Showing posts with label Canada. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Canada. Show all posts

Saturday, November 21, 2015

TORONTO: Cutting unwanted, baby dies, doctor cautioned

National Post (Canada)
October 25, 2015

Ontario newborn bleeds to death after family doctor persuades parents to get him circumcised

by Tom Blackwell
TORONTO — An Ontario doctor has been cautioned after a 22-day-old baby bled to death from a circumcision gone horribly wrong, underscoring the heated debate over a simple yet contentious procedure.

Another physician involved in the case was urged by a medical governing body to be “mindful” of the operation’s dangers.

But Ryan Heydari’s parents say the regulators who handled their complaints have shed little light on what led to Ryan’s death – or how to prevent similar tragedies in future.

Ryan Heydari - dead from genital cutting
Ryan Heydari

They say they did not even want the newborn circumcised — a view in line with longstanding recommendations from the Canadian Pediatric Society — but were persuaded to do so by a family physician.

In fact, the case only became public because the couple appealed the original Ontario College of Physician and Surgeons rulings, which were rendered in secret.

An appeal tribunal upheld this month a decision by the College to caution the doctor who saw Ryan in the emergency department hours after his circumcision, his diaper stained red with blood.

The Health Professions Appeal and Review Board also confirmed the college’s separate advice to the pediatrician who conducted the procedure to be aware of its potential hazards, and document his efforts to get informed consent.

The pediatric society said in a recent report that death from bleeding caused by circumcision is “extremely rare,” though it’s not completely unheard of. A five-week-old B.C. baby bled to death after being circumcised in 2003.

Ahmadi gave birth on Jan. 3, 2013 to a boy who loved attention, cried relatively little and seemed to actually smile. “He gave us the most amazing moments of our life,” says Ryan’s mother.

She and husband John Heydari, who immigrated from Iran about 12 years ago, opposed having him circumcised, convinced that “mother nature created us the way she intended us to be.”

But their family physician persuaded them it was a good idea for medical reasons, despite contrary advice from pediatric specialists.

Once carried out on most Canadian boys and still common as a religious rite for Jews and Muslims, circumcision has generally fallen in popularity, rates hovering around 32 per cent.

The pediatric society has long held that its risks – including pain to a small baby, bleeding and the chance of disfigurement of the penis – outweigh its benefits.

The group revisited the issue with a report just last month that addressed growing evidence circumcision helps prevent sexually transmitted disease, acting almost like a vaccine in countries with high rates of HIV. ["Almost like a vaccine"? Only one person says that.

Circumcised boys [who survive] are also less likely to suffer urinary-tract infections and to develop rare penile cancer later in life, the society says.

But its report still recommended against routine circumcision of every newborn male, saying that it may make sense in certain cases. For those who have the procedure, “close follow-up in the early post-circumcision time period is critical,” the society warns.

One urologist says he has encountered a few cases where circumcised babies had to undergo transfusions because of dangerous bleeding, and sees less-serious complications routinely.

Dr. Jorge DeMaria of Hamilton’s McMaster University believes regulators should require doctors to prove they have undergone proper training before doing circumcisions. He also questions circumcising newborns for preventive-health reasons, in a country with low levels of HIV and wide availability of condoms.

Ahmadi says she and her husband knew almost immediately after their son’s procedure that something was seriously wrong.

The previously unfussy baby “was crying so much, so hard, and he wouldn’t stop,” she recalled in written answers to questions. “He was bleeding, and it only got worse over just hours … It was so obvious from the blood his tiny body had lost that he was in danger.”

The pediatrician who did the circumcision told the College he conducts many of them, that Ryan’s was uneventful and there was no bleeding when he checked the dressing before the family left.

The parents called about bleeding later that day, though, and he advised them to take Ryan to Toronto’s North York General Hospital, which they did.

“We … waited for care that could have saved his life, but that level of care never came,” says Ahmadi.

A sparse outline in the board’s decision says Ryan was eventually transferred to Sick Kids hospital, but died there seven days later. Pathologists said he succumbed to “hypovolemic shock” caused by bleeding from the circumcision, which emptied his body of 35 to 40 per cent of its blood.

