-
03/14/2012 1:39:00 PM
There are many wrongs in this world. I happen to believe that male infant circumcision is one of them. No one has the right to permanently alter the body of another human being without consent. This is an issue who's time has come. It can't be swept aside or denied any longer. Circumcision is a human rights violation and a huge money making operation in America. The medical establishment needs to start upholding its code of ethics. We need to see circumcision for what it really is; male genital mutilation. We have to face up to the fact that we had been duped, and continue to be duped, into believing that circumcision has benefits. 85% of the men on earth are intact and I'll be willing to bet they wouldn't have it any other way. Male infant circumcision is wrong.
-
666 03/14/2012 1:36:00 AM
its funny seeing how stupid people get over stupid shit26,000 people die a day in Africa everyday, and rough villages are practicing female circumcision with busted pieces of glass and no anesthetic but everyone wants to bitch about how they think shits so rough here, and wants to bitch about how horrid male circumcision is blah blah blah, etcetc so on and so forth, of course im also sure that the people that are getting crazy on here are also the kind of people who believe that abortion is murder and murder is bad but its kool to blow up and abortion clinic or shoot a doctor who performs such procedures............
-
Guest 03/06/2012 9:57:00 PM
Great reporting here.
-
gp 03/05/2012 5:17:00 PM
Child mutilators should be jailed NOW.
-
03/05/2012 12:07:00 PM
Must-watch response video by Bonobo3D: "An Open Letter To Circumciser Helen Salsbury." http://youtu.be/MZCdbQzkcfM
-
James3d 03/02/2012 12:29:00 AM
I'll bet it would look even better if it still had it's movable part.
-
Chris 02/29/2012 9:27:00 PM
This monster thinks that circumcision is "no big deal." I bet if
somebody strapped her down, pulled down her pants, and assaulted her
genitals with a razor blade she would think it was a HUGE DEAL! It is
so sick and disgusting that some people don't afford the same rights to
others that they do for themselves. From the perspective of this
innocent helpless child, this lady might as well be Josef Mengele. If you don't know who this is, please look him up. This lady even admits that if she treated an animal the way she treats humans that she would go to jail, yet she continues to practice her crimes.
-
02/26/2012 9:01:00 AM
"Buried penis" as it's called may be natural, if a baby is overweight, or it may be a complication of circumcision.
-
02/26/2012 8:58:00 AM
If she does, it's a pity more don't. Every word she says makes sense.
-
02/24/2012 12:24:00 PM
Well, when you think about it, any type of genital mutilation is sort of barbaric. For instance, which of these would pro-chopping advocates would say is too far?: (semi-NSFW) http://accmuk.com/images/fgm_types.jpg
-
Nobody 02/23/2012 11:48:00 PM
You live in a dream world.
-
02/23/2012 7:17:00 PM
The author is hardly presenting a 'fair' article on the subject. The article is laced with pro-circ subtext and innuendo. This sort of article is disgusting! 'Not her call'? Are all the sneering anti-intactivist jibes 'not her call' too? Is she an author or merely a mouthpiece. If she's being forced to write this garbage, she should quit and find a more ethical place to write.
-
Shelly 02/23/2012 12:25:00 AM
Swedish physicians just called for a ban on the circumcision of male children. Thanks for a country that finally puts ethics and human rights ahead of financial gain, religion or politics. Babies were designed to have foreskins; leave them be.
-
02/21/2012 6:38:00 PM
Don't attack the author, please. She's presenting a fair article on the topic, and is doing investigative reporting rather than just regurgitating press releases. The art is inappropriate, yes, but from what I understand that wasn't her call. Do yourself a favor and read all of the articles Deirdra has written on the subject in the past week before you jump to conclusions.
-
Mimi 02/21/2012 1:09:00 AM
There is no evidence that infant circumcision hurts less or that babies won't remember it or that it is cheaper. In fact, studies have shown that infant circumcision is associated with higher risks and more complications and many more redos. If it is not OK to hit a baby or shake a baby or yell at a baby, then why is it ok to strap them down and cut off the most sensitive part of their body? Of course they will remember it! They just can't say in proper English that it hurts and they don't want it done. Circumcision is done on infants because it is easier to strap them down; older boys and adult males are much more likely to refuse it, and it was long believed that babies did not feel pain. History shows that the procedure started on older males and then moved to babies because it was easier to get them to comply. Multiple studies have shown that infants actually feel MORE pain because they don't have inhibitory pathways in place; they do not go to sleep-they become semicomatose as measured by serum cortisol levels.
-
Mimi 02/21/2012 1:09:00 AM
There is no evidence that infant circumcision hurts less or that babies won't remember it or that it is cheaper. In fact, studies have shown that infant circumcision is associated with higher risks and more complications and many more redos. If it is not OK to hit a baby or shake a baby or yell at a baby, then why is it ok to strap them down and cut off the most sensitive part of their body? Of course they will remember it! They just can't say in proper English that it hurts and they don't want it done. Circumcision is done on infants because it is easier to strap them down; older boys and adult males are much more likely to refuse it, and it was long believed that babies did not feel pain. History shows that the procedure started on older males and then moved to babies because it was easier to get them to comply. Multiple studies have shown that infants actually feel MORE pain because they don't have inhibitory pathways in place; they do not go to sleep-they become semicomatose as measured by serum cortisol levels.
-
Mimi 02/21/2012 12:51:00 AM
You got that right! I think the Jews protesteth too much.
-
02/20/2012 9:27:00 PM
Yes -- the AIDS studies were done to adults, and there is a distinction between adult and neonatal circumcision. To connect the dots: I included it in my story because we are seeing this research being cited as justification for circumcising babies.
