When a baby dies from circumcision you find out the truth that circumcision is valued more than a baby's life

The most disturbing aspect of a child dying from circumcision other than the unnecessary tragic loss of life is the efforts to protect circumcision. This post documents some recent deaths (listed below) ( though I have stopped this recently as I find it too distressing) and also to highlight the lengths people will go to protect circumcision, even when its caused the death of a child?  So beware in a circumcision culture, circumcision is considered more valuable and important than your baby's life! Your baby is expendable to the tribe, circumcision is more important to the tribe than your baby, at least understand this.

The pattern of behaviour you find when a baby or child dies from circumcision, is that often the circumcision is not blamed, but the incompetent circumciser, a deficiency in the baby, or the parents are usually blamed!  The parents often so hurt, in shock and confused, dont know what to do or say. Please dont blame the parents in this time of grief........

03/06/18 In this case the Doctor blames the parents, whereas the parents are claiming medical negligence. https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/29-day-old-baby-dies-after-circumcision-kerala-parents-allege-medical-negligence-82399

03/10/17 Another neonate death from circumcision this time pre-existing conditioned blamed http://www.timesofisrael.com/boy-who-lost-consciousness-after-circumcision-dies/

16/09/17  Another death reported https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/17/male-circumcision-baby-goodluck

28/08/17 Another baby dies from circumcision reported in Facebook today, I cant even stand reading about it.

18/01/17 Another boy dies from circumcision , in this case the police are called in, and state it is difficult to investigate because circumcision communities don't co-operate. Another example of how circumcision and the circumciser are protected even though a babies life has been taken.  https://themoscowtimes.com/news/russian-police-investigate-the-parents-of-a-boy-who-died-after-a-home-circumcision-56843   http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com.au/2017/01/circumcision-death-this-time-in-russia.html

25/10/15 Another needless death as baby dies from circumcision http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/10/26/secrecy-questioned-about-babys-death-after-circumcision.html http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com//health/ontario-newborn-bleeds-to-death-after-family-doctor-persuades-parents-to-get-him-circumcised

09/08/15 Baby's penis is severed and not the slightest condemnation of circumcision http://www.inquisitr.com/2320782/circumcision-gone-wrong-8-day-old-baby-boys-penis-reattached-after-botched-brit-ceremony/

14/12/14 Another death from circumcision reported interesting how some either avoiding blaming circ or protecting circ http://circwatch.org/512/


04/06/14 Another baby dies and they're blaming the competence of the Dr here: http://www.dailymirror.lk/news/47982-infant-dies-during-circumcision.html

23/05/14 Circumcised Baby in Denmark goes into Coma, circumcision is defend by total silence.   http://arclaw.org/news/sad-news-danish-baby-goes-coma-after-circumcision http://arclaw.org/news/sad-news-danish-baby-goes-coma-after-circumcision




10/09/13 5yo   Boys genitals amputated because of circumcision http://en.tengrinews.kz/health/Genitals-of-5-yo-boy-may-be-amputated-due-to-failed-circumcision-in-Atyrau-22110/


16/08/13  Another death of a child from circumcision. http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/gauteng/child-dies-after-circumcision-at-hospital-1.1563203#.Ug3ashU9Vwc.twitter


**Update 23/06/13 Just revealed in 2013 the death of another baby in 2008: http://intactivists.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/jayvas.html

A baby critical, near death had stopped breathing following another circumcision:  Just reported this baby has died, and the mother blamed for breastfeeding him after the circumcision. http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/baby-dies-in-israeli-hospital-following-circumcision/2013/06/07/ http://www.timesofisrael.com/baby-in-critical-condition-after-circumcision/ Read the article and no issue with circumcision they say = "Doctors began investigating what might have caused the incident, including excessive blood loss, a congenital disease, or infection", so sad that circumcision and its defence appears more important than human life.