The doctor at North York General — whose name has been withheld according to College policy — was cautioned for failing to recognize the seriousness of the boy’s condition or treating “compensated shock” – the first stage of the condition.

But the process left the family little further ahead in fathoming how Ryan could have died, said Brian Moher, their lawyer.

“My clients felt that there was a big gap in what the College had done with the investigations, essentially missing the point around the infant’s death.”

The devastated parents, meanwhile, have not had other children.

“The loss of Ryan, our only child, has made us realize that we can’t possess anything, even our hopes and dreams,” Ahmadi says. “We hope that this never happens to any other baby.”

VICTORIA B.C.: Human Rights group criticises CPS policy

Children's Health and Human Rights Partnership (CHHRP)
September 9, 2015

Canadian Children's Rights Group Questions New Circumcision Policy

VICTORIA, BRITISH COLUMBIA-- A just released policy on infant male circumcision by the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) was judged today by the Children's Health & Human Rights Partnership (CHHRP) to be a step in the right direction, but was "nevertheless 'predictably inadequate' with respect to several specific issues."

CHHRP Medical Director Dr. Christopher Guest, MD, FRCPC, said the new policy is consistent with international paediatric associations that affirm infant boys should not have their healthy foreskins routinely removed.

Citing the position of the CPS that recognizes the unique sensory functions of the male foreskin, Dr. Guest asserted that, "A growing number of medical associations now recognize that an intact penis with a foreskin contributes to sexual pleasure for the male and his partner." According to Guest, in 2010 the Royal Dutch Medical Association concluded, "the foreskin is a complex erotogenic structure that plays an important role in the mechanical function of the penis during sexual acts."

"Circumcision alters the structure of the penis, which inevitably alters function. Long term harm to men from infant circumcision has never been studied" Guest said. Despite this, Guest says men are reporting long-term adverse consequences at the Canadian-based online Global Survey of Circumcision Harm. Although the CPS failed to include it, Guest says scientific evidence has emerged that supports these men's claims. In 2011, Dr. Morton Frisch published findings in the International Journal of Epidemiology showing that in Denmark, where circumcision is rare, 'circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in their female partners, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia [difficult or painful sexual intercourse] and a sense of incomplete needs fulfilment.'

Guest faulted the CPS for inclusion of  "convenient untruths, "most notably a discussion of HIV being lower in circumcised men. He says such claims are based on methodologically weak African trials, which contradict global HIV trends, for example the United States, which has a high circumcision rate, yet a significantly higher rate of HIV infection than Sweden and Japan where circumcision is rare. "Even if the African trials were scientifically valid, they cannot be used to justify infant circumcision because infants are not sexually active persons," he said. "Soap and water and safer sex practices, including condoms, can prevent disease."

According to Guest, the CPS failed to include crucial information from a 2012 report by the International NGO Council on Violence Against Children, which CHHRP sent to the CPS in 2014. The report stated that "non-consensual, non-therapeutic circumcision of boys, whatever the circumstances, constitutes a gross violation of their rights, including the right to physical integrity, to freedom of thought and religion and to protection from physical and mental violence."

"Medical associations in the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany, and others confirm that there is no justification for circumcising infants in the absence of medical urgency," Guest stated. "The CPS is out of step with those medical associations, who also urge an end to the practice due to ethical and human rights concerns."

Although the CPS concluded that routine infant circumcision is not recommended, and that the benefits of the surgery do not outweigh the risks (contrary to a 2012 claim by the American Academy of Pediatrics), Guest contends that the position statement is still insufficient due to its ambiguity in leaving the decision up to parents. "Parents are not physicians. They do not have the medical knowledge to decide if surgery is medically indicated for their child," Guest asserted. He went on to say that, "Leaving a decision about medically unnecessary surgery up to parents is an ethical failure on the CPS' part. Where else in medicine do physicians place this burden on parents, in order to obviate their own professional responsibility?"

"Preservation of bodily integrity is a basic and universal human right that the CPS must articulate clearly in future statements," Guest said. "We Canadians, as well as our institutions and government, have an obligation to protect that right for all citizens, regardless of gender or age."