The argument goes like this:
"Studies show that circumcision reduces your chance of getting STDs"
"But babies aren't sexually active!"
"But you should do it at birth because it hurts less /they won't remember it / it's cheaper then"
Not saying it's right, but that is how the "logic" goes.
Also: in Africa, the focus now is on adult males (because they will be sexually active sooner) but the long-term plan involves circumcising African boys at birth also. That's the direction this is going. See
http://www.timeslive.co.za/specialreports/hivaids/2011/08/21/experts-divided-over-baby-circumcision-plan
http://sciencespeaksblog.org/2011/03/01/question-and-answer-with-kelly-curran/
http://www.aids.harvard.edu/news/spotlight/archives/v7i1_plank_profile.html
-
02/20/2012 9:24:00 PM
A sexist moron, huh?
-
02/20/2012 9:09:00 PM
>While many Christians also circumcise, passages in the New Testament suggest that it's not mandatory.
More than that: "if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. ... You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace." (Galatians 5)
-
02/20/2012 8:47:00 PM
Basically: to admit it is harmful would require men to face the fact that they were harmed, or that they allowed their children to be harmed. Also, someone always pulls the damn anti-semitism card.
-
02/20/2012 8:38:00 PM
...mmmmmmm, tacos!
-
02/20/2012 3:05:00 AM
Whomever put the photo at the top is a sick fuck. If it were an article about female genital mutilation would we have a picture of a mutilated taco? Such sexism and misandry is rampant here. This doctor is a sicko and the author of the article is a sexist moron.
-
02/20/2012 3:03:00 AM
This doctor is a quack. No doctor that performs unnecessary surgery on an unwilling patient, on their genitals no less, is worth of the title "doctor" and belongs in prison for life, or dead.
-
02/19/2012 9:29:00 PM
Why is it acceptable to mutilate a male infant's genitals but not a female infant's genitals ?
-
02/19/2012 9:24:00 PM
@dierdra... i am a full-on intactivist! and i LOVED your article! the fact is, it is unbiased just enough to be fair, and descriptive just enough to make people sick. you presented a topic to the masses that isn't often thought of. i know TONS of moms that never even considered leaving their sons intact because its just DONE. the artwork on the cover made the story a bit more intriguing. i mean, were you supposed to put a picture of a dead baby with no penis???? and you covered just about every side you can and (i think) still wrote an intact-favorable article. i mean you got intactivistis, parents, jews, doctors, all kinds of statistics, studies, and quotes, 4 different health organizations, the united states govenrment and a slew of awareness organizations into just 5 little pages. GO YOU!
-
02/19/2012 9:02:00 PM
Here is something the author, the pro-circs, and everyone else seems to be missing. AAAALLLLLLLL of those HIV studies were done to adult males. Penile cancer and infections are most found in adult males. All of the medical "necessary" reasons for adopting a circumcised penis, are found in adult males. At what point do we agree that cutting body parts at birth to protect risks incurred as an adult is absurd and immoral.
I have 3 intact children, and am having my 4th son, whom I also plan to leave intact. If THEY decide, when they are older (I would even let them decide before 18, 13-14 is ok with me) that they want this procedure done in the belief that it will protect them from HIV or cancer, I will drive them to the fucking doctor myself. If THEY decide they just want to look like their dads down there, I will drive them to the fucking doctor myself. If they choose to become Orthodox Jews, I will be the first one to Mazel Tov them at their Bris. But I am in no way going to make a life-altering body modification to my newborn sons!! And parents who do are taking away a child's right to humane medical treatment, and to what should be their god-given duty to advocacy.
The AAP should not have a right to make a statement about circumcision because it should not be done to babies. Even Jewish mohels the world over are changing what a circumcision is to leave children in their natural state, and doing a pin prick instead. It is not our right any more than giving rhinoplasty to a newborn so they look like their fathers. Or removing the mammary glands or uteri of newborn girls, because they may one day get cancer there.
-
Mimi 02/18/2012 10:45:00 PM
Also, a Canadian study showed that the circumcision status of the physician and the status of their children made a difference as to whether the physicians were biased in favor of circumcision or not. Those circumcised promoted circumcision and vice versa. Circumcision status of the committee members and their family needs to be taken into consideration and adjusted for. That is not happening with the current task force.
-
Mimi 02/18/2012 10:35:00 PM
Take a look at the composition of the task force and then tell me ethnic background is not important. That is the elephant in the room that people don't want to talk about. It is a huge factor in this issue. Look at the editors of medical journals, newspapers, and those in charge of medical organizations. Look at what happened in California in response to the San Francisco initiative to make infant circumcision illegal and those behind stopping the initiative. You may think ethnic background is not an issue, but I can assure you it is a huge component of why circumcision is being promoted as "medically necessary". In Colorado, it is a Jewish legislator whose husband is a rabbi that is pushing through a bill to have infant circumcision covered by Medicaid. Diekema is always the person from the committee that talks publicly though I am told he is not the head of the committee-apparently a Jewish woman is head. Why doesn't she handle the public discourse? Because it might appear that she is biased? Circumcision status of the members of the task force and/or their spouses/children is equally important and should be publicly disclosed. They have a bias, as most people do; that bias needs to be disclosed. An equal number of intact males or women with intact children/spouses should be represented on the committee. Physicians opposed to circumcision should also be on the committee. Prove to me that I am wrong because I know who is on the committee and based on their ethnic/religious background and their publications/policies in the past, they are pro-circumcision. Read and listen to what Diekema says and tell me he knows anything about the value of the foreskin or intact penis. This is not a man who owns a foreskin. My intact sons have more knowledge about the value, sensitivity and function of the intact penis than he does. I challenge him to publicly disclose his status, but based on his age and other factors, he is very likely to be circumcised.
