stats on later in life circs

[Doula Janeya]

Hi all,

I am new to this forum but have been reading around Mothering dot com for a while. I am a doula and am particularly looking for information to present to clients who decide to circumcise because their mom or aunt or someone know all these little boys who needed to be circumcised when they were 8 or 10 because of infection or something.

I can present information on why I believe circumcision to not be the best decision right now but is there any statistic stating how many boys actually need to be circumcised later? Or information on what might be causing this to happen? Improper cleaning, improper retraction?

I find it hard to believe that there are that many boys needing to be circumcised later on but this has been the reason for several of my clients getting their little boys done and it kills me. I want something to be able to tell them, something that I can back up with solid statistics.

Thanks,

Janeya

[jserral]

Well, since there is a big misconception on how you are actually suppose to care for an intact penis, many of the problems people have that end up causing them to circumcise are actually due to improper care. ie, forcible retraction, overuse of soap, cleaning too much. There are also situations that can happen that may seem like a problem but is part of normal development, ie ballooning during urination, premature diagnosis of phimosis, and even the separation of the foreskin and glans. However, I do not know of a study that actually keeps track of circumcisions that were truly needed. Perhaps studies from a different country would provide more accurate results.

[Bm31]

Here is a link from Canada http://www.caringforkids.cps.ca/preg...rcumcision.htm. It gives a figure of 10 out of 1,000. Incidentally, that is also the same number of circ'd boys that will be re-circ'd.

[Minarai]

I know some boys and men in Japan get circ'd later in life because they think girls will like them more...
Other than that, I don't have any veritable statistics.

[hakunangovi]

The main reason that one hears of so many boys "needing" to be circumcised later in life is that the medical profession in North America (a) has no clue how to differentiate between a real foreskin problem vs a percieved problem , and (b) has no clue how to effectively treat the few real problems. All they know how to do to a foreskin is whack it off.

I do not know of any studies done in North America of they type you need, mostly I suppose, because the medical community has yet to figure out that there are a myriad of less invasive treatments that could be utilised for foreskin problems rather than full amputation.

The following articles come from Australia and the U.K. who are way ahead in terms of understanding the form and function of a foreskin, but still behind, say, Scandinavia in terms of less invasive treatments. However, they all clearly state that far too many circumcisions are being performed:

http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/...ew10610_fm.htm

www.cirp.org/library/phimosis/rickwood2/ (from 1989)

www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7264/792 (from 2000)

http://jrsm.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/full/96/9/449

I hope these give you some ammo, because as others have stated, the basic truth is that circumcision only needs to be performed when a foreskin suffers from gangrene, frostbite or cancer - all exceedingly rare.

Let us know how you make out !!

[Greg B]

I would look for circ rates in other countries if you really want to pursue this.

As has been said, in the US doctors are, for the most part, totally clueless about care of the foreskin, so make mistakes in care that cause complications. You may find this interesting reading on this subject:

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcisi...etraction.html

Then their only solution to anything to do with a foreskin is to cut it off. They do not even know of the other treatments available, in many cases.

All of this means that any statistics about how many boys in the US that need to be circ'd later in life is uninformative in trying to determine whether this is a reason to justify RIC.

But, even more important, is that this reason by itself is not enough to justify RIC, even if it turns out to be a signficant number.

One benefit by itself is not a justification for RIC. All the benefits must be weighed against all the negative consequences. For instance, we could prevent all testicular cancer by castrating children when they are born. No one would advocate this and anyone who did would be considered an idiot. This is because it is easy to see the negative consequences of hormone imbalance and inability to father children.

The same with this overly simplistic justification of RIC. You must weigh the benefits of not having to circ a small percentage of boys later against the negative consequences of human rights violation, traumatic pain, loss of sexual function (affecting both the man and his partners), loss of sexual feelings (affecting both the man and his partners), etc.

Regards

[mamabeca]

Originally Posted by Bm31

It gives a figure of 10 out of 1,000. Incidentally, that is also the same number of circ'd boys that will be re-circ'd.

That, in and of itself, would be ammo imo!!