# Accucirc



## calngavinsmom (Feb 19, 2003)

Have you all seen this new disgusting thing yet?
http://www.accucirc.com/

Couldn't time be much better spent oh I don't know, curing disease, or developing something that betters peoples lives?

Take care,
Tara


----------



## NewDirections (Jul 18, 2008)

Awful!







:


----------



## AutumnMama (Jan 2, 2004)

It just boggles my mind that people still do this. It's ridiculous. And horrendous.
Disgusting.


----------



## NewDirections (Jul 18, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AutumnMama* 
It just boggles my mind that people still do this. It's ridiculous. And horrendous.
Disgusting.

I totally agree


----------



## bandgeek (Sep 12, 2006)

"Delicate crush" WTF? How is crushing skin EVER delicate? uke


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

Let's please focus on the _apparatus_ rather than parents. Thanks


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

I'm having a difficult time imagining that device "in person" on an actual _baby_ who is not some disembodied penis as animated







It seems to me that by using a device such as that, there would be a much greater incidence of mistakes and accidents. Truly shiver-inducing.


----------



## dianakaye (Mar 20, 2009)

All I could think while watching was "OW".


----------



## Quirky (Jun 18, 2002)

I love how the device is designed to "protect the infant from injury."

It's like 1984-speak.


----------



## KnitLady (Jul 6, 2006)

Quote from site: "It is designed to protect infants from injury during circumcision. "

Ummm, really? Seems like his foreskin is going to be injured. Yeah, I know that is the point, but I really think statements like that reinforce the thought that foreskin is "extra" and not really a part of the body.


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

That is appalling. It looks like a type of wine bottle opener.


----------



## kriket (Nov 25, 2007)

It really seems like there would be a higher margin of error. what if that little hat is on wrong and the whole penis gets chopped?! Or that little hat isn't clean and you cram it in there and give poor baby a nasty infection!? How can anyone watch this and say "oh, how progressive" it just seems dangerous!


----------



## Lula's Mom (Oct 29, 2003)

But it looks like the cut-off foreskin is left inside the device after it's removed. How will the hospital be able to sell the foreskin to cosmetics companies that way?







: Maybe they need to go back to the drawing board...

That little video on the home page was horrifying. Even in cartoon illustration, the naked glans looked awful and painful.


----------



## eepster (Sep 20, 2006)

I suspect the plan is to mostly market it in Africa so that barely trained technitions can use them.


----------



## tutucrazy (Dec 30, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KnitLady* 
Quote from site: "It is designed to protect infants from injury during circumcision. "

Ummm, really? Seems like his foreskin is going to be injured. Yeah, I know that is the point, but I really think statements like that reinforce the thought that foreskin is "extra" and not really a part of the body.

I thought the same thing. Since when is amputation not injury?


----------



## ckmannel (Oct 16, 2008)

uke
I watched the demo right before dinner
that makes my stomach lurch, my skin crawl, etc.
Can't believe there is a market for "new developments" in an age old form of mutilation...


----------



## purplestraws (Sep 13, 2006)

That, literally, made me sick.


----------



## Ron_Low (May 11, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kriket* 
It really seems like there would be a higher margin of error. what if that little hat is on wrong and the whole penis gets chopped?! Or that little hat isn't clean and you cram it in there and give poor baby a nasty infection!? How can anyone watch this and say "oh, how progressive" it just seems dangerous!

I argued with the inventor of this device at the obstetricians' convention last month. I just don't get how they responded to reports about elective ADULT circumcision supposedly fighting AIDS by selling an INFANT circumcising device.

But to be straight, it does seem like it will produce results safer and superior to most other amputation methods. It will prevent infections related to re-use of devices (which wasn't so much of an issue for infants), but it won't reduce infections during healing.

It unfortunately cuts in a neat circle with no bias toward leaving ample skin on the frenular side. The clinical instruction video on their web site starts with step one, hurt the baby. It does not start with step one, administer anesthesia.

The kit will have to be very expensive. It includes this expensive throw-away tool plus two steel hemastats also intended for single use. You gotta know they'll just re-use the hemastats and sell the extras on the black market.


----------



## calngavinsmom (Feb 19, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kriket* 
It really seems like there would be a higher margin of error. what if that little hat is on wrong and the whole penis gets chopped?! Or that little hat isn't clean and you cram it in there and give poor baby a nasty infection!? How can anyone watch this and say "oh, how progressive" it just seems dangerous!









: To me it looks so big and cumbersome. How it could be used accurately on a little tiny baby is beyond me.

Take care,
Tara


----------



## Jasmyn's Mum (May 24, 2004)

uke and


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eepster* 
I suspect the plan is to mostly market it in Africa so that barely trained technitions can use them.

Barely trained people circ infants in third world countries already.

http://armchairgm.wikia.com/Article:...ing_off-season


----------



## Mama2Bug (Feb 18, 2005)

I watched the clinical video. It shows a real baby, not an animation.

Good thing I ate dinner hours ago.... uke

Seriously, who could see that and be like "Yeah! That's a great idea!"


