• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Brendon Marotta

  • Work
  • Blog
  • Show
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Archives for April 2019

Medical Groups’ Circumcision Argument Undermines Their Vaccine Campaign

April 22, 2019 By Brendon Marotta

This article was originally published on medium here.

There is no such thing as parental choice. Parents cannot do things that will harm their children in the face of clear evidence. You might think I’m making an argument against circumcision, since I’m the director of the documentary American Circumcision and spent six years following the Intactivist anti-circumcision movement. However, I’m actually repeating the viewpoint of the American Academy of Pediatrics, one of the largest pro-circumcision medical organizations. It just happens to be their view on vaccines.

I have no interest in the vaccines. I have not researched them. The focus of my work has been on circumcision, and I see the two as very separate issues. However, when I heard the phrase “parental choice” enter the vaccine debate, my ears perked up. Parental choice has been the primary argument that medical groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics have made in favor of circumcision. They argue that decision whether or not a child is circumcised should be a parent’s choice. Yet, when I heard this phrase in the vaccine debate, they were arguing that parental choice doesn’t exist and should not be allowed for vaccines. Huh?

The state of California recently passed a mandatory-vaccine law, requiring children be vaccinated, and removing the previous parental choice that existed around vaccination. Pro-vaccine doctors and groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics are pushing for similar laws in other states, like Oregon and New York.

In fact, many doctors and doctors groups do not even believe there should be choice around what information parents consume on the vaccine issue. Members of the AAP celebrated on social media when Amazon removed anti-vaccine books and movies from their listings. Dr. Peter Hotez, a pro-vaccine doctor who has championed this de-platforming, even said anti-vaccine groups should be classified as “hate groups.” On vaccines, the medical establishment is clear: zero-parental choice.

At the same time, parental choice is primary argument advanced by pro-circumcision groups. The 2012 American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement on circumcision says “Parents ultimately should decide whether circumcision is in the best interests of their male child.”A paper published by Andrew Freedman, a member of the 2012 AAP circumcision taskforce, suggests that the American Academy of Pediatrics assessment of risks and benefits in 2012 circumcision policy statement included the non-medical cultural benefits of circumcision.

When I interviewed Freedman for my documentary, Freedman said the same thing: circumcision is not medically recommended, but because some cultures or tribes (tribe was his word choice) want to do it, they should be allowed to. In other words, the last AAP policy statement on circumcision is not a statement on medicine, but culture. On circumcision, the American Academy of Pediatrics weighs parental choice as more important than medical evidence.

How are these two viewpoints compatible? On one issue, the AAP says parental choice does not exist. On another, they say parental choice is the rule. Which is it? What is the universal ethical standard here?

I know what vaccine proponents will say: ‘The evidence on vaccines is so compelling that it should not be a choice. You are causing to your child harm by not vaccinating. If we don’t vaccinate our children, many will die from preventable diseases.’ However the parental choice argument on circumcision suggests that parental choice trumps even the death of children.

Over a 100 babies die a year from routine infant circumcision. Many more have complications and botches. Former president of the Virginia Urological Society James Snyder has said that around ten percent of the boys in his practice have a botch of some kind. So according to what the AAP says on circumcision, parental choice trumps even preventable infant deaths.

In fact, it goes further. In New York, several newborn infants were given herpes during Jewish circumcision ceremonies involving metzitzah b’peh — a Jewish circumcision practice in which the Mohel (Jewish ritual circumciser) puts his mouth on the child’s fresh circumcision wound and sucks blood out. The New York health department struggled to even regulate these practices or require a consent form because the practice was considered religious.

In response to an attempt to ban male infant circumcision in San Francisco, the state of California passed AB-768, protecting male circumcision in law. This law was championed by both Jewish and religious groups and doctors groups. However, California has removed a religious exemption for vaccines. Thanks to the efforts of doctors groups, sucking blood from an infants wounded penis with open herpes sores is a “parental choice” protected by law, but which vaccines your child gets is not.

