CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yet Another One (I Hate Writing These)

It has all happened before.

And, until the non-therapeautic circumcision of infants is banned, it will all happen again.

But this time, it happened in Sacramento, California.

Within the last hour, Brayden Tyler Frazier died after circumcision put him in critical condition.

He started bleeding uncontrollably after he was circumcised Wednesday at UC Davis Medical Center in Sacramento.

EDIT: The circumcision was actually carried out in Lodi, not at UC Davis Medical Center, as Brayden's grandfather has clarified. He was transferred to UC Davis Medical Center afterward, and the doctors there had absolutely nothing to do with Brayden's circumcision.

They tried to use coagulants, platelets, plasma etc. to try and save his life, but to no avail.

His body started having seizures because of it, which lead to his liver and kidneys starting to shows signs of failure.

He was 9 days old when he was circumcised, and he died at 11 days of age.

He was alive and well for 9 days until the day he was circumcised, and it was found that he had hemophilia.

EDIT: Brayden's grandfather says that he had been ill and taken to the Dr. for 2 days prior to the circumcision, as Brayden was sleeping constantly and not eating. Initial sticks and pricks were not healing quickly, and most bandages were kept on him for 2 days before the wounds sealed. It appeared his body was not producing "clotting" materials prior to the circumcision. But, according to Brayden's grandfather, "...it wasn't so much that anyone was alarmed."

His parents are now grieving at the Lodi Memorial Hospital.

As a Californian who was born and raised in this area, this is very, very close to home for me.

What will happen now?

Here's what will happen.

Just like all circumcision deaths, this one will be swept neatly underneath the rug.

The cause of death will be recorded as "hemorrhaging to death."

Hemophilia will be blamed.

EDIT: "He had "generalized bleeding"...sepsis, among other things," according to Brayden's grandfather.

The baby will have died of "organ failure."

No mention is going to be made of his circumcision.

Ever.

Nobody is going to ask why doctors didn't test the child for hemophilia (or any potentially hazardous conditions) prior.

Everyone will demand nobody bother the parents because they are grieving.

They will not press charges.

They will be complicit in covering up this circumcision, and protecting the doctor that did it.

They may have yet another child, and go on to circumcise him too.

People will keep quiet, and demand others do too.

And so it will continue.

One conservative estimate says that 117 deaths a year happen in the US as a result of circumcision.

Although, a recent study in Brasil suggests that rate is closer to 156 deaths a year.

Because circumcision is performed in healthy, non-consenting children without any medical or clinical indication whatsoever, how is anything above 0 conscionable?

Death is a risk of circumcision.

Were these parents not made aware of this risk?

Do the benefits truly "outweigh" it, as the AAP repeats over and over?

Or was this child's death not important "because he was going to die anyway?"

I hate having to write these.

When will it end?

Note: Pictures and links to Facebook accounts were not used for this post in respect of the grieving parents.

Update (3/9/2013):

Already, Brayden's family is taking down pictures and status updates on Facebook. They're already trying to change their story to make it sound like Brayden's circumcision had absolutely nothing to do with his death, and accusing activists such as myself, of "misconstruing and exploiting Brayden's story for our own selfish purposes."

This seems to be an exact replay of Joshua Haskin's death.

It's rather sad that the health and well being of children is considered a "selfish cause" by some.

A child has died because of a needless operation.

More deaths like these can be prevented.

But more important is to preserve the fantasy that he didn't, for the parents' (and the doctors') sake.

So what is more selfish?

You be the judge.

We are being called liars who are "misconstruing," but sadly, this is the internet, and the whole thing, pictures and status updates, was caught on screen shot.

A friend on Facebook made the following observation:

"If someone had stabbed him, and he bled to death, no one would blame the child's condition. It would have been crystal clear that the injury killed him."

To which I say, EXACTLY.

They seem to be a family of faith.

Let it remain in their conscience who the real "liars" are.

Meanwhile, may Brayden rest in peace.

And may one day baby boys be spared from needless deaths like this one.

"Every time a baby dies from circumcision, there's something else involved. Bleeding. Infection. Anesthesia. Shock. Stroke. Heart attack. There's always something that can take the blame. Vulnerable parents are going to choose those things to blame, and so are the guilty medical professionals, because those things were beyond their control, and circumcision was elective and unnecessary. They are in a place where they CAN NOT admit the truth, and it is counterproductive to try." ~Aubrey Terrón

Related Posts:

CIRCUMCISION: The Silent Killer

Circumcision KILLS

CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies

Circumcision "Researcher" Blunders

The following circumcision "researcher" flubs were highlighted on Circumstitions News.