----------



## becca_howell (Jan 3, 2009)

I totally wish I saw that coming. I nearly dropped my cereal bowl and now I feel uke


----------



## moonglowmama (Jan 23, 2002)

I only watched the video on the opening page, but what struck me is that they show a happy baby in the mother's arms, and playing next to a disembodied animation of the "procedure." By disassociating the infant from his penis, it somehow makes it more palatable (sorry, I know a bad word choice) and more acceptable of a practice.

This is the same way women were portrayed when men started taking over birth and using more instruments to deliver women from their babies, or vice-versa. The pictures of birth went from being women gathered around the laboring mother, with a focus on her face, or her posture, to a diagram or image of a vagina, spread-eagle legs and whatever apparatus was saving the woman.

Makes it all the more clear that circumcision is a human-rights violation when the human being is considered unimportant in the procedure. very sad.


----------



## KaylaBeanie (Jan 27, 2009)

Did the phrases "foreskin probe" and "crushing action" make anyone else feel like vomiting?

Jeez.


----------



## Sarahstw (Jun 18, 2006)

http://www.accucirc.com/demo.php#

The third streaming video gives a great demo of how another device can cause serious "accidents". enlightening!


----------



## Seie (Jun 9, 2005)

Quote:

When is use of the AccuCirc indicated/contraindicated?

The AccuCirc is indicated for circumcisions of the penile foreskin on full-term, newborn (up to 10 days) male infants.

The AccuCirc is contraindicated in cases of malformed or ambiguous genitalia, family history of bleeding problems, the child has not had at least one void since birth, or the ring of the probe cannot be easily inserted and/or the foreskin appropriately aligned on the top of the ring.
How about its contraindicated on any male with a foreskin!


----------



## Peacemamalove (Jun 7, 2006)

Awful awful awful


----------



## Amila (Apr 4, 2006)

That is the most horrific thing I have seen in quite a while


----------



## BlessedMommy2006 (Dec 7, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *calngavinsmom* 

Couldn't time be much better spent oh I don't know, curing disease, or developing something that betters peoples lives?

Oh, but didn't you know that circumcision prevents AIDS?









Or at least the website said that it's an "effective intervention" for AIDS. YEAH. RIGHT.


----------



## Pumpkinheadmommy (Nov 6, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *abimommy* 
That is appalling. It looks like a type of wine bottle opener.









That's the same thing I thought! Makes you wonder just how many bottles the inventor had been drinking when he came up with this one!


----------



## Contrariety (Jul 16, 2007)

Ick. I'm not even going to look...


----------



## Belle (Feb 6, 2005)

uke I literally feel physically ill right now. I watched the AccuCirc Introductory Video. I wish that I hadn't. It was not an animated baby that they used it on. It had porno music playing in the background too. This is beyond sick.


----------



## savvybabygrace (Feb 15, 2007)

Watched every video, feel like I'm going to vomit.


----------



## Papai (Apr 9, 2007)

Circumcision tools just make me so uneasy. Like looking at torture devices....


----------



## Quickbeam (Jan 6, 2009)

I didn't look at it. I saw this thread when looking at "New Posts" and I thought someone was talking about a sister drug to Accutane







. Wish I'd been correct







.


----------



## 1littlebit (Jun 1, 2008)

i can't even.. ugh....its sick. i dont even have a penis and watching that me want to close my legs and run. i cant imagine why people think this is a good thing .. why we are making it easier to amputate parts of a newborns genitalia.

do people even think that their might be emotional ramifications for babies who suffer genital mutilation as on of their first out of the womb experiences?


----------



## FernG (Feb 14, 2008)

That looks like such a tight circ, too! I couldn't believe how much skin they took off and how exposed the glans was. The circs I've seen lately have much more of the foreskin left. Don't tell me that they are going back to the tight ones to prevent adhesions.


----------



## mama24-7 (Aug 11, 2004)

I didn't watch the video. They give me nightmares. Reading the comments is education enough on what is happening in the videos.

It's sad that there is a market for "new" inventions in the mutilation of the genitals of non-consenting infants.









Sus


----------



## RoxyJas (May 11, 2007)

I watched their video on potential complications using the gomco. When they showed the glans getting accidently cut I almost lost it. Sick. WTH is wrong with this world??? Seriously! I just don't understand how this is deemed as okay to do to our precious children.


----------



## snangel (Nov 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *FernG* 
That looks like such a tight circ, too! I couldn't believe how much skin they took off and how exposed the glans was. The circs I've seen lately have much more of the foreskin left. Don't tell me that they are going back to the tight ones to prevent adhesions.

I thought the same thing...yuck I want to vomit now....


----------



## BaMo (Mar 19, 2006)

I felt (still feel) so sick after watching it.


----------



## fruitful womb (Nov 20, 2004)

Can't watch it, my postpartum brain is still waaaayyy to sensitive to trauma right now. Which is why I haven't been around that much.









Circumcision causes more problems than its trying to prevent. Why are we as a society stuck in a time warp?

This needs to end.


----------



## serendipity22 (Sep 19, 2006)

Whoever wrote that website has a circumcised mindset.

