Monthly Archives: June 2014

FDA: Infant Circumcision… to detect hemophilia?

Contraindications to newborn circumcision
include significantly premature
infants, those with blood dyscrasias,
individuals who have a family history of
bleeding disorders[...]” -
AAP – Technical Report on Circumcision, 2012

A recent FDA article about treatments for hemophilia, quotes doctor Nisha Jain, M.D., chief of the Clinical Review Branch in FDA’s Office of Blood Research and Review, saying:

“Patients can be diagnosed as infants during circumcision”

Dr Nisha Jain, M.D

Dr Nisha Jain, M.D

The problem with this though is that these patients may die as a consequence of the bleeding caused by their circumcision. These deaths often go unreported. Babies are not tested for hemophilia prior to circumcision.

In March of 2013, baby Brayden Tayler Frazier was transferred to UC Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, CA, because he wouldn’t stop bleeding after his circumcision. He later went to seizures and finally died, 2 days later. His death was not reported on the media, and it was only because of activists scanning social media for circumcision-related topics, that the intactivist community learned of and followed this tragedy.

After the death, doctors and family were in denial that circumcision had anything to do with his passing. He had been sick, they argued. His initial sticks and pricks didn’t heal as quickly as normal, and yet in the face of this telltale sign, the circumcision was performed. It would be hard to deny that the massive bleeding that followed led to the catastrophic outcome.

Baby Brayden was treated with coagulants, platelets, plasma, everything to try, unsuccessfully, to save his life.

Another known victim was Ryan White (1971-1990). Again, his circumcision caused massive bleeding and so he was detected to be hemophiliac. In his case, it wasn’t the bleeding though what killed him, but the medication used to treat it;  weekly transfusions of Factor VIII,  a blood product created from pooled plasma of non-hemophiliacs, infected him with the HIV virus. He died from AIDS related complications.

That Dr. Jain thinks it’s fine to detect hemophilia on infants during circumcision is a disrespect to babies like Brayden and others who died from loss of blood and other related clotting disorders and conditions after their unnecessary and unethical circumcision.

Finally, only in the United States will doctors enable parents to risk their children’s health in the name of a social surgery. See this paper by Kuthan Kavakli et al, arguing that “Hemophilic boys (60%) and their parents (82%) have an inferiority complex because the boys are unable to be circumcised” – notice how the dissatisfaction of parents was higher (82%) than that of the boys (60%). Kavakli concludes that “circumcision is an important social problem of hemophilic patients that needs to be solved.

A social problem indeed, and rational minds wonder why not solve it with education. Maybe that is too much to ask.

 

 

The Skeptic – Does science support infant circumcision?

We often criticize Brian Morris’ methods and advocacy of circumcision, particularly his underestimating of risks and complications, his denial of the harm, his overestimation of benefits, and his recurrent self-referencing.

It’s good to read others who share our concern. This is a great article by Brian D. Earp and Robert Darby, published on The Skeptic: http://www.skeptic.org.uk/magazine/onlinearticles/articlelist/711-infant-circumcision

It calls attention to an interesting contradiction. Morris argues for circumcision to avoid having to treat urinary tract infections with paracetamol (pain medication) in light of new studies that associate early exposure to paracetamol with an increase in the risk of autism… yet fails to correlate the fact that paracetamol is used after newborn circumcisions.

Anyway, great read. It’s sad that people are still being fooled by Brian Morris’ air of respectability and the scientific community continues playing his game and not exposing his pseudoscientific arguments. Really sad.

Stolen skin – from a corporation or from babies?

“We’re known as the most ethical company in the business”
Angelyn Lowe
Director of corporate communications at Organogenesis.

A Pennsylvania man has been accused of stealing 219 orders of skin grafts from the company he worked for, Organogenosis. These items had an estimated price of $350,000 ($1,700 each).

What the news are not mentioning is that those grafts are produced using newborn foreskins retained after infant circumcisions. Organogenosis’ products, have been previously profiled by circleaks, see Apligraf and Dermagraft.

Now, exactly how does a corporation obtain neonatal foreskins to be used as part of a profitable manufacturing process?

I invite you to see this neonatal circumcision consent form from the University of Virginia Health System.

Let’s start with the obvious, on numeral 2:

I understand my diagnosis/condition to be: Uncircumcised Newborn Male

The fact that it is written in first person seems fraudulent. No newborn can read and sign off on this line. Everything is done through proxy consent, which is problematic given the “elective” nature of the procedure.

But also, the fact that being an uncircumcised newborn male is considered a diagnosis is problematic. Every male is born uncircumcised, and that is normal.  It should be obvious!

But let’s move to numeral 8:

I understand that any tissues or parts removed during my procedure may be disposed of by the hospital or used for any lawful purpose including education and research

Did you see the text where it said “sold to manufacturing companies for profit”? Of course not. But that’s exactly what this line does. It authorizes the hospital to retain the foreskin and use it for research, education OR any other LAWFUL purpose.

Never mind that retaining and selling tissue obtained from minors seems contrary to all ethical principles regarding commercial use of human tissue.