Baby Dies After After Elective Nose Job
Actually, the non-medically necessary surgery was on another protuberance. Cynthia R. Fagen writes in the New York Post about the barbaric and primitive practice of circumcision, which rarely, but sometimes, goes terribly wrong:
The grieving family of a tragic Queens toddler are blasting doctors at Beth Israel Hospital in Manhattan -- accusing them of botching a simple circumcision that led to the boy's sudden death.Jamaal Coleson Jr. died Tuesday, about 10 hours after what was supposed to be a routine procedure, according to his uncle Jabbar Coleson, 23.
Coleson said the hospital was supposed to give his nephew a local analgesic, but instead administered a general.
The boy, who would have turned 2 next month, "Woke up and laughed and called for his mother and then went critical.
Studies (studies I have not read) find between 100 and 200 babies' deaths a year in the USA from this medically unnecessary practice. From DrMomma.org:
...These studies have found approximately 230 baby boys die each year in the U.S. as a result of circumcision surgery. (1) Another study published last week found at least 117 boys die annually from circumcision surgery as it is reported by hospitals. (2) We're not alone in our estimation that there are likely at least twice as many deaths due to circumcision, because of our non-structured and easy-to-cover-up means of infant mortality reporting. But if we are only looking at research-based documentation, we find an average 174 boys die each year with the documented cause being circumcision surgery.Especially disturbing in these statistics is that the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) continues to issue widespread warnings about choking as one of the highest causes of death among children, despite the fact that a greater number of infants die from circumcision than from choking. (3)
In an AAP cited study, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission concluded that choking on non-food objects causes approximately 22 deaths per year among all children in the United States. (4) In a national analysis, also cited by the AAP, it was found that choking while eating food causes approximately 73 deaths per year among all children under the age of 10 in the U.S. (5) The AAP teaches parents to be cautious because "choking on food causes the death of approximately 1 child every 5 days in the United States." (6) The rate of boys vs. girls who die from choking is not significantly different, which this means that approximately 1 boy under the age of 10 dies every 10 days from choking in the United States, or 36 boys per year.
Compare this to 1 infant boy dying every 2 days as a result of circumcision in the United States, or an average of 174 boys per year.
All of the deaths due to choking (which are most often related to eating - something we humans must do) are a mere fraction of the deaths due to circumcision (an unnecessary and medically contraindicated surgical amputation). If the AAP were to issue a similar warning for circumcision, they must state that circumcision causes the death of approximately 1 child every 2 days. Not only that, but 1 infant dies every 2 days from circumcision, as compared to the estimate that 1 "child under the age of 10" dies every 5 days from choking. And these are solely using the hospital statistics for death due to circumcision (again, the real numbers are likely much higher).
If choking is otherwise to blame for the some of the highest rates of childhood death in the United States (as the AAP claims that it is), and there are more infant deaths per year as a result of circumcision surgery, it is therefore urgent that we correctly inform parents that one of the greatest causes of death for children in the United States is circumcision.
Technically he died of complications from the general anesthesia, not the circumcision. The title and article are misleading. Meanwhile, I'm wondering why they opted for general anesthesia in the first place as that's not common. They normally just use local anesthesia or a nerve block to the area in patients older than infants.
BunnyGirl at May 7, 2011 12:26 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/05/07/baby_dies_after.html#comment-2111195">comment from BunnyGirlThat's like saying somebody died from lunch when they were killed in a car crash getting to their lunch appointment.
Amy Alkon at May 7, 2011 1:02 AM
I would never circumcise my baby. But I DO prefer giving blow jobs to circumcised men. And I do prefer the overall look.
Ppen at May 7, 2011 2:06 AM
I had my son circumcised and I'm not sure why. His mother and I talked about it of course, but it was a pretty routine conversation. It wasn't for any religious reasons. It was kind of sold to us. My boy was born when I was very young myself. I had just turned twenty-one.
Knowing that it was the cultural norm and given the extra reason that he'd have to bother with cleaning it out with alcohol and a Q-tip for the rest of his life (I have no idea if this is true or not being circumcised myself), we figured, "sure, why not."
