Disaster Circumcision at NYC hospital almost made baby bleed to death, parents say - “We were called and asked if we wanted to move forward with circumcision, and we just said yes," he said. "We weren't aware of any of the risks. We didn't really, no one told us that there were elevated risks for children with CHD."

https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/baby-nearly-bled-to-death-circumcision-parents-say/
https://archive.ph/XyBdJ
IMG_3070.webp
A family says their newborn son nearly bled to death and is fighting for his life after he was circumcised at a New York City hospital.

Tim and Gabrielle Groth said their son, Cole, underwent the circumcision at NewYork-Presbyterian Morgan Stanley Children's Hospital in Manhattan, where he was born on March 31.

Baby in critical condition after circumcision, parents say​

Days after Cole's birth, doctors placed a stent in him to address a known heart disease he was born with.

"Everything was going well," Tim Groth said. "He was doing so well that he was cleared for discharge."

Then, the couple said the hospital asked if they wanted their son to be circumcised, a routine procedure.

"We were called and asked if we wanted to move forward with circumcision, and we just said yes," he said. "We weren't aware of any of the risks. We didn't really, no one told us that there were elevated risks for children with CHD."

The day after Cole's circumcision was one of the worst of their lives, the couple said.

"I walk in and he is extremely pale. He is crying like I've never heard before," Gabrielle Groth said. "It was not my healthy boy I saw just the day before."

"Throughout the night, for 10-plus hours, our son bled almost to death," Tim Groth said. "The vital organs of his body lost blood and oxygen, and he suffered liver damage, kidney damage, brain damage ... How does that happen in a cardiac [neonatal intensive care unit]?"

Hospital says it cannot comment​

IMG_3071.webp
Cole remains in critical condition at NewYork-Presbyterian Morgan Stanley Children's Hospital, his parents said.

"Due to patient privacy policies, we cannot comment," the hospital said in a statement to CBS News New York.

Tim Groth said his newborn son undergoes daily transfusions and had four surgeries in the last week.

"Trying to understand how you could go from a circumcision, in what seemed like a stable baby, to crisis," he said.

The Groths are waiting for the day when they can bring Cole home to meet his older brother, 2-year-old Bryce.

"I want him to know how strong he is and the strength he showed, and how much he fought," Gabrielle Groth said.
 
STOP MUTILATING BABIES.
SLICING UP BABY GENETALS SHOULDN'T BE THE STANDARD OF CARE.
Look at this fucking photo John Hopkins uses for their information page. These people are demons.
1745785188571.webp
 
...asked if we wanted to move forward with circumcision
That's such an odd turn of phrase to me. It implies circumcision was the inevitable next stage of this poor baby's hospital "care" before he could be discharged.
The prevalence of circumcision in US hospitals is insane, the entire birth and postnatal experience seems to be very over-medicalised compared to Britbong NHS.
 
Circumcision should be legal, but only if the father ALSO agrees to be strapped down and have the outer skin of his penis removed without anesthetic.

What's that, you say? It's wrong to strap down a grown man and mutilate his penis like that?

THEN WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT TO A BABY
 
Yeah. This is why this should be illegal to do to an underage boy without medical need*. I will admit that circumcicion is usually harmless but usually isn't good enough. This is completely pointless and little boys deserve that adults don't gamble with their penises.

* Rare but some boys have overly tight foreskin that can result in infection and pain. It can be treated with stretching the skin but it takes time and can be painful. Cutting it off can permanently cure it immediately so can be the better choice depending on the circumstances.
 
Circumcision is literally useless outside of using it to treat rare defects and diseases like phimosis. The foreskin is there for a reason. It's also extremely Jewish and Islamic, so that already means it should be disregarded.

Even if the risk of circumcision complications like the baby bleeding to death, infection, or whatever is very low at 1-5% it's infinitely worse than the 100% chance of your baby not bleeding to death because you didn't cut his penis skin off. Seriously even if you want your kid to be circumcised do you want to risk a 1% chance that he dies from it when you could just not fucking do it?

Of course, hospitals need their shekels, so there's no reason for them to educate people about these risks.
 
Sperging aside, the thing that gets me about male circumcision is that the logic used to justify it is never applied to any other circumstance.

"Circumcised is easier to keep clean" Ok so should girls also be mutilated for cleanliness? (rhetorical question, obviously they shouldn't). Also by that logic everyone should cut off their ears so you don't have to wash behind them.

"Circumcised has lower incidence of penis cancer" Yeah if women all had their boobs removed at birth I bet breast cancer would be way lower too. By that logic should we just start lopping off every body part that has even a miniscule chance of developing cancer?

"uncircumcised is ugly to women" Retarded because 1) most of the world's men outside USA and Israel (as well as most people throughout history) aren't mutilated and their women have no issue, and 2) if genital mutilation is ok because of opposite-gender preferences, then why is female circumcision (correctly) seen as evil and banned?

