That's right- 117 baby boys died because they had part of their genitals amputated in an elective surgery that their parents allowed. So sad. Brutally sad- for those babies and their devastated parents. How many more baby boys have to be mutilated before parents will finally wake up and realize that this is just WRONG!
New Study Estimates Neonatal Circumcision Death Rate Higher Than Suffocation and Auto Accidents
How many children die each year as a result of circumcision in the US hasn't been recorded or even considered important by any medical establishment. A new study published last week in Thymos: Journal of Boyhood Studies estimates that more than 100 baby boys die from circumcision complications each year, including from anesthesia reaction, stroke, hemorrhage, and infection. Because infant circumcision is elective, all of these deaths are avoidable.
The study concluded: "These boys died because physicians have been either complicit or duplicitous, and because parents ignorantly said 'Yes,' or lacked the courage to say 'No.'" And called the deaths "an
unrecognized sacrifice of innocents."
The study found that approximately 117 neonatal (first 28 days after birth) circumcision-related deaths occur annually in the United States, one out of every 77 male neonatal deaths. The study also identified
reasons why accurate data on these deaths are not available, some of the obstacles to preventing these deaths, and some solutions to overcome them.
To put this in perspective, about 44 neonatal boys die each year from suffocation, and 8 from auto accidents. About 115 neonatal boys die annually from SIDS, nearly the same as from circumcision.
Surely this will make people sit up and pay attention.
ReplyDeleteYour son posessing a socially acceptable penis is, I'm sure, little comfort when you're burying him in his tiny coffin.
Wow that actually makes me feel sick to my stomach. How awful.
ReplyDeleteThe figure of 117 is an estimate, based on a number of assumptions. The scandal is that we have nothing better. No central database records circumcision deaths, and when one occurs it is easy to blame some incidental factor. Doctors and parents alike have their reasons for not wanting to blame circumcision itself. Death is only the worst outcome. Much commoner are meatal stenosis (narrowing of the opening) and meatal ulcers. Parents are unliketly to spot poor aesthetic results, skin tags, skin bridges, unevent cutting, malapposition (healing on a twist) or ugly scarring, because circumcision was supposed to make him "maintenance free". And we have no measure of long-term outcomes such as sexual dsyfuction that nobody realise is caused by circumcision, because that is all the man has ever known.
ReplyDeleteThank you Hugh- I meant to point out that this number of "117" are just the records they have through insurance and that it does not include babies circumcised in ritual/religious settings, or those done privately-ie: paid cash. I can imagine that the numbers, if there were ever to be officially tallied, would be monstrous!!!! and yes, the secondary horrifying outcomes are far more prevalent than any parent can imagine!!!!
ReplyDeleteThis is sad. But it has been done for hundreds of years and even inpoor conditions. I think that there is a possiblity that the DOCTORS, NURSES, HOSPITALS, CLINICS, and AFTERCARE by Caregivers and possibly even the parents is jsut as likely to blame as is just the fact that it was done. I do not know this. BUT SERIOUSLY. THIS IS SOME PEOPLES BELIEFS... and because YOU do not agree is NOT A REASON TO TRY TO STOP THIS. THE US HAS SUCH POOR HEALTHCARE THESE DAYS THAT LOTS OF PEOPLE DIE FROM POOOOOOOOOOOOR CARE AND NON CARING MEDICAL STAFF THAT ARE THERE FOR THE MONEY!
ReplyDeleteOK so according to you female genital mutilation should be allowed to as it is some people beliefs and custom??!! Just because it is custom does NOT mean it should be done. And if you educated yourself and did your research you would know that circumcision in olden times for religious reasons was actually just a symbolic small cut on the penis, NOT removal of the whole foreskin.
ReplyDelete-Michele
Anonymous: Does it matter what aspect of the circumcision is responsible for the death when the baby would be alive had they have been left in tact? In the UK, circumcision is almost unheard of outside of medical necessity. I just can't get my head around why someone would want to mutilate an innocent precious baby.
ReplyDeleteReligious beliefs are not an excuse to be so disrespectful of nature - it doesn't matter what you believe when it comes to harming a child - harming a child is wrong, belief and opinion are irrelevant in this instance. Heck, there are a hell of a lot of pedophiles out there who believe in pedophilia - their beliefs don't make it right though do they? The same is true of circumcision IMO and hopefully that will soon be reflected in the law!
Circumcision is a completely unnecessary surgery. If it wasn't done, no child would die from it and no one would have to take the blame for a senseless death.
ReplyDeleteGirls are protected from circumcision by law. But prior to the late 90's it was legal and thousands of American girls were circumcised.