Had we had any idea that there was even the most remote chance that he could die from it, there is no way we would have agreed to it.
It's a good thing you're doing by trying to get the word out. This is the first I've heard of this tragic possibility.
whistleDick at May 7, 2011 6:44 AM
What really gets me in the whole circumsized argument is that it is cleaner and safer from disease. Try telling that to the millions of Northern European men who are uncut. Last time I read the local news, there weren't any stories about little boys dying from not getting the procedure done. As far as I know, STDs and diseases aren't rampant here either. They still look the same as circumcized ones when standing at attention.
Kendra at May 7, 2011 6:48 AM
I'm very much against circumcision, but why would a two year old presumably non-Jewish child need a circumcision? It's possible he had phimosis or another defect.
Melissa at May 7, 2011 7:59 AM
That whole thing "cleaner and safer from disease" just drives me insane! If something is dirty, WASH it. Hands get dirty---you don't cut them off - you WASH them. Same with feet! It makes no sense whatsoever. I am convinced the real reason is some ridiculous sexual thing...maybe to keep little boys from feeling as much as they otherwise would.
Every time I am reminded that I had my infant son circumsized, I feel so guilty. My only defense is that I was also very young, didn't know better, and my then-husband insisted upon it.
Sometimes you just can't go back, but that doesn't keep me from wishing...
gharkness at May 7, 2011 8:03 AM
I used to work in disability claims, and was really surprised at the number of claims I saw from young men who suffered from phimosis (a sudden tightening of the foreskin) and required circumcision later in life. It's a lot more common than the anti-circumsision folks (who tend towards hysteria, and I no more trust any numbers from them than I do shooting statistics from gun-grabbers or rape stats from femi-nazis) give it credit for.
If we ever have a son, I've said it's up to my husband. He says he'd have it done, so we'll probably have it done.
Melissa makes a good point, too. No one has this done just because on a 2-year old, and there's no explanation as to why they gave a general rather than a local. I'd bet that this surgery was NOT elective, but for a problem, and possibly for a problem that had become quite serious and complex.
If that's the case, then this would be a death atributable to the failure to circumsize at birth, causing it to become necessary later, rather than a death attributable to the routine practice of circumscision on infants. In other words, if he had been routinely circumsized as an infant, he might be just fine today. It's likely that this case is supportive of exactly the opposite of the anti-circ argument.
Lyssa at May 7, 2011 8:38 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/05/07/baby_dies_after.html#comment-2111871">comment from LyssaNo one has this done just because on a 2-year old,
There is a chance it could be that "want him to look like everybody else" justification in the video.
Amy Alkon at May 7, 2011 8:42 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/05/07/baby_dies_after.html#comment-2111875">comment from Amy AlkonTurns out the baby was Muslim:
http://yourjewishnews.com/6060.aspx
Muslims are supposed to be circumcised per the religion. Maybe the parents only realized that later.
Amy Alkon at May 7, 2011 8:44 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/05/07/baby_dies_after.html#comment-2111884">comment from Amy AlkonForgot to say - from what I've read, Muslims are supposed to be circumcised before puberty, while Jews are circumcised at birth.
Utterly wrong, performing medically unnecessary procedures on a child.
Amy Alkon at May 7, 2011 8:48 AM
I had both of my boys circumcised when they were born. It was sort of told to us in the hospital that it gets done and when and I wasn't really asked if I wanted it or not and I don't remember in all the newness of being a mom if I was informed of any dangers. I did it really because it was the norm. I know several uncut men and think had I been more informed I probably wouldn't have done it. I don't want to say definitely no because there is always that silly line of thought that something is the norm and the health risks don't apply to you.
kristen at May 7, 2011 9:19 AM
Amy, I hate, hate, hate watching web videos, but I watched that one just to see. As far as I could tell (and he was kind of mumbly at times), that video was not about this incident. (Not to mention that this fellow was shockingly, stunningly, laughably ignorant about his apparently sure assertions about what cases attorneys will take. Attorneys prosecute dead baby cases All The Time! Clearly, he's just making things up based on what he feels to be so.)
