Ack! Pedi said the "c" word! Help!

[an_aurora]

DS had his 4 month WBV today. His pedi insofar has been great about him being intact~no pro-circ talk at all. Today he mentioned that DS has a 'pinhole foreskin opening' and that 'if it doesn't enlarge he might have to have an elective circumcision at a later date'. WTH does this mean? Does this normally resolve itself? Obviously I am NOT going to circumcise him unless I have absolutely NO other choice.

[Anastasiya]

ALL babies have a pinhole foreskin opening. Its only purpose at that age is to let urine pass.

(Oh, how I weary of hearing about such ill-informed doctors!!! )

Someone here will probably give you some good info to print out and give to him, and I'd personally tell him I'd appreciate it if he'd do some further study on the intact normal genitalia so you feel more comfortable with him as a doctor.

ETA: PS: It loosens up slowly with stretching during erections and hormones...don't worry. That pinhole will be fine in the end as the opening becomes more elastic over time.

Here:
Pinhole Opening in Foreskin
If one were to look gently for the opening in the tip of the infant foreskin, it is often found to be a “pinhole” in size. Yet, while the adult is still looking, and gently manipulating the penis, it is not uncommon for the infant to release a stream of urine. The size of the outlet becomes considerably larger than the visualized pinhole. This extraordinary disparity in the size of the opening, depending on whether pressure is applied from the outside or the inside, vividly documents the primary purpose of the foreskin at this time of life—that of protection, while still permitting function. The infant can urinate normally, but the pinhole opening is an effective part of the foreskin barrier.
from: http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcisi...iansguide.html

[an_aurora]

Yes! Thank you for the info! I have noticed that his stream of urine is alot bigger than the "relaxed" opening (he loves his nakey time ) so that makes alot of sense. Thank you for the reassurance!

[fruitful womb]

Originally Posted by an_aurora

DS had his 4 month WBV today. His pedi insofar has been great about him being intact~no pro-circ talk at all. Today he mentioned that DS has a 'pinhole foreskin opening' and that 'if it doesn't enlarge he might have to have an elective circumcision at a later date'. WTH does this mean? Does this normally resolve itself? Obviously I am NOT going to circumcise him unless I have absolutely NO other choice.

It means he knows NOTHING about the normal foreskin anatomy!

Remember, they're instructed to remove the "unknown". The Gray's Anatomy textbook doesn't disclose correct information on the normal development of the male prepuce.

This "pin hole" he speaks of is actually a sphincter. It opens to expel urine and closes tightly when urination is complete. This is his body's way of protecting the meatus.

At 4 months old, its suppose to be tight. Good grief! I'm so ashamed that the majority of our American medical establishment is THAT ignorant of the normal male anatomy!


Do everything you can to protect your Intact Son.

What to say when the doctor says cut.

[RiverSky]

At this point, if a pediatrician ever said such a stupid thing to me, I'd be tempted to reply, "The only way my baby's foreskin will be removed will be if it gets gangrene or cancer, and I suspect you will actually be foreskin-knowledgeable before THAT ever happens."

[Quirky]

Your pediatrician is not only ignorant, he's a menace to other baby boys whose parents aren't as informed as you are.

PLEASE print out the link that Sancta provided as well as this one:

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcisi...kinleaflet.pdf

and take them to your doctor. Perhaps he'll be willing to learn something.

Or perhaps he makes money off circs.

But it's worth a try.

[bandgeek]

It means that your son is normal and your doctor is...not a very intelligent doctor. (I want to say something not so nice, but it's probably against the rules )

DS is almost 5 and still has a "pinhole opening" His pee comes out and that is the ONLY function his penis needs at this point. Therefore, it's functioning normally so I don't worry.

Now, if he came to me when he was 12 and said it still didn't retract and he was worried about odor and cleaning, I'd print off info about stretching for him and let him figure it out on his own. If it continued to be a problem, I'd get him to a doctor and talk about creams to help. If it still continued to be a problem, he could opt to have a small slit cut in his foreskin to aid in retracting. Circ would be a very last resort, and most likely a personal choice, rather than a medical one.

