Help- infection in penis?? - Page 2

[calngavinsmom]

Originally Posted by RiceMomma

"Hi, sorry to hear this is happening to you. But on the flip side I can tell you of some extremely scary cases of grown men (one was 65) who almost lost his entire penis because they weren't circed and got etremely dangerous - not to mention painful - infections. This was due directly to the foreskin. They ended up having to be circumcised. Like anything there are always possitives and negatives to both sides. Also this is the exception - not the rule. Also you shouldn't think it [meatal stenosis] is a direct result of being circed "

Hi there. How sad is it that people will use anything they can when they want to justify what they think is "normal". In the case of the 65 year old man, at least he had 65 years to enjoy his foreskin and the benefit of full anesthesia(unlike most infants) when he was circumcised. I am 99% sure MS is a complication of circumcision.

Here's a link to Dr. Greene's site (kinda mainstream guy)
http://www.drgreene.com/21_1137.html

Notice how he recomends preventing MS(i am pointing this out for your friends sake not yours)


Dealing with friends and their ignorance is hard, good for you for trying though . You should be very proud.

Take care,
Tara

[RiceMomma]

Hi, everyone. Here is an update. I took my babe to the urologist today- we were the last appointment of the day and the doc took a quick look at him and said he's just irritated and there's no scar tissue. I'm not sure what to think- the family practice doctors were freaking out. I have to say, his penis is looking better since I took him to the family practice- I have only been using Fuzzibunz on him since then (for those who don't know the ins and outs of cloth diapering, a fuzzibunz is a soft fleece lined diaper. They're my easy-to-use-diapers for when we go out. I usually use plain prefolds at home.) Anyway, the doc said to put an antibiotic cream on him for a week. I'll probably put vaseline on him after that to prevent this again, and just use Fuzzibunz on him from now on. I'll keep a close eye on it.

Frank- your assumptions are correct on all points about my freind. She's emailed me again, very angry, saying the AAP's stance isn't actually against or for circing- and basically flaming me for my reply to her that did not agree with her.

Oh well. I have come out of this more informed.

[Frankly Speaking]

Andrea:

It can come as quite a shock to a parent when they start learning the truth about circumcision. All of their lives, they have been hearing false information and when they are expecting, it is quite likely that they will even hear very false information from their trusted medical providers. The information is such "common knowledge" that few ever think to question it. Once the truthful information is presented to them, they very often want to deny it in defense of their decision. This is human nature and is one of the expected responses. Responsible parents do not want to think they have exposed their children to unnecessary pain or dangerous surgical procedures.

Her stance on the AAP's statement is a common defense and completely wrong. The AAP's Taskforce on Circumcision first conviened in the late 1960's. They examined all research to that date and came up with the statement that is still in effect today. It says that the risks outweigh the potential benefits. To clearly understand that, you have to disassemble the statement. First, the risks are not potential. They are known and documented over millions and millions of procedures. However the benefits are potential. That means that they are not known to exist, only that it is possible that they may exist and if they are ever found, they will be so insignificant that they will not exceed the risks of the procedure. In medical jargon, that is a condemning statement against circumcision. The Taskforce has reconviened about every five years since the original panel and their message has remained essentially unchanged since that time.

You also have to look at the membership of the panel. A special interest group has dominated the panel since it's inception and it's membership has been carefully controlled since day one and that is the genesis of some of the confusing language included in the policy statement. If you would like a detailed explanation of this , PM me and I'll give you a complete explanation.




Frank

[hummingbear]

So glad to hear

Andrea,

What a relief for you. And many hugs of recuperation to you and all the anxiousness that motherhood can sometimes entail.
As a side note: I am completely convinced that leaving boys intact is the correct thing to do. Ever since it has been a concious thought I have believed this on many different levels. As time passes it has become a topic I pusue with intense passion. ....... and every so often I experience doubt - my mothering self gasps "have I done the best for my son?" I am admitting this to you and others for the pure purpose of pointing out that if someone who is so absolutely in favor of leaving boys intact experiences these moments of doubt, then I can only imagine the conflict that those on the fence or those who have chosen the procedure would experience. The myths (and there are many) cling in our culture and they affect the unconciousness of everyone.