Unfortuntely & Sadly, Yet another death of a baby bleeding to death following circumcision. 09/03/13: Condolences to the Family. It is not the families fault but that of the medical profession for performing unnecessary surgery on a baby. This baby would still be alive had not the medical community (AAP) condoned the practice of routine circumcision and minimize the risks and harms.  The reports coming out of the hospital now stating the baby had haemophilia, denoting that is the reason the baby died, and absolving the doctors and circumcision AGAIN!!! http://circumstitionsnews.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/sacramento-another-circumcision-death.html


Another report emerged 26/11/12 of a baby bleeding to death from circumcision.  In this case it is the circumciser who is blamed for incompetence and negligence.  Again the circumcision itself is spared any blame. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-20503660

Again a baby bleeds to death from circumcision, and yes the blame is partly apportioned to the mother for removing the bandage too early and yet again circumcision is not identified as the cause of death, Coroner claiming cause of death accidental?  Shows you how circumcision is valued more than human lifehttp://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/news/queen_s_park_baby_bled_to_death_two_days_after_being_circumcised_1_1419367?fb_comment_id=fbc_10151804082653475_24984662_10151804729018475#f2c59604accaf8e

Another death from circumcision occurred May 2012 in Oslo Norway, and in the report they stated that these cases are so difficult to investigate because Parents usually defend the circumcisers? Can you believe that? http://translate.google.no/translate?client=safari&hl=no&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&twu=1&q=l?sl=no&tl=en&u=http://mobil.bt.no/nyheter/innenriks/Gutt-dode-etter-omskjaring-i-Oslo-2702889.html%23.T64eNaNhiSM

In the most recent report 18 June 2012, a baby fractured it skull during a religious circumcision and again the circumcisers are protected?????? http://endmalecircumcision.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/babys-skull-fractured-in-bristol.html


And what do we find from the ProCutters of Twitter doing? More and More promotion of infant circumcision, they obviously value circumcision more than human life.

In Sept 2011 the media reported another baby died from circumcision, this time resulting from the complications of contracting herpes from a Rabbi who was infected with herpes who sucked the baby's penis following a circumcision!! Its hard to believe isnt it???? Making me Vomit, they;re blaming the jewish mother now, for not caring for the baby properly??  Even harder to believe is the lack of outrage at the death, and the defense of the Mohel & circumcision,???  More astonsihing is that people are still defending circumcision, they just value circumcision more than a human life????????? The Twitter procircs tried to distance themselves by claiming it wasnt circumcisions fault it was the archaic and rare jewish religious practice that was to blame, not their special type of circumcision (which also claims lives)

For me, when a baby dies from circumcision i feel great sorrow.  I think this is a preventable death, and why does this still happen.  I also feel outrage that in the 21st century babies still die needlessly, and are sacrificed for tradition. I'm outraged with medicine also. How can an ethical medical practitioner perform this risky surgery on a pefectly healthy infant.  I begin to feel a sense of anger towards the medical profession, and those that constantly promote the practice.  It motivates me to educate, and to try and end this primitive tribal practice, and hope that my efforts spare at least a few babies from the risk of harm.

For the pro-circumcision crowd, what you'll notice is the first thing they do when a baby dies from circumcision is to defend the practice of circumcision!!  Or they'll be deafly silent wanting all to fade away from peoples memory so they can go on promoting.  Or they get into the blame game. They blame the parents for not being vigilant enough, they blame the medical staff for negligence, they make up stuff like the baby just died spontaneously fron sudden infant death syndrome, NOW they're even blaming BREASTFEEDING http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/-/688334/1312742/-/b1gmqez/-/ the thing they wont blame though is the practice of circumcision, because their actions demonstrate that the practice of circumcision is worth more than a human life!!  This truly sickens me!!!!!!

What more can anyone say???????

The Defence of Circumcision is not a good look

When you hear people defending circumcision, the look is not good.  When doctors defend circumcision they appear to be unethical, medically and scientifically illiterate, and protecting self-interest.  It brings shame to the medical profession.  When parents defend circumcision, they can appear as if their own interests and preferences for male genitalia are more important than what nature intended and evolved over a million years, and or what their son may want choose for himself.  This is just so shameful, it is primitive and disrespectful to the individual the circumcision impacts. The list goes on and on.............. its not a good look

Associating and Aligning Breastfeeding with Infant Circumcision or Comparing the Benefits of Breastfeeding to Circumcision

What you'll find people from circumcision cultures doing is to pair infant circumcision with breastfeeding as a way of normalising the practice of infant circumcision, trying to associate healthy breastfeeding with circumcision, well lets just compare circumcision with breastfeeding, and see how they compare with each other in infant development?  Before the comparison its worth noting that in recent deaths from circumcision breastfeeding the baby following a circumcision has been used as the cause of death???  WOW, they want the association with breastfeeding but willing to trash Breastfeeding as soon as a baby dies from circumcision, SAYS IT ALL REALLY!!!!!!!!