Phimosis can be corrected without circ, but it's not likely to be an issue anyway (most boys retract fine on their own by puberty), and it's certainly not a problem in a 4 month old.

[BlessedMommy2006]

Originally Posted by an_aurora

DS had his 4 month WBV today. His pedi insofar has been great about him being intact~no pro-circ talk at all. Today he mentioned that DS has a 'pinhole foreskin opening' and that 'if it doesn't enlarge he might have to have an elective circumcision at a later date'. WTH does this mean? Does this normally resolve itself? Obviously I am NOT going to circumcise him unless I have absolutely NO other choice.

ELECTIVE circumcision? By nature, elective means not necessary or optional. So your doctor was suggesting that your son have an unnecessary circumcision later?

Yikes. Please print some info to send to him. He could be recommending that to other parents of intact boys. As PP said, it is normal to have a small opening in infancy. What would be the purpose of having a larger one anyway?

[bandgeek]

Originally Posted by BlessedMommy2006

What would be the purpose of having a larger one anyway?

Well, you know, all the sex they're having (doing it younger and younger aren't they?), it's helpful to be retractable. Because you know that's how they're spreading hep b and need to be vax'ed asap.

(yes totally tongue in cheek...of course newborns aren't having sex and spreading STD's and certainly don't need a larger opening for retracting for sex, because that's really the only reason they need to)

[MyBoysBlue]

I'm wondering how your doctor even new the size of the opening. He shouldn't have been manipulating the forskin at all.

The Definition of "Retraction" & Why it is BAD
http://www.mothering.com/discussions...d.php?t=575627

My 3 year old still has a pin size opening.

[glongley]

"What looks like a pin point opening at 7 months will become a wide channel of communication at 17." Sir James Spence (eminent British pediatrician)

Sadly, in the 1950s a doctor told my intact father that my newborn brother's foreskin had an extremely small opening, and he would almost certainly have to be circumcised later. So my brother (and all subsequent ones) was circumcised, as my parents wanted to spare him having to have the "inevitable" surgery later.

Doctors who make these kind of pronoucements are grossly ill-informed, and are perpetrating fear on parents of intact boys, and unnecessary interventions on intact boys themselves. It is apparent that many doctors do not know the normal anatomy, physiology, or developmental processes of the foreskin. So we need to share the correct knowledge with them. It's part of the cultural shift that is taking place - we have more and more intact boys around, but the medical profession has not caught up, though they eventually will with our help.

The sphincteric action of the foreskin has already been mentioned - the muscle layers in the tissue close the foreskin up tight like a purse string after each void. Also, the tissue at the outlet is naturally relatively inelastic in childhood, but becomes invested with more elastic fibers by adulthood, allowing for it to become loose and stretchy. Both of these create the apparently very small opening.

How a doctor examines the foreskin opening is another factor in making it appear more or less tight. (Of course, there is no reason to have to forcibly manipulate the foreskin opening in any case, but that is another question). If the foreskin opening is examined by pushing it back toward the body, it is working against the sphincter, which will naturally tighten and cause the opening to look very small. If, however, the foreskin opening is drawn forward away from the body, the channel will appear quite sufficient. There are several mentions of this technique in medical journals, for example,
http://www.cirp.org/library/normal/catzel/ [with pictures]
I know there's one in a Canadian journal also, but can't recall the citation.

My older son had an opening that was literally the size of a pin head till he was EIGHT YEARS OLD! The only problems this caused him was occasionally peeing in funny directions. Then when he was 8, the foreskin opening started quickly becoming looser and looser, and almost overnight he quickly became fully and easily retractable.