The Children's Health & Human Rights Partnership was established in 2012 as a partnership of professionals in the fields of medicine, ethics, and law to further public education regarding non-therapeutic genital surgery on Canadian children.


Earlier story

OTTAWA: Canadian Paediatric Society does not recommend "routine circumcision"

CTV News
September 8, 2015

Canadian Paediatric Society re-affirms position against routine circumcision

The Canadian Paediatric Society has released an updated statement re-affirming its position against routine circumcision for newborn males.

The society said recent evidence about the potential health benefits associated with circumcision prompted them to undergo a review of the current medical research. Its last position statement on the matter was published in 1996.

While medical literature has pointed to potential health benefits of circumcision, including the prevention of urinary tract infections and some sexually transmitted infections, the benefits generally don't outweigh the risks, the society said.

"While there may be a benefit for some boys in high risk populations and the procedure could be considered as a treatment or to reduce disease, in most cases, the benefits of circumcision do not outweigh the risks," Dr. Thierry Lacaze, chair of the CPS Fetus and Newborn Committee, said in a separate statement released Tuesday.

The updated statement also included the following recommendations:
Parents of newborn males must receive the most up-to-date, unbiased and personalized medical information about circumcision, so they can weigh the risks and benefits in the context of their own familial, religious and cultural beliefs;
Parents who opt for circumcision should be referred to a practitioner who is trained in the procedure, and whose skills are up to date;
Newborns who are circumcised should be followed-up in the early post-surgery time period;
At the time of discharge from the hospital, parents should understand how to properly care for their son's penis, and be aware of possible complications.
Circumcision has become a contentious issue in Canada, as it raises ethical and legal considerations, in part "because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent," the statement said.

However, waiting until a child is old enough to give consent can increase risks, as doctors [which doctors?]  recommend the surgery be performed within the first week of life. [When he can afford to lose only 35ml of blood, and will not alert anyone that he is bleeding out.]

While circumcision used to be quite popular in Canada starting in the 1950s, rates have declined over the past decades to the current average of 32 per cent, CPS said.

To the original press release
Excerpts from the
Canadian Pediatric Society
POSITION STATEMENT

Newborn male circumcision
Posted: Sep 8 2015
Abstract
The circumcision of newborn males in Canada has become a less frequent practice over the past few decades. This change has been significantly influenced by past recommendations from the Canadian Paediatric Society and the American Academy of Pediatrics, who both affirmed that the procedure was not medically indicated. Recent evidence suggesting the potential benefit of circumcision in preventing urinary tract infection and some sexually transmitted infections, including HIV, has prompted the Canadian Paediatric Society to review the current medical literature in this regard. While there may be a benefit for some boys in high-risk populations and circumstances where the procedure could be considered for disease reduction or treatment, the Canadian Paediatric Society does not recommend the routine circumcision of every newborn male.
The foreskin ...
In the male newborn, the mucosal surfaces of the inner foreskin and glans penis adhere to one another; the foreskin is not redundant skin. The foreskin gradually separates from the glans during childhood. By six years of age, 50% of boys can retract their foreskins, although the process of separation may not be complete until puberty: 95% of boys have retractile foreskin by 17 years of age. Parents may be reassured by their observation of an unimpaired urinary stream in a boy with a nonretracted foreskin. Until this developmental process is complete, the best descriptor to use is ‘nonretractile foreskin’ rather than the confusing and perhaps erroneous term ‘physiologic phimosis’.
Appropriate care for the uncircumcised penis has been well reviewed and should include anticipatory guidance on hygiene and an understanding of the normal nonretractile foreskin. ...
Ethics and legalities of circumcision
Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. [This is new.] Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best interests. [But only when a decision needs to be made. In most of the developed world, genital cutting is not even considered.] Yet the authority of substitute decision makers is not absolute. In most jurisdictions, authority is limited only to interventions deemed to be medically necessary. In cases in which medical necessity is not established or a proposed treatment is based on personal preference, interventions should be deferred until the individual concerned is able to make their own choices.

