Friend Wants to Circ

[MylittleTiger]

Hello

I have a friend who is 7 months pregnant with her first boy. When I asked her if she plans to circ, she said "Yes, probably."

When I asked her why, her reply was that ALL of the people she knows with sons who didn't circ, ended up with one at an older age due to medical reasons.

Now, I understand from reading all the information here that Doctors will sometimes recommend a circ when it really isn't warranted, but how do I show this to my friend without simply saying "Oh, those Doctors' were very likely wrong." ?

I of course have no idea why her friends boys were circ'd in later life, or what the medical reasoning was by their Doctor, and I don't want to come off as just spouting off my own beliefs without backing up with evidence, you know? I can show her all the reasons not to circ, but she thinks that regardless, her son will end up with one anyway so she might as well do it when he's born.

Any advice on how I can help her make a decision without relying on her friends experiences with possibly misinformed Doctors?

I thank you for any help you can provide.

[JollyGG]

My response would be to blame the later in life circs. on premature retraction and aggressive unnecessary cleaning.

"It's crazy but doctor's used to advise parents to pull the skin back and clean aggressively under it. This advice caused all sorts off issues that, yes, in many cases did result in later circumcision. But luckily we now know that retraction is harmful and makes about as much sense as pealing back the fingernails to clean under them. Too bad some doctors were taught information that we now know is outdated. All major medical organizations now recommend more appropriate care for the intact penis. So really the problems lots of boys who had later in life circumcisions had wasn't the fact that they had a foreskin it was the fact that their parents were given bad advice on how to care for the foreskin. In other countries that where intact men are common they don't retract and they have very few latter in life circumcisions."

[nd_deadhead]

That is a tough challenge! Of course, if her friends live in the same area, they could all be going to one or two misinformed doctors, so it wouldn't be the same as saying that ALL doctors in the US are wrong.

I guess I would try explaining how intact penises in other countries don't seem to have the same problems that they do in the US. Is that because American penises are inherently different, or because US doctors consider circumcision to be the first treatment option, instead of the last?

The question to ask is what condition was diagnosed, and what other treatment options were tried. I think most people will agree that amputation should only be considered as a last resort, after less invasive treatment has failed.

Or you could try something like this:

Isn't it amazing how medical opinions change over time? 20 years ago, practically every kid who had a sore throat got his tonsils out; today, tonsillectomies are much less common. Breastfeeding is a lot more common, and parents are told to put their babies to sleep on their backs. 20 years ago babies were almost always put to sleep on their tummies. 20 years ago, almost all boys were circumcised, so doctors weren't even taught how to care for an intact penis, or even what normal development of a foreskin is like. Doctors circumcised boys and men who had any perceived problem with their foreskin, not because they were terrible doctors, but because they simply aren't familiar with foreskins. They're human too, and subject to the same cultural bias as the rest of us, so it's not surprising that even doctors can consider circumcision to be "normal".

The truth, however, is that the intact penis doesn't have a lot of problems. Becuse they don't understand how the foreskin develops, doctors might assume that ballooning is a problem, when in fact it is a perfectly normal and necessary stage in the separation of the foreskin from the glans.

Many doctors mistakenly believe that separation between foreskin and glans should occur by a certain age - and a very young age at that. We've seen so many reports of toddlers being diagnosed with "phimosis"! In fact, a foreskin might not be fully retractable until puberty; even if phimosis IS diagnosed, the first treatment option shuold be the use of a steroid cream, NOT surgery.

Good luck - I hope you can get through to your freind in a way that makes you both comfortable.

[glongley]

Give her the article "Protect Your Uncircumcised Son" which gives all the reasons why a doctor might sometime say a boy "has to be circumcised," and why it's almost never true.

http://www.mothering.com/health/prot...advice-parents

Also there are medical journal articles from England and Australia critiquing excessive rates of later circumcision, and arguing for the very low likelihood of need for circumcision, e.g.:

http://www.cirp.org/library/treatmen...sis/rickwood2/
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/...i10278_fm.html

Some of these mention that the true rate is probably <2%, which is probably way too high if conservative treatment measures are regularly used, but still a lot lower than "all" intact boys, as you quoted your friend. In countries that have never practiced circumcision, like the Scandinavian countries, where they are familiar with the development of the intact penis, respect the value of the foreskin, and are familiar with non-surgical treatments for the occasional problem foreskin, the rates are far lower than that. For instance, 6/100,000 (0.006%) adults in Finland (and even fewer in children), reported in Wallerstein's "Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy", 1980, data from the Finnish National Board of Health.

Gillian

[Greg B]

Give her this to read.

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcisi...yStatement.pdf


She is letting her fear of potetnial consequences over ride her decision making. Using feelings instead of reason.

Regards