Why so many stories about circ in later life

[MCatLvrMom2A&X]

Why are there so many stories about men having to be circed in later life? : My fil especially knows of at least 5 men ranging in age from 30's to 90's of men who have had to have it done. He has brought it up many times since i had xander but i think i finally got him to shut up the other day when i told him it wasnt mine to do anything with. He wouldnt even look me in the eye on that one. Amazes me that he thinks it is his business to begin with being it is a private part of my son's body but that is a whole other issue.

I cant help but wounder about it. I think part of the reason is prolly dr who failed to do their job right ie not doing a swab to see what the infection was and dr who r just generally ignorant of what needs to be done. And could it be a hygene thing with the older men? What would justify having it done in later life? And what r the odds that it will need to be done? I imagine that it is pretty low tho.

[njeb]

Maybe he's trying to scare you into circ'ing your son. It's a common tactic among those who are pro-circ to tell you all sorts of horror stories about intact penises. For what it's worth, my two sons are both intact, and neither of them has had any trouble. They are now 25 and 17 years old.
As far as elderly men are concerned, many of them never had great hygiene to begin with; they grew up in an era when taking a bath once a week was considered often enough. If they should get an infection and go to the doctor, chances are the ignorant doctor will blame the lack of circumcision for the infection, not the lack of hygiene, and immediately recommend he be cut. Infections among intact men are not as common as people would have you believe, and the vast majority can be treated with antibiotics or ointments.
It's high time our medical schools started teaching doctors about care of the intact penis!

[Shaunam]

Originally Posted by MRDCatLvr

My fil especially knows of at least 5 men ranging in age from 30's to 90's of men who have had to have it done.

The key words here are "had to have it done." Most likely they didn't need it, but some doctor said they did, so they went with it. If a woman has recurrent UTI's, a doctor will prescribe antibiotics. If an intact man has recurrent UTI's, doctors often prescribe circumcision. And they do that with lots of problems that can be cleared up with less invasive treatment.

Non-RIC countries don't seem to have this problem. I very highly doubt that Americans have defective foreskins. More like we have defective doctors :

Another thing I think leads to circs later in life (especially in childhood) is because so many parents are misinformed about how to care for an intact penis. If they forcibly retract to clean it everyday, they are setting their son up for problems and then, once again, doctors are quick to circ to fix the problem.

[Frankly Speaking]

There are a lot of factors at play here and Njeb and Shaunam have hit on some of them.

The only legitimate reason I know of is a complication of diabetes in mostly elderly men. I don't know of how often that happens but it does happen. I don't think it is often at all. Certainly not to the extent of reports of "necessary" circumcisions.

One very real problem is that often the only prescription offered is circumcision regardless of the problem. I also know that some doctors even withhold medication from intact men with foreskin problems. I even know of one case where the doctor prescribed a steroid ointment for a staph infection. Steroids have absolutely no antibiotic properties and would have no effect ont the infection. The only thing I can imagine is that the doctor was going to tell the man his infection was incurable and that his only option was circumcision. Thankfully, we were able to help and he still has a happy and healthy foreskin and a new doctor.

There also seems to be quite a few men who wanted to be circumcised and used an infection as a justification in order to get insurance coverage. It is also possible that they got a circumcision for cosmetic reasons only and the "necessary" circumcision was not necessary at all.

I also know of one man who was circumcised because his wife kept getting yeast infections and her doctor recommended it. He was never treated for yeast so probably both of them had it and they just kept passiing it back and forth. He was circumcised and the yeast infections continued unabated. The doctor then changed his tune and told her that her thighs were too fat and that kept air from getting to her genitals causing the infections.

Most of these accounts of "necessary" circumcisions were somebody's husband's, brother's, cousin's, sister's brother-in-law's best friends wife's neighbor. In otherwords, somebody that no one can produce for questions. I know, I've tried to track some of these men down and they always seem to live in Pago Pago or somewhere equally inaccessible. I suspect that the vast majority of them don't exist and are merely urban legends.




Frank

[kxsiven]

I once saw(can't remember where)figures that claimed 12-15% of intact men in USA 'have to' get circumcised later in life. Don't know if this is true or not. Here in Scandinavia(100% intact area), men really needing circumcision for medical reasons is less than 0.006%.

The reason so many men 'need' circumcision in USA is because most doctors have absolutely no idea how normal penis functions and how to take care of it. And obviously harming patients is OK in USA since doctors can give again and again harmful information to parents(advicing to forcefully retrack )? Because doctors don't know anything about foreskin, their advice for every little 'problem' is circumcision.

[mama2silas]

FIL's experience

As many here have already said, American doctors’ put on blinders to alternative, more conservative treatments to foreskin "ailments". My FIL is a perfect case in point. Shortly after finishing radiation treatments for prostate cancer, his foreskin would bleed heavily when retracted (he apparently retracts at the toilet). He told DH that retraction had been tough for decades and it would get tight, but the bleeding was a new "development". He saw his urologist who immediately started talking penile cancer and circumcision to prevent it. My il's were frightened. DH was almost scared to tell me because he knew I would flip. I did.

