MEXICO: Male cutting officially discouraged

Pediatria Jovel April 7, 2016
Mexico discourages infant male genital cutting	México desalienta la mutilación genital masculina infantil
Today April 7, 2016,  Mexico adopted the official standard for the care of women during pregnancy, childbirth and around it, and the newborn person.	El día de hoy 7 de abril de 2016, se aprobó en México la norma oficial para la atención de la mujer durante el embarazo, parto y puerperio y de la persona recién nacida.
This law fixed, in a nutshell, the minimum criteria for care during pregnancy, childbirth and puerperium of the woman and her baby; which will be of obligatory observance a day after its publication (from April 8, 2016) in all Mexico for all the public and private facilities that provide care to pregnant women and their babies before and after birth.	Esta ley fija, en pocas palabras, los criterios mínimos para la atención durante el embarazo, parto y puerperio de la mujer y su bebé; la cual será de observancia obligatoria un día después de su publicación (a partir del 8 de abril de 2016) en todo México para todos los establecimientos públicos y privados que brindan atención a mujeres embarazadas y sus bebés antes y después del nacimiento.
5.7.13 "avoid circumcision as a routine practice, since there is no scientific evidence proving a direct benefit to the newborn person".	5.7.13 "Evitar como práctica rutinaria la circuncisión, toda vez que no existe evidencia científica que compruebe un beneficio directo a la persona recién nacida"

MEXICO: Students cut baby penis as "umbilical cord"

Stuff (New Zealand)

July 18, 2015

Medical students chop off baby's penis by accident

A newborn's penis has reportedly been mistaken for his umbilical cord.

Medical students have reportedly mistaken a newborn's penis for his umbilical cord and chopped it off.

The undergraduates made the shocking blunder in the delivery room in the City of Saltillo in the state of Coahuila, north-eastern Mexico, The Sun reported, and then tried to hide the boy from his parents.

The child's father Diego Rangel Izaguirre grew suspicious when he was denied access to his son for more than two hours after his birth. He was told that his son had suffered a minor injury and would need surgery.

"When my child was born and they cut his umbilical cord they injured his penis.

"And unfortunately when the surgeon started sewing it, he made other two new injuries, almost two centimetres deep."

The baby's mother, Zulem Contreras, said: "This shouldn't have happened, they should have assigned a gynaecologist to take care of him, not students."

The couple have made an official complaint but hospital officials claim the newborn is healthy and that the operation was both minor and the baby's parents gave their consent.

"According to the information available at the moment, during the labour, when cutting the umbilical cord, incidentally the foreskin was injured and was corrected with the usual procedure of circumcision to the minor," the Mexican Institute of Social Security said.

[Circumcision does not of course "correct" an injury to the foreskin, but causes one.]

BRAZIL, MEXICO, USA: Circumcision does not protect against HPV

They tortured the data, but it wouldn't confess.


February 12, 2014

Circumcision does not protect against HPV

But it may slow the clearance of a cancer-causing HPV strain
by Morten Frisch
[A] New well-designed cohort study from Brazil, Mexico and the United States with more than 4000 participants pulls one of the American Academy of Pediatrics' (AAP) most promoted health claims apart. Overall, during follow-up there was no difference in rates of new HPV infections between circumcised and intact men in the study.

HPV is the group of sexually transmitted agents (human papillomaviruses) that cause both anogenital warts (aka condyloma) and neoplastic lesions and cancers of both male and female genitalia, the anus and the tonsils.

Two types of HPV, known as HPV6 and HPV16, are responsible for the majority of all HPV-associated lesions, including genital warts (HPV6) and cancers (HPV16). While the overall findings of this study were negative, meaning that it found no overall differences between circumcised and intact men, among the few type-specific differences that were actually found, was a significantly reduced ability among circumcised men to clear their newly acquired HPV6 and HPV16 infections. This is particularly worrisome, because it is well-established that persistent HPV16 infection is the initial step on the path from HPV acquisition to cancer.

With this study, one of Brian J. Morris' and the AAP's most cherished arguments in favor of circumcision falls apart. Notably in industrialized parts of the world where the burden of heterosexually acquired HIV/AIDS - the main health problem circumcision is postulated to reduce - is low.

The paper must be even more disturbing to the pro-circumcision lobby, because two of its authors, Xavier Castellsague and Francois Xavier Bosch, are prominent co-authors of several prior papers suggesting a protective effect of circumcision against HPV infection, including the 2002 landmark study in the acclaimed New England Journal of Medicine [Rebutted on this site.], whose findings are now seriously undermined by their new and methodologically stronger study.
It seems there may soon be one pro-circumcision myth less to fight.