Proximity = In Breastfeeding the infant is in close proximity to mother facilitating attachment vs circumcision the baby is taken away from mother disrupting attachment.

Attachment = The infant attaches to mother via breastfeeding vs circumcision disrupts attachment with separation, gaze aversion, pain and often trauma.

Soothing = Breastfeeding soothes the baby vs circumcision causes the baby excruitiating pain.

Development = Breastfeeding facilitates development via nutrition and attachment, vs circumcision creates stress responses including cortisol elevation, and stops the penis from developing as nature intended.

Feeding = Breastfeeding is a primary source of feeding vs circumcision disrupts the breastfeeding process with many babies refusing to feed following circumcision

Neural development = Breastfeeding facilitates neural and brain development, vs circumcision which causes a flood of cortisol in the brain, which has been found to cause neural pruning

Urinary Tract Infections = Breastfeeding babies appear to have protective effect for UTI's vs circumcision has been documented to cause UTI's shortly after circumcision

Death = Breastfeeding never causes death, whereas circumcision does. OH .....if a baby dies from circumcision then you can blame breastfeeding, in order to protect circumcision breastfeeding is trashed as happened in Africa recently (Reported in Press).

Human Rights & Ethics = Breastfeeding is normal natural & healthy and has never been a human rights issue, other than every baby deseves it if possible, whereas infant circumcision is widely seen as a human rights violation & medically unethical.

Circumcision Propaganda Spin - Parents & Health Benefits

If you take a look at the latest pro-circumcision propaganda spin, the two main themes are around "Parents make the best decisions for their children", and "Circumcision has proven health benefits".  It appears they either have employed a clever PR consultant or are just clever at applying political spin to the subject of circumcision.


Firstly with the "Motherhood" statement that "parents always know whats best for their children", I mean superficially who the hell would ever want to disagree with that?  Only deviants? Its Great PR spin!!!  But, it doesnt take much closer examination, and a look at some basic facts to see that this statement is not all what it seeems to be.  Take the area of child protection as one example, The main offenders of child abuse, including, neglect, emotional abuse, physical abuse, and sexual abuse are the Parents of the children.  So here is some factual evidence that demonstrates parents dont always know or do whats best for their children.  Another point to make is you can only know whats best when you know all the facts.  If Most American parents are told and believe that the foreskin is a useless piece of skin, instead of the truth that it is a functional sex organ in its own right, then the circumcision decision is made by uninformed parents.  If parents knew the truth would they make the same decision for their children.  American parents are also told that circumcision is painless & risk free.  Would these parents make the same decision if they knew how much pain their baby would endure, and the risks of complications?  So how can parents make the best decision when they dont know all the facts??

The "Proven health benefits claim" comes from a selection of research which is usually poorly designed, with methodological flaws and is never contrasted to the research that has opposite or different findings.  The most important data in health/medicine is usually epidemiological data, which is actual population data of health outcomes i real life.  Not data from poorly designed and methodolically flawed studies.  Its what actually occurs in the real world. Epidemiology finds = The healthiest longest lived people with the lowest STI's/HIV, with lowest infant mortality are from non-circumcision cultures of EU & Japan.  This epidemiological  evidence actually finds that intact people are the healthiest in the world.  Of course American Parents are never told this.

Although procirc spin is very very clever it just doesnt stand up to closer scrutiny.