Again, I will re-iterate — I have no interest in vaccines. Don’t send me any vaccines studies, pro or anti, because according the parental choice ethic pushed in the circumcision debate, they don’t matter. According to circumcision proponents, “parental choice” extends to even choices that could kill your child. The AAP has published papers suggest that pleasing tribal and cultural desires is a form of benefit that out-weighs medical evidence or risks.

I know some medical groups will also say that circumcision and vaccines are such completely different issues that separate and incompatible ethical frameworks are required for each. However, that is not what circumcision proponents have said in the past. Circumcision proponents have referred to circumcision as a surgical vaccine, in news articles, academic research, and on camera in my documentary American Circumcision. Unless medical groups denounce this comparison as strongly as they promoted it, then they need to apply same ethical framework to both circumcision and vaccines. Is that framework “parental choice” or not?

There may also be some who say that because circumcision is a Jewish custom, a ban on circumcision would unfairly affect the Jewish people. However, measles outbreak in Rockland County was mostly in the Orthodox Jewish community. In response, Rockland County made vaccines mandatory with no religious exemption, banned unvaccinated children from public spaces, and threatened to prosecute parents for their religiously motivated parental choice. Medical groups have created a precedent whereby even Jewish families could be prosecuted and jailed for their “parental choice” if that choice is harmful to children.

If anti-vaccine groups want, they could simply cite the AAP’s view on circumcision. The AAP standard on circumcision is that parental choice, culture, and religion trump evidence. By the standard, the anti-vaccine movement does not need to present any medical evidence. They simply need to say that it’s their “parental choice,” or against their culture or religion. Any of the cultural, social, or political tactics used against anti-semites would also be fair game to use on doctors groups who deny their religious rights.

If anti-circumcision groups want, they could simply cite the AAP’s view on vaccines. Parental choice doesn’t exist. The desires of parents do not matter in evidence-based medicine. The AAP needs to say circumcision is bad or good, but they cannot say that it is a parental choice, because parental choice does not exist. If the evidence on circumcision is not compelling enough to fight for it as strongly as medical groups fight for vaccines, then they need to remove it as an option for parents.

If there is evidence circumcision is harmful, or that it causes the death of children, then the AAP ethical standard on vaccines suggests that circumcision proponents should have their religious exemptions removed by law, their books banned and de-platformed, and groups that promote circumcision should be classified as hate groups.

To be clear — I am not suggesting this. My personal opinion on either issue appears nowhere in this article. I am simply saying that the medical establishment viewpoint on vaccines implies these measures when applied to the circumcision debate, and vise versa.

There is a saying that where ever there appears to be a double standard, you can be sure there is one standard being secretly applied. Doctors make money on vaccines, and make an argument for them. Doctors also make money doing circumcisions, and make a completely different and incompatible argument for them. It looks like the golden rule in action — the real golden rule — “he who has the gold makes the rules” — and the rules are usually whatever produces the most gold for the person making them.

The question is — in trying to protect their income stream from circumcision, has the American Academy of Pediatrics created an opening that might cost them their position on vaccines? Or could the political tactics the medical establishment is using in the vaccine debate be used against them by the Intactivist movement?


Brendon Marotta is the director of the feature-length documentary American Circumcision. Watch the film here.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Filed Under: Blog

Brendon Marotta Speaks At Yale University About American Circumcision

April 16, 2019 By Brendon Marotta

Last year, I spoke at Yale University as a part of the American Circumcision film tour. With me on the panel was Brian Earp, Ashely Trueman, and Lauren Sardi.

Watch the full Q&A here:

Get the film American Circumcision here.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Filed Under: Blog

Circumcision Psychology Explored At Boston Film Screening

April 15, 2019 By Brendon Marotta

Watch Brendon Marotta and psychologist Ronald Goldman speak on the psychology of circumcision at the Boston documentary screening of American Circumcision:

Get the film American Circumcision here.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Filed Under: Blog

My Book On Circumcision Needs Your Help

April 15, 2019 By Brendon Marotta

I’m putting together a book of the best thinking on circumcision.