-
02/18/2012 12:57:00 PM
Mimi, what do you mean when you say Dr. Diekema is the 'token non-Jew' on the task force? Are you implying that the committee is all controlled by Jews? Let's try to leave people's ethnic background out of this issue. And how dod you know whether he is circumcised? Have you asked him? Anyway, the issue here is whether the AAP comes out in favor of a stronger medical recommendation for having boys circumcised. Until they do, we don't know what direction the medical policy is going in. If they decide to more strong support circumcision for boys, then parents such as myself will take that into consideration. If they don't change the policy then I guess there won't be much to talk about.
-
Mimi 02/18/2012 2:00:00 AM
Thanks for your article. Next time please quote some actual physicians who are opposed to circumcision. We know the medical literature much better than the supposed "expert" Diekema. They won't allow physicians opposed to circumcision on the task force. Diekema is the token non-Jew on the task force, but has never done real research on the topic. He is a strong parental rights advocate, and of course is circumcised. He should spend time doing some statistical analyses of circumcision research articles rather than going to dinner parties. Maybe he would then realize that half the men in the African RCT's became HIV positive without sexual contact. Read Simon Collery's blog on HIV in Kenya and David Gisselquist's blog "Don't Get Stuck". Read the article: How the Circumcision Solution in Africa will increase HIV. It is a colossal waste of taxpayers money and a travesty of Tuskegee-style proportions for these mass circumcision campaigns to continue.
-
Mimi 02/18/2012 1:47:00 AM
Why so defensive? You just insulted the leading expert on neonatal circumcision. He is right: articles always give much time and credit to the physicians who favor circumcision, but then the physicians who oppose circumcision are rarely or never quoted (except by the Dutch and other countries.) Diekema is absolutely not an expert on this: he is the token non-Jew on the committee that always is interviewed for articles like this so the task force looks credible. In fact, Diekema has never done any original research and rarely published on the topic, he is not a statistician and therefore doesn't or can't interpret the studies properly, he favors parental rights over the rights of the child, he is circumcised himself. The task force is dominated by those in favor of circumcision-do your research. It does not represent fairly the composition of mainstream AAP membership. The physicians who are truly experts on this topic are banned from the committee because their objective review of the literature finds no rationale for neonatal circumcision. Most pediatricians and family physicians would like the AAP, AAFP, ACOG, etc. to come out against this procedure. It makes most everyone uncomfortable. The rest of the world, excluding Muslim and Jewish countries, does not buy into this. But, the cheese stands alone. I think medical organizations in this country are protecting the financial interests of their constituents because admitting that circumcision is wrong at this stage would really create some waves.
-
02/18/2012 1:27:00 AM
I was born with an "innie".
I can coax it out with a hair dryer, but then its more like one of those last almonds in the tin that no one wants.
-
Mimi 02/18/2012 1:24:00 AM
As Voltaire said, "Familiarity accommodates any barbarity."
-
02/17/2012 9:18:00 PM
"The tip pops out like a bright, shiny red bulb. "A perfect little boiled peanut,""
Yes, and over the next few years the surface hardens into a less-responsive organ that should have remained protected. But she doesn't care, as long as he doesn't die, she gets paid, and she doesn't see his damaged penis many years later.
" Salsbury joked in her office, explaining that circumcisions are no big deal."
No big deal for her, of course. But she doesn't care, as long as he doesn't die, and she gets paid, and she doesn't see him suffer sexual problems many years later.
Does she also tell the gullible mother that the severed tissue is a valuable raw material, ready to be sold on like a worn-out automobile. But the baby has lost something vastly more valuable, priceless even, a natural fully functioning penis, long before he has even discovered he has it, let alone get pleasure from it. Does she even know the structure of what she is cutting off, how it contains thousands of nerve endings which should have added to his sexual experience, and that of his future partner. Probably not, she will be just as ignorant as the mohelim of ancient Judea, and the likes of Drs Kellogg and Acton, who told parents it would 'cure' masturbation.
In the UK, very few men have had their foreskin, prepuce is its proper name, cut off, and the HIV rates are much lower than in the USA. Intact men in middle age are much less likely to need to consult their doctor with sexual problems, as circumcised men age the penis often becomes numb to the point where orgasm is difficult or non-existent. But do Dr Salsbury and her fellows know, or even care, as long as they get paid.
-
Ron Low 02/17/2012 3:57:00 PM
No baby cutter can know how much the skin or phallus would have grown if left alone. Further, the cutter can't know whether the organ is puffed up from handling or shrivelled from the cold room, so there is no way to deliver a desired style of outcome even if someone were thoughtful enough to have one in mind. Any tiny error is magnified as the victim grows, but most circumcision complications have nothing to do with surgical incompetence. Healing in a fouled diaper under the care of lay people accounts for most of the bleeding and infection risk.
But the biggest side-effect occurs 100% of the time; loss of the exquisitely pleasure-receptive foreskin. Drop the knife and back away from the baby. HIS body, HIS decision.
-
02/17/2012 5:15:00 AM
If Dr. Salsbury is only doing five circumcisions a month, that is not enough to be a proficient practitioner of circumcision. If you are going to circumcise boys, you cannot simply do it as a part-time job - you need to be doing it every day. This is why the best practitioners to circumcise boys are mohels (or doctors) who do them daily. Mohels circumcise thousands of boys over the course of a career and they are chosen not just by Jews but by non-Jews, British Royalty and celebrities because they have the most expertise. This is why Sandra Bullock, had her boy circumcised by a mohel. I would not choose someone who does so few circumcisions a month as the best person to have my boys circumcised. I would choose someone who does them daily.
