Brayden Frazier - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 17 Old 03-13-2013, 01:20 PM - Thread Starter
 
sarafi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 467
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Anyone else see this on facebook/online? Is this real and has it started any discussions?

sarafi is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 of 17 Old 03-13-2013, 09:21 PM
 
Night_Nurse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,851
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

Before I went out of town (over weekend) I read some posts about the baby who was ill and not doing well after his circ. I *think* the grandfather had posted info and pics. When I got back to town on Monday the photos were gone. I think the grandfather took the info down *after* the baby had died. Apparently, he had hemophilia and died. From what I can gather, the family was saying the baby didn't die from the circ, he died from hemophilia. shrug.gif It is always sad when I baby dies for any reason, of course. I don't know the facts of this issue, nor do I know if the baby would have passed even without the circ. It is just very sad. 


Mom &  RN   intactivist.gif
Pardon the typos - CWOK (cat walking on keyboard)   signcirc1.gif

Night_Nurse is offline  
#3 of 17 Old 03-14-2013, 12:24 PM
 
AnaKat405's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 39
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Yes, I heard about it through the Motherwise page, I think. It seems that page and possibly others were using Brayden's passing to further their no circ cause stating that if he hadn't been circumcised he would not have died. I feel bad for the family. I'm against circumcision, but really don't think it's useful to use a family's very recent tragedy to push an agenda.

AnaKat405 is offline  
#4 of 17 Old 03-15-2013, 01:09 PM
 
mama24-7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: with the dust bunnies
Posts: 2,436
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)

Here is a blog post where I've read the most about it.  In the comments, the grandfather has commented.  I'm not on FB.  

 

http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2013/03/circumcision-death-yet-another-one-i.html

 

While I don't think that I could do & say what some have, I do understand how intactivists are bringing it up that this child seems to have died from his circ.  IIRC from reading the above blog, it seems this child had a number of warning signs appear that he would not clot like most babies do.  I don't believe that the grandfather disputed this there.  I am sorry that this child has died, that this family has suffered a loss & that a cosmetic, elective procedure was performed w/o the individual's consent that appears to have caused his death.  candle.gif bawling.gif  I imagine the "professional" who performed this procedure has likely performed more since then & will carry on doing so.  banghead.gif

 

Sus


Baby the babies while they're babies so they don't need babying for a lifetime.
mama24-7 is online now  
#5 of 17 Old 03-16-2013, 12:53 PM - Thread Starter
 
sarafi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 467
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

The part that troubles me is that it seems his doctors should have at least waited a while to figure out what was going on. Instead, they ignored these "small" concerns and did cosmetic surgery on a child just because the parents asked for it.

 

I get that many American parents think that RIC is medically necessary, but the doctors should have waited. There is no big rush, don't they have two months until they deem it necessary, and "more risky" to put them under? Why not give the kid a week and see how he was doing, before amputating a part of his body that was not immediately life-threatening.

 

When are doctors going to be held responsible for not taking this seriously? I get why the parents aren't trying to push this, they likely feel very much at fault--even though the Grandad says they don't. We all blame ourselves for everything. This is a pretty clear case of a doctor failing at assessing each patient as an individual, and thereby giving sub-par care to poor Brayden.

 

I don't agree with bashing the family, they likely were very scared and trusted their doctor. And now they are grieving, and in deep shock. We need to stand up and be a voice for women and men who are still faced with the choice of what to do with their infant sons' genitals. And we need to work to change laws, so that parents aren't swayed by fears that profit/lawsuit driven medical communities can perpetuate.

sarafi is offline  
#6 of 17 Old 03-16-2013, 08:16 PM
 
Dreamer Fla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

In general, the intactivist community is not bashing the family. However, mentioning the name, showing the status (even if with blurred last names) is important. Sweeping this under the rug means that it may happen again and again and again. When we forget our history we tend to repeat it.

