Sunday, November 27, 2011

Associating and Aligning Breastfeeding with Infant Circumcision

What you'll find the pro-circumcision crowd doing is they pair infant circumcision with breastfeeding as a way of normalising the practice of infant circumcision, trying to associate healthy breastfeeding with circumcision, well lets just compare circumcision with breastfeeding, and see how they compare with each other in infant development?  Before the comparison its worth noting that in recent deaths from circumcision breastfeeding the baby following a circumcision has been used as the cause of death???  WOW, they want the association with breastfeeding but willing to trash Breastfeeding as soon as a baby dies from circumcision, SAYS IT ALL REALLY!!!!!!!!

Proximity = In Breastfeeding the infant is in close proximity to mother facilitating attachment vs circumcision the baby is taken away from mother disrupting attachment.

Attachment = The infant attaches to mother via breastfeeding vs circumcision disrupts attachment with separation, gaze aversion, pain and often trauma.

Soothing = Breastfeeding soothes the baby vs circumcision causes the baby excruitiating pain.

Development = Breastfeeding facilitates development via nutrition and attachment, vs circumcision creates stress responses including cortisol elevation, and stops the penis from developing as nature intended.

Feeding = Breastfeeding is a primary source of feeding vs circumcision disrupts the breastfeeding process with many babies refusing to feed following circumcision

Neural development = Breastfeeding facilitates neural and brain development, vs circumcision which causes a flood of cortisol in the brain, which has been found to cause neural pruning

Urinary Tract Infections = Breastfeeding babies appear to have protective effect for UTI's vs circumcision has been documented to cause UTI's shortly after circumcision

Death = Breastfeeding never causes death, whereas circumcision does. OH .....if a baby dies from circumcision then you can blame breastfeeding, in order to protect circumcision breastfeeding is trashed as happened in Africa recently (Reported in Press).

Human Rights & Ethics = Breastfeeding is normal natural & healthy and has never been a human rights issue, other than every baby deseves it if possible, whereas infant circumcision is widely seen as a human rights violation & medically unethical.

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

Circumcision Propaganda Spin - Parents & Health Benefits

If you take a look at the latest pro-circumcision propaganda spin, the two main themes are around "Parents make the best decisions for their children", and "Circumcision has proven health benefits".  It appears they either have employed a clever PR consultant or are just clever at applying political spin to the subject of circumcision.

Firstly with the "Motherhood" statement that "parents always know whats best for their children", I mean superficially who the hell would ever want to disagree with that?  Only deviants? Its Great PR spin!!!  But, it doesnt take much closer examination, and a look at some basic facts to see that this statement is not all what it seeems to be.  Take the area of child protection as one example, The main offenders of child abuse, including, neglect, emotional abuse, physical abuse, and sexual abuse are the Parents of the children.  So here is some factual evidence that demonstrates parents dont always know or do whats best for their children.  Another point to make is you can only know whats best when you know all the facts.  If Most American parents are told and believe that the foreskin is a useless piece of skin, instead of the truth that it is a functional sex organ in its own right, then the circumcision decision is made by uninformed parents.  If parents knew the truth would they make the same decision for their children.  American parents are also told that circumcision is painless & risk free.  Would these parents make the same decision if they knew how much pain their baby would endure, and the risks of complications?  So how can parents make the best decision when they dont know all the facts??

The "Proven health benefits claim" comes from a selection of research which is usually poorly designed, with methodological flaws and is never contrasted to the research that has opposite or different findings.  The most important data in health/medicine is usually epidemiological data, which is actual population data of health outcomes i real life.  Not data from poorly designed and methodolically flawed studies.  Its what actually occurs in the real world. Epidemiology finds = The healthiest longest lived people with the lowest STI's/HIV, with lowest infant mortality are from non-circumcision cultures of EU & Japan.  This epidemiological  evidence actually finds that intact people are the healthiest in the world.  Of course American Parents are never told this.

Although procirc spin is very very clever it just doesnt stand up to closer scrutiny.

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Circumcision is not required for child health with evidence showing intact children healthier

 There is much evidence that infant circumcision contributes to poorer health outcomes in first world nations.

Health Outcomes in Children

Firstly, A recent Australian (2009) research found that present day Australian Children had far superior health outcomes to when routine infant circumcision was common, read as follows:

"The health of Australia’s children continues to improve, according to the latest report on child health from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, A Picture of Australia's Children 2009. During the period 1986-2006 there was a dramatic decline in infant and child deaths (which fell by half), improved survival in cases of cancer, and a reduction in the incidence of asthma.
These are significant findings, given that the period 1986 to 2006 witnessed a huge decline in the incidence of circumcision, from about 40 per cent of boys in the early 1980s to about 10 per cent in 2006. It is thus good empirical proof that “lack of circumcision” does not increase child health problems. Even more significantly, it is a decisive refutation of “scientific” predictions by Terry Russell, Brian Morris and other diehard promoters of routine circumcision that the fall in the circumcision rate would lead to an explosion of genito-urinary problems in boys and an ever-increasing death toll from urinary tract and bladder infections. No such problems are identified in this report, which does not even mention any health problems affecting the genito-urinary area.
On the contrary, the halving of the death rate among infants and children suggests that leaving the foreskin in place could even have significantly improved child health outcomes and contributed to the decline in infant and child mortality. It is, after all, quite illogical to claim that a boy with wound on his penis is somehow healthier than a boy who has not been injured there. As the British child health expert N.R.C. Roberton points out, “it is fundamentally illogical that mutilating someone might be beneficial.” *

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare is the Australian Government’s premier health research foundation.
The full report and press release can be downloaded from the AIHW website.

Further Reading, data which refutes the idea circumcision leads to better health outcomes:

N.R.C. Roberton, “Care of the Normal Term Newborn Baby,” in Textbook of Neonatology, eds. Janet M. Rennie, N.R.C. Roberton, 3rd edn. (Edinburgh: Churchill Livingston, 1999), 378-379.