-
Chris Maurer 02/17/2012 3:56:00 AM
I wonder what sales pitch was used on Emilio's mother to persuade her to have her son permanently cut and maimed. Shame on doctors who amputate body parts of defenseless infants for fun and profit.
-
02/16/2012 6:08:00 PM
Worth checking out:
Canadian Paediatric Society
http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/fn/fn96-01.htm
"Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed."
http://www.caringforkids.cps.ca/pregnancy&babies/circumcision.htm
"Circumcision is a 'non-therapeutic' procedure, which means it is not medically necessary."
"After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions."
Royal Australasian College of Physicians
http://www.racp.edu.au/index.cfm?objectid=65118B16-F145-8B74-236C86100E4E3E8E
"In the absence of evidence of risk of substantial harm, informed parental choice should be respected. Informed parental consent should include the possibility that the ethical principle of autonomy may be better fulfilled by deferring the circumcision to adolescence with the young man consenting on his own behalf."
(almost all the men responsible for this statement will be circumcised themselves, as the male circumcision rate in Australia in 1950 was about 90%. "Routine" circumcision is now *banned* in public hospitals in Australia.)
British Medical Association
http://www.bma.org.uk/ethics/consent_and_capacity/malecircumcision2006.jsp#Circumcisionformedicalpurposes
"to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate."
The Royal Dutch Medical Association
http://knmg.artsennet.nl/Diensten/knmgpublicaties/KNMGpublicatie/Nontherapeutic-circumcision-of-male-minors-2010.htm
"The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organisations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children's rights to autonomy and physical integrity. Contrary to popular belief, circumcision can cause complications - bleeding, infection, urethral stricture and panic attacks are particularly common. KNMG is therefore urging a strong policy of deterrence. KNMG is calling upon doctors to actively and insistently inform parents who are considering the procedure of the absence of medical benefits and the danger of complications."
It's not like it can't wait - the USA and Israel are the only two countries in the world where more than half of baby boys are circumcised.
Drops in male circumcision since 1950:
USA: from 90% to 55%
Canada: from 48% to 17%
UK: from 35% to about 5% (about 1-2% among non-Muslims)
Australia: 90% to 12.4% ("routine" circumcision has recently been *banned* in public hospitals in all states)
New Zealand: 95% to below 3% (mostly Samoans and Tongans)
South America and Europe: never above 5%
It's worth remembering that no-one except for Muslim and Jewish people would even be having this discussion if it weren't for the fact that 19th century doctors thought that :
a) masturbation caused various physical and mental problems (including epilepsy, convulsions, paralysis, tuberculosis etc), and
b) circumcision stopped masturbation.
Both of those sound ridiculous today I know, but that's how they thought back then, and that's how non-religious circumcision got started. If you don't believe me, then check out this link: http://www.noharmm.org/docswords.htm
Heck, they even passed laws against "self-pollution" as it was called.
-
Finestrata 02/16/2012 2:19:00 PM
Ms. Funcheon has written a fine article on a very sensitive subject.
I do take offence, however, with the choice of illustration. A glass full of cut hot dogs is a very clear indicator of how insensitive the American attitude is toward the subject of male infant circumcision. If this were an article about female circumcision would it be illustrated with a plate of filleted fish? Denial is powerful, it allows us to jokingly ignore an atrocity, even when we are the victims of that atrocity. Male infant circumcision is not a joke. Otherwise healthy babies die and/or are maimed every year because of circumcision and the irony is, that it is completely unnecessary surgery. Would a doctor remove a healthy appendix form a baby at the parents request? No because that would be unethical. Even little male babies deserve to have their human rights respected. Circumcision is a fashion statement that lasts a life time.
-
02/16/2012 6:10:00 AM
You know you've won when the other side starts name calling.
You must think your readers are actually that stupid and ignorant. You have some nerve calling others stupid idiots.
Is it, or is it not written in your precious book that gays are an abomination to "g-d," and that adulteresses and fornicators are to be stoned to death? Maybe I'm missing something.
And, for the record, rape victims are also protected under Islamic law, it's just that different "leaders" defined "rape" in a way that they see fit, much the same way as Jews don't want to acknowledge that circumcision is genital mutilation.
For example, "rape" in some Islamic countries is only recognized if there are four male witnesses. Three male witnesses gang raping a woman? A-OK!
Genital mutilation is *usually* when you take a knife and forcibly cut into, or sever part of a healthy person's genitals. Deuteronomy and Leviticus tell us that we shouldn't make cuts in our flesh or cut off our genitals.
Rabbis cutting off part of the penis and sucking blood from it? A-OK!
What I find stupid is how religious kooks seriously think they're fooling others.
Sorry bud, you're not.
-
Erika 02/16/2012 1:12:00 AM
So this doctor knows circumcision is wrong, yet she still does them? Disgusting.
-
Hollys1911 02/15/2012 10:40:00 PM
To what do we owe such a superior recap of this article? Any other superior illuminations? What are you even saying?
-
02/15/2012 10:17:00 PM
The stupidity of some responses just amaze me. You are apparently mistaking Judaism with Islam. First of all, rape victims are protected under Jewish law, it's Islam where they are jailed or killed. As for stoning unruly children, that's absurd. Have you heard of or seen a story of a gay man being stoned or hanged by anyone other than in a Muslim country in modern times? Of course not you idiot.
-
02/15/2012 11:10:00 AM
Actually Mogen Corporation went bankrupt after lawsuits because so many boys suffered horribly botched circumcisions with their device.
http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/atlanta-lawyer-wins-11-573890.html
-
02/15/2012 8:00:00 AM
Um, "most American Christians circumcise" is very misleading. According to the bible, Christians are not supposed to circumcise, unless they plan on following all 613 mitzvot.