 

I've been following some pages that check fb for circumcision related topics and statuses and I've seen in the last couple of months a persistent tendency to circumcise preemies and babies who just left the NICU - both things are against the AAP Policy Statement on Circumcision, that state that babies who are not healthy and stable are at increased risk during circumcision or should not be circumcised. This is irresponsible on the part of the physicians. Even if parents want it, even if they sign the consent form, a baby who is not healthy should not be circumcised; this is an invitation to catastrophy, and baby Brayden unfortunately became the incarnation of this catastrophe in 2013. 

 

He is far from the first. The first recorded American baby dead from a circumcision was Julius Katzenstein (1856), followed by Myer Jacob Levy. Both were circumcised by the same mohel, who was acquitted of both deaths.

 

I understand that the family may not want to think that their decision to circumcise the baby was instrument to his death. From what the mom said, the circumcision was a surgery that "almost saved his life". Why did she say that? Because apparently the baby had not been eating well, had been sleeping too much and had been bleeding from the needle pricks; however, the constant bleeding after circumcision brought attention and caused them to rush the baby to the ER, where he was subjected to treatment. They said that if this had not happened, the baby might have died in his sleep and it would be called SIDS.

So it's likely that there were pre-existing conditions that were further exarcebated by the circumcision. Perhaps the baby would have died in weeks, months or years, but we won't know. He died two days after circumcision, after bleeding and after suffering seizures, in spite of receiving the "best possible medical treatment". I'm offended that a physician would say that circumcision was almost a " life saving surgery"  in this case - if what the mom said is true. This would be a terrible case of manipulating the facts and lying to a family.

 

Even if the baby had Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation (DIC), he was not fit for circumcision and should not have been circumcised.
 

Dreamer Fla is offline  
#7 of 17 Old 03-17-2013, 11:29 AM
 
KOTFrank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I'm not going to talk about this family including as I have placed flowers in memory to Brayden at our neighborhood spot which happens to be alongside another memorial at 18th & Castro Streets, SF. As the proponent of the ballot initiative to restrict circumcision in San Francisco, we are heartbroken for the family and crushed that another human being has died needlessly at the hands of the medical system that is supposed to protect him.

 

With education, parents will not be circumcising. The more is known, the worse it is. 

This would be square one:

 

http://research.cirp.org/news1.html  John Taylor, heart specialist and world's penis researcher and expert says in his 2009 October Newsletter:

SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome) and circumcision: What is the link?

It may not happen very often but when it does, infant death  following circumcision is a particularly devastating event, accompanied as it is by doubts about the wisdom ofcircumcision for no good medical reason. Here I offer some thoughts, from the viewpoint of a pathologist and anatomist with a longstanding interest in the anatomy and developmentof the human heart, as well as an interest in the anatomy ofthe foreskin or prepuce, as outlined in my website and summarized in the preceding newsletter. The two bits ofanatomy are entirely separate but I would like to explain how and why circumcision or, indeed, any physical or other trauma in the first few weeks of life might end up in sudden cardiac death resulting from disturbance of the cardiac rhythm. This is hypothesis but the basic, underlying, anatomyof the heart associated with the blood supply to theconducting system (the electrical ‘wiring’ of the heart) has not been disputed up to 10 years after publication in thepeer-reviewed Canadian Journal of Cardiology.

This newsletter was spurred by a recent (2009) SIDS case in UK, half an hour after circumcision that was deemed, by HM Coroner, to be unrelated in any way to the surgery or actions of the circumciser, who was exonerated. In other words, the baby died for no obvious reason, thus meetingthe classical criterion of ‘SIDS’ (You can see how this argument gets a bit circular: SIDS almost by definition, is a diagnosis of exclusion.)

Not necessarily so: Let`s take a closer look at the newborn heart and its nutrient blood supply. No doubt, oxygen and other nutrients reach the musculature and conducting systemof the neonatal heart through coronary arteries, which are filled with blood that has passed through the lungs. However,the nutrient supply to the embryonic heart, in the first two months of human development in the uterus, during which time the heart becomes almost fully developed in the total absence of coronary arteries takes place through capillary-like sinusoidal vessels. Coronary arteries sprouting from theroot of the aorta are not fully developed, especially to theconducting system, until about the time of birth at term. So, you can see the problem: at birth the conduction system ofthe neonatal heart may be immature with regard to its nutrient supply: it may still be dependant, at least in part, on its primitive supply through non-arterial vessels. These sinusoids come off the walls of the cardiac chambers to supply the major conducting pathway of the heart for severaldays or weeks after birth, at least until the coronary circulation is fully established.

