In honor of Shark Week: Do you know which of these two is responsible for more deaths? Each year, one claims the lives of 4.2 people worldwide, while the other claims the lives of 117+ babies in the United States alone. One is a tragic accident; the other is completely avoidable. #sharkweek #circumcision http://www.drmomma.org/2010/05/death-from-circumcision.html
I don’t often post links, but I think this image is well-composed, concise, and powerful. The real “bogey-man” is not a fish. ~Devon
Here’s a little C.M.E. on ethics and pain management for the medical professionals who provide genital cutting as a service to parents:
There can be no therapeutic benefits of pain when the pain is from a non-therapeutic (and non-consensual) amputation, not even if you share the freakish views on circumcision which were commonplace when this mutilation was medicalized:
"A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anæsthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases.
In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement, and preventing the recurrence of the practice in those whose will-power has become so weakened that the patient is unable to exercise entire self-control.” — John Harvey Kellogg
Thanks for listening.
Ethics: circumcising doctors FAIL.
Why mutilation providers ask parents to sign a “circumcision” consent form.
Most of the other descriptions raise eyebrows, elicit angry responses, and are dismissed as hyperbole. When pressed to answer why the definitions —which would fit were this forced on a girl, any adult, or for that matter any other body part on an infant male— should not apply to this ‘special’ mutilation… crickets, or ‘precious’ thinking.
It can’t be… because I did it to my kid. It can’t be… because it happened to me. It can’t be… because I don’t want to believe it. OTHERS mutilate children’s genitals, OUR tradition of forced genital cutting is just fine… because it has to be. ~Devon
Genital Mutilation Consent Form
Human Rights Violation Consent Form
Penis Torture Consent Form
Child Abuse Consent Form
Forced Genital Cutting Consent Form
Sexual Maiming Consent Form
Intentional Wounding Consent Form
Medical Malpractice Consent Form
Amputating [Male] Prepuce to Expose [Male] Glans Consent Form
If you watched the World Cup Final you probably heard about the ongoing discussion of concussion management (or lack thereof) by FIFA, as a German player was concussed, returned to play after a brief stint on the sideline, then fell down and was finally substituted for.
What’s being recommended for soccer players is a baseline brain scan, in order that any concussions can be assessed in relation to that baseline scan.
This HAS been done before and after CIRCUMCISION… and the results were suppressed.
The infant’s brain didn’t return to baseline afterwards.
That is both frightening and sad, which is why you will NEVER hear the circumcision zealots calling for or initiating THAT type of research.
By the time one reaches maturity and reflects on the harm of circumcision it is virtually impossible to pinpoint what may be related to circumcision and what may be related to other influences in one’s childhood and adolescent experience. That “conflation” with other factors is precisely what circumcision promoters rely upon. Any suspicions of psychological damage can be dismissed. (They dismiss that the physical destruction of the foreskin has any effect on sexuality, so dismissing the invisible effects is even easier.)
Hard evidence that circumcision changes an infant’s brain would be unacceptable. Parents might stop listening to the messages intended to exploit their fears (and maintain the mutilatory status quo) and start wondering whether they might prefer to know their son as he was intended to be… rather than as he became after an iatrogenic [doctor-caused] trauma. ~Devon
I highly recommend reading Bessel van der Kolk, MD’s papers.
Most people accept that early experiences can have a dramatic impact on a young mind even if these traumas are not remembered…. but many in our genital cutting culture balk at the notion that penis torture could have such an effect.
And then there are the adamant fathers who, despite the information presented to them, have an irrational need to expose their son(s) to genital cutting. The “contemporary stimulus” in this case would be expecting a son… and being faced with ‘the circumcision decision’…
Even rational, scientifically-minded, and even-keeled men respond in ways not typical of them, and fail to consider that a healthy response to having a healthy child [even a male child] does not include subjecting the child to a non-therapeutic, non-consensual assault on his genitals:
"…victims of trauma respond to contemporary stimuli as if the trauma had returned, without conscious awareness that past injury rather than current stress is the basis of their physiologic emergency responses. The hyperarousal interferes with their ability to make calm and rational assessments and prevents resolution and integration of the trauma. They respond to threats as emergencies requiring action rather than thought."
The Compulsion to Repeat the Trauma: Re-enactment, Revictimization, and Masochism
The Biological Response to Psychic Trauma: Mechanisms and Treatment of Intrusion and Numbing
Approaches to the Treatment of PTSD
DON’T JUDGE ME OR MY CHOICES!!!!