The pro-circumcision side will also cite studies claiming a reduction in std's, but the studies they often cite were conducted in literal 3rd world African countries with non-existent hygiene, with the data recorded immediately after the circumcision procedure when the newly circumcised men obviously couldn't have sex.

On another tangent, I also am convinced circumcision makes men more neurotic in general, and specifically more fixated on sex. It would explain why Americans, Arabs, and Jews are all so weird about sex and tend to have less patience and sharper tempers compared to everyone else.
 
Sperging aside, the thing that gets me about male circumcision is that the logic used to justify it is never applied to any other circumstance.

"Circumcised is easier to keep clean" Ok so should girls also be mutilated for cleanliness? (rhetorical question, obviously they shouldn't). Also by that logic everyone should cut off their ears so you don't have to wash behind them.

"Circumcised has lower incidence of penis cancer" Yeah if women all had their boobs removed at birth I bet breast cancer would be way lower too. By that logic should we just start lopping off every body part that has even a miniscule chance of developing cancer?

"uncircumcised is ugly to women" Retarded because 1) most of the world's men outside USA and Israel (as well as most people throughout history) aren't mutilated and their women have no issue, and 2) if genital mutilation is ok because of opposite-gender preferences, then why is female circumcision (correctly) seen as evil and banned?

The pro-circumcision side will also cite studies claiming a reduction in std's, but the studies they often cite were conducted in literal 3rd world African countries with non-existent hygiene, with the data recorded immediately after the circumcision procedure when the circumcised men obviously couldn't have sex.

On another tangent, I also am convinced circumcision makes men more neurotic in general, and specifically more fixated on sex. It would explain why Americans, Arabs, and Jews are all so weird about sex.
There isn't even a good reason for it in the actual old testament. God throwing that one out as part of the covenant is one of those moments where it's painfully obvious that no "divine inspiration" actually produced the text.
 
There isn't even a good reason for it in the actual old testament. God throwing that one out as part of the covenant is one of those moments where it's painfully obvious that no "divine inspiration" actually produced the text.
If you get into the gnostic side of Christianity they believe that the Old Testament god was basically a demon, hence why yahweh demanded blood sacrifice, genital mutilation of babies, and slaughter of neighboring tribes. It would also explain why Jesus showed up and said that wasn't necessary, instead of contradicting His father (who was the real God, not yahweh) He was trying to stop demonic practices.

Gnostics had about as many variations in theology as Protestantism and I'm not 100% on board with all the finer details, but when I learned about it it just clicked because it explains a lot of the fucked up stuff in the Old Testament, and it made way more sense than the conventional theological explanation of "god" being angry and bloodthirsty and just changing his mind later.
 
If you get into the gnostic side of Christianity they believe that the Old Testament god was basically a demon, hence why yahweh demanded blood sacrifice, genital mutilation of babies, and slaughter of neighboring tribes. It would also explain why Jesus showed up and said that wasn't necessary, instead of contradicting His father (who was the real God, not yahweh) He was trying to stop demonic practices.

Gnostics had about as many variations in theology as Protestantism and I'm not 100% on board with all the finer details, but when I learned about it it just clicked because it explains a lot of the fucked up stuff in the Old Testament, and it made way more sense than the conventional theological explanation of "god" being angry and bloodthirsty and just changing his mind later.
gnostics are lolcows, all you have to do is ask why jesus wouldn't be an agent of the demiurge sent to deceive people and they break down
 
And then a pedo sucks the baby off with his foul, disease-ridden mouth.
like i point out multiple times to pedophiles like you who love imagining this in detail, this isn't widespread and the vast majority of circumcisions do not include this

its genuinely creepy seeing people like you describe it in detail in faux moral outrage while clearly getting off on it
 
If you get into the gnostic side of Christianity they believe that the Old Testament god was basically a demon, hence why yahweh demanded blood sacrifice, genital mutilation of babies, and slaughter of neighboring tribes. It would also explain why Jesus showed up and said that wasn't necessary, instead of contradicting His father (who was the real God, not yahweh) He was trying to stop demonic practices.

Gnostics had about as many variations in theology as Protestantism and I'm not 100% on board with all the finer details, but when I learned about it it just clicked because it explains a lot of the fucked up stuff in the Old Testament, and it made way more sense than the conventional theological explanation of "god" being angry and bloodthirsty and just changing his mind later.
I'm somewhat read into Gnosticism actually, and it's probably my favorite heretical movement out of Christianity just for aesthetic reasons, as a very cynical person myself by nature. As you said, they essentially reframe the world as inherently evil and corrupted material, and it is pretty fitting within that context to force people to physically mutilate their children immediately after birth as a non-removable and physical sign of faith to the demiurge. Sick stuff!
 
Wstecz
Top Na dole