I'd like some advice and comments surrounding a situation with a very dear, close friend of mine.

I do not need a litany of medical articles, videos, blogs etc to direct her to - I have lots of that already. This situation differs from many others of families planning to circ for two reasons:
- previous birth losses coupled with complicated pregnancy this time
- DS#1 circ'd later for medical reasons

Our friends are expecting their third child in about 6 weeks. This is the background of the whole situation:

Before they became parents

The husband is circumcised (b/c "everybody just did it then" - his dad and brothers are all circ'd). In spite of the family bias, this couple explored the circumcision issue in some detail when pregnant with their first child. They agreed that there was no need for circumcision and planned to not circumcise any sons they would have. They had a daughter, then a son. DS#1 was not circumcised. All good so far. . .

First son was circumcised at 5 for medical reasons

When their son was 5-years-old, they noticed a problem with his urination, that progressively worsened. They saw a couple of doctors about this and were advised that the only way to correct the problem was to have DS#1 circumcised. They were keen to ensure that the surgery and post-op was as painless for him as possible and planned this in some detail with the doctor.

The operation was a traumatizing horror, for the parents and DS#1. It was a very sad story about little or no anesthetic, DS#1 being completely out-of-control from fear and pain for some time after the surgery, blood all over the place. . . just bad, bad, bad. Nothing the way it was supposed to be. :gloomy: DS#1 eventually healed and life carried on.

Some time later, in the midst of TTC, my friend told me that due to the horrible experience with DS#1, they would circumcise any baby boys they might have in the future.

We are now all joyfully anticipating the arrival of their third child, a boy.

This comment of my friend's haunts me. Today, when I found out for certain that they are having a son, I asked her about the previous comment. She said that they still feel the same way and intend to circumcise the baby.

The short conversation we had about it today did not go into detail about the technicalities of how a circumcision is performed, decreased sexual pleasure, risk of painful complications, etc. b/c brevity was necessary and b/c my friend said she read a lot about this when they initially decided they wouldn't circ their sons.

Things that I did say included:
- If this baby was a girl, you would be horrified if someone was suggesting you cut off part of her genitals.
- Although the situation with DS#1 was terrible, it's not to say you could expect the same problem with DS#2 (b/c docs didn't give any info that the problem was hereditary).
- While DS#1 had a problem that required surgery (the surgery was the circ at age 5) this certainly can't be a common problem with intact males - evidencing that most of the world does not circumcise males.
- Yes, problems can occur after birth with various parts of the body. This may involve painful surgery later. Yet we don't cut off other parts (eg. a baby's finger) as a prophylactic measure.
- Two wrongs don't make a right (b/c she seemed to be saying "Well, DS#1 had to go through horrible pain without adequete anesthetic" as if to say "so his brother might as well join him b/c that's fair"). I guess I mean more closely: "Two bad events don't make a "good" b/c I'm not opening for debate whether the circ of DS#1 was necessary, or not. That's how two doctors told them to fix the problem. That's what got done.
- Let your perfect, beautiful new baby keep all the body parts he grew inside of you.

My friend said she would talk it over further with her husband. I'm skeptical that anything I've said will change their minds. I wasn't there when their 5-year-old was screaming and almost hallucinating from pain. I know that is now forefront in their minds.

I feel compelled to tread gently and with compassion. I love my friend. I have told her that I'm not going to harp on it every time I speak to her, but that I feel very strongly about the matter.

While not directly related to the circ matter, a further reason I am not prepared to act in a heavy-handed way is the battle our friends have weathered just to welcome this third child into their family:

After two perfect pregnancies and two perfect kids, my friend lost two babies in mid-pregnancy (different reasons). Both times, it was very hard on them and an excruciating decision for the couple about whether they should try again. My friend has had a lot of scary cramping/spotting/pain in the earlier part of this pregnancy (fibroid and retroverted uterus have likely contributed). NOW, it looks like she will probably have to have a c-section due to placenta previa. We are all happy that this baby is doing well and grateful that c-section is available for cases like this (I'm pretty anti-c-section most other times). But I know my friend is apprehensive about the surgery and mourning the loss of a natural childbirth. I don't want to add to her angst.

