Changes

'''Aaron J. Fink''', M.D.{{MD}}, ({{LifeData|birth=1926-199406-23|birthplace=Chicago, Cook County, {{USSC|IL}}|birthcountry=USA|death=1992-02-05|deathplace=Colma, San Mateo County, {{USSC|CA}}|deathcountry=USA}}<ref>{{REFweb |url=https://de.findagrave.com/memorial/116218820/aaron-j-fink |title=Dr Aaron J Fink |publisher=Find A Grave |accessdate=2020-04-10}}</ref>) was a California urologist, who is believed to have been [[circumcised]] on the eighth day of life, and the father of the idea that [[circumcision ]] could prevent [[AIDS]]. He came up with the idea in 1986,<ref>{{REFbook | last=Glick | first=LeonardB. |init=LB |author-link=Leonard B. Glick | year=2005 | title=[[Marked in Your Flesh]] | url= | editor= | edition= | volume= | chapter="<q>This Little Operation"</q>, Jewish American Physicians and Twentieth-Century Circumcisoin Advocacy | pagespage=206 | location=New York, NY | publisher={{UNI|Oxford University |Oxon}} Press | isbn=0-19-517674-X | quote=What if circumcision protected against infection with HIV... | accessdate=2011-02-19

| last=Weiss | first=Helen A. | coauthorsinit=HA |last2=Quigley, |first2=Maria A.; |init2=MA |last3=Hayes, |first3=Richard J. | pubyearinit3=RJ |date=October 2000-10 | title=Male circumcision and risk of HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis | journal=AIDS | volume=14 | issue=15 | pages=2361–23702361-2370 | url=http://www.aidsonline.com/pt/re/aids/fulltext.00002030-200010200-00018.htm | quote= | pubmedID=11089625 | DOI=10.1097/00002030-200010200-00018 | accessdate=

| last=Alcena | first=Valiere | coauthorsinit=V | pubyeardate=October 2006-10 | title=AIDS in Third World Countries | journal=PLoS Medicine | volume= | issue= | pagespage=[online] | url=http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=read-response&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020298#r1326 | quote= | DOI=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020298#r1326 | accessdate=

== Fink's Inherent Bias 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 | last= | first= | date= | title=Aaron J. Fink | url=http://www.fact-index.com/a/aa/aaron_j__fink.html | publisher=fact index | accessdate=2011-02-27

== The Birth birth of the Circumcision circumcision & HIV Hypothesis hypothesis ===== Fink's Letterletter: In Defense defense of Circumcision circumcision ===During the 1980s, some phycisians 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>Wallerstein, Edward. ''Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy''. New York: Springer, {{WallersteinE 1980. "Circumcision: Information," 507-12.}}</ref>

=== Another Letterletter: The [[HIV]]/[[AIDS Hypothesis ]] 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 |last=Fink, |first=Aaron J. |init=AJ |author-link=Aaron J. "Fink |title=A possible Explanation for Heterosexual Male Infection with AIDS." '' |journal=New England Journal of Medicine'' |volume=315, |issue=18 ( |date=1986): |page=1167}}</ref> Fink proposed in his letter: "I suspect that men in the [[United States]], who, as compared with those in Africa and elsewhere, have had less acquisition of [[AIDS]], have benefited from the high rate of newborn circumcision in the United States," regardless of the fact that the United States has one of the highest circumcision rates, and one of the highest [[HIV ]] rates, in the western (industrialized) world (compare with European countries, Canda, and Australia).<ref>{{REFweb | last=WHO/UNAIDS | first= | date=2004 | title=A global view of HIV infection | url=http://www.who.int/hiv/facts/hiv2003/en/ | publisher=World Health Organization | accessdate=2011-02-27