[This is a very wishywashy policy:
  • It nowhere actually recommends against cutting healthy babies, and sets a very low bar for "medical necessity", barely higher than parental whim.
  • The summary seems to have been written by cutting advocates, with the benefits played up and the risks and harms played down.
  • One of the  three "selected resources" is by cutting fanatic Professor Brian Morris.
  • The table of risks and benefits mentions "unsatisfactory cosmetic results" but offers no figure for their frequency.
  • The cited articles seem largely cherrypicked from the  works of other cutting advocates.
A plus is the emphasis on the normality of infant non-retractility, and the suggested expression " ‘nonretractile foreskin’ rather than the confusing and perhaps erroneous term ‘physiologic phimosis’." But a warning against premature retraction is only hinted at, when it should be explicit and strong, since that is a major cause of the "infections" which commonly make genital cutting "necessary". ]

Sunday, May 18, 2014

TORONTO: Complaint against doctor who sucks baby blood

May 12, 2014

Complaint against doctor who sucks baby blood (through a tube)

by Hugh Young
A doctors' disciplinary body in Toronto is considering a complaint against a doctor who performs circumcision using oral suction (metzitzah) to remove blood from the wound.

Dr Aaron Jesin practises as both a doctor and a mohel. He says he does not suck the wound directly (metzitzah b'peh), but through a glass tube.

A Toronto resident brought a complaint to the College of Physicians and Surgeons Ontario, (CPSO) alleging a dangerous lack of antisepsis and unnecessary blood loss.

The College dismissed the complaint, but the complainant appealed against the dismissal to the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, (HPARB).

About 12 demonstrators supported the complaint outside the hearing. One had a lifelike doll in a circumstraint™ with clamps on its penis.

The Chair began by ruling out any discussion of the merits or demerits of circumcision, nor any use of the Canadian Charter of Rights, saying only the victim could use the Charter. He specifically said the rule had been changed because of the Baby Y death case. [Catch 22! You can't use the Charter unless you're dead....]

(Baby Y died in Ontario days after his urethra was blocked by a Plastibell™. Neither the College of Physicians and Surgeons nor the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board found any fault with the doctors involved.)

Canada and Ontario both have case law that suggests the Charter is so fundamental it can be raised in any setting, but this body somehow exempted itself.

The complainant was represented by John Geisheker, attorney for Doctors Opposing Circumcision (DOC). He was interrupted when he tried to discuss the lack of any regulation of circumcision. Instead he relied on the CPSO's admission that it had not investigated Dr Jesin's claim that he "does not do direct oral suction".

The Board Chair asked what the investigation should have entailed. Mr Geisheker replied, “Perhaps observing Dr Jesin at a circumcision, or inquiring from his staff would have been a better method than just reading his explanatory letters.”

He said Public Health Canada has published best practices in perinatology [health of young babies], and that the practice of metzitzah - even modified by use of a 10cc syringe, 3 inches (7.5 cm) long - still poses a health risk that would certainly violate PHC standards.

"How could one get only 3in or 7.5cm away from a child’s open wound, with a bare face, and not risk wound contamination by hair, dander [dandruff], sputum [saliva], etc.?" Mr Geisheker asked. Also at issue is whether Dr Jesin is regulated by the CPSO when he is acting as a Mohel. The complaint argues that he is.

The Board is considering its decision, which could involve sending the case back to the College for further investigation.

Mr Geisheker, from Seattle, took the case pro bono (free) supported by donations raised by Toronto Circumcision Resources

Saturday, January 11, 2014

MONTREAL: 80-botch-compallint doctor still booking circumcisions

The Gazette (Montreal)
January 6, 2014

Doctor barred from performing circumcisions still booking appointments

by Aaron Derfel
MONTREAL - A Montreal family doctor who has been barred temporarily from performing circumcisions is still allowing parents to book the procedure for their infant boys at his downtown clinic, The Gazette has learned.

On Dec. 24, the Quebec College of Physicians’ disciplinary tribunal restricted the medical licence of Dr. Raymond Rezaie pending a final ruling on his case in the coming months. Rezaie, 51, who obtained his medical degree in the Dominican Republic in 1992, is accused of botching dozens of circumcisions on baby boys since 2010. Many of the infants have had to undergo corrective surgery.