Circumcision "Researchers" in Africa: "Oops"
First on the bill are the three big African "circumcision trials." Apparently, the fact that two of them were registered late went unnoticed. That is, until recently.

According to trial registration documents, the South African trial was registered a year and a half after recruitment ended and seven days before the results were published! The Ugandan one a month after recruitment ended, and a month before publication.

It looks like PLOS One and The Lancet wanted to publish impressive high impact trials, but found they weren’t registered. To get around this, it looks like they got the authors to do it retrospectively, and hoped no one would notice!

Discrepancies and/or absurd correspondences between the plans and the outcomes as a result of the late registration can be observed, for example, that the South African trial got EXACTLY as many subjects (3274) as planned.

"Gold standard" indeed!

(For more details, read the article and Hugh Young's commentary here.)

US Circumcision Death Rate May Be 156 Annually: Thx Prof. Morris!
Next up, a Brazilian study, which evaluates circumcisions performed at Brazilian hospitals within a 27 year period, has been reportedly circulated by Australian circumcision enthusiast Bryan Morris, presumably because he likes the "very low mortality rate" associated with the procedure.

For the study, researchers used figures from the Unified Health System database from 1984 to 2010. A total of 668,818 men were admitted to public hospitals for circumcisions to treat diagnoses of phimosis.

The researchers found that there were 63 deaths associated with circumcision within a 12 year period (1992 to 2010) for a mortality rate of 0.013%.

Brian Morris must have been jumping for joy to see this figure. Except, that percentage hides a rate of 1 in 7692 circumcisions (63 out of 484,596 circumcisions in a 12 year period). An estimated 1.2 million newborn boys are circumcised in the United States yearly, where this rate would mean 156 circumcision deaths per year.

Forget the fact that phimosis is often misdiagnosed, putting into question the necessity of a percentage of the circumcisions examined; this number far exceeds Bollinger's estimation of 117 circumcision deaths per year.

It is difficult to come up with an accurate estimate as to the deaths caused by circumcision, because hospitals aren't expected to report this data, and/or because doctors often deliberately misattribute them to other causes to avoid a lawsuit.

But thanks to Professor Brian Morris, we may now have a better idea.

(For more details, read the article and Hugh Young's commentary here.)

CIRCUMCISION: The Silent Killer

It's not that uncommon; very often I read on Internet mediums, be it an online parenting forum, some Facebook group or page for parents, or sometimes it just appears on my news feed, someone posts something along the lines of:

"I ask for prayers. Donovan is fighting for his life after some breathing problems he had after his circumcision."

Or, "Please pray for our family. Justin's circumcision wound had trouble healing, and now he's in critical condition."

Of course everyone offers their sympathy.

"We'll be prayin' for ya hon..."

"God is watching over him."

And, of course, when some one dares to call a spade a spade...

"What a tragedy. But was this necessary? Did the doctor tell you this would be a risk?"

...all hell breaks loose:

"Shut the *** up, you heartless ***!!!"

"Circumcision had nothing to do with it! Go the *** away!"

Maybe the person calling out the elephant in the room is even banned from the group, and his/her posts are deleted.

In a few cases I've seen, the tragedy ends in death, pissing MORE of us off, and by this time many can't stand it.

Many readers will recall the Joshua Haskins case, where the mother posted every detail on her blog (her son would not stop bleeding), and then deleted them. While it was perfectly clear that her son was having complications directly caused by his circumcision (at the last minute, doctors determined he needed one more suture on his penis), she started denying this, touting the line her doctors told her to repeat; "He died of heart problems he had before, not his circumcision."

Certainly, Josh was born with heart problems and he spent the first days of his life in a NICU. But the "heart problems" were not what we were reading about on her blog. Josh bled uncontrollably for seven hours until the doctors finally decided to give him an extra suture, but by then it was too late.

Intactivists following Joshua's mother's blog were not going to let this one go. They were following her blog right up to the point where the doctors approved Josh's circumcision, and many tried to warn her about the risk of death. And when Joshua died, the criticism intensified, as did readers who came to Joshua's mother's defense.

"How dare you attack this mother in her moment of grief!"

"You've got some nerve taking advantage of this mother for your cause!"

No one seemed to grieve that Joshua's tiny, fragile state was taken advantage of, or that if he hadn't undergone this needless surgery, he would still be alive.

You know, perhaps some intactivists did go too far with their comments. Some did get pretty nasty, and understandably so.

Perhaps things would be different had we waited for the grieving process to end. Or would they?

Would the Haskins' be more open or closed to listen to others regarding their son's cause of death? Would they be open, or closed to listening to the idea that their son may have died needlessly?