I ask FIL if the doctor had given a name to his problem. NO. Had given him alternative treatments. NO. Given him risk of penile cancer. NO. Doctor just wanted to cut and said that if FIL didn't get circumcised that he would likely get penile cancer.

So, I went to work. I forward several articles and explained them. *I* told FIL of his conditions name (phimosis), and told him of alternative treatments (steroid creams, stretching exercises, dorsal slit). MIL was very interested in the alternative treatments. I also strongly encouraged a second or third opinion. Had we lived near il's, I would have insisted on accompanying il's to doctor. FIL didn't seek a second opinion (well, sort of, but not officially). I believe he brought up the other conservative treatments, but it seems the doctor shot them down. That along with FIL's buddies telling him that most of them had been circ. later in life convinced him to just get the circumcision. Thankfully, he recovered extremely fast and well -- never had to take pain meds stronger than tylenol.

I know my information was appreciated and seriously considered, but I think there was a feeling that the foreskin is simply expendable, so no big on losing it. FIL is 70, and il's apparently haven't had sex for YEARS (according to DH -- not like that is information he ever wanted to know ), so I don't really know how FIL feels without it. Probably feels better given the pain the phimosis cause, but at least he had his foreskin protecting his glans for 70 years.

The thing is, who cares if men get it done later? Older people get dentures and hearing aids. Sick people get organs and body parts removed. No excuse to doing those things to infants just.in.case. KWIM?

And, as far as circumcision is concerned, I bet more boys have to get "re-circumcised" or have their circumcisions fixed than adult men really have to get circumcised.

[Frankly Speaking]

Tiffany:

Your FIL's doctor showed gross unprofessionalism and ignorance throughout this matter.

First, current practice is not to treat prostate cancer at all in men 70 or older. That is because prostate cancer is a very slow growing cancer and the chances of dying of this cancer is no more likely than dying of something else. It is unlikely that the treatment added any to his life span or to his quality of life. There is also the rigors of the treatment on a fragile elderly body.

Next is his salesmanship in selling circumcision to your FIL. That's all it is, salesmanship. Penile cancer is almost always the result of a human papilloma virus infection and his chances of getting this infection are virtually nil. Even if he did somehow get it, the time from infection to cancer would be a minimum of 15-20 years and the chances of the infection developing into a cancer is less than 1 in 100,000. He's not likely to live that long. Also, the treatment for penile cancer which is simply a skin cancer is to simply to excise the cancerous tissue just as a skin cancer on the face or hand is treated. It is an outpatient procedure done in the doctor's office. If he did develop a cancer and brought it to the doctor's attention, the size of the cancer and surrounding skin to be excised would probably be about the size of a match head.

The doctor was using some old salesman's tricks. First, "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with BS" and "If you see you're losing the sale, scare the daylights out of them." Certainly cancer is one of the scariest things a doctor can tell a customer. Your FIL had already been diagnosed and apparently, needlessly treated for cancer. Just mentioning the possiblilty of another cancer closed the sale for that doctor. Just as salesmen can be wrong and can try to sell you something you don't need or want, these "salesmen/doctors" can and will do the same thing. Both do it for the same reason . . . Money and greed.



Frank

[susienjay]

I've always wondered about this too. My dad was circed at the age of 10. I'm a little unclear as to why but it was 1959 so I imagine some doctor saw a problem and recommended cutting. I know he remembers the surgery but yet he didn't cut his son to save him from having to go through it later. My brother is 22 and still has his foreskin. I honestly think it is just an excuse for parents who want to circ- "Oh he'll probably need it later anyway, may as well get it taken care of now".

[LaffNowCryLater]

I have a friend who keeps telling me these "horror stories" about grown men getting circ'd as her excuse to circ her baby :

[mama2silas]

I totally agree Frank. I really tried to get FIL to see another doc and even did a healthgrades search to find the youngest urologists in his area thinking that they might be more up-to-date. I just think the big "C" word scared them even though I explained that penile cancer was skin cancer not organ cancer and all that. I never thought I would speak so much about the penis with my IL's! LOL!

BTW, he wasn't quite 70 when diagnosed with prostate cancer -- 68 I believe.

I'm still mad about the situation. I hate that some doctors are so ignorant and cut-happy.

Originally Posted by Frankly Speaking

Tiffany:

Your FIL's doctor showed gross unprofessionalism and ignorance throughout this matter.

First, current practice is not to treat prostate cancer at all in men 70 or older. That is because prostate cancer is a very slow growing cancer and the chances of dying of this cancer is no more likely than dying of something else. It is unlikely that the treatment added any to his life span or to his quality of life. There is also the rigors of the treatment on a fragile elderly body.

Next is his salesmanship in selling circumcision to your FIL. That's all it is, salesmanship. Penile cancer is almost always the result of a human papilloma virus infection and his chances of getting this infection are virtually nil. Even if he did somehow get it, the time from infection to cancer would be a minimum of 15-20 years and the chances of the infection developing into a cancer is less than 1 in 100,000. He's not likely to live that long. Also, the treatment for penile cancer which is simply a skin cancer is to simply to excise the cancerous tissue just as a skin cancer on the face or hand is treated. It is an outpatient procedure done in the doctor's office. If he did develop a cancer and brought it to the doctor's attention, the size of the cancer and surrounding skin to be excised would probably be about the size of a match head.

