I don't understand the medical community

[ExuberantDaffodil]

(please, no flames)

I am still trying to process all this, and I was hoping for some positive feedback...

When I was pregnant, I was all about research. I researched proper diet, infant care, breastfeeding, natural childbirth.... everything I could get my hands on. But I'm a young mom, and evidently some things got over looked.

When I was 7 months pregnant, I had a routine u/s done. The u/s showed that my baby boy had a kink in his renal pelves. I was sent to a specialist.

The specialist did another u/s focusing on my son's kidney problem. He drew me diagrams, talked one-on-one with me, gave me information sheets on why this happens and what can be done. It all pretty much scared me - my perfect little one with a problem... The specialist told me that most likely my son would have a lot of UTIs as a result of this kink, and that eventually he would require a surgery to fix it. He recommended that after ds was born to have him circ'd to reduce problems.

I went home that day and tried to do some research. I don't suppose I researched in the right places. I was pretty much on the fence about circ, leaning towards the natural state of things, of course. All the research I saw pretty much leaned either way.

I looked at my family history - dad circ'd, brother circ'd. I looked at the religion I was raised in - Old Testament said circ. Medical community told me to circ. Not that I just do what people tell me to do (heh!) but when weighing my options, circ seemed the route to go... I was under the impression that this decision would help my darling boy.

When I took my newborn in for the procedure, the ped said, "you know that circ is mostly a cosmetic surgery, right?"

UGH! I didn't want to have cosmetic surgery done on my newborn! I told the ped what I was told by the specialist about ds's renal pelves. I was told that this was supposed to help... The ped nodded and said it might very well help and said he would do a very loose circ. The ped was kind when I cried about the procedure hurting my baby. He said he would make sure ds felt very little - a numbing shot and some pain killer (yuck on that too, now that I know better).

And now my son is circ'd.

I know this is long... I guess I am just musing and mourning.

Why do medical professionals recommend this procedure for cases like my son has if, in fact, it does no good and only takes away a valuable part of a boy's genitalia? I don't understand.

For those who are still reading and wish to know, I will not be circ'ing any future sons I may be blessed to birth.

[TigerTail]

You were worried about a dangerous health condition, & given inadequate, misleading info by people who ought to have known better (in fact, it was their job.). I truly doubt anyone here would judge you harshly.

I'm sorry, & glad to see you here.

[~Megan~]

It sounds like you had a fairly good pediatrician as s/he tried to talk you out of it.

[LavenderMae]

mamao'two, it really doesn't sound like he tried to talk her out of it after she explained that her son has renal pelves. I wouldn't really give that ped any kudos myself. He actually had a good oppuritunity to tell her that circing probably wouldn't help her son's condition (if that's true I know nothing about renal pelves) but he didn't. Instead he told her it might very well help, not exactly what I'd call trying to talk her out of it.

ExuberantDaffodil I'm very happy to hear any furture sons of yours will remain intact!! I'm also sorry that you were giving bad info which lead to a bad decision.

[hummingbear]

[nd_deadhead]

Oh, Daffodil, I would never flame you. After the first US with my twins, we were told that one of them had a congenital defect (we learned at the next US that he did not, thankfully). But we spent a month researching, worrying, crying - trying to figure out how we were going to deal with this horrible problem. So I've been in your shoes for a little while - it's so hard to have a baby that isn't perfectly healthy and normal! All you want to do is make things as good for him as you possibly can - and if a specialist tells you that circumcision will help, of course you are going to believe it.

How is your son now? Has he had the operation to fix his renal pelves? Has he had many UTIs?

I agree with Sheacoby about your ped. He was on the right track telling you it was cosmetic, but to then turn around and tell you that it might help his condition is ridiculous. At the end of your post, you asked why doctors recommend circumcision - I can only gue$$.

[Revamp]

That was awful to read...

I am so sorry!

I am afraid to say that in this case the only explanation is the money. Surely no one can have believed thost botched UTIs studies?

[ExuberantDaffodil]

Originally Posted by nd_deadhead

How is your son now? Has he had the operation to fix his renal pelves? Has he had many UTIs?

My son seems to be perfectly fine now. At his 6 week check up, he had an ultrasound done on his kidneys, and the doctor said that we could do a "wait and see" (my preference) rather than perform surgery to fix the kink, with the understanding that if problems arose action should be taken.

Ds is now two. He's never had a uti.

Originally Posted by Revamp

I am afraid to say that in this case the only explanation is the money.

But the specialist didn't make any money off of his recommendation!

[Revamp]

Originally Posted by ExuberantDaffodil

But the specialist didn't make any money off of his recommendation!

In that case I blame orthodoxy.

Say any lie often enough and people will start to believe that it is true...

[LeosMama]

I'm with Revamp on this, I blame convention and orthodoxy. We are more afraid to leave nature alone than to futz with it. Somehow people 'know' that circ is safe and normal, it is the default state in our culture. So the doctors are more comfortable recommending it than not, especially in a special situation like your son had.

It's just cultural convention.

It's the same way with formula feeding. The perception is that it's normal and controllable, and the breastfeeding is not controllable, it's outside normal experience of doctors, they aren't comfortable with it, so if something is the slightest bit outside of their comfort level in another aspect of the child's care, they feel like formula would be 'safer'. It's ignorance and conventional comfort zones.

[Fi.]