And these catastrophes keep coming. I keep reading pleas for prayers for boys who are left dying after their circumcisions. I keep reading of folks who lost babies just after their circumcisions (but insist it was something else).

It's different when you hear about this from people in your immediate vicinity instead of Facebook.

Not too long ago, a cousin of mine was circulating a plea for prayers among my family for a couple who had just lost their first baby boy in her congregation. I didn't need to inquire too deeply.

"Such a shame too; he only needed to be circumcised before they were released from the hospital."

My cousin said.

I didn't say anything; this was a couple in a church I don't even attend.

But my cousin couldn't seem to put two and two together. More important to her is the comfort she would derive from the thought that others would be praying.

Perhaps when a child is fighting for his life isn't the time to talk about circumcision.

Perhaps when parents are grieving isn't the time to talk about it either.

Death is a risk of circumcision.

An estimated 117 deaths occur every year in the United States due to circumcision. This is a rough estimate, and more conservative than its predecessors (in the past, estimates have been as high as 200 or more deaths per year). The fact is, hospitals are not required to release this data. Adding to this is the fact that doctors lie about a child's cause of death to cover their own bases, and parents, wanting to divorce themselves of any fault in their son's death, are complicit in repeating whatever their doctors tell them.

The child "bled to death." The child "suffered hemorrhage." The child "went into cardiac arrest." The child died of "septic shock."

Nevermind the circumcision performed on him beforehand.

What have the parents to say about the possibility that circumcision most likely killed their baby?

They're grieving. Don't you dare bother them.

And a year later, "Don't remind them. It breaks their heart every time."

Nobody wants to talk about it.

Meanwhile, the tragedies continue.

So when is it a good time to talk about it?

When is a good time to break the silence?

Related Posts:

Circumcision Death: Another One Bites the Dust

Circumcision KILLS

CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies

Circumcision Indicted in Yet Another Death: Rabbis and Mohels are "Upset"

Circumcision Just After a NICU

 

Herpes Circumcision Babies: Another One? Geez!

And just when I thought I'd heard enough about mohels giving babies herpes, another report of a poor Jewish baby with herpes arises.

"Across the board, the infection rate for circumcisions is less than one half of one percent... The baby could have gotten herpes from a relative or someone in the Hospital, or many other people... You can't say for sure it was the circumcision."~Philip Sherman, "Mohel to the Stars"

I've written enough.

Will you do something about this, New York?

Please?

CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies

It's been a while... There's so much I want to write about... There is so much I want to say... I've just been busy with life... work... family... I've been just so overwhelmed...

But I thought this warranted a post.

Often, when circumcision is promoted in this country, the so-called "benefits" of his non-therapeutic surgery are terribly exaggerated, while the risks are completely downplayed, if mentioned at all.

The only ones most parents in this country will hear about, if physicians even bother mentioning them are "pain and discomfort." Few will mention that circumcision could result in MRSA infection, a botched circumcision requiring future correction, partial or full ablation, and even death.

Yes, death is a risk or "complication" of circumcision, but it is rarely mentioned, if at all.

This is what is known and recognized by medical organizations in this country as "informed consent."

An estimated 117 deaths occur every year in the United States due to circumcision. This is a rough estimate, and more conservative than its predecessors (in the past, estimates have been as high as 200 or more deaths per year).

It is hard to get an accurate estimate on the number of deaths in the United States, because deaths due to circumcision are rarely reported as such, if reported at all. At 1.3 million circumcisions a year, circumcision is a money-maker for American medicine, and doctors have an investment to protect. Reporting adverse circumcision effects puts the yearly stipend in jeopardy, not to mention the disrepute it would bring to American medicine. 

Doctors have reputations to uphold, and pocketbooks to line and protect from lawsuits. With so much to lose, there is incentive to hide the evidence. And, parents who would like to maintain their illusion of circumcision being "harmless," and perish the thought that they were actively involved in any way in the death of their son, often agree to keep the death "secret," or report it as the doctor says.

Deaths due to circumcision are often reported as caused by something else, such as "cardiac arrest," or "septic shock." Reporting secondary causes of death hides the fact that they were caused by the circumcision that preceded them. Additionally, hospitals are not required to report deaths caused by circumcision.

Reporting deaths from circumcision would open the floodgates to lawsuits by angry parents and angry men. Reporting deaths from circumcision means loss of revenue. Reporting deaths from circumcision means the "benefits" have to be reconsidered. Reporting deaths from circumcision means that American medical organizations are being irresponsible. Reporting deaths from circumcision means "culture and tradition" is put in danger.