=== Popularizing The Hypothesis the hypothesis ===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."<refname="Glick2005Prove">{{REFbook | last=Glick | first=LeonardB. |init= |author-link=Leonard B. Glick | year=2005 | title=[[Marked in Your Flesh]] | url= | editor= | edition= | volume= | chapter="<q>This Little Operation"</q>, Jewish American Physicians and Twentieth-Century Circumcisoin Advocacy | pagespage=207 | location=New York, NY | publisher={{UNI|Oxford University |Oxon}} Press | isbn=0-19-517674-X | quote=This is nothing I can prove. | note= | accessdate=2011-02-19}} </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.

| Title=Fink's Own Words | Text=This is nothing I can prove. | Author= | Source="This Little Operation". ''[[Marked in Your Flesh]].'' p.206-208

== Addressing Parents parents ==Fink repeated his argument in a small book on circumcision, ''Circumcision: A parent's Decision for Life'', addressed to parents and published in 1988.<ref>{{REFbook |last=Fink, |first=Aaron J. |init=AJ |author-link=Aaron J. ''Fink |title=Circumcision: A Parent's Decision for Life''. |trans-title=Beschneidung: Lebenslange Entscheidung der Eltern |language=Englisch |location=Mountain View. Calif.: , Kalifornien |publisher=Kavanah, |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:

| Title=Fink's Own Words | Text=Will your infant son have a problem practicing daily cleaning of his penis? Will he be promiscuous? Will he visit prostitutes? Will he be at greater risk of acquiring sexually transmitted diseases, including [[AIDS]]? Will he use a condom? Will he live in a tropical humid land? Will he be a diabetic? | Author=Fink, Aaron J. | Source=Circumcision, 3.

According to Fink, if his book were to "provide the knowledge and insight that might save even one life from the tragedy of [[AIDS ]] the effort was worthwhile." Since one of the book's seven chapters was entitled "Preventing [[AIDS]]: Another Benefit of Newborn Circumcision," the average reader might have concluded that this was fact and not superstition.<refname="Glick2005Prove"/>{{REFbook | last== Fink's appeal to medical associations =Glick | first=Leonard | year=2005 | title=Marked in Your Flesh | url= | editorFirst attempt = | edition= | volume= | chapter=In 1987, Fink filed a resolution entitled "Newborn Circumcision as a Public Health Measure" with the California Medical Association, saying that "it has been recently hypothesized that a circumcision, preferably in the newborn period, may lessen the acquisition, and in turn, the spread of [[AIDS]], a sexually transmitted disease." The association's advisory panels on pediatrics and urology concluded that the arguments for adoption were "not sufficiently convincing"This Little Operation; and although one panel stood by circumcision as an "acceptable preventive health measure," both panels recommended against the adoption of the resolution. The association's Scientific Board declined endorsement, Jewish American Physicians and Twentieththe resolution was not adopted.<ref>Aaron Fink, California Medical Association, Resolution 712-Century Circumcisoin Advocacy | pages=20687, March 7-208 | location=New York | publisher=Oxford University Press | isbn=0-19-517674-X | quote= This is nothing I can prove11, 1987; Joan B. Hodgman and Joseph B. | note= | accessdate=2011-02-19}}Hart, "Report to the Scientific Board" (undated, March 1987?)</ref>

== Finks Appeal to Medical Associations ===== First Attempt Second attempt: success ===In 19871988, Fink filed a repeated the resolution entitled "Newborn Circumcision as a Public Health Measure" with the California Medical Association, saying that "it has been recently hypothesized that a circumcision, preferably in new paper of the newborn periodsame title, may lessen the acquisition, and in turn, the spread of AIDS, a sexually transmitted diseasebut much lengthier." The association's advisory panels on pediatrics and urology concluded that the argumens for adoption were "not sufficiently convincing"; and although one panel stood by circumcision as an "acceptable preventive health measure," both panels Scientific Board recommended against the adoption of the resolution. The association's Scientific Board declined endorsement, and but the resolution was not adoptedpassed by voice vote.<ref>Aaron J. Fink, California Medical Association, Resolution 712305-8788, March 75-119, 19871988; Joan BFink, ''Circumcision'', 63-65.</ref> In 1989, John W. Hodgman Hardebeck presented a counter resolution entitled "Newborn Circumcision: Medical Necessity or Useless Mutilation?" stating that newborn circumcision "is a procedure without factual, demonstrable, supportable medical indications in the overwhelming majority of cases," and Joseph Bthat "most medical authorities worldwide feel that newborn males have a right to remain 'intact' except in rare instances. Hart" This was rejected.<ref>Hardebeck, John W. "Report to the Scientific BoardNewborn Circumcision: Medical Necessity or Useless Mutilation?" Truth Seeker I, 3 (undatedJuly-August 1989)</ref><ref name="SnyderJL1989">{{REFweb |last=Snyder |init=JL |author-link=James L. Snyder |title=Testimony Against Circumcision |url=http://nocirc.org/symposia/first/snyder1a.html |website=California Medical Association |date=1989-03-04}} Truth Seeker I, March 1987?3 (July-August 1989): 51.</ref>

