting in scarring.

OK, So What Are the Risks?
Let's accept the claim that "the risks of circumcision are low in infancy and increase with age." Just what are the risks? And are they conscionable given that this is elective surgery on healthy, non-consenting infants were talking about?

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

Again, that's between 5,600 (0.4%) to 7,000 (0.5%) baby boys that will suffer "adverse effects" from circumcision annually, given this study's 1.4 million figure.

El Bcheraoui claims that a 0.5% complication rate is low. But how low is that when it means 5,600 to 7,000 baby boys will suffer complications annually? And why aren't we talking about what those complications are?

Because this is elective, non-medical surgery, how is anything above zero conscionable?

Complications aren't just numbers on a screen...
I constantly see circumcision complications on my news feed on Facebook. Here is just one example of that "0.5%"

Lucky this poor little boy made it... Baby Brayden wasn't so lucky...

And because no "researcher" has decided to collect peer-reviewed statistics on it, it more than likely was not part of El Bcheraoui's "study."

This "study" is self-serving rubbish.

But even if we were to take the skewed 0.5% figure at face value, that's still way too many babies suffering due to needless surgery.