For these reasons, we will never know for sure how many children die as a result of their circumcisions. Reputations to protect, culture and tradition to safeguard, and floodgates to keep sealed.

Meanwhile, boys continue to die.


Connor James was born on Thanksgiving Weekend, Friday, November 25th in Pittsburgh, PA. On Saturday, November 26th, Baby Connor bled to death following his circumcision. Circumcision claims yet another life.

Last year, Joshua Haskins suffered a similar death. After struggling to survive in a NICU with a congenital heart problem, doctors thought it gracious to pressure his mother to have him circumcised "now that he's strong and healthy." Doctors, and even Josh's mother herself insist that Joshua died because of his heart problem (which wasn't aggravated by his circumcision?), although her blog records, which were saved before they were taken down, relate clearly that Joshua had been bleeding uncontrollably, and that it wasn't until 7 hours that doctors caught the nicked vein and decided to stitch it up. By then it was too late.

Would Joshua Haskins still be alive today, had they found the vein in the nick of time?

Who knows.

One thing is for sure though; Joshua was healthy and strong before his circumcision, which unquestionably did cause the complication. Joshua Haskins didn't have to die.

Neither did Connor James.

Neither did countless others before him that we will most likely never know about. 

Circumcision KILLS, people.

Death is one of the "risks" of this procedure.

Considering that there is no medical or clinical necessity to circumcise a perfectly healthy child, is it really worth it?

Without medical or clinical indication, can doctors even be performing risky surgery on a healthy, non-consenting individual, let alone elicit any kind of a "decision" from parents? 

A week from today, Bay Area Intactivists, an intactivist group in San Francisco, will hold a candlelight vigil in remembrance of all male, female and intersex children who have lost their lives due to unnecessary genital surgery.

Rest in peace, Joshua Haskins.

Rest in peace, Connor James.

Rest in peace, Amitai Moshe.

Rest in peace, all of you who died before your time due to this human tragedy.

May one day infant genital mutilation be a thing of the past.

What it's always been about...

I've never been convinced.

Ever since "researchers" came out with the "studies" that circumcision "reduced the risk of HIV," I saw it for what it was. This isn't about "HIV," this isn't about "public health care." This is all about ultimately legitimizing what "doctors" and "scientists" have been trying to legitimize for years; the genital mutilation of healthy, non-consenting infants. They've been trying to do this for over a century, the "disease" that circumcision is supposed to prevent changing every time real science manages to debunk the claims.

Since the first "studies" came out in 2006, "doctors" and "scientists" were already thinking about how they could use the latest "studies" to legitimize, not the circumcision of sexually active adults who are at risk for sexually transmitted HIV, no; the "doctors" and "researchers" were already thinking about how the "science" could be used to push the circumcision of INFANTS. INFANTS, who do not yet have sex and are at absolute zero risk for sexually transmitted HIV. And not infants in Africa, no; people were eager to get circumcision for HIV transmission endorsed here at home for American children.

Well, that hasn't happened just yet, but it looks like pro-circumcision advocates have finally achieved in legitimizing the circumcision of healthy, non-consenting infants under the guise of HIV transmission all the way in Africa. How absolutely disgusting.

What trial? What "studies" were conducted in healthy, non-consenting infants? If I remember correctly, all of the "studies" conducted in Africa were conducted on adult men consenting to undergo the procedure of circumcision. What on EARTH are we doing pushing circumcision on healthy, non-consenting infants? WHY are we doing this? What if we conducted "studies" on consenting women who wanted to part with their labia and clitoral hoods? If "studies" showed a "reduction in HIV transmission" for the women, would we proceed to recommend it in CHILDREN? WHY is our government doing this??? Is it because they've been unsuccessful in getting our AAP to endorse this here at home? Do they somehow think if they could achieve it in Africa, that this would somehow translate back home? According to the CDC, the neonatal circumcision rate in the US has fallen to approx. 33%. Is it their intention to shore that up here at home at the expense of children in Africa?

According to the Swazi Observer, "HARDLY a month after the neonatal circumcision campaign was launched; there have been over 400 circumcised." WHY is there even a neonatal circumcision campaign?
Are children having sex? Are they at any risk for sexually transmitted HIV? WHY are they being denied a choice?

"We have held the press conference on the 30th of June because it is the last day of the children’s month. Therefore, we felt it proper to look back and reflect on what we have done this month towards improving the lives and health of Swazi children during a time when societies are greatly affected by the deaths caused by HIV/AIDS," said Public Services International (PSI) HIV Services Director Jessica Greene.

