Another Circumcision Death Comes to Light

I've made many posts regarding circumcision death on this blog. I hate writing them. I wish the genital mutilation of children and the deaths that attend it would stop.

I won't write long; I think I've already written enough circumcision death posts this year. Somehow, I don't think it will be the last.

This case happened back in 2008-2009 and is just now coming to light, which should lead the reader to ask, if this one is only just now surfacing, how many others have been buried and just sort of forgotten?

Basically a boy was circumcised, he lost 40% of his blood which was never replenished. His doctors tried to remain cool and calm about it, saying the boy didn't need a blood transfusion, and that he didn't need to be rushed anywhere. They acted as if the boy's condition wasn't any kind of emergency that needed immediate treatment. The boy suffered cardiac arrest while he was being transfered between hospitals by his parents in their car. In the end, the boy ended up completely brain dead due to the little oxygen reaching his brain.

Asked if they would have done anything differently, his doctors say they wouldn't have changed a thing, and still would have reacted the way they did.

"The boy had a pre-existing condition," it could be said.

"He would have died anyway."

Did the doctors test for any potential danger before having done the procedure? (Without medical or clinical indication, how could they even have elicited parental consent?)

Did the doctors act appropriately following this child's complications?

Had they acted differently, would this child have still been alive?

Did the doctors intentionally try to keep this child's case low-key?

Are the doctors acting in complete denial to save their own skins?

Read the whole story and judge for yourself:

Healthy Newborn Dies Post Circumcision Hemorrhage

Death is a risk for circumcision.

We do not know how big of a risk there is, because doctors and mohels tend to attribute circumcision deaths to something else to protect their trade, and medical organizations like the AAP can't be bothered to collect data that would jeopardize their fellows.

How many deaths due to circumcision are "acceptable," especially given the fact that this is elective, medically unnecessary procedure?

Related Posts:
CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yes, Another One - This Time in Israel

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

CIRCUMCISION: The Silent Killer
  

Circumcision KILLS

CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yes, Another One - This Time in Israel

And the story repeats itself, yet again.

Another baby dies following his circumcision, and, again, circumcision didn't kill him, it was something else.

It's always something else, isn't it.

The men with the knives are never to blame.

Reads the Jewish Press article:

"It was reported by the rabbinate that “since the initial diagnosis, the doctors who treated the baby were convinced that the complication in the baby’s condition was not the result of the circumcision but resulted from a previously existing medical condition."

What could it have been, then? Was there anything done to determine there were any "previously existing medical conditions" prior to the boy's mutilation?

“An investigation revealed that the mohel who performed the circumcision is a veteran, certified mohel,” said the Rabbinate’s statement. “The mohel followed procedure and performed a test on the baby after the rite. Only about half an hour after circumcision did signs of the medical complication in the child began to appear, not related to the circumcision itself. The mohel accompanied the family to the hospital.”

Yes, being a "certified veteran" already puts one beyond suspicion, doesn't it. What is the reason this "veteran" performed the "test" after, not before the procedure?

Read it again:

"Only about half an hour after circumcision did signs of the medical complication in the child began to appear, not related to the circumcision itself."

The deliberate denial in this story is absolutely unbelievable.

"A week ago, at about 11 AM, MDA paramedics were called to a synagogue in Holon, after an infant who had undergone a rite of circumcision there had stopped breathing and lost consciousness, shortly after the ceremony. The rescue crew took him to Wolfson Medical Center. After resuscitation in the hospital shock room, the baby’s condition stabilized."

Yes, I'm sure the fact this child died had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he was submitted to a needless, excruciatingly painful circumcision prior. This sounds awfully familiar to the Amitai Moshe case that happened in England.

"After investigating the circumstances of the case, it was discovered that the circumcision had actually been performed flawlessly..."

Yes, "flawlessly." So "flawlessly" that the child is now dead.

I wonder what constitutes as "flawless." Is that anything like a "flawless" female sunat?

"...and apparently baby choked during feeding.

'The bris had concluded safely and then everyone sat down to eat,” Abraham, a friend of the family, related. 'He was nursing from his mother and then she put him in his cart. At some point we noticed that the child was not responding and had turned blue.'"