Unfortunately, the nutrient inflow into sinusoids, most ofwhich arise from the right side of the heart (right atrium and right ventricle) is sharply reduced the moment the umbilical cord is cut, separating placenta from the baby. Blood entering the conduction system via sinusoids is now ‘venous’ and de-oxygenated, quite different from the oxygenated placental blood.

So – this is a hypothesis, not a proven fact - any minor perturbation of oxygen levels in already de-oxygenated,venous blood would have a deleterious effect onthe transmission of cardiac impulses necessary to maintain a steady heart-beat. Ventricular arrhythmia ensues and thebaby dies without a mark on it. And the Pediatric Pathologist remains as mystified as ever.

If you are in any doubt about the importance of a copious nutrient bloodflow to the development of the embryonic and early fetal heart, take a closer look at the way thedeveloping heart (which is fully developed by 2 months, much sooner than any other organ including brain) ensures placental bloodflow and hence the return of nutrient blood tothe right side (and conducting pathway) of the developing and early fetal heart. Both ventricles work at full blast to fillthe descending aorta and, thence, a pair of extremely prominent umbilical arteries (see Gray’s Anatomy plate), at least until the time of birth. After that, the right ventricle shrinks and its much-diminished output is redirected to thenow-expanding lungs, and from the lungs to the coronary and other arteries. The umbilical arteries, no longer feedingthe placenta, shrink to become narrow cords between theumbilicus and liver. Of course, the placenta supplies blood, via the heart, to all other organs and tissues of the body.

The point I am trying to make is that the heart is the first recipient of nutrient venous blood, from chorionic vessels and then the placenta. Possibly the heart and the rest of thecirculatory system, by a process of natural selection, ensuredthe growth of the placenta over the generations. Generally speaking, however, Darwinian natural selection ofadvantageous traits takes place between individuals, not inside single individuals. But who knows what, exactly, determines organ size and development? Until we do know more, extreme care should be taken to avoid any insult tothe neonatal body that might upset interlinked respiratory and cardiac rhythms. Circumcision for no obvious medical reason is somewhere near the top of a list of don`ts; after circumcision, babies are in a state of pain and shock; they become quiet and respiration often slows. Now with some knowledge of fetal physiology, you can figure out the rest ofthe story.

As with the heart, the development of the prepuce can be seen in the context of the wider development of a system oftissues. The preceding newsletter outlines one set ofpossibilities, reflexes triggered by movement of the prepuce and glans affecting events (reflex contractions) at the baseof the penis. It is ridiculous to suggest, as many do, that theprepuce is an isolated tissue that developed in the absenceof any other penile influence. So what is the final message? Simply that interference with one tissue or even a nutrient bloodflow might have knock-on effects, from sudden death to bedraggled sexual reflexes in later life, that are difficult to predict without a much-improved and more sophisticated knowledge of human anatomy and physiology.

Bibliography:

Taylor JR, Lockwood AP, Taylor AJ. The prepuce: Specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision. Brit J Urology 1996;77:291-6

Taylor JR and Taylor AJ. The relationship between the sinus node and right atrial appendage. Canadian Journal ofCardiology 1997;13:85-92

Taylor JR and Taylor AJ. The thebesian circulation to developing conducting tissue: A nutrient nodal hypothesis ofcardiogenesis . Can J Cardiol 1999;15:859-866

Taylor JR and Taylor AJ Thebesian sinusoids: Forgotten collaterals to papillary muscles. Can J Cardiol 16;16:1391-6

-----------------------------

 

 

Here's my four favorite videos that compliment each other in scope:

 

1. Pediatrician and National Children's Ombudsman of Norway   www.youtube.com/watch?v=74NJSOjBTNI  (7 min.)
 
Dr. Anne Lindboe discusses children's rights and circumcision. Says: she has seen the complications, the pain is as mush as adults, there's no problem waiting until older, saving money is not important in saving children, circ. is a form of violence, children should be protected from violence, circumcision is not a harmless procedure.
 

