My ds ped retracted him!

[hollytheteacher]

I have no idea why? She said, "i need to look at you peepee" and retracted him..he is only 7 months old, i have NEVER pulled back his foreskin (i thought you aren't supposed to). Are peds supposed to 'check' them for something? it made me feel really weird and bad for ds. He didn't cry or anything, but i don't like the idea of anyone touching his penis other than himself (and of course we wipe it during diaper changes but just like a finger)

[QueenOfThePride]

No, there is no reason for doctors to retract babies.

[rmzbm]

No reason & IF you decide to go back to this Ped. I'd keep his diaper on from now on, and not hesitate to let her know why! :

[Benji'sMom]

I can't believe she said pee pee. Is she a doctor or a preschool teacher? Anyway, no the glans under the foreskin does not need to be "checked," because there is nothing to check for. Sounds like she was trying to see how tight the foreskin was, which is not necessary at 7 months old. Even if it doesn't retract at all that is totally normal at 7 months old. But it sounds like she might be in a rush to make sure he's retractable at a young age. I would definitely not let her anywhere near his penis again, as the pp said.

[hollytheteacher]

Originally Posted by Benji'sMom

I can't believe she said pee pee. Is she a doctor or a preschool teacher? Anyway, no the glans under the foreskin does not need to be "checked," because there is nothing to check for. Sounds like she was trying to see how tight the foreskin was, which is not necessary at 7 months old. Even if it doesn't retract at all that is totally normal at 7 months old. But it sounds like she might be in a rush to make sure he's retractable at a young age. I would definitely not let her anywhere near his penis again, as the pp said.

I'd also like to add that I AM A PRESCHOOL teacher and we say PENIS not pee pee

[hollytheteacher]

Originally Posted by rmzbm

No reason & IF you decide to go back to this Ped. I'd keep his diaper on from now on, and not hesitate to let her know why! :

I guess i'll have to be more careful...she is actually the one who took off his diaper (didn't as me and dh to do it...did it herself...as i was holding him laying on my lap)

[mamabearsoblessed]

I had it written in my ds chart that noone was to retract or even touch his foreskin. ever. (this was all at our last pedi~ we've been through 4 )
@ this office I had to physically grab the pa's hands to keep him from going for ds diaper as my voice was not enough at that/our last visit there and I freaked on him a little. There was a nursing student 'shadowing' the pa that day and after pa made a joke about 'mom having an issue' I spoke to the student right then and there that an infant/ child being the only person to retract his foreskin, I used 'the only person to retract a child/baby needs to be the child/baby himself' speech and went on to tell the nurse and pa the harm it can cause. the student seemed prety uncomfortable with the pa's attitude and the pa was simply smug. jerk.
after that visit I went home and returned an hour later with a big fat folder full of information for the pedis, nurses and pas in that office. the head pedi seemed upset that his pa treated the issue as a joke and 'said' he would call a meeting to discuss intact patients and how to (not) handle them.
that was our last visit there.
The only reason I stayed that long was because our pedi now ~ who we Adore!!~ left them and there was a grace period before she opened her own office. thank god is was quickly following the last retraction incident.
there were other issues there as well but that was the 'straw' so to say. who wants to visit the dr armed for battle and protection every time? not me
this all happened when ds was still a baby, he's 4 1/2 now.

I'm sorry this happened Mama

[veganf]

You need to educate her! Print out some proper info. And tell her what she did was wrong and you were very disturbed by her actions and that she never asked your permission. And of course tell her she may not touch his penis again.

[Frankly Speaking]

Originally Posted by hollytheteacher

I have no idea why? She said, "i need to look at you peepee" and retracted him..he is only 7 months old, i have NEVER pulled back his foreskin (i thought you aren't supposed to). Are peds supposed to 'check' them for something?

Many think they are supposed to check for something. Here are the things they think they should check for and the reasons they don't need to:

(1) Phimosis or "tight foreskin." The foreskin opening is normally tight in babies and a significant portion of older children. Phimosis is the result of some type of trauma be it from physical injury or long term or repeated infections. If there is no history of physical trauma or long term untreated or repetitive infections, there is no reason to suspect phimosis.

(2) Hypospadias or epispadias: This condition is accompanied by malformation of the foreskin in all significant cases. Only in the most mild cases is this deformation not seen. Those cases are so mild that they do not require intervention or treatment

(3) Infection: Symptoms of infection will manifest themselves to the outside within hours of the initial infection within the foreskin. Further, at this point, it would be very difficult to recognize an infection by looking inside the foreskin as the infection would just be getting established. To find an infection at this stage would be analogous to winning the Powerball Lottery. considering the potential for damage or introducing an infectious pathogen, it is ill conceived to retract a child's foreskin to examine for an infection.

