I'm a member of the public who's interested in exposing the realities of infant and child circumcision. Between 2009-2013 I used the UK Freedom of Information Act 2000 to mine data from the UK National Health Service on circumcision incidence, diagnosis, and adverse effects*. I also collected information from the General Medical Council, local Safeguarding teams, A&E departments and police, medics, the coroners service and a leading pathologist - covering the morbidity/mortality seen following private/ritual child circumcisions.
As a lay person I didn't know how to publicise the data but knew it was highly relevant to the ongoing debate. Initial promising discussions with a medical journal faded away after a senior urology advisor raised concerns about a potential religious backlash and questioned the high rates of circumcision re-admissions which some hospitals had reported.
So I was asked to find a medic who would quality check my data. Having tried and failed to engage with several paediatricians I took annual leave from my job and wrote the paper myself. This submission failed to pass initial review, and though I was encouraged to try again, I was advised that publication was unlikely without the involvement of a doctor. At this point I gave up.
More than a year on, child circumcision is very much in the news again, with Denmark debating an age threshold, while the US Center for Disease Control is promoting child circumcision. Yet again, the information for funders and consent givers is highly misleading: the CDC suggest for example that neonatal cutting has only a 1.5% risk of complications, although US data suggests surgical follow up is common.. and many studies show a much higher rate of even early adverse effects. Religious commentators continue to assert that their ritual is very safe - even where this means covering up the results of their own audits...
So I feel it's time to put what I found on record, so that it might be cited, and secondly to try again with some new freedom of information requests, the results of which might be more formally published. I've registered an account at research portal Figshare, and over the coming days and weeks will upload returns from hospitals and commissioners across England, on circumcisions performed and subsequent issues treated in hospital. My data is incomplete but suggests that in 2009, the UK NHS spent c£2 million on the religious/cultural circumcision of around 4,000 children and may have since spent >£100k on treating complications**. It also dealt with the sometimes drastic consequences of private/ritual child circumcisions, including infants admitted to hospital with life-threatening haemorrhage. As a third and linked issue, the NHS performed far too many therapeutic-coded circumcisions in boys unlikely to require this surgery. There's a clear postcode lottery regarding whether a male child will grow up with his genitals intact...
Here is a first example of the kind of return I got regarding specifically religious circumcision on the NHS. It shows data from Oldham, in north west England from 2009: one of around 150 English NHS funders (as was) and one which in this period performed 254 religious child circumcisions. This funder was particularly willing to engage - not all were.
See http://figshare.com/authors/Laura_Macdonald/654498 for access to other uploaded NHS responses and analysis.
More to follow. Please comment and question - and leave me your email if you'd like me to get in touch directly.
* I began this process as a volunteer for NORM-UK, but completed it entirely independently and no longer have any involvement with the charity.
**some complications were so significant that a children's hospital raised concerns with local commissioners - to no response
As a lay person I didn't know how to publicise the data but knew it was highly relevant to the ongoing debate. Initial promising discussions with a medical journal faded away after a senior urology advisor raised concerns about a potential religious backlash and questioned the high rates of circumcision re-admissions which some hospitals had reported.
So I was asked to find a medic who would quality check my data. Having tried and failed to engage with several paediatricians I took annual leave from my job and wrote the paper myself. This submission failed to pass initial review, and though I was encouraged to try again, I was advised that publication was unlikely without the involvement of a doctor. At this point I gave up.
More than a year on, child circumcision is very much in the news again, with Denmark debating an age threshold, while the US Center for Disease Control is promoting child circumcision. Yet again, the information for funders and consent givers is highly misleading: the CDC suggest for example that neonatal cutting has only a 1.5% risk of complications, although US data suggests surgical follow up is common.. and many studies show a much higher rate of even early adverse effects. Religious commentators continue to assert that their ritual is very safe - even where this means covering up the results of their own audits...
So I feel it's time to put what I found on record, so that it might be cited, and secondly to try again with some new freedom of information requests, the results of which might be more formally published. I've registered an account at research portal Figshare, and over the coming days and weeks will upload returns from hospitals and commissioners across England, on circumcisions performed and subsequent issues treated in hospital. My data is incomplete but suggests that in 2009, the UK NHS spent c£2 million on the religious/cultural circumcision of around 4,000 children and may have since spent >£100k on treating complications**. It also dealt with the sometimes drastic consequences of private/ritual child circumcisions, including infants admitted to hospital with life-threatening haemorrhage. As a third and linked issue, the NHS performed far too many therapeutic-coded circumcisions in boys unlikely to require this surgery. There's a clear postcode lottery regarding whether a male child will grow up with his genitals intact...
Here is a first example of the kind of return I got regarding specifically religious circumcision on the NHS. It shows data from Oldham, in north west England from 2009: one of around 150 English NHS funders (as was) and one which in this period performed 254 religious child circumcisions. This funder was particularly willing to engage - not all were.
See http://figshare.com/authors/Laura_Macdonald/654498 for access to other uploaded NHS responses and analysis.
More to follow. Please comment and question - and leave me your email if you'd like me to get in touch directly.
* I began this process as a volunteer for NORM-UK, but completed it entirely independently and no longer have any involvement with the charity.
**some complications were so significant that a children's hospital raised concerns with local commissioners - to no response
No comments:
Post a Comment