The idea that they were Muslim and just suddenly remembered it is not as likely as a medical problem that caused this to be necessary. You don't know that this was an "Utterly wrong" or a "medically unnecessary procedure." That's nowhere in the articles that you linked.
Lyssa at May 7, 2011 9:28 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/05/07/baby_dies_after.html#comment-2111966">comment from LyssaNo, it's not about the incident but circumcision in general. I didn't say it was about the incident. He's talking about the various justifications people give for circumcision, and there really aren't any valid ones, save for existing disease or illness at the time -- for unnecessary cosmetic surgery on a baby. Most boys seem to escape without injury. But, there is still a risk and it is unacceptable, simply because people believe in some religion, to perform unnecessary surgery on a being who cannot speak to consent or deny consent. Want to wait till the kid is 10 and give him some say in whether you cut off a piece of his body? Or 16 or 18? Fine.
But, just because somebody clings to some religion a bunch of desert nomads started way back when, and they haven't let go of some of its most primitive customs, you don't get to mutilate your baby and put your baby at ANY unnecessary risk. ANY.
Again, you don't have your child's appendix and tonsils out as a preventive measure. If you don't find that acceptable, how can you find circumcision acceptable?
Don't tell me, because I can guess: You haven't really given it open-minded thought but you had your kid circumcised or you're Jewish or Muslim and would rather not think too much about it.
Amy Alkon at May 7, 2011 9:32 AM
Of the 117, or 174, or 230 circumcision-related deaths per year, I wonder how many were infants and how many were older (like the Coleson case). If the risk to an infant is really that high, I'd expect the practice would have become a whole lot less popular than it is, since it's a tiny minority which does it for religious reasons.
Rex Little at May 7, 2011 10:05 AM
Well... 117 per year really isn't THAT high
NicoleK at May 7, 2011 10:40 AM
I agree with the lawyer's assessment of circumcision with the exception of this procedure being sold by physicians (I even agree with the unflattering part about ruining careers and limitation of liability). I will admit that I have limited exposure but the Pediatricians I know (who by in large do these procedures) don't like doing it. They dislike doing something that is of no true worth on a child who cries and whimpers as you crush their foreskin with a clamp. Simply, it is desired by the parents (sometimes very strongly so). The Urologists I know (who perform the operative version of this) treat it with ambivalence: they like doing surgery (any surgery) but don't really understand why anyone would electively want a circumcision. Again with the strongly desired by parents rather than any real necessity thing. I have questioned and challenged both categories of physicians and that is what I have consistently found.
General anesthesia was not the cause of death. Bleeding to death was the cause of death (and children can lose a great deal of blood before they die--cause' they are healthy and have not exposed their bodies to years of drinking, smoking and KFC Double Downs). The reason the 2 year old received a general rather than local is simple (speaking from personal experience and direct observation). You can give a 'local' to an infant because you can overpower them, hold them down, put a sugared Binky in their mouth and do the procedure--they can't really fight back and will only cry, followed by whimpering. A 2 year old is a different story. They will fight you something fierce and it is much harder to hold them down. They will verbalize their pain and scream, never being reduced to simple whimpering.
Doc Jensen at May 7, 2011 11:37 AM
I have no argument with those who make either choice with regard to circumcision. A death rate of less than one hundredth of one percent is meaningless - you place a child in greater danger driving him home from the hospital.
I observed both of my sons being circumcised. It was not traumatic, in my observation.
They will also be in greater danger when they have their rebellious tattoo/piercing, or whatever else is cool in 15 years. Sorry folks, but this is not really that big a deal.
Chris G at May 7, 2011 12:57 PM
Both my sons were circumcised, the second out of medical necessity (he had a deformed foreskin and there wasn't enough skin behind and underneath the head which would have caused extremely painful erections when he got older. Fortunately, the doctors didn't have to reconstruct the urethra, which is apparently common with this condition.)
Back to son #1. It took all of five minutes at the pediatricians office. He experienced more pain from his immunizations. Hell, he got more upset when not fed on time.
I agree with Chris about tattoos and piercings.