Research finds that Australian Children have superior health outcomes compared to when Circumcision was common

Health Outcomes in Children taken from Circinfo.org = 

Firstly, A recent Australian (2009) research found that present day Australian Children had far superior health outcomes to when routine infant circumcision was common, read as follows:

"The health of Australia’s children continues to improve, according to the latest report on child health from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, A Picture of Australia's Children 2009. During the period 1986-2006 there was a dramatic decline in infant and child deaths (which fell by half), improved survival in cases of cancer, and a reduction in the incidence of asthma.
These are significant findings, given that the period 1986 to 2006 witnessed a huge decline in the incidence of circumcision, from about 40 per cent of boys in the early 1980s to about 10 per cent in 2006. It is thus good empirical proof that “lack of circumcision” does not increase child health problems. Even more significantly, it is a decisive refutation of “scientific” predictions by Terry Russell, Brian Morris and other diehard promoters of routine circumcision that the fall in the circumcision rate would lead to an explosion of genito-urinary problems in boys and an ever-increasing death toll from urinary tract and bladder infections. No such problems are identified in this report, which does not even mention any health problems affecting the genito-urinary area.
On the contrary, the halving of the death rate among infants and children suggests that leaving the foreskin in place could even have significantly improved child health outcomes and contributed to the decline in infant and child mortality. It is, after all, quite illogical to claim that a boy with wound on his penis is somehow healthier than a boy who has not been injured there. As the British child health expert N.R.C. Roberton points out, “it is fundamentally illogical that mutilating someone might be beneficial.” *

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare is the Australian Government’s premier health research foundation.
The full report and press release can be downloaded from the AIHW website.

Further Reading, data which refutes the idea circumcision leads to better health outcomes:

Reference
N.R.C. Roberton, “Care of the Normal Term Newborn Baby,” in Textbook of Neonatology, eds. Janet M. Rennie, N.R.C. Roberton, 3rd edn. (Edinburgh: Churchill Livingston, 1999), 378-379.

How bad is the African HIV Circumcision research?

The research did not prove life-long protection only partial episodic protection (relative to the trial conditions for only 18months). The trials also did not reflect not real world settings, and therefore how can they be applicable to real world settings. Rarely reported or emphasised, A significant number of circumcised men in the study became infected with HIV.  The participants were not randomly selected, but selected themselves, creating a potential bias or distortion in the generalisability of the results to any general population. The participants were paid adult male volunteers who wanted to be circumcised and therefore had a bias in favour of it, and could possibly have been in favour of circumcision because they were high risk candidates who had unprotected sex (no condoms) with multiple sex partners, and were looking for a way to maintain high risk behaviours. Therefore as the participants were not randomly selected, and were a potentially biased self-selected sample of the population, the results cannot be extrapolated to general populations outside of this population sub-group. (Van Howe & Storms, 2011) Inadequate Controls: Participants in the trials were not treated equally with the circumcised group given more education about healing from surgery, advised to not resume sex for 6 to 8 weeks and therefore, abstained from sex longer, and participants were given greater time and emphasis about wearing condoms during the period of healing from surgery. No control was undertaken to examine possible non-sexual blood exposures by participants. No control was undertaken for dry sex as practised by some african cultures. No control for the sex (gender) of partners, and no control for anal intercourse. (Van Howe & Storms, 2011) Unexplained and disrtorting the statistics was the finding that in the first three months of the Kenyan trial, five men became HIV-positive who reported no sexual activity in the period before the seroconversion (0.73/100 person-years, 95%CI=0.30-1.76). (Van Howe & Storms, 2011)Data suggests a percentage of infections were from non-sexual exposures, with 23 infected men reporting no sexual contact without a condom. No explanations or investigations undertaken for non-sexual exposures to HIV infections. (Van Howe & Storms, 2011) The African HIV Trial researchers were all pro-circumcision and with a history of activism in the area. Nearly 10 times as many participants dropped out of the clinical studies as were infected, with HIV status unknown.  The studies were ended early exagerrating effects.  The vast majority of participants in the study were HIV free, therefore, why was no attempt made by researchers to identify the 100% condom users and compare these to the circumcised group, Was 100% condom use more effective than circumcision = Most probably yes!! but researchers did not want to find this and report it.   No long term follow-up possible with all subjects circumcised at end of trial. Researchers used speculative hypotheses to explain trial findings, such as Langeran present in the foreskin cells are targeted by HIV, whereas later research found Langeran cells actually kill HIV. (Van Howe & Storms, 2011) The studies had such high numbers of participants leading to an overpowering of the statistical analysis, inflating the results. (Van Howe & Storms, 2011) French demographer Garenne criticised the findings by demonstrating that interventions with a near 50% clinical trial efficacy had very little population effect. At best the research findings are only valid for adult circumcision volunteers, and populations with high prevalence of HIV, not babies or low prevalence nations. At worst the research is so floored the findings only have validity within similar research conditions and virtually zero validity for real world situations. Comparisons with vaccinations are invalid.  Most vaccinations are administered orally, dermally or via injection and not surgery removing healthy tissue.  Those that are vaccinated are virtually fully protected, and those that come within proximity, whereas circumcision only partially protects the male for a period of 18months, does not protect female or male partners, with evidence of increased infections in female partners od circumcised males, does not protect against blood exposures, or injecting users, does not protect against male to male sex.  A very poor vaccine indeed. The conclusions to circumcise baby boys does not follow from the experiment which was tested on male adult volunteers for a period of 18 months. The research does not explain how many circumcised populations have higher HIV infections than non-circmcised populations.

