Tag Archives: AAP

Subtle language to perpetuate the fraud – by Touro Infirmary

I believe we all, regardless of whether we oppose circumcision of children, or promote it, can agree that circumcision is not a necessary procedure.

In fact, the third paragraph of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ 2012 Policy Statement on Circumcision starts: “Although health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns“. Then it goes on to boast the “benefits” and endorse insurance coverage of the procedure.

Nevertheless, the important point is, the procedure is considered elective. Intactivists and the medical community disagree over who has the right to “elect” the procedure, but there is no medical view that considers the procedure necessary.

Which is why it is important to see how subtle language is used to convince parents otherwise.

Touro Infirmary

Touro Infirmary, Louisiana

We were alerted to Touro Infirmary’s verbiage and had  the chance to verify it on their website. Touro, founded in 1852, claims to be New Orleans’ only community based, not-for-profit, faith-based hospital, and their “about us” page claims they have always  taken a progressive path.

But are they progressive when it comes to male newborns’ genitalia?

The “before delivery” page reads:

You may have already signed the “Consent for Circumcision” for your male child when you signed your other consents at 36 weeks. If not, this consent will also need to be signed shortly before the circumcision procedure is done.”

Notice the language: this consent will need to be signed before the procedure is done. There is no question of whether you are the parents have decided. The language presents circumcision of the male child as something inevitable, and the consent form as something that just needs to be signed so we can move forward and be done with this.

The “after delivery” page then starts with this question and answer:

“I have heard that after the birth of my baby, the baby will remain in my room, with me, rather than go to the nursery. Is this true?”
“Touro offers “rooming-in/mother-baby care” before and during the newborn’s initial bath and examination by the nurse and pediatrician. Of course, circumcisions and other necessary procedures are done in the nursery, not in the mother’s room.”

Notice the wording: “circumcision and other necessary procedures” which seems to imply  that circumcision is one of those necessary procedures. In fact, it seems it is so important that it is the first one mentioned!

The only place where they hint that circumcision is not necessary or otherwise mandatory is on their example of a birth plan, which includes this line:

“If your baby is a boy, do you want to have him circumcised?”

The website makes no attempt to educate parents on why they would want or not, to have their male child circumcised. But by using careful language,  they present circumcision as a necessity, as something that is simply done. And by doing this, they attempt to ensure the perpetuation of male infant circumcision in the United States.

Touro, shame on you.

 

Unspoken complications of circumcision

AAP: “Male circumcision consists of the surgical removal of some, or all, of the foreskin (or prepuce) from the penis. It is one of the most common procedures in the world. [...]Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks; [...] Male circumcision does not appear to adversely affect penile sexual function/ sensitivity or sexual satisfaction. It is imperative that those providing circumcision  are adequately trained and that both sterile techniques and  effective pain management are used. Significant acute complications are rare. [...] Parents are entitled to factually correct, nonbiased information about circumcision

AAP: “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 [...] Significant acute complications are rare, occurring in approximately 1 in 500 newborn male circumcisions.
Acute complications are usually minor and most commonly involve bleeding, infection, or an imperfect amount of tissue removed.[...] Late complications of newborn circumcision
include excessive residual skin (incomplete circumcision), excessive
skin removal … ”

AAP: “Based on the data reviewed, it is difficult, if not impossible, to adequately assess the total impact of complications, because the data are scant and inconsistent regarding the  severity of complications. [...] Financial costs of care, emotional tolls, or the need for future corrective surgery (with the attendant anesthetic risks, family stress, and expense) are unknown.”

Activists monitoring social networks often encounter individual cases of complications that usually go unreported, and where evidently medical staff have done as much possible to make parents feel good regardless of the negative outcome. The previous statements mention “excessive skin removal”. While this may not sound very important because, well, “it’s just skin”, truth is penile skin has an important role in sexual life and development. And while parents are not thinking about the future sexual life of their child (except in their desire to conform to a social norm by circumcising), this excessive loss of skin results in dramatic harm to the individuals sexual life.

The skin of the penis is supposed to move during sex. In fact, it is supposed to glide over the glans, something that is almost always destroyed by circumcision. But the skin also has to be able to accommodate a normal erection. In other words, when the erectile tissue inside the penis swells with blood to make the penis enlarge and become stiff, there needs to be enough skin to accommodate its length.

When there is not enough skin, many things can happen. The penis can bend unnaturally when erect. The skin can chafe and even bleed during sex due to friction. The penis may pull surrounding skin (from the scrotum and pubic area) to make for the lack of normal penile skin, resulting in pubic hair climbing up the shaft, and potentially penetrating the individual’s sexual partner, causing bruising and tears inside. Insufficient skin can also cause part of the penis to push inward during erection (because there is nowhere else for the erectile tissue to go) causing pain during erection.

Many men who experience these complications may not seek help because they assume it’s normal, it’s what an erection feels like or looks like.

In fact, the loss of tissue due to circumcision is the reason why American supermarkets and pharmacies devote shelf space to artificial lubricants, so that men who lost too much tissue can masturbate or have sex.