Although Rezaie is presumed to be innocent of the disciplinary charges against him, the tribunal nonetheless took the extraordinary step of barring him from carrying out circumcisions until a final ruling is rendered, given that he had referred 87 patients to Ste-Justine Hospital following medical complications.

Despite the restriction on his licence, two parents who contacted his clinic since Dec. 24 were advised that he is still performing circumcisions, said a West Island physician who spoke on condition that his name not be published for fear of professional reprisals.

“This is not right,” the physician said. “When the parents found out he can’t do the circumcisions, they were very upset.”

A Gazette reporter seeking to schedule an appointment for an infant circumcision contacted Rezaie’s Clinique Médicale Alpha on Guy St. on Monday. The receptionist who answered the phone did not disclose that Rezaie’s medical licence is restricted or that he is not carrying out circumcisions at the moment, but said he was fully booked for a number of weeks.

The receptionist then asked for the age of the infant.

“What I can do is put you on the waiting list, and like this, maybe in one month or two months he will call you,” Rezaie’s receptionist said. “Is that okay for you?”

The Quebec College of Physicians is now investigating whether Rezaie might have violated the terms of his restricted licence, a spokesperson said.

“If he is giving appointments in a month’s time, this is very surprising because his licence will stay restricted for several months” until the outcome of his case, said Leslie Labranche.

She added that it is also Rezaie’s obligation to inform all the employees at his clinic, including his receptionist, of the fact that his medical licence has been restricted.

“One can’t say it’s the fault of the receptionist or that someone wasn’t aware of the restriction,” Labranche explained. “It’s very much the responsibility of the physician to inform everyone in his clinic of the limits of his practice.”

Another receptionist who answered Rezaie’s phone at his clinic Monday afternoon hung up on a reporter who asked to speak to him. Rezaie was unavailable for comment at his Côte-St-Luc home.

In his initial defence before the disciplinary board, Rezaie’s lawyer noted that he had performed a total of 6,000 circumcisions in his career after training for 40 hours under the supervision of a physician in British Columbia.

However, the disciplinary tribunal ruled that “80 cases (of botched circumcisions) is a staggering number that cannot be dismissed out of hand.”

Thursday, December 12, 2013

QUEBEC: Doctor who botched 30 circumcisions "studied best methods"

CBC News
December 11, 2013

Quebec doctor accused of botching circumcisions

by
A Quebec doctor could be prohibited from performing circumcisions after Quebec's Collège des Médecins received a complaint that he'd performed more than 30 procedures resulting in complications that required further surgery to fix.

Dr. Raymond Rezaie will have a hearing before the college’s disciplinary council, after its investigative unit documented 30 cases in which boys who underwent circumcisions performed by the doctor required further corrective treatment under general anesthetic at Montreal's Sainte-Justine Hospital.

In one additional case noted in the complaint, a boy underwent corrective surgery at the Montreal Children's Hospital.

It is alleged that the doctor performed in an “inadequate and inappropriate way, a surgical circumcision under local anesthesia on a child.”

The disciplinary council has not yet set a date to hear the complaint, but earlier this week, internal investigators asked the college to ban Rezaie from performing circumcisions until a hearing can be held.

The disciplinary council is expected to make a decision on that request before the end of December.
Rezaie is a family doctor who began practising in Quebec in 2006.

On his website, Rezaie says he travelled across Canada researching the best infant-circumcision techniques by experienced doctors.

“Furthermore, he developed his own approaches to these surgeries, combining the most effective elements of what he learned,” the site reads.

According to the website, the doctor performs circumcisions at four clinics in the Montreal area.

...

A decision on the doctor’s conduct could take months.

Sunday, July 14, 2013

SASKATCHEWAN: Doctors unwilling to circumcise

CTV News (Regina, Saskatchewan)
July 13, 2013

It's hard to find a doctor willing to circumcise


by Dale Hunter

In Regina Saskatchewan, fewer and fewer doctors are willing to circumcise a healthy baby.