Why do medical professionals recommend this procedure for cases like my son has if, in fact, it does no good and only takes away a valuable part of a boy's genitalia? I don't understand.

Because there's no money in it for them unless there's a surgery.

Case in point - a friend of mine broke her leg a few weeks back. It was on the border of needing surgery and just leaving it casted. The surgeon even admits it probably doesn't REALLY need surgery but has been badgering her non-stop to get it anyway.

[MCatLvrMom2A&X]

Not that it exscuses what the urologist said but it could be that he was taught this at different times. Since there have been studies done showing a increase in UTI if intact, these studies tho have usually flawed and are not reliable. I am so sorry that this happened to u and ur son.

[Revamp]

Originally Posted by MRDCatLvr

Not that it exscuses what the urologist said but it could be that he was taught this at different times. Since there have been studies done showing a increase in UTI if intact, these studies tho have usually flawed and are not reliable. I am so sorry that this happened to u and ur son.

I would agree, on the surface those studies seemed most convincing.

[Galatea]

That stupid UTI study used preemies for the intact and full-term babies for the circ'ed. So of course preemies would have more UTIs. Also, female circ prevents female UTIs, but no one recommends that.

(As I see it, this is a problem of the dominant worldview that sees man as separate from nature with dominion over it, rather than realizing that we are a part of nature. Thus, we can alter the natural world as we see fit for whatever silly reason we want.)

[Revamp]

Originally Posted by Galatea

That stupid UTI study used preemies for the intact and full-term babies for the circ'ed. So of course preemies would have more UTIs. Also, female circ prevents female UTIs, but no one recommends that.

Indeed, but unless you knew this you would probably be convinced.

(As I see it, this is a problem of the dominant worldview that sees man as
separate from nature with dominion over it, rather than realizing that we are a part of nature. Thus, we can alter the natural world as we see fit for whatever silly reason we want.)

Any decision made by a human being is natural.

[LoveChild421]

It is sickening that pediatricians actually still think that circ prevents UTI's when even the AAP states that breastfeeding, not circ is the optimal way to reduce UTIs. I've had peds, ER docs, etc act like "on no! he'll get UTI's all the time" when what do you know- he hasn't ever had one. It's really hard to know what to do when Drs are supposed to be the ones who give out accurate medical information and they don't do so. I really wish peds who know that it is cosmetic surgery would not flip-flop and act like it does have medical benefits. If only he had just told you "you know, breastfeeding prevents UTIs better than circ- you're breastfeeding so let's just wait and see if he does in fact have problems..." At least he did get pain relief, which is more than most baby boys get.

[Revamp]

It all stems from doctors seeing no value whatsoever in the foreskin, any other organ would not be removed in such a speculative fashion.

[LoveChild421]

Originally Posted by Revamp

It all stems from doctors seeing no value whatsoever in the foreskin

:

[Frankly Speaking]

Originally Posted by ExuberantDaffodil

Why do medical professionals recommend this procedure for cases like my son has if, in fact, it does no good and only takes away a valuable part of a boy's genitalia? I don't understand.

Here is the full story that you probably never hear anywhere except here.

There have been more than a half dozen studies addressing this issue and all but one found that the difference in circumcised and intact boys experiencing UTIs is less than 1%. That difference is within the margin for error in those reports so they prove nothing. There has been a single study that did show about a 2.5% difference but the devil is in the details.

This study was conducted by Thomas Wiswell, an ardent promoter of circumcision. In the study, Wiswell separated his study group in to premature and full term babies with the full term boys being the circumcised group and the premature babies being the intact group. This is a recipe for false results. Premature infants (male or female) are at an acknowledged higher risk of UTIs so Wiswell knew what the results of his study would be long before he started collecting results. Even with this loaded study, he only found a 2.5% difference and to make it seem worse, he did a little statistical deception. Instead of saying it was only a 2.5% difference in a group that was predisposed to a higher rate, he said that intact boys were at a 250% higher risk. While it is technically true, it is deceptive in it's impact on reality and only in that controlled study group.

Now, Wiswell managed to get himself seated on The AAP's Taskforce on Circumcision and he also became friends with Edgar Schoen, another rabid promoter of circumcision and a member of The Taskforce on Circumcision. They were in the catbird seat, or so they thought. The rest of the taskforce recognized the deception and kicked both of them off of the taskforce.

Now both Wiswell and Schoen have been kicked off but it was not widely publicized the reason and most line doctors are not aware of the deception. Additionally, Wiswell is a professor at SUNY (State University of New York) and has much more free time than a doctor with a practice and Schoen is a paid consultant after retirement for Kaiser Permanente Health Care and both have ample free time and a list of credentials that seem impressive without knowing about their deception and they both speak frequently at medical meetings harping their flawed UTI study as accurate and truthful. Over the years, they have begun to exaggerate the results of the flawed study and it is quite common now for them to be quoted that intact boys experience UTIs 12 - 15 times higher than circumcised boys. It is simply a pack of lies and exaggerations. Unfortunately, that's all most doctors read or hear and that's why they pass on the lies and exaggerations.




Frank

[trmpetplaya]

Nobody understands the medical community... not even the medical community

's and I'm sorry that you were given a crappy recommendation Prepare for a good heart-to-heart with your ds someday so that your grandsons will be spared the pain of circ if it's not yet illegal at that time

love and peace.