The way most American Christians rationalize male infant circumcision is because of the so-called "benefits." The minute an American Christian tries to say that they are "circumcising because it's a Christian thing to do," they are committing blasphemy, as one of the biggest points of contentions for Christians WAS circumcision. A CHRISTIAN is supposed to be saved by the blood and grace of CHRIST, hence the name CHRISTIAN.
But even circumcising for "benefits" is anti-Christian, as the bible is against putting your child through the fire, and against the cutting of the body, especially the genitals. (Deuteronomy and Leviticus)
Do mine eyes deceive me? Are you seriously promoting the "mogen technique," where the Mogen company was put out of business because it couldn't pay off all the lawsuits accrued for glans amputations?
"30-second mogen technique" sounds like a catch-phrase I've heard of somewhere. Are you working as a promoter for Neil Pollock or something?
Would female circumcision be justified if it were done with some special device and it "only took 30 seconds?"
Is a human rights violation justified the less time it takes? Really?
Remember, that this so-called "thirty second procedure" will affect the child for the rest of his life. He will be deprived of normal, healthy organs for the rest of his life.
-
02/15/2012 7:48:00 AM
Most American Christians do circumcise, it appears, but there is a problem with that. They have now made sure that their sons are not Christians. For these sons, they must keep the whole of the Jewish Law that they may go to heaven. That means all those brutal laws, such as stoning gay men to death, stoning rape victims (that's the ones that you don't sell to their rapists), stoning unruly children to death, etc.
When you say "30-second Mogen technique", that suggests that circumcision takes 30 seconds. this misses out the time for anaesthetic (if any is actually used) and the time to rip the foreskin from the glans (if you need an example for that, the clitoral prepuce is attached to the glans in the same way when a girl is young. Imagine someone ripping your clitoral hood from your glans).Oh and that would be the Mogen that has seen penile-glans amputations and multiple, multi-million dollar, law suits.
-
02/15/2012 6:51:00 AM
Most American Christians circumcise. In any event, circumcision is probably not medically necessary. If parents do want to have their boys circumcised though, the 30-second Mogen technique used by mohels (which appears to have been done by the doctor above) is usually the fastest and least painful way. If it's going to be done, it's best to have someone with experience and training doing it, and mohels do thousands of them.
-
02/15/2012 5:33:00 AM
People are proud of their tattoos too. There's nothing wrong with tattoos, but if you force it on somebody else, there's seriously something wrong with that.
If you've gotten used to, and are OK with your state, that's great!
Please understand the ethical ramifications of imposing a permanent cosmetic surgical procedure on a healthy, non-consenting individual.
It's wrong.
-
Annie 02/15/2012 3:27:00 AM
Lots of this nauseated me (descriptions of the amputation surgery), but this part made me catch my breath: after the Bris, when the mohel holds the baby up who has already fallen asleep? What sort of denial state do we live in when we can possibly believe a baby will SLEEP after this? Clearly the baby was in shock and passed out as a coping mechanism. Seriously, if you have ever tried to get a baby to fall asleep, extreme shocking pain is NOT going to get them to peacefully drift off. Shaking my head here. This torture needs to end, period.
-
02/15/2012 2:24:00 AM
Here's a correction to the article - most Christians DO NOT circumcise, with the possible exceptions of one or two sects in the middle east and those in the USA ignorant of what their own religion teaches. The New Testament doesn't just suggest that circumcision is not mandatory, but rather states unambiguously, in several of its books, that being circumcised does not have any meaning toward the faith.
-
02/15/2012 1:54:00 AM
Lots of information here. What circumcision comes down to is the amputation of erogenous tissue from a vulnerable person unable to consent. This is as evil as evil can get. Hiding this under the disguise of medicine and religion is a unique injustice plagued on newborn boys. That physicians have the conscious to harm newborns violates every principle of medical ethics. There is zero justification for circumcision. It is a barbaric blood ritual that predates Judaism and does not belong anywhere in modern medicine or modern religion. Karen Goldis, Tampa Bay Area Intactivists
-
Blackpanther 02/15/2012 1:42:00 AM
I have a circumsized penis and it looks mighty damn good!
-
02/15/2012 1:35:00 AM
PS great job on the article. Thank you for a fair piece!
-
02/15/2012 1:24:00 AM
"Trimming a bit off the top" is but another trivialization of a very serious matter. As one who suffered a botched circumcision decades ago and survived excruciating hours of NOT anesthetized surgical repairs, living life with hellish pain at the points of mangling, having it covered up and my parents persuaded it was all in my mind, I can tell you it is not trivial. CH6/CBS in Richmond, VA recently reported news that indicates the current rate of botches serious enough to require corrective surgery is AT LEAST 15%, meaning AT LEAST 150,000 boys in the US are subjected to what I experienced or worse, every year. Even if all goes well, a boy, and the man he becomes, loses tens of thousands of nerve endings for sexual sensing (they are actually in the foreskin, not in the glans as current popular wisdom has it) (earliest rationales for circumcision in US were to reduce sexual pleasure, believed to be dangerous to mental health, so it's likely they sensed the preputial truth at that time). See Cold (Wisconsin, USA) and Taylor (Manitoba, Canada), "The Prepuce" in British Journal of Urology Vol 83, Suppl. 1:
Pp 34-44, Jan 1999. Do health, medical benefits offset such horrible costs? European nations and Japan have virtually no circumcision and much better male genital health (including much lower rates of STDs and HIV/AIDS) than the largely circumcised USA. So why do we keep on doing it? Well, who profits from doing it?
-
02/14/2012 11:29:00 PM
Deirdra, you do a much better job than others before you, and I thank you for the opportunity you are giving us to interact with you. It shows that somebody is actually listening.