Your son is fine and normal, circumcision absolutely not an indication. So breath a sigh of relief and go on with happily parenting your intact boy. But PLEASE get up the courage to speak to this doctor and offer some of the handouts suggested in this thread. Your son will be a lot safer with a doctor that knows more about the intact penis, and so will all the other intact boys in this doc's practice.

Gillian

[MommytoB]

http://www.nocirc.org/publish/pamphlet4.html

Totally boy is normal and everything . Show your doctor this information so he can show the anatomny of an infant foreskin vs an adult foreskin.

Even when my son's father and I were still together he still had what looked like a pinhole opening but could easily retract his foreskin to go pee & to do the three R's (Retract, Rinse and Recover) He didn't fully retract until he was past 11 yrs but before 12 if I remember correctly .

My son is 5 and still has a pinhole opening .

[Fyrestorm]

Is anyone else just shocked that humankind has survived since the we haven't had the technology to routinely remove those pesky foreskins until the last 100 years or so.

How was the species able to continue to propagate until now...how do they manage to do it in Europe?

[earthmama369]

The opening of the foreskin is a spincter . . . just like the anus. Not to be gross, but if you look at someone's butt, it doesn't at all look like poop can come out of there. But it does, regularly and without problem. That's the function of a sphincter. It can expand and contract to let waste out and keep anything else from getting in. The foreskin works the same way.

[BlessedMommy2006]

Originally Posted by Fyrestorm

Is anyone else just shocked that humankind has survived since the we haven't had the technology to routinely remove those pesky foreskins until the last 100 years or so.

How was the species able to continue to propagate until now...how do they manage to do it in Europe?

It's simply amazing that all our ancestors didn't lose their entire urinary tract to infections.

[phatchristy]

Originally Posted by Fyrestorm

Is anyone else just shocked that humankind has survived since the we haven't had the technology to routinely remove those pesky foreskins until the last 100 years or so.

How was the species able to continue to propagate until now...how do they manage to do it in Europe?

I'm amazed at some people's lack of ability to actually logically look back at what is normal physiological processes for humans. I mean, we wouldn't have survived and thrived as a species if foreskins were detrimental.

[an_aurora]

Lol, thank you everyone! He is a fabulous ped in every other respect so I'm not going to fire him but I am also comfortable bringing up information about the phimosis at the next visit. He seemed a little uncomfortable when he was talking about erections and was looking over my shoulder instead of making eye contact .

[mntnmom]

My 3 year old IS retractable, and when relaxed, his foreskin still has a very small opening!
His 5 yr.old brother is not retractable, has a "pinhole" opening, and has never had a problem urinating.
I knew a poor German lady, whose American husband and doctor convinced her to circ' her 6 yr old for that same reason. She came to me looking for care advice because "all Americans do it". The look on the poor woman's face when I told her my boys were intact.

[SlackerDad]

You know what I always wonder about these doctors? If, at least subconsciously, intact penises seem almost like a threat to them. After all (and here I go once again, talking about the social/psychological elements that tend to fascinate me), were they to completely accept foreskins as being right and natural, that requires them to see their own circed penises as less than right or natural, and that's a big can of worms to open (even more so if they have sons that they have circed).

So there has got to be a motivation (again, at least subconsciously) to look at foreskins as problems just waiting to happen. The more they can "spot" a "problem" that will "require circumcision", the more they can reassure themselves that it's just easier and better to get rid of the foreskin right away before it can cause all these problems they imagine they see popping up everywhere.

Understandable, but also understandable that we don't want our intact sons to be the pawns in this psychological drama!

[an_aurora]

Originally Posted by SlackerDad

So there has got to be a motivation (again, at least subconsciously) to look at foreskins as problems just waiting to happen. The more they can "spot" a "problem" that will "require circumcision", the more they can reassure themselves that it's just easier and better to get rid of the foreskin right away before it can cause all these problems they imagine they see popping up everywhere.

Understandable, but also understandable that we don't want our intact sons to be the pawns in this psychological drama!

I totally agree.