Joe at May 7, 2011 1:18 PM
I've heard 1/3 of the sensory nerves are removed with circumcision, given circumcised men less pleasure from sex. As for hygienic concerns, it's easy to clean it. Just pull back on it until the underside of the foreskin is exposed, then wash. No big deal.
Besides, the uncut save money on condoms. They just use old twist ties from bread packages.
And I have no idea if anything I've said made any sense at all, because I still have shingles and my pain meds only let me sleep for three hours a night before the burning is back in full force and I'm about to pass out from exhaustion and pain meds.
Patrick at May 7, 2011 1:20 PM
"Besides, the uncut save money on condoms. They just use old twist ties from bread packages."
Well, that's a new twist on the French tickler!
Cousin Dave at May 7, 2011 3:18 PM
Lyssa is right, phimosis and other foreskin issues when older are quite common. I did urology clinic for awhile and 90% of the patients there were uncircumcised males (it was a question on the standard patient forms). They were treated from things as "minor" as bacterial and fungal infections to various degrees of foreskin stricture and scarring problems requiring circumcisions and even reconstructive surgeries. It was rare for circumcised men to come in with any of these problems and much more likely they were there for vasectomy than anything else.
I had my son circumcised and watched the procedure. He had no anesthesia and did not cry or fuss at all. He was quite calm the whole time with the exception of when they undressed him initially and he got cold. That was the only time he fussed. The procedure only took a few minutes and was healed in less than a week. I don't regret having it done and will choose it for any future sons I may have. Research and work experience have indicated there are more benefits to circumcision than leaving intact and also the risks are quite minimal for the procedure.
BunnyGirl at May 7, 2011 8:38 PM
BunnyGirl Says:
"phimosis and other foreskin issues when older are quite common. I did urology clinic for awhile and 90% of the patients there were uncircumcised males (it was a question on the standard patient forms)."
“Physiologic phimosis” is common, “pathologic phimosis” is uncommon.
The reason I distinguish between these two things is because it is actually quite normal for infants and young boys to have foreskins that do not retract. It only becomes abnormal if that situation persists beyond adolescence.
You are essentially advocating to solve a problem with medical intervention before you even know if a problem exists because there is some tiny possibility that an issue will arise 14 years later.
You might as well be advocating for mandatory appendectomies for all infants using that type of argument.
According to the literature, 99% of foreskins are retractable by age 17. How exactly is a 1% level of pathologic phimosis “quite common”?
1 out of 8 women will experience issues with breast cancer, that is a rate of ~12%. Women have to contend with breast cancer 12 times more often than men have to contend with pathologic phimosis. If that is reason enough to just circumcise every newborn infant boy, then your argument would suggest that all newborn infant girls should have their immature breast tissue removed before it becomes cancerous.
I suspect that if anyone so much as suggested doing such a thing in a serious way they would be classified by most people as a monster, yet here you are advocating for something similar for an issue that is 12 times less likely to happen and far less serious from a medical perspective (cancer can kill you, phimosis cannot). Just some food for thought.
Reality at May 7, 2011 10:02 PM
but why would a two year old presumably non-Jewish child need a circumcision? It's possible he had phimosis or another defect.
Posted by: Melissa
Phimosis refers to the inability to retract the distal foreskin over the head of the penis
The foreskin is not supposed to retract until after the onset of puberty. It is biologically impossible for a pre pubecent boy to have phimosis
Also women are far more likey to get breast cancer, why deos no one suggest infant masectomies?
Or infant apendectimes, or tonsilectomies? Why are there no dentists on hand to remove the tissue that will one day become wisdom teeth?
And the fact that uncircumcised men with real problems come in doesnt tell you how many uncircumcsied men without problems dont come in, does it?
Also it seems to me from your comment Bunny Girl the biggest problem uncircumcised men have is they arent properly cleaning their dicks
lujlp at May 8, 2011 4:18 AM
Comparing circumcision to infant mastectomy or appendectomy is invalid because these operations would be much riskier, and the former would have a major impact on the child's later life.
Why are there no dentists on hand to remove the tissue that will one day become wisdom teeth? I suspect because there's no way to identify that tissue and remove it from an infant. If there was, and it was no more risky or traumatic than circumcision is, I'd sure want it done to my granddaughter (now 11 weeks old).