They don't seem to realise that circumcision is a deliberately inflicted injury. The whole statement of preventing injury to the penis is absurd, they deny the foreskin is part of the penis.

This really is insane thinking.


----------



## Pumpkinheadmommy (Nov 6, 2007)

I have an intactivist friend who is also an engineer. He looked at the website for this device and had some alarming comments about it. With his permission, I'm posting his comments here:

"When I saw that thing, I had to examine their patent applications. By DESIGN, it appears to produce a VERY LOW circumcision. (The scar would be very near, or even up against the glans.) It looks like the skin tension would be at the control of the operator, but the position of the cut appears to be fixed and would leave the victim with hardly ANY remaining inner foreskin. That translates to a nearly "numb" primary sex organ, since it is the inner foreskin that produces most of the sensation that the man will feel. This device probably would produce a more consistent circumcision, but they would all be consistently LOW circumcisions, with only the skin tension varying at the whim or skill of the operator. It should produce a lot of males that will grow up with problems related to very little sexual sensitivity."

In addition:

"Looking at how it works, I expect that very few men will still have anything left of their frenulum either. I know that many older doctors simply remove the frenulum anyway if it happens to survive the circumcision.

What bothers me greatly is that parents will get the look that they are really doing it for, and not encounter the problems that previous methods have produced. They just don't realize that they are producing men that are going to have little sexual sensitivity left to them. These men are also much more likely to become sexually dysfunctional at earlier ages then men that have more of their foreskin, and possibly some of their frenulum left to them. Remember also, that on average, circumcised men become sexually dysfunctional 7 YEARS before their intact counterparts. Actually, I have seen up to 26 years earlier stated, but I use the 7 year figure because it has documentation presented by a doctor that set out to prove that circumcision caused no sensitivity losses. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15833526?dopt=Abstract)"

And finally:

"It will not stop the problem of meatal stenosis however. That is caused by ischemia caused by the truncation of the vascularization that was in the foreskin, which serviced the glans. They are ALWAYS terminated by ANY circumcision. Actually, over 3 and ½ feet of vascularization is lost with the average circumcision. (That would be measured at maturity.)"


----------



## MaryJaneLouise (Jul 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ron_Low* 

The kit will have to be very expensive. It includes this expensive throw-away tool plus two steel hemastats also intended for single use. You gotta know they'll just re-use the hemastats and sell the extras on the black market.

Which of course will spread HIV/AIDS in that undeveloped country


----------



## MaryJaneLouise (Jul 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Pumpkinheadmommy* 
I Remember also, that on average, circumcised men become sexually dysfunctional 7 YEARS before their intact counterparts. Actually, I have seen up to 26 years earlier stated, but I use the 7 year figure because it has documentation presented by a doctor that set out to prove that circumcision caused no sensitivity losses. (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1583352... )"


Please double-check with your friend on the pubmed citation, that links to the wrong abstract. I am interested in seeing the abstract s/he referenced.


----------



## Pumpkinheadmommy (Nov 6, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MaryJaneLouise* 
Please double-check with your friend on the pubmed citation, that links to the wrong abstract. I am interested in seeing the abstract s/he referenced.

Ok, I think I fixed the link now. Sorry about that!

Here's the link for the abstract:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...?dopt=Abstract


----------



## MaryJaneLouise (Jul 26, 2005)

CDRH/FDA
1350 Piccard Drive, HFZ-210
Rockville, MD 20850
e-mail: [email protected]

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to inform you of the unethical marketing of the Accu-Circ circumcision device.

This medical device is approved only for infant circumcision, as stated on their web page accessible at: http://www.accucirc.com/faq.php

"When is use of the AccuCirc indicated/contraindicated?

The AccuCirc is indicated for circumcisions of the penile foreskin on full-term, newborn (up to 10 days) male infants."

However, on their web page accessible at http://www.accucirc.com/literature.php, they provide links to several studies on the so-called "benefits" of circumcision performed on ADULT men. For instance, one of the articles is titled "The Role of Male Circumcision in the Prevention of Human Papillomavirus and HIV Infection."

As you may know, these studies are very controversial, with many in the medical community pointing out the many flaws of these studies and their lack of generalizability to infant boys in developed countries such as the U.S.

By providing these links on their web page, Clinical Innovations is implying that routine infant male circumcision has the "benefits" of prevention of STDs such as HPV and HIV when those boys become men.

Please communicate to this company that this is an unethical marketing practice, and should be stopped immediately.

Thank you for your attention to this matter,

Concerned Citizen


----------



## MaryJaneLouise (Jul 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Pumpkinheadmommy* 
Ok, I think I fixed the link now. Sorry about that!

Here's the link for the abstract:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez

Still not working. Do you have a title and/or PMID number?

ETA NEver mind, I got it from your prev post :thankyou:


----------



## Pumpkinheadmommy (Nov 6, 2007)

Ok, good! And I think I just fixed it in my separate post too.


----------



## QueenOfTheMeadow (Mar 25, 2005)

Please remember that any discusion of intactivism belongs in the activism forum, so feel free to start a thread there if you are planning a letter writing campaign regarding this device. Thanks for your cooperation.


----------