(4) Meatal stenosis: Meatal stenosis is exclusively a complication of circumcision with the exception of a child who has had a long term catheter that has damaged the urethral meatus. If your child has his foreskin and has not had a catheter inserted for weeks at a time, there is no risk of meatal stenosis. Quite the contrary, meatal stenosis is common in circumcised boys and many doctors don't realize this distinction and assume intact boys are at risk too.

(5) Adhesions: The normal condition of an intact young boy is for there to be adhesions between the foreskin and glans. These normal and natural adhesions self disolve as the time for retraction nears. Some doctors think that these adhesions are not normal and should be separated. Quite the contrary, prematurely separating these adhesions can actually cause them to reform as scar adhesions that will not resolve.

(6) Cleaning: Some doctors believe that it is imperative that the preputial space be cleaned regularly. The fact is that the preputial space is well prepared to take care of itself. The preputial space is colonized by beneficial and protective bacteria that is part of the immune system and without these bacteria, pathogens can find a vulnerable entry point. The preputial space is naturally an acidic environment just like the vagina. Cleaning can neutralize the acidic pH balance offering an entry point for dangerous infectious agents. Finally, the foreskin and glans secrete two important enzymes that literally "eat" dangerous bacteria and fungals. Cleaning inside the preputial space removes these enzymes leaving the area susceptible to the pathogens.

(7) Smegma removal: Old and poor research said that smegma is a carcinogen or cancer causing agent. Modern research now shows that the carcinogen is actually the HPV virus and removing the smegma will not eliminate the virus. In addition, smegma fills an important function to children. It acts as an occlusive barrier between the foreskin and glans preventing scar adhesions from forming as the separation process takes place.

In summary, there is simply no reason for a doctor to need to see inside the preputial space and doing so by retracting the foreskin can cause significant and permanent damage. It should not be allowed under any circumstances.


Frank

[luckymamato2]

Frank, I must be misunderstanding this part: "Modern research now shows that the carcinogen is actually the HPV virus and removing the smegma will not eliminate the virus."

Are you saying that all intact men have HPV? So my ds' female partners are going to be subject to HPV and therefore cervical cancer? Please help me understand.

Thanks

[MCatLvrMom2A&X]

No he was saying that it HPV was thought to be more prevelent in intact men but that has since been disproven.

[perspective]

Originally Posted by luckymamato2

Are you saying that all intact men have HPV? So my ds' female partners are going to be subject to HPV and therefore cervical cancer? Please help me understand.

Thanks

No not at all. I think frank can give a better response, but it is a complete MYTH that the foreskin holds, or creates viruses and STI's!

Whenever you hear something like that remember that 80% of the world is intact, and if they are not having problems, then the problem is not the foreskin, but the mentality of Americans who cant get past outdated practices.

[luckymamato2]

Thanks, I must have just misread it.

I didn't think so, but wondered if there was some new research or a typo...

[Frankly Speaking]

Originally Posted by luckymamato2

Frank, I must be misunderstanding this part: "Modern research now shows that the carcinogen is actually the HPV virus and removing the smegma will not eliminate the virus."

Are you saying that all intact men have HPV? So my ds' female partners are going to be subject to HPV and therefore cervical cancer? Please help me understand.

Thanks

I'm saying that HPV is endemic in all human populations. It has been estimated that 70% to 80% of all humans have had the infection at one time or the other and that if a person has had 3 or more sexual partners, it is automatically assumed they have been infected. But research shows that most infections are contracted as the baby passes through the birth canal. In fact, about 2/3 of all infections are contracted from the mother in this manner.

But, there is also a bright side to this. 97% to 98% of infected peoples develop a natural immunity to the virus within 2 to 3 years. Except for that 2% to 3%, those babies who are infected at birth have eliminated the infection from their bodies by the time they become sexually active and are not a threat to their sexual partners. It does not matter if a man is circumcised or not, he can contract HPV and 2% to 3% of both intact and circumcised males and females carry active colonies of the HPV virus. These are the ones who go on to contract cervical cancer.

Your intact son is no more of a threat to his partner than any other man circumcised or not.

We do have the opportunity to eliminate the HPV virus from our population with the available vaccine. To what extent and how quickly, we don't know. When Gardasil was first announced, the manufacturer said that it could eliminate the infection in people already infected but 5 or 6 months later, they were saying that it would only protect people who had not contracted the infection yet. At that time, they also went on the offensive and tried to get state legislatures to make the vaccination a legal requirement for all young girls. This is despite a test that can show antibodies indicating past infection and immunity. It certainly appeared that this was motivated by money. The Gardasil routine is among the most expensive vaccines ever introduced and the result of it becoming required would be billions of dollars in profits.

If the vaccine is actually effective on existing infections, it would be possible to eliminate the infection in a couple of generations. If not, it would take quite a few generations just to reduce the incidence to low levels.