But please heed our request, and next time, please quote a physician on our side. It is always the case that for the pro-circumcision side, they always have to call on the same "experts," nobody ever outside of that. The usual suspects are Edgar Schoen, Diekema, Morris, Gray etc. But when OUR side is mentioned, it always has to be made to look like a fringe group. There are plenty of doctors on our side, not just guys restoring.
It would behoove you to please study the history of the people you quote. Who are they? This Diekema person is supposed to be an ethicist; yet ethics never seems to be part of the equation to him. It should strike you as odd.
Thank you for trying to give us a voice, and thank you for giving us the opportunity to interact with you. Please read the material I sent you. ~Joseph
-
02/14/2012 10:57:00 PM
Diekema is a circumcision fanatic who has been on a 3-year media campaign promoting infant circumcision. In an NPR interview last year, he laughed openly at the idea that humans have a right to protection from genital mutilation. The NPR reporter laughed with him, and the site later had to issue an apology for it.
Every time he talks, he says the AAP is about to recommend the procedure, yet it never happens. Meanwhile more and more countries outside of the US Circumcision Distortion Zone are speaking up against child genital mutilation.
Diekema is hanging is hat on flawed HIV 'studies' of circumcised adults, from Africa. Babies are not even sexually active!
And if you think circumfetishism is a joke, you should poke around the site CircList for a while. There are whole pornographic sections dedicated to men fantasizing about having themselves and others circumcised.
Genital mutilation makes me sick to my stomach. Diekema -- zero ethics.
-
02/14/2012 8:10:00 PM
OK, you're not to blame, but your story's new heading picture does prompt me to refer you to my article "How to Write Convincingly about Circumcision" at http://www.circumstitions.com/write.html where I say
"...you can use any allegorical imagery, such as a chortling baby, a smiling doctor or any cutting instrument that is _not_ used in circumcision, such as a pair of household scissors. (An article in the SF Examiner shows a pair of left-handed aviation tin-snips...) Do NOT show blood, a Gomco Clamp, a screaming baby, or an actual circumcision being peformed ..."
(Your article has a Coefficient of Objectiviity and Circumcision Knowledge of 5, by the way.)
-
02/14/2012 7:56:00 PM
As an adult I decided to go on brushing my teeth, and I try to eat healthy foods and get to bed at a reasonable hour. Had my parents decided to cut part of my genitals off, nothing I decided would make much difference. See the difference now?
And it is permissible to compare the ethics of infant male genital cutting with those of brushing teeth, bedtime and eating healthy food, but NOT with the ethics (as distinct from the severity) of female genital cutting? Someone please explain that to me.
-
02/14/2012 7:45:00 PM
Please forgive the guys in my art department... I think they were mutilated as babies!
-
02/14/2012 7:42:00 PM
This comment is absurd. You accuse me of not wanting to "give this side of the debate that amount of authority" but... the whole point of the article is to air your side of the debate!! I actually did speak to individual physicians, but ended up not quoting them because their concerns were better articulated by.... Doctors Opposing Circumcision!!! And Diekema -- he might have an opposing view from you, but he's absolutely an expert.
-
02/14/2012 7:35:00 PM
Seems my earlier post disappeared. I seconded Elia's point that nonreligious infant circumcision did not decrease or disappear in Europe; it was never practiced. The sole exception was England (not Scotland, Wales, or any other part of Great Britain), where circumcision was a fad of the upper and upper-middle classes in the first half of the 20th century. But it never reached a majority even in England, topping out at about 30%, and disappeared altogether about 60 years ago.
The feature article states that infant male circumcision removes about half the foreskin, but this is not correct. It removes all of the outer foreskin, much of the inner foreskin, and a section of the shaft skin. All in all, the average infant circumcision excises over half the total skin system of the penis, according to the only peer-reviewed, published study of this (Taylor, BJU vol 77, Feb 1996). All infant circumcision proves is that our reproductive organs are adept at maintaining or recovering primary function after significant surgical wounding; circumcision does not improve a healthy organ in any way.
-
02/14/2012 7:33:00 PM
Thanks to my pals in our art department!
-
02/14/2012 7:09:00 PM
Forcible
amputation of healthy tissue is not medicine. Perpetuating the idea that it is
is fraud for a professional that makes money doing it, and a failure to the
patient. Look at the motivations objectively. Men in other countries are not
plagued with penis problems and wishing someone had saved them from the 2
minutes it takes to rinse themselves off. This country is trapped in a
defensive lie. We're so afraid of the idea that the foreskin has value that we
refuse to admit that this practice blatantly disregards patient's rights and violates
the integrity of our set medical ethics, and even choose to believe poor
arguments about possible maybe potential benefits. SAD.
-
02/14/2012 5:54:00 PM
Art is a matter of, well, taste, and our hope with that photo is that it would hook people in to a story that maybe they otherwise wouldn't read. It's a hell of a story too, about something that challenged my perceptions on this issue, and I hope that's what you remember from this.
-
02/14/2012 5:29:00 PM
The new heading picture is in very poor taste.
We're talking about the human body here.
Are we still in middle school, Funcheon?
-
Ron Low 02/14/2012 5:08:00 PM
For this Diekema clown to admit that it's a complicated decision, and then in the same breath say that someone ELSE should make it for the OWNER of the penis shows his blindness to basic human rights.
Foreskin feels REALLY good. HIS body, HIS decision.
-
Petit Poulet 02/14/2012 3:49:00 PM
Very interesting how this follows the trend in newspaper accounts on this issue. They always round up the usual suspects who are physicians who are "experts" on circumcision who, if you check out the accuracy of what they are saying, really only know one side of the issue and spout off about how circumcision will save the planet. When it comes to talking to people who think that a baby should go home with all of their working parts, they never interview a physician. It is not that there aren't physicians who are against circumcision, but the reporters, like this one, do no want to give this side of the debate that amount of authority.