Or suppose someone came up with some sort of arthroscopic/laser procedure that could remove the appendix, and was as easy and safe as circumcision--but only if it was performed before the baby was, say, under 10 pounds. Wouldn't it be a good idea?
The reason circumcision is a bad idea is that it confers no significant, proven health benefits. If it did (and there are many, like my own parents, who believe it does), it would be reasonable to have it done to one's baby.
Rex Little at May 8, 2011 8:46 AM
This is just the creme of bad news coming from Beth Israel Hospital in Manhattan. They have the highest rate of MRSA infecting patients, including during circumcisions. This boy could have lost all his groinal skin with MRSA. BTW Mrsa is a lifelong infection that surfaces now and then.
The Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) 2010 Circumcision Statement:
"There is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene. "Contrary to what is often thought, circumcision entails the risk of medical and psychological complications. The most common complications are bleeding, infections, meatus stenosis (narrowing of the urethra) and panic attacks. Partial or complete penis amputations as a result of complications following circumcisions have also been reported, as have psychological problems as a result of the circumcision.Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors conflicts with the child’s right to autonomy and physical integrity.There are good reasons for a legal prohibition of non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors, as exists for female genital mutilation. "Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors conflicts with the child's right to autonomy and physical integrity."
Circumcision cuts off 65% to 85% of the males sexual receptors with more than 1/2 his penile skin. Circumcision Sexually Handicaps.
Who wants to suck on a 30 year old scar!
Frank McGinness at May 8, 2011 10:21 AM
--but only if it was performed before the baby was, say, under 10 pounds. Wouldn't it be a good idea?
Some would think so, but it appears the appendix is not as usless as once thought which is why it is no longer removed.
The sick secret behind why hpsoitals and insurance companies push for infant circumcsion is money.
One foreskin can grow tens of thousands of dollars worth of new skin, it can produce pints of biological elements and hormones that many companies use in beauty products
lujlp at May 8, 2011 10:29 AM
I am very anti-circumcision. I have a son, things got ugly with DH for a while during the pregnancy. I prevailed, cause damn it I carried the baby. Certain things are my perogative for that. DH is now happy we did not do it. Cleaning is not an issue now with me doing it, I can't imagine it'll be an issue later in life. The most scrupulously clean man I ever dated was uncut. It's called showering, people, try it some time.
Driving your baby home from the hospital is unavoidable risk (most of us don't live in the hospital, after all). Chopping off part of his dick is not. My nephews both had it done. They both had numbing cream, both cried, neither would nurse for nearly a day after, and one nearly bled to death later at home. This is worth it why??
momof4 at May 8, 2011 4:31 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/05/07/baby_dies_after.html#comment-2115884">comment from momof4momof4 is exactly, sensibly, reasonably, risk-benefit-ably, absolutely right.
Amy Alkon at May 8, 2011 4:38 PM
'given the extra reason that he'd have to bother with cleaning it out with alcohol and a Q-tip for the rest of his life'
Untrue. Men in Japan and many other countries are not circumcised and no one does this.
crella at May 8, 2011 5:47 PM
the appendix is not as useless as once thought which is why it is no longer removed
I'm a bit puzzled by this statement. Do they actually no longer remove an inflamed appendix? Or if you're saying that they no longer remove a healthy appendix, was there a time that they did?
Rex Little at May 8, 2011 6:38 PM
They will remove a healthy appendix during exploratory abdominal surgery, but they never just cut you open to take it out for the hell of it.
BunnyGirl at May 8, 2011 7:11 PM
Amy is right. Circumcision is a ridiculous, unnecessary, potentially dangerous surgical procedure. It amazes me that in this day and age people still defend it. My husband isn't circumcised; it's never caused him any problems. His mother, from the UK and a professional nurse, gave birth to him in this country and got a lot of pressure in the hospital to have it done. She refused. She told the staff, in essence, they were full of shit.
Lisa at May 9, 2011 5:16 AM
No they no longer remove a heathly apendix, at least doctors under 70 dont.