Got that? It was the mother's fault. She should have known better than to feed him.

It is simply beyond belief the way the painfully obvious is ignored here to protect tradition and evade responsibility.

This wasn't the first time this has happened, and, until people have the honesty and integrity to call a spade a spade, it won't be the last.

In the UK, another boy, Amitai Moshe, goes into cardiac arrest immediately after his bris. The verdict of his inquest a few years later? Amitai Moshe died of "natural causes," and the fact that he started having breathing problems and started bleeding through his nose and mouth had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he was ritually circumcised just minutes before.

Read the shameless story here.

(Read Jewish Press article on the current incident in Israel here.)

Related Posts:

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

CIRCUMCISION: The Silent Killer
 

Circumcision KILLS

CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies

Intactivism: It's Not Just for Gentiles Anymore

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?

Mohels Spreading Herpes: New York Looks the Other Way

In a recent post, I talk about the second reported case, where a child dies as a result of contracting herpes from a mohel through an obscure circumcision ritual that is practiced only by ultra-orthodox Jews. The ritual in question is called "metzitzah b'peh", and it involves the mohel putting his mouth on the wounded genitals of a newly circumcised Jewish baby boy to suck blood from it.

Well, as I read more and more into it, the plot just keeps getting thicker and thicker.

The last time I heard, Yitzchok Fischer of New York was found to have infected three newborns with herpes via metzitzah b'peh, one of whom died. He was basically pardoned by Health Commissioner of the day, Thomas R. Frieden, and no further action was to be done regarding getting Orthodox leaders to abandon metzitzah b'peh. Frieden's open letter to the Jewish community can be read here.

To prevent the transmission of herpes to other babies, the New York State Department of Health adopted a medical protocol in 2006, requiring ultra-orthodox mohels to wash their mouths with Listerine before performing the procedure.

Well, according to another recent report, the practice was rescinded less than a year later. According to The Jewish Week, Fischer was involved in the infection of yet *another* infant, who was admitted to a hospital with clinical diagnosis of neonatal herpes via oral suction in May, 2007. Based on that, the health department ordered Fischer to stop practicing metzitzah b’peh.

In my last post regarding this matter, I wondered as to the identity of the mohel responsible, and why it was not yet known. Authorities were investigating and the families involved weren't being to forthcoming as to the identity of the person responsible. I wondered if it was this self-same Fischer person whose identity people were trying to protect. Well, it looks like might have actually had reason to suspect. Apparently, despite his order from the health department to stop practicing the obscure oral suction ritual, Fischer is still performing it.

Only Two Out of Many
As I read more, I come to find out that while only these two cases have made the news, Haaretz reports that countless other deaths have not. And these are just the deaths; reports keep coming in of babies being admitted to hospitals for herpes infections with lesions around their genitals. You want to know why you hardly hear of complications due to circumcision? Well, this is why.

What is frustrating is that despite all the evidence piling up, mohels like Philip Sherman have the nerve to act singled out and "upset" that health authorities are doing their jobs.

"This is part of the anti-religious, anti-circumcision trend," Sherman blasts. 

"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."

How long are practitioners of a deadly ritual going to be allowed to get away with denial?

All I've got to say is, the degree to which New York authorities are tip-toeing around the eggshells is getting to be quite ridiculous.

Children are DYING, and they're more concerned about "upsetting" the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community?

How long until they realize that this "tradition" is costing children their LIVES?

Sometimes traditions have to be abandoned.

This is a tradition whose time has come.

May one day this world be a safe place for children of both sexes, free of life-endangering "traditions."

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

A two-week old baby boy died in a Brooklyn hospital, his official cause of death pronounced as "disseminated herpes simplex virus Type 1, complicating ritual circumcision with oral suction."

The Jewish tradition of circumcision, particularly an obscure tradition practiced by only the most ultra-orthodox Jews, is to blame. The tradition in question, known in Hebrew as "metzitzah b'peh", involves the ritual circumciser putting his mouth on the wounded genitals of a newly circumcised Jewish baby boy to suck blood from it.