Watch video

Saturday, March 16, 2013

VANCOUVER: Doctors should revisit circumcision policy

Vancouver Sun
March 13, 2013

Pediatricians should revisit their circumcision policy


by Christopher L. Guest Co-Founder, Children's Health and Human Rights Partnership

Re: Pediatricians update circumcision policy; new statement from Canadian doctors offers parents a more neutral position on loaded issue, March 4

Most physicians are sadly ignorant of the sexual and mechanical function of the human prepuce.

The prepuce is richly innervated, erogenous tissue, containing thousands of sensory neuroreceptors such as Meissner's corpuscles. Many of the most sensitive regions of the penis are located along the inner prepuce and are needlessly amputated by circumcision.

The prepuce also acts as a linear bearing mechanism, providing a unique gliding motion during sexual intercourse.

Removing healthy, functional genital tissue from powerless infants is medically unethical and Canadian physicians should refuse to participate in this disgraceful practice. Parental preferences and cultural traditions should never trump contemporary medical ethics and the fundamental human right to bodily integrity.

When will the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) recognize that the boy is the patient, not the parents? Let him decide for himself, when he is older, and able to consent.

Friday, July 13, 2012

CANADA: Live chat on circumcision ethics

canada.com
July 14, 2012

Live Chat: The legal and ethical debate over male circumcision


Mogen Clamp
Tools used in circumcision. Is circumcision a violation of the rights of an individual (a baby) who cannot consent, or is it a religious freedom that must be protected? Have your say in our live chat.
[The central instrument is a Mogen Clamp, which has caused three botches so bad the lawsuits drove the Mogen Company out of business in 2010]
Photograph by: Aaron Lynett/National Post

A recent ban by a court in Cologne, Germany on the circumcision of boys for religious reasons has touched off a new debate on the subject. Opponents of the ban say it sets a dangerous precedent for what they feel are attacks on religious freedom. Some who support the ban say male circumcision is as dangerous and barbaric as female circumcision. Complicating matters is the fact that there are doctors on both sides of the issue who say their side is right. What do you think? Is the circumcision of baby boys a violation of personal rights or the upholding of religious freedom? What are the legal ramifications of the recent German ban? To find out more and have your say, join our live chat with Ronald Goldman, executive director of the Circumcision Resource Center in Boston, Dr. Margaret Somerville, founding director of the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law in Montreal, and Dr. Tanvir Hussain, a cardiologist and adjunct professor of bioethics at the Pepperdine University School of Law in Malibu, California. Be a part of the discussion, Friday at 2 p.m. ET.

MONTREAL: Study of natural infant phimosis and UTIs spun to promote circumcision


And therefore Carthage must be destroyed

The Canadian Press
July 10, 2012

Doctor urges circumcision as urinary tract infection preventative

[Nowhere in the article does any doctor urge any such thing.] By Sheryl Ubelacker
 
Urinary tract infections are far more common in uncircumcised boys than in their circumcised counterparts, but whether their foreskin is tight or more retractable makes no difference in how prone they are to becoming infected, a study suggests.

Data has shown that uncircumcised boys have a 10-fold higher risk of getting a urinary tract infection, compared to those who have had their foreskins removed.
[The "10-fold" figure seems to come from Wiswell, whose research is distinctly dubious. A meta-analysis of studies - including Wiswell's - found that it would take 111 circumcisions to prevent one UTI.]

Some previous research has suggested that the increased risk might not be related only to a boy being uncircumcised, but also to whether his foreskin is tight or more retractable. A new study, led by Montreal's Dr. Sasha Dubrovsky, set out to find out if there is any correlation.

The study found the risk of getting a urinary tract infection was pretty much equal among uncircumcised boys, no matter the state of their foreskin, said Dubrovsky, a pediatrician at Montreal Children's Hospital.
[From the study: "Of the 393 boys included in the analysis, 40 were uncircumcised with a completely visible meatus, 269 had a partially (106) or nonvisible (163) meatus, and 84 were circumcised." That's 21.4% circumcised in this convenience sample, 6.6 times as high as the circumcision rate in Quebec; 3.2% in 2003 and trending down, according to Régie de l'assurance-maladie du Québec. Their sampling method enhances this effect: if anything, non-circumcised boys would be more likely to be referred for testing than circumcised boys.

