Circumcision complications

Drs say complications are rare. NewsMedia says complications are rare. Families say complications are rare. Consent forms say complications are rare. Medical books and websites say complications are rare.
However, rare complications are pretty scary to the parents and children they affect.
Rare is not rare enough when it is your child.
Infant/child Circumcision is unnecessary surgery on a healthy child. The foreskin is not an issue, disease or defect.

20140726-192939-70179082.jpg

20140726-192938-70178636.jpg

20140726-192938-70178993.jpg

20140726-192938-70178452.jpg

20140726-192939-70179306.jpg

20140726-192939-70179389.jpg

20140726-192939-70179618.jpg

20140726-192941-70181067.jpg

20140726-192938-70178814.jpg

20140726-192939-70179187.jpg

20140726-192940-70180067.jpg

20140726-192939-70179504.jpg

20140726-192941-70181582.jpg

20140726-192940-70180396.jpg

20140726-192941-70181445.jpg

20140726-192941-70181908.jpg

20140726-192940-70180759.jpg

20140726-192940-70180895.jpg

20140726-192940-70180564.jpg

20140726-192942-70182730.jpg

20140726-192942-70182306.jpg

20140726-192941-70181263.jpg

20140726-192940-70180230.jpg

20140726-192939-70179905.jpg

20140726-192939-70179762.jpg

20140726-192941-70181725.jpg

20140726-192942-70182911.jpg

20140726-192942-70182104.jpg

20140726-192942-70182511.jpg

Inquisitir.com: Intactivists Respond To The 2012 AAP Circumcision Policy Statement [Op Ed]

http://www.inquisitr.com/316529/intactivists-respond-to-the-2012-aap-circumcision-policy-statement-op-ed/

On Monday, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) published its updated policy statement on circumcision in the most recent edition of the journal Pediatrics. In a move that shocked and angered intactivits — activists who oppose infant circumcision and support genital integrity for both males and females — throughout the country and around the world, the AAP made the claim that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks.
Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/316529/intactivists-respond-to-the-2012-aap-circumcision-policy-statement-op-ed/#LcHjITBOvqj10QLL.99

——-

Last year when the AAP issued a call to allow physicians to offer a ‘ritual nick’ on the genitals of girls,[58] the immediate and intense public response led to a prompt retraction. The WHOLE Network calls upon the AAP to act quickly to retract the 2012 circumcision statement, and instead put the rights and well-being of the patient before all other interests by condemning routine infant circumcision.

Dennis Gouws (ERIC): Cutting off a child’s foreskin is a morally reprehensible act. A boy has a right to all of his healthy body, and how he experiences it should be his choice — not the choice of a parent, a religious leader, a government, a philanthropist, or a doctor.

Kim Davis (ERIC): I am deeply saddened by the new statement; however, there are contradictions within the policy. I believe they are grasping at straws to try to and bring up the circumcision rates. People have access to information now more than ever and it shows with the decline in cut rates. Doctors are about business and an elective surgery than takes them 15 minutes from start to finish is quite a profit in their pocket plus any revenue they earn from the sale of the foreskin. I honestly believe that doctors know that most men if left intact will never have a problem nor elect this surgery so they take advantage of parents lack of knowledge and cut before the boy has a choice which ensures they get paid. What really burns me about the new policy is the amount of press. Most people have no idea what the AAP said about RIC before this release (and if they did they did not listen to them then) and now the ONLY thing they will see is the headlines — “THE BENEFITS OUTWEIGH THE RISK” — which will validate their choice for cutting their son without ever considering the risk or the ethical implications.

The researchers say if the trend continues to where only 10 percent of US males are circumcised — rates similar to Europe — the country could face about $4.4 billion in health care costs, an added $407 per man. So, if each circumcision costs about $400, how is the cost any more or less? And what about those that never “have” to have a circ and never get UTIs, STDs, etc.? And what about the European countries: What exactly is their rate of UTIs and STDs?

Micheal (ERIC): This is a basic human rights issue, and no one has the right to take away a piece of a person’s functioning body. It is his body, his choice. There is nothing wrong with foreskin; it is not a birth defect. The foreskin serves a very unique purpose and removing it alters the way the male anatomy functions. This is not only morally and ethically wrong, it is illegal according to the 14th Amendment. It was a pleasure to work with Lauren Jenks and The WHOLE Network in this campaign and I hope that the video goes viral. The AAP should never had renewed its stance on circumcision, stating it is still up to the parents. This is not about a parent’s choice. when does the child get to choose his own fate, we are talking about the very core of a man’s identity here.

Speaking more about the “Wash Your Hands Clean of the AAP” event, Stacey M. Butler, LPN, CBE, Doula, of ERIC explains more about the campaign.

“As the countdown began, The WHOLE Network and Lauren Jenks came up with an idea to launch the “Wash Your Hands Clean of the AAP.” The Idea was to have as many intactivists that were upset with the upcoming new release of the circumcision policy release date (08/27/2012); all the intactivists were to write on their hands “AAP” on one hand and on the other “NO Ethics.” Well, the response was overwhelming; over 540 pics were submitted and it became an overnight sensation to the YouTube world!”

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/316529/intactivists-respond-to-the-2012-aap-circumcision-policy-statement-op-ed/#LcHjITBOvqj10QLL.99

Joseph4gi and whole network

Have I mentioned that I love joseph4gi and the whole network???

Another excerpt:(link below) for statistics follow the links below….
Excerpt:
Conclusion:

A few select studies show a prevalence of HIV transmission in uncircumcised men, but real world empirical data shows that circumcision hasn’t stopped HIV in countries where there is already a prevalence of the practice of circumcision, nevermind the United States. Yet, for whatever reason, leaders at the WHO continue to endorse it as HIV prevention policy and millions are being spent on so-called “mass circumcision campaigns,” even in countries where HIV transmission was shown to be prevalent among the circumcised.

As if the waste of money weren’t bad enough, reports are showing that these “mass circumcision” campaigns are actually proving to be disastrous, as they are confusing African citizens, and many now believe to be fully protected by circumcision.
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/male-circumcision-and-hiv-in-africa.html

Something must be done to alert our world leaders. Millions of precious funds are being used to promote a worthless surgical procedure that leaves men with permanently altered organs, and they are no better protected. The false security that the promotion of circumcision creates is actually helping to facilitate the spread of HIV. Funds are already scarce, and they could be better spent promoting cheaper, less invasive modes of prevention that have actually been proven to be conclusively effective, such as condoms and education. In light of the real-world evidence, promoting a worthless surgical procedure is an impertinent disservice in the fight against HIV/AIDS and governments need to be told to stop. Africans deserve better.

http://www.thewholenetwork.org/14/post/2011/08/where-circumcision-doesnt-prevent-hiv.html

Original article: http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/where-circumcision-doesnt-prevent-hiv.html