 

2. Child Circumcision: An Elephant in the Hospital   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ceht-3xu84I  
 
3. Foreskin For Her Dr Paul Tinari April 2012   https://vimeo.com/56767851
 
4. Circumcision is Child Abuse by Aldin Entertainment Music Group   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJVR_BBKncI
KOTFrank is offline  
#8 of 17 Old 03-17-2013, 07:31 PM
 
nsmomtobe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NS, Canada
Posts: 1,221
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)

I just wish that inactivists were better positioned to be seen as a support for families who have lost children this way (i.e., providing legal advice), rather than as bullies who exploit the situation to further their own agenda. Something about the way these cases are approached needs to change.


Now mom to a boy born January 2010. 
Cautiously expecting Dec 2014!

 12/08 (6 weeks),  1/13 (11 weeks), &  12/13 (9.5 weeks)
nsmomtobe is online now  
#9 of 17 Old 03-17-2013, 08:18 PM
 
Escaping's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 659
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by NSmomtobe View Post

I just wish that inactivists were better positioned to be seen as a support for families who have lost children this way (i.e., providing legal advice), rather than as bullies who exploit the situation to further their own agenda. Something about the way these cases are approached needs to change.
I completely agree. My heart breaks for these families who undoubtedly blame themselves and then those vultures start grabbing screenshots of their facebook pages. I agree with the cause, but to harass the poor family like that?
Escaping is offline  
#10 of 17 Old 03-18-2013, 07:34 AM
 
Dreamer Fla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

The information about law firms specialized in circumcision cases has been sent to the family. Many intactivists actually advised the family to take legal actions. But in order for this to happen, the family needs to acknowledge that circumcision was what stirred the condition that caused the death of the baby. While the family remains in denial, there's not much more that any outsider can do for them.

 

So if we can't help them, then at least we try to create awareness of these problems for the benefit of future families. And what does it take? If we tell the story without screenshots, nobody is going to pay attention because it was not in the news. It's just going to sound like a made up story.

 

So how do we create awareness? Is the remote possibility of saving a future Brayden fair enough cause to talk about this baby that sadly passed away? Or do we remain silent and just hope that this doesn't happen again?

 

Statistics tell it will happen again. The CDC estimates 1 death in 500,000 procedures. That doesn't sound like a lot, until you consider 1.2 million infant circumcisions per year in the U.S., then we are talking of 2 to 3 dead babies per year due to an unnecessary surgery on a non-consenting individual. Other articles (based on Dan Bollinger's paper entitled "The Lost Boys", not acknowledged by the CDC or the AAP) estimate approximately 117 deaths per year.

 

Just think about this one case. Will the coroner report indicate circumcision as cause of the death? Most likely not. They may just say blood loss, or clotting disorder, or bacterial infection. Was the condition exarcebated by the procedure? No doubt about it. So, is this one in 500,000, or is this part of 117? If the coroner report does not mention circumcision then it's being swept under the rug.

 

How do we create awareness?

 

How do we help the family?

 

Are we vultures?

Dreamer Fla is offline  
#11 of 17 Old 03-18-2013, 09:21 AM
 
Escaping's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 659
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamer Fla View Post

 

How do we help the family?

 

 

Unless anyone has a cure for death, I think to just leave them alone would be a start.

 

When I was making the decision whether or not to circumcise my son (I'm from Europe, it's just not "normal" to circumcise there but since my son would be growing up in North America, and a lot of people have strong opinions on the subject, I researched it with an open mind). Even though I was on the "probably not going to circumcise" side, I took a look at what both sides had to say. I have to say, the "intactivist" side looked a little nuts, like a bunch of extremist bullies trying to frighten people into agreeing with what they think is right. The general population doesn't respond well to "activism" of any sort. In Canada, circumcision went away for some reason without any activism, death threats or bullying of parents. I think people just decided on their own that genital mutilation for no apparent reason was a little strange. 