Singh-Grewal et al found it would take 111 circumcisions to prevent one UTI.

Dubrovsky found that 4.8% of circumcised boys in his sample had positive urine culture compared to 25% of intact boys. This does not translate into a real-world comparison because of all the convenience sampling, but if it did, that would reduce the much-touted 10-fold reduction of UTIs to a 5.2-fold reduction, and presumably double the Number Needed to Treat.]

"So whether they had a tight foreskin or not a tight foreskin, it didn't change that risk."
[Which casts more doubt on the hypothesis that circumcision prevents UTIs.]

The issue is of particular importance for doctors when diagnosing children brought to the emergency department with symptoms of a possible UTI, one of the most common and serious bacterial infections in children, say the authors, whose study was published Monday in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
"The interesting part of the article is that many of us were under the misconception that it was the covered penis, and primarily the urethra, that was responsible for infant males' urinary tract infections," said Dr. Martin Koyle, a pediatric urologist at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children.

"And we thought that once the foreskin retracted, that risk was no longer there. This article seems to refute that."
[It actually seems to refute that circumcision has anything to do with UTIs.]
If left untreated, UTIs can cause a potentially fatal infection of the blood; repeated untreated infections over time can leave the kidneys scarred, potentially leading to renal failure in adulthood. [Shroud-waving. So don't leave them untreated!]

When young children are brought to the ER with persistent fever, doctors must consider whether they are dealing with a cold or other virus that will likely run its course or a potentially serious bacterial infection requiring treatment, Dubrovsky said from Montreal.

"And nowadays, in the postvaccine era, the most common serious bacterial infection is the urinary tract infection," he said. "So we'd like to have some methods of figuring out who is that high-risk kid when we're seeing them."

There are a number of guidelines on how to stratify the risk, among them circumcision status, Dubrovsky said. "Our study just confirms that it is uncircumcised, period, not uncircumcised boys with a tight foreskin. So one does not need to consider the retractability of the foreskin or how tight it is. That has no bearing on it."

He said uncircumcised boys are more prone to UTIs because the bacteria that cause them tend to stick to area and multiply, especially when children are in diapers that hold in heat and moisture. [This is pure conjecture if there is not in fact a correlation.] "The kids who do get urinary tract infections, it's not a question of cleanliness versus not cleanliness. It's a part of life, it's just one of those things that happen," he said, offering this advice to parents of uncircumcised boys: "You give them their bath, you don't need to retract anything, pull anything. Nothing should ever hurt when washing that area."
[Several other studies spun the study to "Circumcision prevents UTIs" but no other went so far as fabricating a recommendation.

Atypically, Fox News has got the body of the story almost right.

It still gets the subject wrong: "Study confirms uncircumcised boys' UTI risk".

But it does say, "But [UTIs'] absolute risk is still low, said Dr. Alexander Sasha Dubrovsky, the lead researcher on the new study. ... According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), an uncircumcised boy has about a one in 100 chance of developing a UTI in his first year of life. The risk for a circumcised baby is one in 1,000. ...Dubrovsky stressed that the study was not set up to inform the debate over circumcision. ... "Our study doesn't answer any questions on the potential benefits of routine circumcision," Dubrovsky said.]

Friday, April 27, 2012

VANCOUVER: Supreme Court to try DIY circumcising father

Vancouver Sun
April 26, 2012

Supreme Court to hear B.C. botched circumcision case

The Supreme Court of Canada will hear the case of a B.C. father who tried to circumcise his four-year-old son with a razor blade and a blood coagulant meant for horses, it was announced Thursday.
...
The man, who is referred to in court documents only as D.J.W. to protect the identity of his son, was first convicted in a British Columbia court in October 2009.

He was found guilty of criminal negligence causing bodily harm following the botched April 2007 procedure.

But, after the man appealed the decision, three B.C. Court of Appeal judges stayed the conviction and upped the charge to aggravated assault last December.

The previous sentence imposed was one year in jail, with two years' probation and a 10-year prohibition on owning a firearm. An aggravated assault conviction carries a maximum sentence of 14 years in jail.

According to the documents, D.J.W. had "changed his world view" after the birth of his son and felt he had to "make things right with God."

