why do some people believe foreskin cause uti's

[MommytoB]

when after they state kids had to be 'circ'ed for recurrent uti's and they say the kid never had a problem since of foreskin removal ?

In ways I'm thinking since doctor are mostly misinformed on the 'fact of foreskin normal actions could it be possible since as a previous mom was told that her son had an infection called balantitis which was not cultured which was just normal seperation happening.

So do you think -ballooning,and pain during seperation trauma with no discharge and no fever would make a doctor assume a uti without a urinanslysis?

[eepster]

I definitly think some Drs just jump to the conclusion that a boy has a UTI b/c he is intact sometimes. The belief was started by some old faulty studies.

[MommytoB]

so because of a flawed study the doc hears stuff of penis pain or ballooning or redness looks sees he's intact state he has a uti -so how many times would it take for a doc to suggest or 'state he has to be circ'ed to stop uti's from occuring or he will die or end in hospital tatic when it was more just seperation trauma or something small like yeast or irritant?

So I wonder how many claimed uti's are seperation trauma or ballooning ??

[Greg B]

The other thing to remember is the evaluation of UTIs in boys with normal penises is taken out of context by the medical community. Boys in general have a much lower instance of UTI than girls. So in that context, there is little need to worry about whether a boy's foreskin increase his risk of UTI, it is still way less than a girl's risk.

Regards

[phatchristy]

Originally Posted by MommytoB

So I wonder how many claimed uti's are seperation trauma or ballooning ??

I seriously have to wonder this as well, because of some moms I have spoken to. It sounded like their son was starting to separate and because the doctor had no knowledge of that being "normal" they instead were mislabeled with a diagnosis and given the "routine prescription" for abx.

It's absolutely AMAZING how much pressure there is to give abx, because if you don't it's like you didn't do anything.

Even with my kiddos, who generally have not had abx (only my oldest DD once, other kids have never had any). A couple of times during a well child check up she would find a little clear fluid in the ear, looking like a resolving ear infection (85% of ear infections resolve on their own btw, without meds). So, BOTH times she wrote out a prescription. When I asked about whether she needed it. She said "uh, probably not, you don't have to fill it... I just need to have it on file".

So, of course, I didn't fill it, and at her rechecks she was just fine.

What REALLY upsets me is the doctors who are so very ignorant about the intact penis that things like smegma pearls, are diagnosed as "infection". There's just such a lack of knowledge, it's going to take generations to get that back.

[perspective]

Originally Posted by phatchristy

What REALLY upsets me is the doctors who are so very ignorant about the intact penis that things like smegma pearls, are diagnosed as "infection". There's just such a lack of knowledge, it's going to take generations to get that back.

I dont know. With a lot of this stuff, instead of a slow process, usually this kind of information trickles for a bit, then is followed by a big change. There are two good examples of that, the first being that when circumcision became popular on a wide scale it happened in one generation, actually all in a few years.
The same is true in Australia, circumcision changed their in a generation. I remember a story of a man who moved back to Australia after being in the US for 20 years. He was with some friends who had a young boy who they did not circumcise and he asked them why not and his account is that they looked at him like he was crazy, because in the 20 years he was gone Australia had gone from a circing country to a non circing country.

[phatchristy]

Originally Posted by perspective

I dont know. With a lot of this stuff, instead of a slow process, usually this kind of information trickles for a bit, then is followed by a big change. There are two good examples of that, the first being that when circumcision became popular on a wide scale it happened in one generation, actually all in a few years.
The same is true in Australia, circumcision changed their in a generation. I remember a story of a man who moved back to Australia after being in the US for 20 years. He was with some friends who had a young boy who they did not circumcise and he asked them why not and his account is that they looked at him like he was crazy, because in the 20 years he was gone Australia had gone from a circing country to a non circing country.

Well, people can say the same thing with the Brits, the change there was very dramatic. But, their gov't pays for the procedures, and it was a research study which revealed the true complications involved in the procedure which made it come to a screeching halt.

[eepster]

Originally Posted by phatchristy

Well, people can say the same thing with the Brits, the change there was very dramatic. But, their gov't pays for the procedures, and it was a research study which revealed the true complications involved in the procedure which made it come to a screeching halt.

