is this even remotely true?

[moderngal]

I read on another board something about choosing to circ because diabetics need to be circ'd because it's a constant source of infection and diabetics take longer to heal. I've heard a lot of stupid reasons to circ, but this seems to take the cake. But before I start an argument- has anyone ever heard this? A constant source of infection?

[LavenderMae]

Uncontrolled diabetes can cause infection and lead to amputation of body parts. But I don't think it's that common for it to get so bad a body part needs to be amputated and it's a really stupid excuse to circumcise newborns. And no it wouldn't be a constant source of infection. I'd rather try my best to keep my diabetes controlled than risk losing any body part including the foreskin.

[moderngal]

And no it wouldn't be a constant source of infection. I'd rather try my best to keep my diabetes controlled than risk losing any body part including the foreskin.

Me too!! And although I know there are genetic links to diabetes, simply having a family member with it does not equal that you will have it. I just wasn't sure if I was missing something. Thanks.

[pdx.mothernurture]

Diabetics are more prone to problems with candida (yeast) because of sugar issues, and they can be slower to heal because of reduced circulation, especially in the lower extremities. That being said, I think I'd point out that diabetics may also eventually require toe, foot, and leg amputations due to infection and poor healing...is that a justification for amputating the healthy body parts of newborns merely because there's a family history of diabetes? Of course not.

[SleeplessMommy]

If you look at the causes of death with diabetes, it would be crazy to do an extra operation now, to prevent an extra operation that might possibly take place at age 80... people with uncontrolled type 1 or 2 won't make it to 80. They die of heart disease or stroke.

Also, I would be very concerned about the mental health implications for a child if you circed because of risk of type 1 or type 2 diabetes. What are you going to tell him?
"Son, we think intact penises are better, and we know only 55% of boys in the USA are circed there days, but we had you circed because you might develop this massively serious disease in 30 years... " It is not nice to create the expectation that one's body is a ticking time bomb.

If diabetes is a genetic risk, parents should model healthy eating habits and encourage exercise. Cosmetic surgery on the penis is not something they need to worry about.

[bandgeek]

I have a friend who is diabetic and had to have is leg amputated from right below the knee because of a bad infection. He's up and about and emotionally he's fine with losing his leg. I imagine if a man has to lose his foreskin later in life, he'd recover from that too. It's a lame reason to do it at birth.

[phatchristy]

I heard someone use that argument once as well...she actually mentioned her grandfather.

Well, guess what--of course I asked more questions...her grandfather had it done while he was in a nursing home and apparently the care was so bad there that his diabetes was no longer under control. He had dementia and was nearly 90 years old. So, he got to enjoy having a fully functioning penis for his whole life...sure doesn't make *any* sense to use that as a justification for cutting off a newborn's foreskin.

[Quirky]

Also, the vast majority of diabetes cases in the US are Type II, which is essentially a disease of poor diet and not enough exercise. It is far healthier to eat a good diet (beginning with breastfeeding, emphasis on fruits, veggies, whole grains, lean proteins, and healthy fats) and treat exercise as an everyday part of life, than to start whacking off body parts that MIGHT become infected if one leads a sedentary life and eats poorly and gets diabetes as a result.

[Greg B]

My understanding is the feet are commonly where problems occur with diabetics, due to the reduced circulation in feet. My brother in-law is diabetic, and has his foreskin. His feet are the problem, not his foreskin.

Following this line of reasoning, you would amputate childrens' feet at birth, just in case they 1) grow up to be diabetic, and then 2) as diabetics have problems with their feet and infections. That way you save them from having a foot amputated when they are an adult, which must be much more traumatic and memorable.

Sorry, no logic to it even if it was a consideration. Just plain old using fear to support an untenable argument.

Regards

[sanity rules]

The answer in short is NOOOOOO!

I did some double checking, just to be positive of what I was 99.999% sure I already knew, and NO, NO, NO, non-circing countries DO NOT employ circumcision as a means to treat or prevent diabetes, nor is diabetes seen there as any sort of reason to circumcise, so why should it be any different here in America?

If that's been suggested in the United States---circing to help lessen diabetes' effects--put it down to just another case of either mythical misinformation or the establishment doing its dizzy best to find a reason to justify a pointless surgery. There is no reason to routinely circumcise anyone, diabetic or otherwise.

[Claire and Boys]

You would think that if an infant had problems healing and increased infection risk due to diabetes that unnecessary surgery would be a NO NO.

[snangel]

My g'f is a type 1 diabetic so perhaps because she has chronic yeast infections, I should tell her she should be circ'ed because it will help

[Bm31]

Yes, the feet and toes are far bigger concerns for diabetics. Just another far-flung excuse to justify what pro-circ's want to do.

[moderngal]

The poster on the other board mentioned balanitis as her "reason" for circ'ing because her father and brother had it (complicated by diabetes) and needed to be circ'd as older men.
When I googled it, I found articles that suggest the most common risk for balanitis is poor personal hygiene. I can't imagine how it would be better to circ than to teach your son proper care of his penis so that he avoided it all together.

[Fellow Traveler]

Originally Posted by moderngal

The poster on the other board mentioned balanitis as her "reason" for circ'ing because her father and brother had it (complicated by diabetes) and needed to be circ'd as older men.
When I googled it, I found articles that suggest the most common risk for balanitis is poor personal hygiene. I can't imagine how it would be better to circ than to teach your son proper care of his penis so that he avoided it all together.

This is simply silly; circumcising because a boy might get diabetes? But you all know that. It is true that diabetes could lead to circumcision but it would be very rare, better to manage the disease itself.

[Microsoap]

You could say the same about breast cancer running in the family and having mastectomies in your early-20's. Christina Applegate did get cancer and she's 34 (she chose a double mastectomy). Should her parents have decided this for her at 13 or 14? Perhaps remove the breast buds at birth? But what a female who never gets breast cancer or has a tiny shadow that could be removed w/out going radical? In the meantime, you have the beauty and the sexual enjoyment of them (as well as the functional). The foreskin functions the same way. Even MORE so because it protects the glans and serves a function during intercourse for the gliding mechanism.