wants me to bang my head against the wall because doctors just tell parents of circ'ed kids as it's no big deal those things happen to boys but do doctors not know that those things will never occur in a male with a foreskin or do they actually believe boys have hole problems hence the need/urgency to check to see if their is any problem with a intact boy ?
Do some nurses/doctors end up get so much of varying of types of circumcision that a loose circ would look intact then when a intact foreskin came in the pictue would they first assume the child is circ'ed then pull back because one nurse actually thought her boy (not mine) patient was circ'ed so pulled the foreskin back the mom goes your not supposed to do that . He's not circ'ed and she was like oops I thought he was .
So is it possiblity that doctors do not really know what the complications are or that the circumcision pratice has become so ingrained in our cultural that when a boy gets circ complications it's actually treated as a common thing because of it being a common occurence in circ'ed boys hence why they don't see the connection with it actually being a complication like those penile adhesions, meatal stenosis ?
So then when a boy comes back to the hospital with a bleeding penis & that he will need transfunsions so how do doctors deny that to be a complication from his circumcision ?
Also, to add that when meatal stenosis is detected many years after the circumcision like 2, 5 or even 13 possibly in later adulthood is that why they don't see it as a circ complication but a common occurence among boys which they don't really keep track whose circ/itact?
Do some nurses/doctors end up get so much of varying of types of circumcision that a loose circ would look intact then when a intact foreskin came in the pictue would they first assume the child is circ'ed then pull back because one nurse actually thought her boy (not mine) patient was circ'ed so pulled the foreskin back the mom goes your not supposed to do that . He's not circ'ed and she was like oops I thought he was .
So is it possiblity that doctors do not really know what the complications are or that the circumcision pratice has become so ingrained in our cultural that when a boy gets circ complications it's actually treated as a common thing because of it being a common occurence in circ'ed boys hence why they don't see the connection with it actually being a complication like those penile adhesions, meatal stenosis ?
So then when a boy comes back to the hospital with a bleeding penis & that he will need transfunsions so how do doctors deny that to be a complication from his circumcision ?
Also, to add that when meatal stenosis is detected many years after the circumcision like 2, 5 or even 13 possibly in later adulthood is that why they don't see it as a circ complication but a common occurence among boys which they don't really keep track whose circ/itact?
