What medical reasons (if any) would warrant a circ later in life?

[VaMountainMomma]

Whenever I tell anyone of our plans not to circ, I ALWAYS get a story how their neighbor/cousin/co-worker's son HAD to be circ'd at age 5/15/25 etc.

What would warrant a circ later in life? Is it really that common?

[Revamp]

The most common disease which "Needs" circumcision is phimosis. In all but the rarest cases though this does not, my guess is that either this or balanitis (which can be cured simply using anti-biotics, as you would most infections) that was the cause of there circumcision.

Really though it is just a case of circ-happy doctors in most cases, I was offered a circumcision for my phimosis and I live in Britain where RIC does not even exist. I eventually cured it my self without any operation or even medication.

I believe severe BXO might require a circumcision to treat fully and I read the account of a man who's foreskin began to tighten inexplicably around the head who required a very loose cut to cause it to cease.

Those are immensely rare cases though, combined they would be miniscule when compared to the chance of, for instance, breast cancer. The odds of actually needing an adult circumcision are very low but a good deal more are performed, either through ignorance and incompetance within the medical profession (that would have lost me my own foreskin had I not been better informed) in addition to a lack of worth placed on the prepuce both by doctors and (occasionally) patients.

[kxsiven]

Something you to compare. Here in 100% intact Scandinavia less than 0.006% of boys/men( = less than 6 men out of 100 000 men)need circumcision later in life(or want it for personal reasons).

In USA up to 12 - 15 % of intact boys 'need' to be circumcised.

Why this difference?

Because unfortenately in USA most of the doctors and nurses are totally uneducated about care of intact penis. They are obsessed to forcefully retract babies foreskins, screaming infection if tip of the foreskin is red(totally normal btw) or ofcourse declaring phimosis if foreskin isn't retracting by age 2.

(again - just to compare...here in Scandinavia doctors know that retraction happens anywhere from 0-18 years. And if boy can pee normally nothing is done until that mark of 18 years. After that most of tight foreskins are cleared out normally and those who aren't are treated with steroid creams - circumcision is needed extremely rarely)

You have to understand that that for 100 years foreskin has been absent in USA, it is like an alien, doctors in USA have no clue what to do with it (=leave it alone) and how it should be treated.

[polarbear]

The Canadian Pediatric Society says:
www.caringforkids.cps.ca/babies/Circumcision.htm

“Of every 1,000 boys who are not circumcised:
-10 will have a circumcision later in life for medical reasons, such as a condition called phimosis. Phimosis is when the opening of the foreskin is scarred and narrow because of infections in the area that keep coming back. Older children who are circumcised may need a general anesthetic, and may have more complications than newborns.
…
Of every 1,000 boys who are circumcised:
-About 10 babies may need to have the circumcision done again because of a poor result.”



So about as many intact kids will need to be cut later in life (1%) as currently circumcised kids who will be circumcised AGAIN (1%).

[VaMountainMomma]

Thanks everyone!!

Polarbear... thanks for those statistics... very interesting!

[Revamp]

Glad that we were of some help!

[phatchristy]

I remember reading an article by a knowledgable urologist who had the following things listed: cancer, frostbite and gangrene...all VERY rare as you would imagine. For everything else there is more conservative medical treatments.

[Rhiannon Feimorgan]

Originally Posted by polarbear

The Canadian Pediatric Society says:
www.caringforkids.cps.ca/babies/Circumcision.htm

“Of every 1,000 boys who are not circumcised:
-10 will have a circumcision later in life for medical reasons, such as a condition called phimosis. Phimosis is when the opening of the foreskin is scarred and narrow because of infections in the area that keep coming back. Older children who are circumcised may need a general anesthetic, and may have more complications than newborns.
…
Of every 1,000 boys who are circumcised:
-About 10 babies may need to have the circumcision done again because of a poor result.”



So about as many intact kids will need to be cut later in life (1%) as currently circumcised kids who will be circumcised AGAIN (1%).

Some of these circs are unnessisary because the condition could have been treated other ways (antibiotics, steroid creams) or prevented (not retracting infant forskin and causing scaring/infection in the first place)

[jessjgh1]

I agree the Canadian site still has high stats for necessary circumcision.... but it is virtually the only site (from a medical organization) that provides side by side comparisons. I like using it because it is not as wishy washy as the AAP's site that claims some medical benefit (reduction of UTI's) and it cannot be considered biased like cirp, noharrmm and other pro-intact anti-circ sources.

I let the statement stand for itself and just point out the circ/recirc rates are equal. And I grit my teeth, because what I'd really like to say is the stats are wrong.. and still don't mention of later in life sexual complications of circ, for example.

I read somewhere that they are reviewing their statement... one can only hope they will be reviewing those statistics and bring them closer in line to countries where intact has been always the norm.

Jessica