I don't debate the facts and the statistics, and that unless something is done to stop circumcision, babies will continue to be endangered, but scare tactics don't seem to be working very well because it just causes the other side to become defensive. 

Maybe in addition to the scare tactics, people might want to focus on disproving reasons people choose to circumcise, uncircumcised penises aren't gross, smelly, don't require special care and if required in the future, can be done as an adult. One of the only convincing arguments I heard for circumcision was that elderly men eventually become unable to clean themselves and it very often becomes a problem. Almost 100% of elderly men receive inadequate care which leads to awful situations... I've heard this from several nursing home workers. So it may be more helpful to normalize adult circumcision, which is the decision of a consenting adult. 

Escaping is offline  
#12 of 17 Old 03-18-2013, 09:51 AM
 
mama24-7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: with the dust bunnies
Posts: 2,436
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamer Fla View Post
How do we help the family?

 

You can not help an individual or a family that does not want help however.  I am not on FB & haven't studied the pictures I've seen, but I highly doubt when the posts were made, that the grandfather or any other family member was hoping that intactivists would step in.  

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Escaping View Post
When I was making the decision whether or not to circumcise my son (I'm from Europe, it's just not "normal" to circumcise there but since my son would be growing up in North America, and a lot of people have strong opinions on the subject, I researched it with an open mind). Even though I was on the "probably not going to circumcise" side, I took a look at what both sides had to say. I have to say, the "intactivist" side looked a little nuts, like a bunch of extremist bullies trying to frighten people into agreeing with what they think is right. The general population doesn't respond well to "activism" of any sort. In Canada, circumcision went away for some reason without any activism, death threats or bullying of parents. I think people just decided on their own that genital mutilation for no apparent reason was a little strange. 

I don't debate the facts and the statistics, and that unless something is done to stop circumcision, babies will continue to be endangered, but scare tactics don't seem to be working very well because it just causes the other side to become defensive. 

Maybe in addition to the scare tactics, people might want to focus on disproving reasons people choose to circumcise, uncircumcised penises aren't gross, smelly, don't require special care and if required in the future, can be done as an adult. One of the only convincing arguments I heard for circumcision was that elderly men eventually become unable to clean themselves and it very often becomes a problem. Almost 100% of elderly men receive inadequate care which leads to awful situations... I've heard this from several nursing home workers. So it may be more helpful to normalize adult circumcision, which is the decision of a consenting adult. 

 

IMO whether it's intactivism, lactivism, environmentalism, any -ism you are working to fight, if people are going to choose to take the information personally, as an attack on them instead of the practice, then it doesn't matter what an activist does.  Dh has a cousin who feels judged by him & me.  Not sure why, we've never once told her she's wrong about the things she does, but she still does.  SIL was pregnant w/ twin boys at the same time I was pregnant w/ my last child, who I didn't know at the time was a boy (I already had one intact boy).  I said things like, "many moms are surprised to learn..." " most doctors don't mention...," "I was so glad I found out..." etc.  She fired back an angry email about how I/we had questioned her parenting, which she doesn't know & clearly never will that circ is actually NOT a parenting decision.  Never mind that she's repeatedly mocked & criticized our parenting (things like nursing & Santa Clause).  

 

Most people take every. little. thing. personally.  It gets old.  People can not separate themselves from their actions & ideas that are out there.  I don't see it getting much better until that changes.  Also, I don't agree that "In Canada, circumcision went away for some reason without any activism"  It may not have been activisim, but I bet it was something like what happened in England, that the national health insurance stopped covering it & it went away.  IIRC, in the states where circ is not covered by medicaid, the rates are lower & I would bet, there aren't many medicaid covered parents scrimping & saving in order to pay for it themselves.