Most of what is written about circumcision is surface thinking. Circumcision debates online devolve to bumper sticker ideological statements. “Circumcision is cleaner.” “Circumcision is genital mutilation.” “It looks better.” “It’s my choice.” And so on.

For a topic that affects the majority of the American population – every man, partner of a man, parent and child – circumcision has not received the same level of discourse that other important issues have. If either side of this debate is correct, it has massive implications for publicly policy, gender, sexuality, human rights, medicine, childrearing and a whole host of other topics. Yet mainstream discussion of circumcision remains at the level of middle schoolers giggling about the word penis, thumbnails of a banana with the tip removed, and pro and con lists that read like someone choosing a fashion accessory rather than making a lifelong decision for their child.

The issue of circumcision is reaching a tipping point. European nations are considering banning the practice. At the same time, the United States federal law against female circumcision has been declared unconstitutional. Presidential candidates and celebrities have commented on the issue of circumcision. Isn’t it time for the discourse around this issue to move beyond surface thinking into the real questions circumcision raises?

My documentary American Circumcision included interviews with top voices on both sides of the debate. It condensed information that would have previously taken months of study into a one hour and forty minute film. The movie received awards, and is currently available on Netflix. It currently stands as the definitive work of media on the circumcision debate.

However, despite covering on this issue more than any previous media, there were still aspects I was unable to cover. I built the film around the central question “is circumcision something Americans should continue?” Yet there are many other questions one could ask about this issue. In releasing the film and touring with it across the country, I had many people raise these questions at our screenings, on social media, and in the press and podcasts I did to promote the film. There are enough questions raised by this issue to fill a book, and justify a second artistic venture going even deeper into the issue of circumcision.

That is why I’m putting together a book of essays featuring the best thinking on circumcision. Each essay will explore a unique aspect of this issue. Like the film, I plan to allow the full range of perspectives so that readers can compare different viewpoints side by side and come to their own conclusions.

  • How To Contribute: If you are interested in contributing, send one essay 1,000 – 5,000 words in length exploring an aspect of circumcision, a 2-3 sentence bio, and a signed copy of this form [download here] giving me permission to use your contribution in the book to circumcisionbook@protonmail.com with “Submission” as the first word of your headline by June 30, 2019.

Some of the interview subjects from my film will be returning to contribute essays, however there will be many new voices.

If you are interested it submitting an essay, I would recommend picking one aspect of this debate and going deep. Find the perspective only you could contribute. For example, one sexologist has told me they are interested in writing a chapter just on what happens to the pelvic floor during circumcision. That is a unique aspect of this issue I have not seen covered elsewhere and something that only someone with their background could cover.

What I’m looking for is powerful writing. Although some of our contributors are academics, this book for the general public. Write in a way that captures attention. Personal stories, opinion pieces, original research, etc. are all welcome as long as it deepens our understanding of this issue.

If there is someone whose unique perspective you would like to see in this book, please share this blog post with them and ask them to contribute. I have reached out to a few “big names” asking for a contribution, but there is a greater chance of public figures contributing if they see their audience wants them to speak on this issue.

The power of this book is in the collaboration. This is an opportunity for public figures to speak on circumcision, next to top experts. Each author will be able to expand their audience to the combined audience of every other author in the book, plus the audience I have through my feature-length documentary on Netflix for only the cost of a single essay, roughly the length of a long blog-post.

Together we will create something greater than any one contributor could do alone, that will become a must-read for anyone interested in the issue of circumcision.

The deadline for contributions is June 30, 2019. My goal is to publish September 2019. Currently, I am looking at self publishing, but open to other offers.

To see my previous work on this issue, watch my film American Circumcision here.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Filed Under: Blog

Primary Sidebar

Follow

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • GitHub
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • Medium
  • Pinterest
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • Vimeo
  • YouTube

Subscribe for more here:


Share

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Archives

  • November 2022
  • June 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • October 2014

Copyright © 2023 · Brendon Marotta