HPV infections findings of Thorough Research versus Inadequate Research

Below is a study from University of washington which found a slight but non-statistically significant higher HPV infection rate in circumcised men compared to intact men.  This contrasts with African research which found higher HPV infections in intact men.  However, when you look at the methodologies, you find the African researchers only tested for HPV at 1 site, the glans, versus the washington uni tested for HPV at multiple sites on the penis.  The more thorough investigation found a reported "no difference in HPV infections" using the more thorough methodology.  If you read the statistics circumcised men actually had had higher HPV rates with the ratio of 10 circumcised had infections versus 9 intact had HPV infections .

 

Circumcised men at equal risk of HPV infection

A large-scale study at the University of Washington has found no difference in the incidence of HPV infection between circumcised and uncircumcised male college students. HPV (Human Papilloma Virus) is a large group of viruses that may cause genital warts, and are implicated in the genesis of genital cancers. HPV is very common among the sexually active population. but most people never show any symptoms. The risk factors for the development of cancer have been shown to be numerous different sexual partners and smoking. The new study confirmed previous research which showed that the location of the virus differed between circumcised and uncircumcised men: circumcised men tend to carry the virus on the shaft skin of the penis, while intact men are more likely to carry it on the glans. The study also also found that circumcised men have more sexual partners. In a previous study the researchers found found that for college females the circumcision status of their partner was NOT a risk factor for HPV infection in women. The authors comment that the African Random Clinical Trials, which seemed to show that uncircumcised men were more likely to carry the HPV virus, were seriously flawed because they took samples only from the glans (not from the shaft skin, where the virus is concentrated in the circumcised).
ABSTRACT
Background: The role of circumcision in male HPV acquisition is not clear.
Methods: Male university students (aged 18–20 years) were recruited from 2003 to 2009 and followed up triannually. Shaft/scrotum, glans, and urine samples were tested for 37 human papillomavirus (HPV) genotypes. Cox proportional hazards methods were used to evaluate the association between circumcision and HPV acquisition. Logistic regression was used to assess whether the number of genital sites infected at incident HPV detection or site of incident detection varied by circumcision status.
Results: In 477 men, rates of acquiring clinically relevant HPV types (high-risk types plus types 6 and 11) did not differ significantly by circumcision status (hazard ratio for uncircumcised relative to circumcised subjects: 0.9 [95% confidence interval{CI}: 0.7–1.2]). However, compared with circumcised men, uncircumcised men were 10.1 (95% CI: 2.9 –35.6) times more likely to have the same HPV type detected in all 3 genital specimens than in a single genital specimen and were 2.7 (95% CI: 1.6–4.5) times more likely to have an HPV-positive urine or glans specimen at first detection.
Conclusion: We found no differences by circumcision status in overall HPV acquisition or in number of HPV types acquired. Findings held for all clinically relevant HPV types, as well as for the subgroups of high-risk types, high-risk -9 types, and HPV-16. This observation is consistent with findings from other longitudinal studies.
Bottom line: Circumcision does not lower the risk of infection with Human Papilloma Virus. People who claim that uncircumcised men are more likely to develop or communicate genital cancers are ignoring the facts and spreading misleading information.
Source: Kelley Van Buskirk et al, Circumcision and Acquisition of Human Papillomavirus Infection in Young Men, Sexually Transmitted Diseases 38 (12), December 2011.
Journal homepage: http://journals.lww.com/stdjournal/pages/default.aspx
Abstract available at journal - Published ahead of print: http://journals.lww.com/stdjournal/toc/publishahead