The original trial judge found D.J.W. had asked two rabbis and four physicians to perform the circumcision but was told the procedure would require a general anesthetic, which could not be justified for his four-year-old son.

The man then attempted to enrol in a course that trained mohels to perform circumcisions, but was told only trained doctors could take it, the documents stated.

Despite having botched a circumcision on himself a couple of years earlier which caused an infection, the man decided to circumcise his son himself, in his kitchen.

According to court documents the kitchen was not sterile, or even sanitary. The documents also say that D.J.W. gave his son a quantity of honey wine, placed him on garbage bags on the kitchen floor, then cut away the foreskin with a razor blade. The documents further state that D.J.W.'s hand slipped when his son shuddered and cried, and that D.J.W. used a veterinary blood coagulant called Wonder Dust — meant for horses and livestock — on his son's bleeding penis.

The boy had to have corrective surgery.

According to a summary of the case in the 2009 ruling, D.J.W. had told his son the procedure would grant him "extra special protection from God" and allow him to eat Passover lamb, ice cream and pick all the movies he wanted for a week.

D.J.W. is banned from seeing the boy, who now lives with his mother.
...

Earlier story

Friday, April 13, 2012

VICTORIA, B.C.: Rally against private circumcision clinic

Monday Magazine (Victoria, B.C.)
April 12, 2012

Foreskin rally calls for ban on infant circumcision

Verbal battle erupts over specialized private clinic

By Danielle Pope

Have you hugged your foreskin today? A passionate rally this week is calling on the government and Victoria residents to show the normally shy body part a little bold love — or at least protection.

The “Whole World/Whole Children” rally is set to gather outside one of the newest private health-care offices to start offering circumcision, Diversified Health Clinic at 1063 Fort, on Friday, April 13, at 11:30 a.m. The group will then march to the legislature lawns and finish with a protest and speeches. But while foreskins may not be an issue paramount in the minds of many (save expectant parents), rally organizers say this affects all of us more than we think.

“What this really comes down to is a human rights issue,” says Glen Callender, speaker at the event and founder of the Canadian Foreskin Awareness Project. “When you consider that infant female circumcision was banned in Canada in 1997 and is now considered a criminal offence, why is the genital mutilation of an infant male any different?”

Kira Antinuk, a local mother and nursing student who organized the rally, says that the impetus for the protest came when her organization, Victoria Circumcision Resources, heard about Dr. Neil Pollock, a Vancouver-based physician who is known for being outspoken on the issue of circumcision, bringing his practice to the Island.

“We were really concerned to hear that Dr. Pollock . . . was planning on opening up a genital-cutting clinic in Victoria,” says Antinuk. “This is not acceptable on the Island, and it shouldn’t be acceptable in B.C. at all. I don’t think a lot of people are aware of this yet.”

Pollock says he has performed over 35,000 circumcisions —...

...

B.C. was the first province to pull Medicare funding from circumcision back in 1984, with all other provinces following suit after research showed it was no longer a necessary medical procedure. In 2009, the B.C. College of Physicians and Surgeons stated the procedure should be delayed until the child can make his own decision, and the Canadian Pediatric Society now states on its website the relative risks of the foreskin being left intact alongside the proven risks of removing it.

Since circumcisions are no longer covered provincially or performed in hospitals, private health clinics are left to pick up the slack from parents and some adults still wanting to perform the procedure. That privatized bias is exactly what concerns Callender, who says clinics are now preying on misinformed parents to push the invasive procedure onto children who cannot give their consent.

“Criminal law protects the foreskin of a girl, the hood of her clitoris, but not of a boy — yet it’s the same translated body part,” says Callender. “So much of what we hear about why circumcision is ‘good’ is misinformation from years ago, or even old wives tales, but the tales stick. We have to recognize the severe and detrimental impacts not only of making a decision for an individual who cannot consent, but that this is a form of assault, and we need the government to say ‘No more.’”

...

Callender emphasizes that the rally is not an effort to prevent circumcision on the whole — it’s a plea to halt the procedures on infants, ...

UPDATE
4/17/2012

A YouTube video of the rally (6:32).