I want to be a supportive friend in these difficulties. I don't want her to feel abandoned because I don't agree with their plan to circ DS#2.

How would you navigate this situation with compassion (and hopefully effectiveness)?

Many thanks for reading the long post!

Well my first question is what was DS#1's medical problem and how did circ help resolve it?

You mentioned problems with his urination, was it a UTI?

You sound like a caring and compassionate friend.

I guess the big question is this: How likely do they think it is that their new baby will experience the same problem that his brother did?

Followed by two more questions:

1. Do they believe that the surgery on their first son was performed correctly, and that ALL circumcisions are like that (it sounds like a giant case of malpractice to me). Most folks understand that circumcision performed on an older child or adult is less risky than on an infant, because adequate pain relief CAn be used, and the parts they're cutting are a lot bigger (more margin for error).

2. Do they truly feel it is appropriate to subject a normal, healthy infant to a painful operation NOW, on the very slim chance that he might require the same operation later, AND the even more slim chance that it would be done without anesthetic? Babies are much less likely to receive adequate anesthetic than older children, so the chance of the new baby having the sort of horrible experience as his brother is greater if they do it now.

I certainly understand your reservations, but it seems to me as though they have blinders on. I hope you can help them come to a decision they can feel good about.

Why don't they think their newborn will experience the same level of pain if they circ him? Why is it okay to put a newborn through that kind of pain but not a 5 yr. old?

:hug Wow Hugs to you and them. I can see why you want to tread lightly with this. And what an aweful experience for them and their DS1. It makes my heart ache just reading. I can only imagine how traumatizing that was for all invovled. If I were you I would gently point out that what they witnessed IS the pain of circ. A newborn most often gets NO pain relief. But a newborn also has no ability to express how excruciating the procedure is. Maybe they could see that while DS1 experience was truly heart-wrenching( and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy), it could be considered a gift as well. They got to see how horrible it is and KNOW in a way that most don't, what they are saving DS2 from. Just a thought.

Who the *UA violation* circs a five year old without general anesthesia?

Who the *UA violation* circs a five year old without general anesthesia?

I would have sued the *&^% out of him that's for sure. Yet another of why you're better off taking you child to a vet then trust them with some of the peds out there! Vets might not be trained to treat humans but at least they know how to be humane!

Well my first question is what was DS#1's medical problem and how did circ help resolve it?

You mentioned problems with his urination, was it a UTI?

I don't know what the medical terminology was for DS#1's problem that led to his circumcision at age 5. I do know it was not a UTI.

Due to son's young age, mom was sometimes present in bathroom to help with pants, etc (he's not a particularly-independent kid). She noticed one day that the normal "stream" of urine wasn't normal anymore - kinda' splattering and spluttering and "looking funny" as it came out. Over about a month or so, this got visibly worse and worse. . . I don't know exactly, but I think some of it was streaming out from the penis like normal, some sort of running underneath the bottom of the head and dribbling. There were multiple streams directing off the head of the penis in various ways, thus he couldn't really properly direct where it was going b/c it wasn't one normal contained stream. That's my best understanding of what was going on - might not be fully correct.

I have always wondered if a circumcision was necessary. I wondered if it was perhaps something similar to a labial adhesion in little girls and would have self-corrected in time, or been corrected with application of a cream.

I know they asked the doc if the problem would just "go away" (ie. self-correct) if they waited it out. They were told they needed the surgery. I'm a big one to question medical authority (only since birthing my own kids) but my friend is very much "doctor knows best".

I guess the big question is this: How likely do they think it is that their new baby will experience the same problem that his brother did?

From what I've gathered, they don't think it is very likely the baby would later experience the same problem his older brother had. On the other hand, when they experienced their first pregnancy loss at apx 23 weeks (due to non-immune fetal hydrops and many other complications) they were basically told there was no genetic reason for the loss and to try again a la "lightening doesn't strike twice". So having now lost a second baby (for reasons the doctors could not determine, but they did say it was not the same as the previous baby) I think they would be pretty wary about medical stats suggesting how unlikely a repeat event would be. You know: "once bitten, twice shy".