It sounds like Diekema has made his mind up and won't let something like the facts interfere with that. This is the same guy whose committee came out in favor of female genital mutilation. You would think that AAP would be wary of him embarrassing them again. The AAP statement has to play in an international area. Last time (1989) that the committee was headed by a pro-circumcision zealot, the AAP had to live with the international embarrassment until the next statement came out ten years later. They probably don't want to do that again. This probably explain why the committee has been meeting for five years and nothing has come out. I would recommend that next time you interview a physicians who knows what he is talking about.
-
Elia Malgieri 02/14/2012 3:11:00 PM
There are a number of very misleading statements in this article. First: the author implies circumcision was onced practiced in Europe and was eliminated with the advent of national health services. This is untrue. In continental Europe infant circumcision was an exclusively Jewish practice. Europeans have never practiced circumcison. It became common in English speaking countries in the course of the 20th century and has disappeared from England almost entirely and is disappearing rapidly in other Anglophone countries except the United States. Second the author implies that many Christians practice circumcision as if it were a religious practice. This is not true. No Christian cultlure has ever practied circumcison with the esception of the Copts and the Philippinos in reaction to Islamic and non Chrisitan influences. Third, the New Testament does not, as she says, simply imply that it is not mandatory, it clearly states that it is not and even in the words of the Aposlte Paul specifically prohibits it. Finally, it should be pointed out that all the the STDs that are supposed to be prevented by this practice are lower in European countries where it is never done. Needless to say, many Europeans upon learning that Americans do this thing to babies as a matter of course, are shocked. Unfortunately, this article reflects to a certain degree American provincialism and ignorance on this question.
-
02/14/2012 1:34:00 PM
There is not a single medical organization in the world that recommends the circumcision of infants, not even in the name of HIV prevention. The WHO has endorsed circumcision as a way to prevent HIV in ADULT MEN WHO ARE AT HIGH RISK IN AFRICA, but they do not recommend the circumcision of infants. The CDC in the US has come the closest, but even they shy away from recommending circumcision in infants in the US.
Medical bodies that agree that there is not enough evidence to recommend infant circumcision include the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American Academy ofFamily Physicians (AAFP), the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, the Canadian Paediatric Society, the British Medical Association, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, and the Royal Dutch Medical Association.
All medical organizations in the world must point to the risks, and they must all state that there is no convincing evidence that the benefits outweigh these risks. To do otherwise would be taking an unfounded position against the most respected medical organizations in the West.
There is not enough evidence for ANY medical organization to recommend the circumcision of infants.
And yet, somehow, parents are expected to weigh the same evidence an somehow do better?
Really?
-
02/14/2012 1:33:00 PM
Comment deleted by poster.
-
02/14/2012 1:26:00 PM
What's wrong with baby Emilio?
Is he sick?
Does he have some sort of disease that cannot be remedied any other way?
The standard of care for therapeutic surgery requires the medical benefits of the surgery to far outweigh the medical risks and harms, or for the surgery to correct a congenital abnormality. Unnecessarily invasive procedures should not be used where alternative, less invasive techniques, are equally efficient and available. It is unethical and inappropriate to perform surgery for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown there to be other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive.
Is Helen Salsbury following this standard of care?
-
02/14/2012 1:20:00 PM
Oh, and one more thing. The author of this article would do well to get a more accurate illustration of circumcision. The foreskin is not superfluous like that; it is a seamless part of the penis. This diagram tries its best to make the foreskin seem "extra."
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 normal, natural, healthy tissue with which all boys are born.
Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of 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.
-
02/14/2012 1:16:00 PM
There is nothing compassionate in mutilating the genitals of a healthy, non-consenting infant. There is no virtue in mulling over doing something WRONG. Rapists and burglars do not get any less time in jail because they at least "thought about it" first.
What a horrendously false analogy; you're brushing your children's teeth, not pulling them out to facilitate hygiene. When they're older, they can go to bed at whatever time they want, and eat whatever they want. They will NEVER know what it is like to have all of their bodies.
It is disgusting to hear parents rationalize the mutilation of their own children. You are no different than the women who rationalize the circumcision of their daughters.
-
02/14/2012 1:13:00 PM
It is always disconcerting to to see articles mix the issues of the circumcision of healthy newborn infants, the so-called "studies" in Africa, and the ritual circumcision as it is performed by Jews on infants.
What do these have to do with each other? When it comes to "religious" circumcision, what do "medical arguments" matter? Some (horribly flawed) "research" shows circumcision *might* reduce the risk of HIV transmission in HIGH-RISK ADULT MEN WHO HAVE SEX WITH MULTIPLE PARTNERS. Circumcision *MIGHT* be an option for adult men who have multiple sex partners who are planning on neglecting condoms might consider. WHAT does this have to do with healthy newborns who are at absolute ZERO risk for sexually transmitted HIV?
Without medical or clinical indication, how is it a doctor is even performing surgery in a healthy, non-consenting infant, much less offering parents any kind of a "choice?"
Why is the crux of the argument, the fact that a healthy, non-consenting child is being deprived of a say over what happens to his own penis for the rest of his life, always ignored by the media?
Make no mistake; the arguments of "religious freedom" and "parental choice" have no validity in this day and age. They aren't enough to justify the circumcision of girls, which is why inevitably even religious defenders of child ritual mutilation have to direct the conversation to "potential medical benefits." The dubious premise being that if they can trot out enough "benefits" that they're in the clear.