You will be judged in school, in sports, in the workplace, in your families, and even among your friends for your decisions.
Yet in the matter of forced genital cutting you want a free pass?
Dream on, especially if you are a ‘medical professional’ who will conveniently forget your oaths, will ignore your ethical rules, and will betray your duty to your patient if the patient has a penis and his parents, the customers, want to pay you to violate him.
The fact is that this ‘procedure’ would, if forced on a girl, or even on an unconsenting adult male, rightly be seen as torture.
That’s judgment-worthy. Sorry.
All parents will be judged for their choices, and the judgment which will matter most is that of their children. Who is a perfect parent? Who hasn’t made mistakes they regret? Who hasn’t wished they could go back in time and do some things differently?
I think what all we flawed people who have made flawed or regrettable parenting decisions can hope for is one thing: Not that we won’t be judged by our children, but that we will be judged fairly.
If you can’t explain to your son why his genitals were sliced up for ‘hygiene’ or ‘prophylactic’ reasons, yet his sister [who will menstruate, who also possesses hidden folds which harbor natural oils and secretions, who may or may not be fastidious about hygiene, who may or may not be sexually responsible] was not subjected to a similar amputation solution;
if you can’t explain why this one body part can be cut off for reasons which would NEVER be sufficient were it not part of the penis;
if you can’t explain why you had such low expectations of his ability to wash his genitals yet have expectations that he will be capable of performing other tasks in life;
and most importantly, if in your pride, or arrogance, or psychological self-preservation you stubbornly refuse to even CONSIDER that cutting off part of his penis was a mistake…
HE might just judge you fairly.
If all you have to offer in response to the questions of sexism, medical fraud, ethical failure, and permanent branding is “Don’t judge me!!!” you’ve missed the point. If you can’t defend yourself to strangers with a well-reasoned, rational, legitimate explanation for your choice, what will happen when and if your SON asks why?
The AAP’s entire statement on circumcision in 1971, ONE sentence: [American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Fetus and Newborn. Standards and Recommendation for Hospital Care of Newborn infants. 5th ed. Evanston, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics: 1971.]
Extract of text on circumcision:
"There are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period."
Set up an ad hoc committee on circumcision, rather than a committee on fetus and newborn— and it balloons to two pages in 1975, with this conclusion:
There is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn. The physician should provide parents with information pertaining to the long-term medical effects of circumcision and non-circumcision, so they may make a thoughtful decision. It is recommended that this discussion take place before the birth of the infant, so the parental consent to the surgical procedure, if given, will be truly informed.
A program of education leading to continuing good personal hygiene would offer all the advantages of circumcision without the attendant surgical risk. Therefore, circumcision of the newborn cannot be considered an essential component of adequate total health care.”
In 1977 a caution: "The skin is a protective organ, and any break in its integrity affords an opportunity for initiation of infection. In addition, it is clear that protection against invading pathogenic organisms is afforded by skin secretions or contents and, in older infants by the normal skin biota. At birth the infant does not have protective skin flora, has at least one and, later, possibly two open surgical wounds (the umbilicus and the circumcision site), and is exposed to fomites and personnel that harbor a variety of infectious agents.”
Then in the 80s, someone handed the keys of the manure truck to Edgar Schoen. The rest has been a dismal history.
An album about the AAP’s failure to live up to its motto: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.320980054664783.72020.159118167517640&type=3
In a nutshell.
If you actually do the research, wade through the pro-cutting BS (in which, essentially, it is argued that the infant penis is so special that laws, oaths, ethics, and standard medical protocols do NOT apply to the cutting of it), then condense the findings…
it’s pretty damn simple to decide to NOT be a consumer of forced genital cutting. ~Devon
It’s a lot easier to demonize the foreskin if you think only certain ‘other’ males possess one, and you can trivialize their natural fondness for it rather than facing your own irrational fondness for having had it cut off without medical imperative or your own consent. Or, if you are female, believing that you don’t have one because that word isn’t typically associated with YOUR prepuce.
I credit Aubrey Terrón for showing me how useful stick figures can be. They also avoid the complaints of ‘picking on’ persons sharing any given physical trait or cultural background.https://www.facebook.com/whatUneverknew/media_set?set=a.1429574750113.55546.1555178794&type=3
A while ago I modified the penis-cutting enthusiasts in my graphics— using blockhead stick figures. I don’t [necessarily] mean those who favor forced genital cutting of males are stupid— but they do have mental blocks in recognizing (and/or are socially conditioned to ignore) the obvious medical, ethical, and legal problems with this ‘special’ mutilation.