Mothering › Forums › Health › The Case Against Circumcision › Accucirc
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Accucirc - Page 3

post #41 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by FernG View Post
That looks like such a tight circ, too! I couldn't believe how much skin they took off and how exposed the glans was. The circs I've seen lately have much more of the foreskin left. Don't tell me that they are going back to the tight ones to prevent adhesions.
I thought the same thing...yuck I want to vomit now....
post #42 of 52
I felt (still feel) so sick after watching it.
post #43 of 52
Can't watch it, my postpartum brain is still waaaayyy to sensitive to trauma right now. Which is why I haven't been around that much.

Circumcision causes more problems than its trying to prevent. Why are we as a society stuck in a time warp?

This needs to end.
post #44 of 52
Whoever wrote that website has a circumcised mindset.

They don't seem to realise that circumcision is a deliberately inflicted injury. The whole statement of preventing injury to the penis is absurd, they deny the foreskin is part of the penis.

This really is insane thinking.
post #45 of 52
I have an intactivist friend who is also an engineer. He looked at the website for this device and had some alarming comments about it. With his permission, I'm posting his comments here:

"When I saw that thing, I had to examine their patent applications. By DESIGN, it appears to produce a VERY LOW circumcision. (The scar would be very near, or even up against the glans.) It looks like the skin tension would be at the control of the operator, but the position of the cut appears to be fixed and would leave the victim with hardly ANY remaining inner foreskin. That translates to a nearly "numb" primary sex organ, since it is the inner foreskin that produces most of the sensation that the man will feel. This device probably would produce a more consistent circumcision, but they would all be consistently LOW circumcisions, with only the skin tension varying at the whim or skill of the operator. It should produce a lot of males that will grow up with problems related to very little sexual sensitivity."


In addition:

"Looking at how it works, I expect that very few men will still have anything left of their frenulum either. I know that many older doctors simply remove the frenulum anyway if it happens to survive the circumcision.

What bothers me greatly is that parents will get the look that they are really doing it for, and not encounter the problems that previous methods have produced. They just don’t realize that they are producing men that are going to have little sexual sensitivity left to them. These men are also much more likely to become sexually dysfunctional at earlier ages then men that have more of their foreskin, and possibly some of their frenulum left to them. Remember also, that on average, circumcised men become sexually dysfunctional 7 YEARS before their intact counterparts. Actually, I have seen up to 26 years earlier stated, but I use the 7 year figure because it has documentation presented by a doctor that set out to prove that circumcision caused no sensitivity losses. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15833526?dopt=Abstract)"

And finally:

"It will not stop the problem of meatal stenosis however. That is caused by ischemia caused by the truncation of the vascularization that was in the foreskin, which serviced the glans. They are ALWAYS terminated by ANY circumcision. Actually, over 3 and ½ feet of vascularization is lost with the average circumcision. (That would be measured at maturity.)"
post #46 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron_Low View Post

The kit will have to be very expensive. It includes this expensive throw-away tool plus two steel hemastats also intended for single use. You gotta know they'll just re-use the hemastats and sell the extras on the black market.
Which of course will spread HIV/AIDS in that undeveloped country
post #47 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pumpkinheadmommy View Post
I Remember also, that on average, circumcised men become sexually dysfunctional 7 YEARS before their intact counterparts. Actually, I have seen up to 26 years earlier stated, but I use the 7 year figure because it has documentation presented by a doctor that set out to prove that circumcision caused no sensitivity losses. (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1583352... )"
Please double-check with your friend on the pubmed citation, that links to the wrong abstract. I am interested in seeing the abstract s/he referenced.
post #48 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaryJaneLouise View Post
Please double-check with your friend on the pubmed citation, that links to the wrong abstract. I am interested in seeing the abstract s/he referenced.
Ok, I think I fixed the link now. Sorry about that!

Here's the link for the abstract:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...?dopt=Abstract
post #49 of 52

Here's the letter I just emailed to the FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health

CDRH/FDA
1350 Piccard Drive, HFZ-210
Rockville, MD 20850
e-mail: dsmica@fda.hhs.gov

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to inform you of the unethical marketing of the Accu-Circ circumcision device.

This medical device is approved only for infant circumcision, as stated on their web page accessible at: http://www.accucirc.com/faq.php

“When is use of the AccuCirc indicated/contraindicated?

The AccuCirc is indicated for circumcisions of the penile foreskin on full-term, newborn (up to 10 days) male infants.”

However, on their web page accessible at http://www.accucirc.com/literature.php, they provide links to several studies on the so-called “benefits” of circumcision performed on ADULT men. For instance, one of the articles is titled “The Role of Male Circumcision in the Prevention of Human Papillomavirus and HIV Infection.”

As you may know, these studies are very controversial, with many in the medical community pointing out the many flaws of these studies and their lack of generalizability to infant boys in developed countries such as the U.S.

By providing these links on their web page, Clinical Innovations is implying that routine infant male circumcision has the “benefits” of prevention of STDs such as HPV and HIV when those boys become men.

Please communicate to this company that this is an unethical marketing practice, and should be stopped immediately.

Thank you for your attention to this matter,

Concerned Citizen
post #50 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pumpkinheadmommy View Post
Ok, I think I fixed the link now. Sorry about that!

Here's the link for the abstract:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez
Still not working. Do you have a title and/or PMID number?

ETA NEver mind, I got it from your prev post :thankyou:
post #51 of 52
Ok, good! And I think I just fixed it in my separate post too.
post #52 of 52
Please remember that any discusion of intactivism belongs in the activism forum, so feel free to start a thread there if you are planning a letter writing campaign regarding this device. Thanks for your cooperation.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Case Against Circumcision
Mothering › Forums › Health › The Case Against Circumcision › Accucirc