If circumcision were effective in preventing males from contracting the virus, HPV would have been virtually eliminated from the American landscape by The Great Circumcision Experiment. As you eliminate infected people from the population, the risk factor for infection falls. With up to 92% of males circumcised, that would leave only 8% susceptible to the infection. With 97% to 98% of those developing a natural immunity, that only leaves about 2 or 4 per thousand as carriers of the infection. After a single generation, that number would fall again by 97% to 98% and at that point, the infection would practically cease to exist in the population. Obviously this has not happened and the evidence is there that circumcision does not have an effect on HPV or cervical cancer.

Rest easy that you have not endangered your son's sexual partners of contracting cervical cancer.



Frank

[Frankly Speaking]

Originally Posted by perspective

Whenever you hear something like that remember that 80% of the world is intact, and if they are not having problems, then the problem is not the foreskin, but the mentality of Americans who cant get past outdated practices.

Actually, cervical cancer is more prevalent in some areas of the world and many of those areas are non-circumcising areas. That has lead some to believe that circumcision provides a protective effect but that is not so. There hasn't been enough research but it seems to be a combination of factors including smoking, multiple sexual partners and general lack of medical care including women not having access to pap smears or not getting them. The National Campaign for Cervical Cancer and HPV has said that virtually all cases of cervical cancer can be successfully treated and no woman should die of cervical cancer. Certainly, male circumcision has not had the desired effect or significantly affected the cervical cancer rate in The US. Any difference can probably be attributed to genetic differences in women of European origin that women of other origins do not have.


Frank

[copslass]

Why do so many parents take their children to a pediatrition???

I remember being young and brainwashed into the "pedi visit" necessary mentality, but I got over it after one or two visits being focused on rectraction, giving formula, and vaccinations. Many children later, I have gained confidence in normality.

Forgive me, but I am shocked at the parents, especially on the Mothering boards, who subject their children to these people. For what purpose? Is it reassurance about growth? "Tradition?" (what, one or two generations?")

Time and time again these "peds" have proven themselves NOTHING but DANGEROUS to children.


WHY would we subject our perfect, beautiful children to their views?!

Seems to be a new god... much to the detriment of our children...

Thanks, I feel better now...

[luckymamato2]

Thanks Frank. I had no idea HPV was so prevalent. I don't have it - I've only had one sexual partner. My MIL had cervical cancer a long time ago. I am afraid of the gardasil vax, and really ANY vax, especially new ones, so I'm unsure that dd would get it unless she specifically wants it.

[Frankly Speaking]

Originally Posted by luckymamato2

Thanks Frank. I had no idea HPV was so prevalent. I don't have it - I've only had one sexual partner. My MIL had cervical cancer a long time ago. I am afraid of the gardasil vax, and really ANY vax, especially new ones, so I'm unsure that dd would get it unless she specifically wants it.

Having only one sexual partner does not guarantee that you haven't been exposed to the virus. Your mother could have had it and exposed you to it during birth or your one sexual partner may have been exposed to it by a previous partner or by his mother during birth.

HPV is a highly infectious and easily transmitted virus. Most believe it is only sexually transmitted but it can be transmitted simply by shaking hands with an infected person or by touching handles in the washroom. You could possibly have acquired the infection while you visited your MIL's home simply by touching the things she has touched. The only way to know that you haven't been infected is to be tested for the antibodies the virus leaves in your cell structure and that doesn't protect you from future infection.

The fact that your mother in law had cervical cancer indicates that she had an HPV infection that was active. The chances that she transmitted it to your husband are very, very high. The chances that your husband developed a natural immunity are questionable. Apparently, she does not have the genetics to develop this natural immunity so there is an increased chance that your husband also does not have this natural immunity and may have a currently active infection. Most HPV infections are not accompanied by symptoms so an infected person will never know they carry the infection unless they are tested.

That's some scary information, isn't it?



Frank

[luckymamato2]

Frank, my dh has had only one sexual partner (me) and my MIL has had maybe 2? My mom has had one (my dad). I have no idea about my dad (lots even while married : ) or my dh's dad (at least 2).

Is HPV something that is tested for at a pap smear? I do those most every year. Since kids I've gone less but it's not something I'm scared to do - I just don't take birth control at the present time.

Thanks for all the info.

[Frankly Speaking]

From what you write, through your MIL and your FIL, you have at least 4 chances to have been infected with HPV not counting the chances you could have been infected non-sexually. Since you say your Dad had lots of sexual partners, the odds that he was infected is very high and the chance he could have passed it on to your mother are also very high.

The pap smear tests for pre-cancerous cells, not HPV. The pap smear test is essential to detect the begining stages of cervical cancer when it can be successfully treated and the cancer avoided. It should be done every year without fail especially if there is a history of cervical cancer in either family. I understand there is a test that is quick and inexpensive that will detect past and present HPV infections via genetic markers. I don't think it can determine if the infection is active or if it has been eliminated by the immune system. Maybe someone can provide more information about that.


Frank