=== Second Attempt: Success Unintended consequence ===In 1988, response to the controversy surrounding the Fink repeated the 's resolution with , and Hardebeck's attempt to counteract it, a new paper group of circumcision opponents held a conference in a hotel across the street from the one housing the same title, but much lengthiermedical meeting. The Scientific Board recommended against conference organizer was the nation's leading opponent of infant circumcision: [[Marilyn F. Milos]]. the adoption, but founder and director of the resolution passed by voice voteNational Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers (NOCIRC).<ref>Aaron JMarilyn Milos, personal communication with [[Leonard B. FinkGlick]], California Medical Association, Resolution 305-88, March 5-9July 27, 1988; Fink, ''Circumcision'', 63-65.2001</ref> In 1989<ref>Hardebeck, John W. Hardebeck presented a counter resolution entitled "Newborn Circumcision: Medical Necessity or Useless Mutilation?" stating that newborn circumcision ''Truth Seeker'' I, 3 (July-August 1989)</ref><ref name="SnyderJL1989"is a procedure without factual/> The three-day conference, labeled the [[First International Symposium]] on Circumcision, demonstrablewas so successful that six more symposia, supportable medical indications resulting to date in publication of four volumes based on the overwhelming majority of casesproceedings," and that "most medical authorities worldwide feel that newborn males have a right to remain 'intact' except been held since then, in rare instanceslocations as diverse as Lausanne, Oxford and Sidney." This was rejected<ref>{{REFbook |editors=Denniston, George C., & Marilyn Fayre Milos |title=Sexual Mutilations: A Human Tragedy |location=New York |publisher=Plenum |year=1997}}</ref><ref>Hardebeck{{REFbook |editors=Denniston, John WGeorge C. "Newborn / Frederick Mansfield Hodges / Marilyn Fayre Milos |title=Male and Female Circumcision: Medical Necessity or Useless Mutilation?" Truth Seeker I, 3 (July-August 1989)Legal, and Ethical Considerations in Pediatric Practice |location=New York |publisher=Kluwer Academic/Plenum |year=1999}}</ref><ref>Snyder{{REFbook |editors=Denniston, "Testimony Against George C. / Frederick Mansfield Hodges / Marilyn Fayre Milos |title=Understanding Circumcision." (California Medical Association, March 4; A Multi-Disciplinary Aproach to a Multi-Dimensional Problem |location=New York |publisher=Kluwer Academic/Plenum |year=2001}}</ref><ref>{{REFbook |editors=Denniston, 1989George C.) Truth Seeker I, 3 (July-August 1989)/ Frederick Mansfield Hodges / Marilyn Fayre Milos |title=Flesh and Blood: 51.Perspectives on the Problem of Circumcision in Contemporary Society |location=New York |publisher=Kluwer Academic/Plenum |year=2004}}</ref>It could be said that Fink unintentionally created a vigorous new expression of opposition to circumcision.