The doctor was using some old salesman's tricks. First, "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with BS" and "If you see you're losing the sale, scare the daylights out of them." Certainly cancer is one of the scariest things a doctor can tell a customer. Your FIL had already been diagnosed and apparently, needlessly treated for cancer. Just mentioning the possiblilty of another cancer closed the sale for that doctor. Just as salesmen can be wrong and can try to sell you something you don't need or want, these "salesmen/doctors" can and will do the same thing. Both do it for the same reason . . . Money and greed.



Frank

[wasabi]

Frank I'm not sure if I misread you. Were you saying it was very unlikely he'd catch HPV/has HPV or that he'd develop penile cancer from HPV? He may well have HPV (the CDC considers anyone who has had more than 3 partners to have HPV) but certainly it's very unlikely it would develop into penile cancer especially at this age. Most men with HPV never have any symptoms at all of the infection. Certainly no reason to circ. It is sad to me when we hear these stories. It's such a catch 22 that because circing has been so common docs don't know how to treat an intact penis. Hopefully the tide is turning and our generation of kids will be treated with better information.

[Frankly Speaking]

Originally Posted by wasabi

Frank I'm not sure if I misread you. Were you saying it was very unlikely he'd catch HPV/has HPV or that he'd develop penile cancer from HPV?

All three actually. First, he is in a monogamous relationship and second, he is not sexually active so it is very unlikely that he would be exposed to the virus. Then, you also have to realize that the vast majority of people who have been infected develop a natural immunity to the virus after 2-3 years making it even more unlikely and finally, even if he does have an active infection presently, if he hasn't developed a cancer or cancerous indications, it is very unlikely (almost impossible) that he ever would. All things totalled up, the chances of penile cancer were virtually nil and the doctor's warning about it was simply a scare tactic to sell the circumcision procedure and pocket the cash for the procedure. Her FIL made a few payments on the doctor's Mercedes for nothing.




Frank

[wasabi]

I see what you're saying. Yes he's unlikely to get a new transmission and in all likelihood any exposures were much earlier and he's likely formed his own immunities long ago. Certainly very true as this was what I was told about mine as well. Just wanted to clarify that you weren't saying it was unlikely generally speaking that a man would get HPV.

[Frankly Speaking]

Nope. As a matter of fact, there is some thought that penile cancer is caused by a combination of HPV and a trauma to the area. To me, (and probably to me only) that makes some sense. I have only known of one case of penile cancer IRL and the odd thing was that the man was circumcised as an adult and the cancer was exactly on the circumcision scar. If that is the connection, the FIL could have put himself at an even greater risk of penile cancer than if he had not been circumcised.

Life can play some cruel tricks!



Frank

[Benji'sMom]

I "heard from someone who knows someone..." (like Frank says, you never actually KNOW the people personally, but anyway) I heard about a 7 year old boy who's parents are friends of friends, and his parents circ'd him at the age of 7, because the doctor told them he needed it, because the foreskin was "stuck" to the glans, and that was abnormal. In other words, the doctor thought the child was deformed because the skin was not retractable at 7 years old. All I could say was, "It's supposed to be like that." I mean, what else can you say to that?!

[wasabi]

That makes total sense to me Frank.

[susienjay]

A couple months ago circ came up on a homeschooling board I'm on. A mom there with 4 and 6 yo intact boys had been told by their ped that they both needed to be circed because their foreskins didn't retract. Fortunately the mom got some good advice on the board and wasn't going to do it. However there were a few moms were replied who had circed their sons and they were so relieved they had gotten it taken care of when their sons were babies so they didn't have to worry about anything like this.

[Frankly Speaking]

Originally Posted by errejasu

However there were a few moms were replied who had circed their sons and they were so relieved they had gotten it taken care of when their sons were babies so they didn't have to worry about anything like this.

Hmmmmm . . . . Amputative surgery to avoid worry about a doctor with poor knowledge and diagnostic skills or amputative surgery to avoid the very unlikely possibility of later surgery? In other words a 100% certainty of surgery as opposed to a .0006% risk of surgery? Makes no sense to me but of course, this is just a rhetorical question to illustrate the point. Sounds more like denial and justification than anything else.




Frank

[AmandaBL]

"Amputative surgery to avoid worry about a doctor with poor knowledge and diagnostic skills"

I'm remembering that one!

[Brina]

I dated a man in my mid twenties who had gotten cut shortly before we met. From what he described, it sounds like he had phimosis. The odd thing is he talked about his brother and his father having to get circ'd as adults as well, for the same reason. Now, at the time I knew nothing about foreskins. This man was very well endowed, and I guess I just thout that somehow the condition he was describing was related to that fact. Now, I don't know if the x-boyfriend and his father and brother all really had phimosis or, if they simply all had the same urologist. Or, maybe, they all just wanted to fit in here in the US (not their country of birth).

Brina