And yet, would the same amount of "benefits" ever legitimize the religious circumcision of GIRLS?
Regarding the AAP changing its stance, Diekema as well as spokesmen from the CDC keep rattling the sabers, threatening to release a "stronger stance in favor" of circumcision every year. It's been 6 years, and yet news outlets keep insinuating that this is about to happen.
The trend of opinion on routine male circumcision is so overwhelmingly negative in industrialized nations that it would be quite surprising were male circumcision to be recommended in the United States. No respected U.S. based medical board recommends circumcision for U.S. infants, not even in the name of HIV prevention. They must all point to
the risks, and they must all state that there is no convincing evidence that the benefits outweigh these risks. To do otherwise would be to take an unfounded position against the best medical authorities of the West, within and outside of the United States.
I'm afraid Diekema etc. are blowing smoke; they keep insinuating the "change" is coming, but they're only delaying the inevitable. Eventually they're going to have to come out and say that the circumcision of infants is worthless. It sounds like they AAP and CDC are interested only protecting the interests of their members and could care less about children.
How horrifying to read as a reporter nonchalantly documents the systemized, medicalized genital mutilation of a healthy, non-consenting infant.
Truly disgusting, despicable and revolting that the integrity of doctors that dare profit from non-medical procedures on healthy, non-consenting individuals is not being questioned.
I am sickened to be called an American.
-
FQS9000 02/14/2012 10:26:00 AM
All liberals have been circumcised, as they don't use the amount of dicks that they have. Perhaps gelding is a better term.
-
02/14/2012 4:26:00 AM
Lost in the shuffle is the fact that intactivism is not about banning circumcision per se, but about making it an informed adult choice, undertaken after the 18th or 21st birthday. The American status quo seems predicated on the belief that (1) unprotected sex is rampant among middle and high school students; (2) that nothing can be done about (1) because American teens have abysmal moral maturity; and (3) that men cannot be trusted to opt for circumcision when they attain their majority, no matter how great the personal and social benefits, because sexual activity with a foreskin is too enjoyable to give up. If (3) is the case, that is unwitting evidence in support of the intactivist claim that the intact penis makes for better sex.
If the AAP moves markedly in the direction of advocating routine infant circumcision, American medicine will be out on a limb, with no First World medical society in agreement.
-
02/14/2012 4:17:00 AM
Readers should not take away from this article a belief that routine and ritual circumcisions are usually performed under local anesthesia. That is NOT the case in much of the USA. This article also did not mention that the vast majority of European, Latin American and Japanese men are not circumcised.
"The reality is that this decision is largely made by parents for
cultural reasons and not medical reasons. Most parents have already made
a decision, most often based on how they want the little boy's penis to
look."
Granting that the preceding is the case, it is ethical to circumcise an infant?
They will cite all kinds of studies, which were frequently terrible and
didn't prove anything because they were so methodologically flawed."
Will the AAP see and admit the methodological flaws in the studies that claim to find that circumcision has a prophylactic benefit? Will the AAP recognise that there has never been a study of the long term adverse consequences of RIC on adult sexual pleasure and functionality? Will the AAP appreciate that the African clinical trials are a massive exercise in self-deception?
"Andron dismisses the anticircumcision crowd as a "noisy minority."
The same was said of thoughtful Americans concerned about the treatment of American blacks before 1960.
"Jewish boys, he says,
might be mocked for not being circumcised.."
Thus a mohel from an orthodox background, no less, has just borne out my long standing suspicion that the real reason North American Jews circumcise is not reverence for Genesis 17, but a fear that an intact boy will be ridiculed in the YMHA locker room and in summer camp, and when he dates Jewish women. Where's Sigmund Freud now that we truly need him?
"...and Jews need to be
circumcised before being buried in Jewish cemeteries."
Is that a reason for circumcising on the 8th day, at the very start of life????
-
Jonnyep 02/14/2012 2:42:00 AM
Yes, I guess it is a little barbaric, but as a Jew, I'm circumcised (like my father, and his before him), and have had both of my boys circumcised. The pediatrician (who is also a mohel) who performed the surgery (with local anisthetic and infant Tylenol) was very compassionate and understanding for my family. . I still believe we made the right decision and would do it again. Maybe we don't have the right to make these decisions that will impact our children, but until they are old enough, i will make sure their teeth are brushed at least twice daily, that they go to bed when I say, and that they will eat healthy foods, because sometimes these are the decisions our parents
-
02/14/2012 1:06:00 AM
"With sweeping motions, she separates the baby's foreskin from the glans, or tip, of his penis." Yes, this is like separating a fingernail from its bed and intensely painful.
"If you treated an animal the way we treat babies, you would be arrested for animal cruelty." Out of her own mouth! It would be illegal to circumcise a dog. A Fresno man is doing time for tattooing a child.
Douglas Diekema, who seems to want to push male circumcision, was chair of the AAP's Bioethics Committee that proposed to allow a token ritual nick to girls "much less extensive than neonatal male genital cutting" in their/his own words in 2010 - until public outrage, spearheaded by Intactivists, made them back down within a month. He's never retracted his defence of it.
It's odd to say the least that he says parents "must compare benefits and risks" but has nothing to say about human rights, about whose penis it is.
Thanks for mentioning the Intactivism Shop, http://www.cafepress.com/intactivism , an outreach of the Intactivism Pages, http://www.circumstitions.com .
-
02/13/2012 11:29:00 PM
Why is Helen Salsbury cutting into a perfectly healthy penis?
Why is she cutting off that boy's foreskin?
Why is she depriving that child, and the man he will become, form a normal, healthy, highly erogenous body part?
Has Dr.Salsbury forgotten the Hippocratic Oath? First, do no harm.