 
Sus

Baby the babies while they're babies so they don't need babying for a lifetime.
mama24-7 is online now  
#13 of 17 Old 03-18-2013, 10:48 AM
 
Escaping's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 659
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mama24-7 View Post

 

IMO whether it's intactivism, lactivism, environmentalism, any -ism you are working to fight, if people are going to choose to take the information personally, as an attack on them instead of the practice, then it doesn't matter what an activist does.  Dh has a cousin who feels judged by him & me.  Not sure why, we've never once told her she's wrong about the things she does, but she still does.  SIL was pregnant w/ twin boys at the same time I was pregnant w/ my last child, who I didn't know at the time was a boy (I already had one intact boy).  I said things like, "many moms are surprised to learn..." " most doctors don't mention...," "I was so glad I found out..." etc.  She fired back an angry email about how I/we had questioned her parenting, which she doesn't know & clearly never will that circ is actually NOT a parenting decision.  Never mind that she's repeatedly mocked & criticized our parenting (things like nursing & Santa Clause).  

 

Most people take every. little. thing. personally.  It gets old.  People can not separate themselves from their actions & ideas that are out there.  I don't see it getting much better until that changes.  Also, I don't agree that "In Canada, circumcision went away for some reason without any activism"  It may not have been activisim, but I bet it was something like what happened in England, that the national health insurance stopped covering it & it went away.  IIRC, in the states where circ is not covered by medicaid, the rates are lower & I would bet, there aren't many medicaid covered parents scrimping & saving in order to pay for it themselves.

 
Sus

 

They actually found that after circumcision was delisted (no longer covered in Ontario) in 1994, the circumcision rates went up. It was only until later that the rates began to fall.

 

 

Not really comparable, but also not entirely unrelated:

 

In 1996, the Canadian Paediatric Society called circumcision a "mutilative...and obsolete operation."

 

 

(I know it would be more useful to find a chart which shows rates prior to 1996, but I can't seem to find any).

 

 

As for your DH's cousin who feels judged, I can understand where she's coming from. When someone starts at them with statistics and research it's taken by some as an implication that they didn't research or research enough. When people ask me why I didn't circumcise my son I just ask "why would I pay money to cut off part of his penis?" and add "he can do that himself if he's dissatisfied with it later." ....which sometimes leads to "but it hurts more as an adult." ....but they give up after "so don't do it then." I don't comment on parenting decisions of friends and family (although I agree that circumcision is not a "parenting decision") because I know no one wants to hear it. Everyone wants the best for their children, we all have the internet, if someone is really looking for an opinion, they'll ask. If they don't ask, they've already decided. 

Escaping is offline  
#14 of 17 Old 03-18-2013, 11:17 AM
 
mama24-7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: with the dust bunnies
Posts: 2,436
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escaping View Post

 

They actually found that after circumcision was delisted (no longer covered in Ontario) in 1994, the circumcision rates went up. It was only until later that the rates began to fall.

 

 

Not really comparable, but also not entirely unrelated:

 

In 1996, the Canadian Paediatric Society called circumcision a "mutilative...and obsolete operation."

 

 

(I know it would be more useful to find a chart which shows rates prior to 1996, but I can't seem to find any).

 

 

Thank you for correcting me.  Odd, but interesting that rates would go up.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Escaping View Post
As for your DH's cousin who feels judged, I can understand where she's coming from. When someone starts at them with statistics and research it's taken by some as an implication that they didn't research or research enough. When people ask me why I didn't circumcise my son I just ask "why would I pay money to cut off part of his penis?" and add "he can do that himself if he's dissatisfied with it later." ....which sometimes leads to "but it hurts more as an adult." ....but they give up after "so don't do it then." I don't comment on parenting decisions of friends and family (although I agree that circumcision is not a "parenting decision") because I know no one wants to hear it. Everyone wants the best for their children, we all have the internet, if someone is really looking for an opinion, they'll ask. If they don't ask, they've already decided. 
 

Just to be clear, it was SIL who had a hissy fit after I'd emailed her about circ.  And, she flat out said she did not research it.  So, that wasn't it.  I don't take any responsibility for her feeling the way she did/does.  She could have chosen to say something along the lines, of thanks but no thanks, but she didn't.  I operate under the following principle: I'd rather have someone mad at me that I mentioned something than have them tell me somewhere down the line that they wish I had.   Having someone be mad at me is a risk I'm willing to take.  It's not about me that they get upset.  It's on them.  I don't attack people - I ask questions & share information.  What happens after that is on them.  (I don't need or expect you to agree w/ me winky.gif .)

