Changes

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

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>

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

Fink's proposal appeared in media throughout the US [[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

}} </ref> This didn't stop other physicians from conducting "research" leading to a steady stream of widely publicized articles arguing that [[circumcised]] men were less likely to contract [[HIV]] - — with the result that prevention of [[HIV]] infection has now surpassed even cancer prevention as the most popular claim of circumcision advocates.

}}</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:

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

* [[Bias]] -- — Learn about pro-circumcision bias.* [[Circumcised doctors]] -- — Learn how circumcised doctors behave.* [[Religion and Culture]] -- — Learn how religion and culture effects ones views on circumcision.* [[Edgar J. Schoen]] -- — Veteran pro-circumcision advocate.* [[Thomas E. Wiswell]] -- — Veteran pro-circumcision advocate.