COULD there be genetic links...?

[calpurnia]

DP was circed age about 10 or something for medical reasons. His younger brother (6) was circed at the same time - I don't really know any details, but I get the impression this was "preventative" since "there might be a genetic link".... Err, really? Any thoughts, oh wise informed ones?

(This is in the UK by the way)

[njeb]

It's more likely that your dp and his brother had the same misinformed doctor growing up, one who was pro-circ. I've read that circ. rates of intact males are higher in the UK than in other parts of Europe because the doctors there, as in the US, are not trained in how to deal with foreskin problems other than to recommend circumcision.
Does anyone else know if this is true or not?

[Frankly Speaking]

The only genetic link I can imagine would be if there was a history of "bleeders." (can't think of the medical term now) The connection there would be that the circumcisions were not done at birth but were intended. At their ages, it would have become clear that they were not bleeders and the circumcisions could be safely performed. Other than that, I can't imagine any genetic link.

What I imagine happened is that your husband was erroneously diagnosed with phimosis and the doctor saw an opportunity to make an extra buck by asserting that there was a genetic connection. Of course, in that day, there was precious little available for your MIL to research and had to take the doctor's recommendation as the best available to her at the time.


Frank

[Stardust27]

Just a speculation: Maybe "late retraction" is hereditary and thus false phimosis diagnoses with subsequent circumcision can indeed "run in the family"?

Stardust

[calpurnia]

Originally Posted by Frankly Speaking

What I imagine happened is that your husband was erroneously diagnosed with phimosis and the doctor saw an opportunity to make an extra buck by asserting that there was a genetic connection.

Well, the doctor wouldn't have got any more pay for circumcising, this is in the UK so payment is centrally controlled & doesn't depend on what/how many procedures are done.

I've read that circ. rates of intact males are higher in the UK than in other parts of Europe because the doctors there, as in the US, are not trained in how to deal with foreskin problems other than to recommend circumcision.

I've never heard that! I don't know if its true. RIC went out in the early 50s so you would have thought they would have had time to learn. I will ask around. I know some doctors/medical students.



My own theory on the matter is that they had the same care, as someone pointed out - the same doctor & the same parents (circed father) - so the same decision was made for both... I think the diagnosis, presumably of phimosis, was genuine because DP can remember recurrent episodes of pain & difficulty over four years or so - apparently they tried to treat it with various other things first, & circ was the last resort.

Anyway, the reason I asked was because DP is concerned that if it were genetic in anyway his sons might inherit it, & he found the whole thing very traumatic. I did think it probably wasn't anything of the sort, but I thought you guys were the best to ask!

Oh, they're not haemophiliacs, Frank

[kxsiven]

In Scandinavia men needing circumcision later in life for medical reasons is way under 1%, here in Finland is 0.006%. Actually the amount is so low that even this figure includes also men who are getting circumcised for cosmetic reasons or for converting to another religion. Otherwise they really couldn't get statistics. I once read somewhere an article(I have no memory where it was)were english doctor was omplaining high circ-rates in England because of wrong diagnoses. If I remember right, circ rate for medical (?) reasons was as high as 4 or 5 % in England. I am sure the statistics are somewhere but I have no time at the moment to go and surf the net.

[Frankly Speaking]

Originally Posted by calpurnia

I've never heard that! I don't know if its true. RIC went out in the early 50s so you would have thought they would have had time to learn. I will ask around. I know some doctors/medical students.

Doctors are extremely resistant to change as a whole and most likely believe they learned everything they needed to know in medical school. Those taught new doctors the same old stuff. Essentially, the old doctors have to die out and eventually with new professors and new doctors these things change. It takes a very long time. For instance, it has been known that a lumpectomy for breast cancer with follow-up treatment gives the same results as radical mastectomy, however here some 80 years later, many women still get radicals.

Oh, they're not haemophiliacs, Frank

Thanks for helping me through a "senior moment!" :



Frank