Improving the lives and health of Swazi children? Once again, ARE CHILDREN DYING OF HIV/AIDS??? AREN'T THEY MORE AT RISK FOR MOTHER-TO-CHILD TRANSMISSION??? WHAT IS GOING ON HERE!!!

"The USAID Director and PEPFAR officer Jennifer Albertini said she was very grateful for the accelerated approach to circumcision in the country and said she was confident that in the long run the benefits of the mass circumcision campaign would be massive in terms of reducing the spread of HIV in the country."

Yes, Albertini. Because children are contributing the most to the HIV transmission rate. It's not the circumcised men, where HIV tranmission was found to be MORE PREVALENT.

"The target is to circumcise 152 000 males after a year and bearing in mind we have already, one is optimistic that we will be able to meet the target," said Albertini.

That's what it's all about isn't it, Albertini, meeting a target...

"Neonatal male circumcision is the removal of the foreskin that covers the tip of the newborn’s penis."

The foreskin IS the tip of the newborn's penis. What a gross representation of basic human anatomy.
 
"NEONATAL circumcision is advantageous because it reduces the risk of negative complications."
 
NO, ANY surgery where it is not needed is an INCREASE in the risk of negative complications.
 
"Early circumcision maximises the benefits of circumcision and becomes very easy to perform. Therefore, providing the most apparent reason why we recommend all parents should take their children for circumcision when while they are still young," said Reid.

What "benefits" is a healthy child in need of? The most apparent reason that Reid recommends parents take their children in for circumcision "while they are still young" is because they would not be so willing to undergo the operation as adults. In other words, Reid is legitimizing deliberate child abuse. Absolutely despicable.

Meanwhile, Mohammed Mahdi from the Elizabeth Glazer Pediatric AIDS Foundation said it was very important that circumcision was included on both prior and post counseling of the mothers. "We are currently panning to introduce circumcision in the counseling offered to mothers before birth so that they are taught about the benefits before they even before they give birth," said Mahdi.

Hrm... what if the children are born with HIV? Shouldn't they be talking to them about preventing mother-to-child transmission FIRST??? Why is THIS priority? Are male children simply already sick in utero? Mohammed Mahdi... sounds like this person may have a personal bias... he would "advise mothers" about the "benefits" of circumcision anyway...

"FOLLOWING some cases on the effects of circumcision, the World Heath Organisation has issued guidelines on how the process should be conducted by all doctors.

This was announced by Dr Dennis Buwembo from JHPIEGO who said some fatal cases and after effects of some fatal cases and operations that had gown wrong had become a cause for concern.
Hence, the main reason the WHO issued the guidelines which stipulate clearly that the process can only be conducted by professionals through local anesthesia."

Are they **** serious. First off, HAS the WHO actually gone ahead and endorsed circumcision as HIV transmission prevention in CHILDREN? And if children are dying, shouldn't they be RECONSIDERING??? This is absolutely infuriating.

The article continues with dispensing of the same old misinformation.

"Advantages of Neonatal Male Circumcision"
Question one; WHY should it be performed in the first place? Aren't we going to hear about the advantages of NOT circumcising? Or is there only one option?

"Faster healing"
WHY is there need for a deliberate wound, PERIOD???

"Less complications if performed by trained health care workers"
This is not always guaranteed. Why should a healthy, non-consenting child be put at risk for ANY complications???

"Lower costs"
There are NO costs in leaving the child alone.

"Neonatal MC maximizes the benefits of circumcision by providing the procedure before the male becomes sexually active"
"Benefits" which are dubious at best. Even if these "benefits" were 100% concrete, how does a child, who is not sexually active benefit? Shouldn't it be up to the child to decide whether he wants this "benefit?" WHY are they circumcising healthy, non-consenting, sexually inactive INFANTS???

"Easy to perform"
"Sunat" is easy to perform too.
"Risks of Neonatal Male Circumcision
Pain after the procedure
Bleeding
Infection
Reaction to the anaesthesia
Swelling of the wound"

Partial or full ablation??? DEATH??? It is mentioned in this very article. Yet, it's not part of this **** list.

WHY???

It is a complete outrage that our country is taking advantage of 3rd world countries this way to push infant genital mutilation. It's enough that doctors take advantage of parental naivete and the defenselessness of children to reap profit from completely unnecessary surgery. Now we're going as far as Africa to push it there as well? This is absolutely despicable. It's morally repugnant. I am outraged that this. THIS is what my tax dollars are being used for. Forget about quackery that doesn't work; we're outright endorsing deliberate child abuse and genital mutilation. Sooner or later this nation is going to pay for raping Africa in the name of "humanitarian aid." Something has got to be done about this.