Aaron J. Fink: Difference between revisions

Improve format.
Wikify
 
Line 61: Line 61:


== Fink's inherent bias ==
== Fink's inherent bias ==
According to Fink's son-in-law, Fink had a son who had a botched circumcision and corrective surgery, and then died at the age of four-years due to a brain tumour. Fink spent the rest of his life trying to justify his son's circumcision and the [[pain]] that he endured during the four years of his life.<ref>{{REFweb
According to Fink's son-in-law, Fink had a son who had a botched [[circumcision]] and corrective surgery, and then died at the age of four-years due to a brain tumour. Fink spent the rest of his life trying to justify his son's circumcision and the [[pain]] that he endured during the four years of his life.<ref>{{REFweb
  |last=
  |last=
  |first=
  |first=
Line 73: Line 73:
== The birth of the circumcision & HIV hypothesis ==
== The birth of the circumcision & HIV hypothesis ==
=== Fink's letter: In defense of circumcision ===
=== Fink's letter: In defense of circumcision ===
During the 1980s, some physicians were condemning circumcision as "barbaric and unnecessary," and only "advocated by the uninformed." In 1986, Blue Shield providers in several states decided to discontinue coverage of neonatal circumcision. In reaction to this, Fink sent a manifesto entitled "In Defense of Circumcision" to the ''New York Times'' and the ''San Francisco Chronicle'', repeating antiquated claims of benefits; many of which weren't even published.<ref>{{WallersteinE 1980}}</ref>
During the 1980s, some physicians were condemning [[circumcision]] as "barbaric and unnecessary," and only "advocated by the uninformed." In 1986, Blue Shield providers in several states decided to discontinue coverage of neonatal circumcision. In reaction to this, Fink sent a manifesto entitled "In Defense of Circumcision" to the ''New York Times'' and the ''San Francisco Chronicle'', repeating antiquated claims of benefits; many of which weren't even published.<ref>{{WallersteinE 1980}}</ref>


=== Another letter: The [[HIV]]/[[AIDS]] hypothesis ===
=== Another letter: The [[HIV]]/[[AIDS]] hypothesis ===
In 1986, Fink sent a letter -- "A possible Explanation for Heterosexual Male Infection with [[AIDS]]," where he argued that the hard and toughened glans of the circumcised male resisted infection, while the soft and sensitive foreskin and glans [[mucosa]] of the intact male were ports of entry.<ref>{{REFjournal
In 1986, Fink sent a letter "A possible Explanation for Heterosexual Male Infection with [[AIDS]]," where he argued that the hard and toughened glans of the circumcised male resisted infection, while the soft and sensitive foreskin and glans [[mucosa]] of the intact male were ports of entry.<ref>{{REFjournal
  |last=Fink
  |last=Fink
  |first=Aaron J.
  |first=Aaron J.
Line 98: Line 98:


=== Popularizing the hypothesis ===
=== Popularizing the hypothesis ===
Fink's proposal appeared in media throughout the US and [[Canada]]. Asked about his idea by a United Press reporter, Fink replied "This is nothing I can prove."<ref name="Glick2005Prove">{{REFbook
Fink's proposal appeared in media throughout the [[United States]] and [[Canada]]. Asked about his idea by a United Press reporter, Fink replied "This is nothing I can prove."<ref name="Glick2005Prove">{{REFbook
  |last=Glick
  |last=Glick
  |first=Leonard B.
  |first=Leonard B.
Line 138: Line 138:
  |publisher=Kavanah
  |publisher=Kavanah
  |date=1988
  |date=1988
}}</ref> The focus was on sexually transmitted diseases, which Fink declared to be "no longer a matter of morals but an issue of life or death." Defeating the threat, he informed prospective parents, and called for immediate action: "The facts now point to circumcision, cutting off the foreskin, as a life-sparing path to public and personal health." And lest anyone doubt the urgency of the situation, he added the questions likely to generate unease among the skeptics and human right proponents:
}}</ref> The focus was on sexually transmitted diseases, which Fink declared to be "no longer a matter of morals but an issue of life or death." Defeating the threat, he informed prospective parents, and called for immediate action: "The facts now point to [[circumcision]], cutting off the [[[foreskin]], as a life-sparing path to public and personal health." And lest anyone doubt the urgency of the situation, he added the questions likely to generate unease among the skeptics and human right proponents:


{{Citation
{{Citation
Line 165: Line 165:


=== Unintended consequence ===
=== Unintended consequence ===
In response to the controversy surrounding the Fink's resolution, and Hardebeck's attempt to counteract it, a group of circumcision opponents held a conference in a hotel across the street from the one housing the medical meeting. The conference organizer was the nation's leading opponent of infant circumcision: [[Marilyn F. Milos]]. the founder and director of the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers (NOCIRC).<ref>Marilyn Milos, personal communication with [[Leonard B. Glick]], July 27, 2001</ref><ref>Hardebeck, John W. "Newborn Circumcision: Medical Necessity or Useless Mutilation?" Truth Seeker I, 3 (July-August 1989)</ref><ref name="SnyderJL1989"/> The three-day conference, labeled the First International Symposium on Circumcision, was so successful that six more symposia, resulting to date in publication of four volumes based on the proceedings, have been held since then, in locations as diverse as Lausanne, Oxford and Sidney.<ref>{{REFbook
In response to the controversy surrounding the Fink's resolution, and Hardebeck's attempt to counteract it, a group of circumcision opponents held a conference in a hotel across the street from the one housing the medical meeting. The conference organizer was the nation's leading opponent of infant circumcision: [[Marilyn F. Milos]]. the founder and director of the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers (NOCIRC).<ref>Marilyn Milos, personal communication with [[Leonard B. Glick]], July 27, 2001</ref><ref>Hardebeck, John W. "Newborn Circumcision: Medical Necessity or Useless Mutilation?" ''Truth Seeker'' I, 3 (July-August 1989)</ref><ref name="SnyderJL1989"/> The three-day conference, labeled the [[First International Symposium]] on Circumcision, was so successful that six more symposia, resulting to date in publication of four volumes based on the proceedings, have been held since then, in locations as diverse as Lausanne, Oxford and Sidney.<ref>{{REFbook
  |editors=Denniston, George C., & Marilyn Fayre Milos
  |editors=Denniston, George C., & Marilyn Fayre Milos
  |title=Sexual Mutilations: A Human Tragedy
  |title=Sexual Mutilations: A Human Tragedy