Quick question Bunny Girl, but on average what is the age of and how many a week do guys come in with complaints of phimosis?
lujlp at May 9, 2011 5:51 AM
"Well... 117 per year really isn't THAT high"
It is if you are one of the 117.
Spartee at May 9, 2011 12:32 PM
Keep in mind that 117 deaths directly attributed to circumcision
That doesnt count the deaths that are circumcision related but attributed to something else.
Nor do they keep statistics of the number of incedents where things go wrong
lujlp at May 11, 2011 12:26 AM
I reserve judgement about the claim in intactivist circles that order 200 North American babies die every year because they were routinely circumcised. That claim was made by Dan Bollinger, who is neither a doctor nor an epidemiologist, in a 2010 article in an obscure academic journal. The truth, as I see it, is that the wire services carry 1-2 stories a year of a baby American or Canadian boy dying after being circumcised. In my view, an upper bound on the deaths that can unambiguously be attributed to routine circumcision is 20/decade. That number is ample reason to stop the practice, especially given that there are other grave complications, also not carefully counted: slicing off all or part of the glans, runaway infections leaving the boy brain damaged, cutting too much skin off and making adult erections uncomfortable, a higher rate of PE and ED.
The problem is that no boy dies directly because of circumcision. Instead, they die of hemmorage, cardiac failure, runaway infection, or simply being circumcised when they were not in good overall health and the stress of the "minor" operation proved too much for their weak systems. The death certificate mentions the direct cause of death, but not the fact that precipitated the direct cause. These death certificate coding practices make it harder to sue hospitals and doctors, and help parents feel less guilty about the death of an infant son.
I suspect that the full truth here would expose doctors and hospitals to multimillion dollar liability under tort law. Hence ferreting out the full truth will be extremely difficult.
roger desmoulins at June 22, 2011 8:46 PM
I reserve judgement about the claim in intactivist circles that order 200 North American babies die every year because they were routinely circumcised. That claim was made by Dan Bollinger, who is neither a doctor nor an epidemiologist, in a 2010 article in an obscure academic journal. The truth, as I see it, is that the wire services carry 1-2 stories a year of a baby American or Canadian boy dying after being circumcised. In my view, an upper bound on the deaths that can unambiguously be attributed to routine circumcision is 20/decade. That number is ample reason to stop the practice, especially given that there are other grave complications, also not carefully counted: slicing off all or part of the glans, runaway infections leaving the boy brain damaged, cutting too much skin off and making adult erections uncomfortable, a higher rate of PE and ED.
The problem is that no boy dies directly because of circumcision. Instead, they die of hemmorage, cardiac failure, runaway infection, using too much local or general anesthetic, or simply being circumcised when they were not in good overall health and the stress of the "minor" operation proved too much for their weak systems. The death certificate mentions the direct cause of death, but not the fact that precipitated the direct cause. These death certificate coding practices make it harder to sue hospitals and doctors, and help parents feel less guilty about the death of an infant son.
I suspect that the full truth here would expose doctors and hospitals to multimillion dollar liability under tort law. Hence ferreting out the full truth will be extremely difficult.
roger desmoulins at June 22, 2011 8:51 PM
@NicoleK:
In the other English speaking countries, starting in 1950, a growing number of doctors simply refused to do routine infant circumcisions. Thus the practice has vanished from the UK and New Zealand, and is down to 20-30% in Australia and Canada. American doctors should also refuse to do it, and should be free to advise parents not to do it. I agree that pediatricians are mostly on the side of the angels here, but that pediatric urologists regrettably are not.
I agree that local anesthesia is inadequate for a 2 year old. In other countries, the protocol requires general anesthesia when the child is past his first birthday. Intactivists maintain that local anesthesia is inadequate for newborns as well.
What you write bears out the intactivist claim that the main reason circumcision is performed shortly after birth is that a newborn is too weak to resist, his opiniojn does not matter, and he cannot remember the sexual assault he is enduring. It has nothing to do with real or pretended "benefits" before puberty.
roger desmoulins at June 22, 2011 9:01 PM
Leave a comment