Boys deserve the same protection under the law. No child should be subjected to an unneeded and harmful surgery that will affect them for the rest of their lives.
Anonymous - regardless of what part of the procedure (the circumcision itself, the aftercare, human error) is to blame for the infant death, the fact remains that if this completely unnecessary cosmetic surgery had not been done, the child would not have died. Period. No circumcision, no 117 unnecessary deaths. It's not about agreeing, or beliefs, or not agreeing. It's about the straight fact that over a hundred babies are dying every year from a cosmetic elective medically-unnecessary surgery. Why not wait until the child is old enough to make the decision for themselves? If someone decided to tattoo a newborn, or lop off a finger, or give them a nose job, because that is what they believed to be right, and they wanted the baby to look a certain way, society would regard that parent not only as irresponsible, but as an insane person not fit to parent. So why is an amputation of genitals considered acceptable, when the infant gets no say in the matter, and it is most often done so the baby will "look" a certain way? It is not just a small surgery. They are cutting off 15 square inches of skin and 20,000 nerve endings and forever changing the way that boy will experience life and sex. Circumcision should be left up to the person it is being performed on, not to a third party.
ReplyDeleteI am the first one to be sensitive to the fact that this is a matter of religious and cultural importance to some people. The fact of the matter is that the religious ceremony is rarely a complete amputation, and is a different matter usually.
ReplyDeleteIf you are referring to Christians who have the doctor do it instead of a religious leader - how is that a religious practice? A quick read of the New Testament clears up the matter for Christian's anyway... (" 17 Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. 18 Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts." 1 Corinthians 7:17-19)
My position, which is not shared by all people who are active in keeping boys intact, is that if we eradicate the cosmetic circumcisions, and the misguided Christian ones - we will be a lot further ahead. I know that in Judaism there are people who are more knowledgeable than I about the validity of keeping boys intact, even in that culture/religion.
Basically it is not okay to blindly hide behind a faith that you don't even practice. There are a lot of circumcisions being done for less noble reasons than avoiding eternal damnation. The fact that they are commonly done, in poor conditions is a great reason to stop the practice...
The fact that it´s "some people´beliefs" doesn´t give any parent the right to mutilate a healthy child´s genitals.
ReplyDeleteWe wouldn´t allow branding children like cattle just because some religion says it, would we??...
Is conforming to what the crowd says an acceptable reason to intentionally HURT your child??... how disgusting.
This is crap. That is not a medical journal and has no right "estimating" causes of neonatal deaths. My little guy is intact, but you'll never win over people with this kind of propaganda. Play fair, then we win fair.
ReplyDeleteHmm, this is the table of contents from the previous edition of this journal...ick? As Anonymous said, this is not a medical journal and I would take the stats they are quoting wiht a grain of salt. http://www.mensstudies.com/content/m13857115272/?p=5948be21c02743b0a18802ccaac0dee3&pi=0
ReplyDeleteFor what it's worth, I'm the mom of 2 intact sons with an intact husband and brothers. I'm completely anti-circ, but I don't think the pro-circ folks are going to see this 'journal article' as proof of anything.
Why cant the practise if it must be done wait until the child is older? It is too horrific for newborns-what a welcome in to the world!
ReplyDeleteIf you are insistant that it be done wait until the poor child is old enough to have aneasthetic at least-I'd like to see adults edure this much pain and stress without anthing poor little babies :(
Circumcision lowers the risk of STDs by 80 % so it is not a mutilation its a prevention. I would like to know how the 117 deaths were determined to be caused by the circumcision. Infection? clotting factors? how did they determine the deaths were actually a complication from the procedure?
ReplyDeleteThank you for your perspective.
Circ lowers the risk of STD's by 80%?! Really? And where did you pull that statistic, out of YOUR ass? Or are you looking at decades old "studies"? So I guess that all men in the past were disease ridden? It is a miracle that the human race survived such a diseased part of the male body until modern "science" came along to save us!!
ReplyDelete-Michele
Even if circumcision did lower the risk of STD's by 80%, which is ludicrous, I would give my life before I allowed anyone to strap down my newborn daughter and cut off her clitoris without anesthesia. Same goes for my son and his foreskin. (and yes, the two parts are analagous, not the head of the penis as so many believe) I'll educate my children, and IF they get an STD they can be treated for it AS AN ADULT. Otherwise I'd be cutting off their fingernails so they never get a nail infection, removing their ear canals so they never get an ear infection, and so on. It's complete madness to torture a newborn as 'prevention'. And yes, even in the unlikely event that anesthesia is used, sticking a tiny baby's penis with a needle repeatedly is still torture, and the pain of the circumcision itself can never be completely blocked.
ReplyDelete