=== Unintended Consequence =Final letters ==In response Fink sent a letter to the controversy surrounding the Fink's resolutionBritish Medical Journal, and Hardebeck's attempt to counteract itprompting two hostile replies, a group of circumcision opponents held a conference in a hotel across the street both 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)Leeds physicians.<ref>Marilyn Milos, personal communication with Leonard B{{REFjournal |last=Fink |first=Aaron J. Glick, July 27, 2001</ref><ref>Hardebeck, John W |init=AJ |author-link=Aaron J. "Fink |title=Newborn Circumcision: A Long-term Strategy for AIDS Prevention (letter) |journal=Journal of the Royal Medical Necessity or Useless Mutilation?" Truth Seeker I, 3 (July-August Society |volume=82 |date=1989) |page=695}}</ref><ref>Snyder, "Testimony Against Circumcision." (California Medical Association, March 4, 1989.) Truth Seeker I, 3 (July{{REFjournal |last=Waugh |init=MA |last2=Spicer |init2=RD |title=&nbsp; |journal=Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine |volume=83 |date=1990-August 1989): 51.04 |page=278}}</ref> The three-day conferenceIn 1991 Fink wrote another letter, labeled the First International Symposium on Circumcision, was so successful that claiming infants have no [[Pain| memory of painful events]] until age 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 Sidneymonths or older.<ref>Denniston, George C{{REFjournal |last=Fink |first=Aaron J., and Marilyn Fayre Milos, eds |init=AJ |author-link=Aaron J. ''Sexual Mutilations : A Human Tragedy''. New York: Plenum, 1997.</ref><ref>Denniston, George C., Frederick Mansfield Hodges, and Marilyn Fayre Milos, eds. ''Male and Female Fink |title=Circumcision: Medical, Legal, and Ethical Considerations in Pediatric Practice''. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum, 1999.Sand |journal=Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine |volume=84 |date=1991-11 |page=696}}</ref><ref>DennistonHe died in 1994, George C., Frederick Mansfield Hodges, and Marilyn Fayre Milos, eds. ''Understanding Circumcision; A Multi-Disciplinary Aproach but the campaign to link [[HIV]] infection to a Multi-Dimensional Problem''. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum, 2001.</ref><ref>Denniston, George C., Frederick Mansfield Hodges, and Marilyn Fayre Milos, eds. ''Flesh and Blood: Perspectives on the Problem of Circumcision in Contemporary Society''. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum, 2004.</ref> It could be said that Fink unintentionally created a vigorous new expression of opposition [[foreskin]] continues to circumcisionthis day.

{{PUB}}* {{REFbook |last=Fink |first= Final Letters Aaron J. |init=AJ |author-link=Fink sent a letter to the British medical journal, prompting two hostile replies, both from Leeds physicians.<ref>Fink, Aaron J. "Newborn Fink |year=1988 |title=Circumcision: A Long-term Strategy Parent's Decision for AIDS Prevention" (letter). Journal of the Royal Medical Society 82 (1989)Life |url=https: 695.</ref><ref>Waugh M.A., Spicer R.D ''Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine'' 83/www. (April 1990): 278amazon.<com/ref> In 1991 Fink wrote another letter, claiming infants have no memory of painful events until age six months or older.<ref>Fink, Circumcision-Decision-Aaron -J. "Circumcision and Sand." ''Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine'' 84 (November 1991): 696<-Fink/dp/ref> He died in 1994, but the campaign to link HIV infection to the foreskin continues to this day.0962134708 |isbn=978-0962134708 |accessdate=2020-04-10 }}

* [[Alleged reasons for circumcision]]* [[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.

* [[Leonard B. Glick|Glick, Leonard ]] (2005). ''[[Marked in Your Flesh]]''. New York, New York: {{UNI|Oxford University |Oxon}} Press. pp. 206. ISBN 0-19-517674-X.

[[Category:PeoplePerson]][[Category:ResearchersMale]][[Category:UrologistsDeceased]] [[Category:Circumfetish]][[Category:Promoter]][[Category:Researcher]][[Category:Urologist]] [[Category:History]] [[Category:USA]]