 

It sounds like your methods work well for you.  I'm very glad to hear that.  We are all individuals & need to do this in a way that works for us.  I don't agree w/ the way it's been done in this case but since I can't contribute to a better way, I'm not going to judge them by calling them vultures (I wouldn't do that any more than I'd judge a circ'ing parent by calling them a mutilator - it goes both ways).  Additionally, I judge the action as being bad not the individual.  I don't have to agree w/ them, but calling them names doesn't fix anything.  I have really backed off on my out right intactivism just because I get upset when I know someone will circ anyway, I don't have much typing time (which isn't obvious today lol.gif) & I just can't cope w/ it all.  So I post here, I send annonymous penis packs, I give info to my midwife for her to put in her library, I don't to intactamerica & nocirc & I post on twitter.  I talk to people when I can & I shut up when their eyes glaze over.  We all do what we can.

 

Sus


Baby the babies while they're babies so they don't need babying for a lifetime.
mama24-7 is online now  
#15 of 17 Old 03-18-2013, 11:38 AM
 
Escaping's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 659
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

For the record, I wasn't referring to intactivists in general as vultures, just the people who were harassing and exploiting some poor family who just lost a baby, to further their agenda.

 

The government doesn't care that 117 babies a year die from this unnecessary procedure, they care that it saves them money in the future healthcare if it helps prevent STDs, so instead of using each and every death as a tool to get the government to listen and change laws, why not think of a convincing argument why banning circumcision would be finically advantageous?

Escaping is offline  
#16 of 17 Old 03-18-2013, 12:11 PM
 
Viola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nevada
Posts: 22,549
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escaping View Post

For the record, I wasn't referring to intactivists in general as vultures, just the people who were harassing and exploiting some poor family who just lost a baby, to further their agenda.

 

 

I get what you are saying. Every time something bad happens to someone because they did something the "wrong" way, the way that others would never have chosen to do it, then people who support a cause may use that tragedy as a banner, not really caring in a personal sense about the people involved. I think that's because we can't really care on the same level about people we don't know. If we could, then things wouldn't be as bad for children the world around.

 

But, honestly, I think the reason people care about things to begin with are because of the potential tragedies.  I don't think anyone who is in favor of stricter gun control regulations posted about the events at Sandy Hook without mentioning how it could have been different if only...  And people who were seeing the gun control arguments coming started arguing it was an Obama administration conspiracy.  It's sickening, but on some level I think the reason people will use this story is the same reason people would use the story of a child who died in a car accident when the manufacturer of the car or the carseat or a drunk driver was to blame.  People want to prevent these useless deaths and feel that different regulations and laws, lawsuits and a change in culture will help.

Viola is online now  
#17 of 17 Old 03-19-2013, 11:09 AM
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 767
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)

"The government doesn't care that 117 babies a year die from this unnecessary procedure, they care that it saves them money in the future healthcare if it helps prevent STDs, so instead of using each and every death as a tool to get the government to listen and change laws, why not think of a convincing argument why banning circumcision would be finically advantageous?"

 

The assumption here is that circumcision does reduce the rate of STDs.  In fact it does not.  The rate in Europe, where almost all males are intact is well below the rate in the U.S. where most males are circumcised.

 

 

"They actually found that after circumcision was delisted (no longer covered in Ontario) in 1994, the circumcision rates went up. It was only until later that the rates began to fall."

 

I find this very strange because the circumcision rates in Canada declined significantly in each province after the medical system stopped covering it.  Manitoba was the last province to do so.

 

Looking at the graph that you posted, the decline was in full swing by 1996.  However it is well known that the rates can be heavily influenced by who ever is at the head of the local or provincial health authority.  Maybe that is what took place for a brief time in Ontario.

 

There are graphs of rates, by province, over many years at www.courtchallenge.com .

hakunangovi is online now  
Reply

Tags
Circumcision

User Tag List



Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off