 Mohel Performing Metzitzah B'Peh on Baby

The cause of death clearly indicts the tradition in question, but this finding has made rabbis and mohels that perform it, according to KTLA, "upset."

According to one mohel Philip Sherman (who also happens to toot his own horn in New York, and LOUDLY), "Across the board, the infection rate for circumcisions is less than one half of one percent." Where does he get these figures? Who is taking count?

"This is part of the anti-religious, anti-circumcision trend," Sherman blasts.

This could be it.

Maybe.

Or maybe, just MAYBE it might have just a tiny, teensy-weensy bit to do with the rights of the children involved?

You know, some of whom actually lose more than just their foreskin, if not DIE???

Mohels in Denial
In my encounters on the internet, I often hear people boast about how mishaps never happen with Jewish mohels. Jewish mohels, some advocates argue, are the most qualified people to be performing circumcisions, because they "do this for a living."

Strangely enough, when mishaps like glans ablations (in recent years there have been a few law suits involving glans ablations at the hands of mohels) or even DEATHS happen, the mohel, nor the circumcision are EVER to blame. There's always something wrong with the child, or some outside influence was to blame. There was something wrong with the clamp. The child had a bad heart. He was struck by lighting. Whatever it takes to draw attention away from the fact that the child was doing perfectly well prior to the circumcision.

Defends circumciser Sherman: "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."

Or the baby might have gotten it directly from the mohel who may have carried the virus?

But sources won't say. At least two sources say that the mohel in question cannot be identified. (Here and here.)

Why not find the mohel and test him for herpes?

We've Seen This Before
This wouldn't be the first time that a child has died as a result of contracting herpes from the mohel through the oral suction ritual. In 2005, Yitzchok Fischer of New York was found to have infected three newborns with herpes via metzitzah b'peh, one of whom died. As in this current case, rabbis and mohels raised a ruckus, and Fischer was basically pardoned by Health Commissioner of the day, Thomas R. Frieden. No further action was to be done regarding getting Orthodox leaders to abandon metzitzah b'peh. Frieden's open letter to the Jewish community can be read here.

Who is this mystery mohel? Could it be the self-same Yitzchok Fischer and his name is shamelessly being withheld to protect his identity?

Why?
Why is it that parents go to jail if they try to circumcise their own children, but when a mohel kills a child, rabbis and mohels get "upset" and they automatically get a get-out-of-jail-free card? Is it because doing something about stopping further child endangerment is considered "anti-Semitic" when the perpetrators are Jewish?

"Across the board, the infection rate for circumcisions is less than one half of one percent," argues Philip Sherman. But is this any real justification?

There is a risk for infection, period. There are other risks too, such as partial or full ablation, and even death, as we see here. Because the child is healthy and not in need of any surgical intervention, how is anything above ZERO conscionable?

This is absolutely revolting. If the sex of the baby were female, the most devout imam would be arrested and jailed, and it wouldn't matter if it made other imams or Muslim leaders "upset."

It is absolutely despicable, absolutely disgusting that anybody would ever seek to justify this "tradition." This so-called "tradition" has already produced two reported deaths (and possibly more that have gone unreported), and religious leaders get "upset" that anyone dare call it out?

Can't we just call this "tradition" what it is?

Glorified sado-masochistic child fellatio?

Let It Be Clear
Circumcision carries risks, including infection, partial or full ablation, and even death. The risks are present whether it be carried out by a secular non-Jewish doctor or a mohel. Because it is performed on children who are healthy and not in need of any surgical intervention, the risks are unconscionable.

How many deaths and circumcision botches will it take for people to wake up?

DISCLAIMER:
What I've expressed in this blog is my own individual opinion, and it does not necessarily reflect the view of all intactivists. Please do not confuse my disdain for the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors with a hate for Jews. The overwhelming majority of circumcisions in this country are secular, non-Jewish circumcisions that happen at hospitals. I oppose the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors whether it be carried out by mohels or by secular doctors. Genital mutilation, whither it be wrapped in culture, religion or “research” is, in the end, still genital mutilation. ~Joseph4GI

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.