It did lingered in the upperclasses, who very proudly paid for private medical care, for a while after the general population had abadoned it

[eepster]

Originally Posted by perspective

I dont know. With a lot of this stuff, instead of a slow process, usually this kind of information trickles for a bit, then is followed by a big change. There are two good examples of that, the first being that when circumcision became popular on a wide scale it happened in one generation, actually all in a few years.
The same is true in Australia, circumcision changed their in a generation. I remember a story of a man who moved back to Australia after being in the US for 20 years. He was with some friends who had a young boy who they did not circumcise and he asked them why not and his account is that they looked at him like he was crazy, because in the 20 years he was gone Australia had gone from a circing country to a non circing country.

This is similar to the story of the 100th monkey.

[Frankly Speaking]

Originally Posted by MommytoB

when after they state kids had to be 'circ'ed for recurrent uti's and they say the kid never had a problem since of foreskin removal ?

It is important to know that most UTIs happen within the first 6 months of life. It also takes about that time for the parents to finally accept circumcision as an inevitabilty. So, the circumcision happens about the same exact time that the UTIs normally end. However, since circumcision is so common and "there must be a reason for it" circumcision is given credit for curing the UTIs, not the normal maturation process.

In ways I'm thinking since doctor are mostly misinformed on the 'fact of foreskin normal actions could it be possible since as a previous mom was told that her son had an infection called balantitis which was not cultured which was just normal seperation happening.

That is very observant of you! Without a culture, there is no way of knowing if there is an actual infection. In my years of working within this issue, at a bare minimum, 60% of these suspected infections resolved with no medical intervention within 36 hours. That would not have happened if there was actually an infection.

So do you think -ballooning,and pain during seperation trauma with no discharge and no fever would make a doctor assume a uti without a urinanslysis?

Absolutely "YES." I have seen it happen more times than I can count.

.

[A&A]

A flawed study compared intact preemies to circ'd full-term babies. Of course the preemies got more UTIs, but it was blamed on being intact.

[Frankly Speaking]

Yes, A&A. Something about this just dawned on me last week. The doctor who fabricated this study was Thomas Wiswell.

In the early 1980's, there was a study at a military hospital in Hawaii that researched what parents would do if they were actually fully informed about circumcision. They were given full details. At that hospital, before the study, the circumcision rate was ~80%. Immediately after the study began, the circumcision rate fell to 20%. Even after the study ended, it took many months for the rate to start climbing again. Apparently, this was due to an "afterglow" from the information being passed out during the study period.

If I remember correctly, Wiswell was a military doctor serving in Hawaii at the time and the concocted UTI study was performed in a military hospital in Hawaii. Odd coincidence isn't it? Wiswell has since become a very vocal and public proponent of circumcision since then. If you believe his claims, at the time he was something of an intactivist. I simply don't believe it.

.

[mrsfrazier]

Originally Posted by MommytoB

So do you think -ballooning,and pain during seperation trauma with no discharge and no fever would make a doctor assume a uti without a urinanslysis?

Our doctor is obsessed with asking me if ds has any ballooning or pain when urinating....she thinks everything is a sign of phimosis, even in a 7 month old!!! We were so pressured when ds had two uti's to circumcise, and at this point we have had to stop going to the doctor b/c no matter what we do they insist on retracting. No medical professional knows anything about intact care in our area, it is so frustrating...

We have even been told, "Your son has an unusually long foresking..."

Unusually long compared to what?! A circumcised penis?

[DavinaT]

My riposte to that doctors remark would have been - 'And your point . . . ?'.
Heck I I have unusually long hair but no one suggests that I have part of my scalp surgically removed. In fact when I had eczema no-one suggested lasering any of my skin away either!!
Sorry for the : attitude but while there is one whole heck of a lot wrong with the Irish medical system, doctors do not amputate (yes this is how I see it) parts of babis for non medical reasons.
I see it as like cosmetic surgery. If you want to get it done at 18 - knowing all the risk then as an adult you are free to do so. You are not free to force it on your child.
Another thing doctos don't do (as they have got into some serious hot water for it here) is any procedure - including forcible retraction) on a child without a prents consent.
Ooh this is a subjct which gets me sooo :::