In a bodybuilding forum we found one such case reported by a non-activist individual asking for advice from his peers.

bb

What motivates this post today is a photo found by activists today on Facebook. In that photo, a relative of a newborn reports that the baby finally left the hospital. Bleeding after circumcision was stopped, but infection is still a concern. Too much skin was removed and they are going to let it heal and follow up in two weeks, and they may use skin grafts later on.

baby1baby2

This is one of those complications that barely registers with people, one that the media doesn’t care about, one of those stories that will go unreported and unnoticed. It’s just skin. Until one day, 20 or 30 years later, baby is now an adult, and finds himself wondering why he can’t masturbate or have sex without lube. Why his skin chafes and gets sore if he tries to. Why he ends in pain if he does.

Or his girlfriend, wife, etc., wonders why she ends up with pain and burning inside her vagina after intercourse.

Oh, but it was just some extra skin, wasn’t it?

Oh, but the benefits outweigh the risks, don’t they?

I’m disgusted by the comments I see. Nobody should have to refer to a baby as a “trooper” or a “fighter” just because they allowed a doctor to harm the baby.

Notice the relative’s comment: “wish it was over for him or better yet it never happened“. Well, sad to say, but it wouldn’t have happened if it wasn’t for the circumcision. This injury was 100% preventable.

Another person says “somebody needs to answer a question about removing too much skin“. Well, they did. The AAP statement mentions the risk. Most consent forms mention the risk. They just don’t tell you how bad it really is when it happens. So parents assume that removing too much tissue is just a cosmetic problem. Not that it will involve bleeding, risk of infection (weren’t they trying to prevent infections anyway?), pain, additional surgeries… And what they don’t know yet, long term pain. During sex.

Notice the person who says one of her children had the same problem and the nurses told her that it was a “French cut” and “girls loved it“. The moment when the baby’s genitalia becomes sexualized to appease adults. This again proves that American circumcision is mostly a social fetish disguised as medicine, and that doctors and nurses will say anything to make parents feel good.

In fact, Googling “French cut circumcision” reveals that it something different. What is considered a European or French style circumcision is a low and loose circumcision, not one where excessive tissue was removed.

I’ve known many cases of men harmed in this way. Some became activists. Some have been restoring their foreskins for many years to reduce the pain.

I know a mother who had her first 3 children circumcised. She used to think the right circumcision was the one they did on her first born, the one that had a tight circumcision. Until he turned 4-5 and started expressing pain when he has erections. She is now an activist against circumcision, of course, and regrets the harm that came to her child.

Seeing this photo on Facebook today I can only think: Poor hurt baby. My heart breaks for you and all the other babies and the adults they become who were and will be harmed by this mindless unnecessary, risky and damaging surgery.

Is this harm always accidental?

A number of circumcision fetishists tend to favor “high and tight” circumcisions and often fixate on the removal of the frenulum – something which is necessarily sexual harm, given the sexual sensitivity and pleasure caused by an intact frenulum. And American doctors never mention what happens to the frenulum during circumcision – in fact the word “frenulum” is not even present on the AAP Technical Report on circumcision from 2012!

In this video, the makers of a circumcision device explain how to use their device for a tight circumcision with frenulum cauterization. In other words, to cause as much harm as possible!

One can only wonder… Why?

But they won’t answer.

 

Does your OB/Gyn require a “circumcision deposit”?

Does your OB/Gyn require a “circumcision deposit”?

We were alerted about this (apparently not so new) trend, by a post on The Whole Network:

Fan Question: I am pregnant with my second child and my regular OB (who delivered my daughter) started a new policy that forces patients to pay a “circ deposit” before their first prenatal visit. Apparently this is a growing trend among doctors.. Whether or not you are having a boy or if you want to keep him intact you have to pay and if you don’t use it the money will be refunded after you are discharged from the hospital. I tried fighting it but they told me it won’t be done unless I sign a consent form at the hospital. Since it is a new policy I am worried that the staff at the hospital will see that I paid and do it anyway assuming I wanted it done. I just found out that I am having a boy so I need to decide what to do now. Even though they are promising that I will have a say in the end, it makes me really uncomfortable and I’m not sure how safe my son will really be. I am thinking about switching to a new OB over this but I have medicaid so my options are limited. Would it be worth switching over? I am also not sure how to find an intact friendly OB so i was wondering if you could help point me in the right direction. I didn’t search for a doctor with my daughter because he was my regular GYN. I’m in Melbourne FL. There are no birthing centers around here..

But a quick search for “circumcision deposit” allowed us to find that this has been reported at least since 2009, with questions about the legality and ethical value of this practice. It is likely that this practice will increase as Medicare stops funding newborn circumcision in more states. In this particular case, the original poster is located in Florida, where newborn circumcisions are not covered.

More reports here, here.

Some relevant comments:

I would change doctors immediately, if that is an option.  I would worry that my paying a deposit would be construed as consenting to circumcision and would be afraid that it would be done without my knowledge.

I wonder how many mothers assume they don’t have a choice in the matter because they have to pay for it anyway!

The fact that parents who express their refusal to circumcise, and parents who are expecting girls, are being forced to pay this “deposit”  - even if it’s refunded later or applied to other outstanding balances- is outrageous. This is nothing but a way to reinforce the status quo of newborn circumcision, making it look like the default treatment is circumcision, effectively pushing it onto families from non-circumcising cultures. Forget the multiculturalism, forget the respect for the parents and the child. It’s all about collecting that fee and cutting that foreskin.

Circleaks is interested in exposing this practice and helping bring it to an end. But in order to do so we need your help. Please, help us identify entities and doctors with these policies. Your personal information will be strictly confidential.

Please email circleaks {at} gmail.com