1. Do they believe that the surgery on their first son was performed correctly, and that ALL circumcisions are like that?

No, they clearly said in the past that they thought the surgery and post-op care was completely botched and that it didn't at all follow what they had discussed with the doctor (and carefully prepared their son for).



2. Do they truly feel it is appropriate to subject a normal, healthy infant to a painful operation NOW, on the very slim chance that he might require the same operation later, AND the even more slim chance that it would be done without anesthetic?

I don't know. . . I'm so confused by the logic of "What happened to DS#1 was horrific, so let's make absolutely sure that DS#2 experiences the same pain". I'm wondering if simply it doesn't seem like such an ordeal in their minds, because the newborn won't be able to speak about his pain.

It sounds like he was beginning to retract....and they circumcised him for THAT?!?!?:gloomy: Poor guy.

I don't know what to tell you....but I also have a friend who is 30 weeks pregnant with a boy and he will be circumcised. There is just no getting around it.

Maybe they could see that while DS1 experience was truly heart-wrenching( and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy), it could be considered a gift as well. They got to see how horrible it is and KNOW in a way that most don't, what they are saving DS2 from. Just a thought.

Thank you for this perspective. Speaking of the insight their previous horrible experience provided, as a "gift" with which to better-protect their newborn is a new and interesting slant on the situation. Keep 'em coming!

I've already pointed out that given how many intact men and boys are around, the problem that led to DS#1's circ must be pretty uncommon.

But this comment might appeal to their kind and gentle nature. I know, I know. . . some of you are reading this and thinking "Ack! What sort of 'gentle' parent cuts off part of a baby?!" but they really are. The gentle discipline, humour, and care with which they parent is a frequent inspiration to my husband and I. This circ of son #2 is a complete incongruity.

It sounds like he was beginning to retract....and they circumcised him for THAT?!?!?:gloomy: Poor guy.


Although my question is now wandering a little off-topic (I still need new variations on how I might be able to convince them to leave newborn son intact), I was hoping you could explain this, KMK_Mama.

Why would a young boy's foreskin starting to retract make urinating a mess? From what mom told me, it sounded like things were "closing up" over the head of the penis - which seems to me to be opposite of what would happen if the foreskin was starting to retract.

Just curious as our three sons are intact, but the oldest is only 2.5.

i would say since she had a hard time getting that baby be thankful that you got him dont risk his life for something that is not needed if in the future if it is needed then his body will be stronger to be able to deal with it babies do die getting cut so why put a child that you struggled to get in to this world risk his life

I don't know what the medical terminology was for DS#1's problem that led to his circumcision at age 5. I do know it was not a UTI.

Due to son's young age, mom was sometimes present in bathroom to help with pants, etc (he's not a particularly-independent kid). She noticed one day that the normal "stream" of urine wasn't normal anymore - kinda' splattering and spluttering and "looking funny" as it came out. Over about a month or so, this got visibly worse and worse. . . I don't know exactly, but I think some of it was streaming out from the penis like normal, some sort of running underneath the bottom of the head and dribbling. There were multiple streams directing off the head of the penis in various ways, thus he couldn't really properly direct where it was going b/c it wasn't one normal contained stream. That's my best understanding of what was going on - might not be fully correct.

I have always wondered if a circumcision was necessary. I wondered if it was perhaps something similar to a labial adhesion in little girls and would have self-corrected in time, or been corrected with application of a cream.

I know they asked the doc if the problem would just "go away" (ie. self-correct) if they waited it out. They were told they needed the surgery. I'm a big one to question medical authority (only since birthing my own kids) but my friend is very much "doctor knows best".


Oh my god.

It sounds to me like the foreskin was starting to separate! It's totally normal to have a "hose-like" spray.

Wow.

:(

Misinformation, lies and intimidation lead to his circ.

i would say since she had a hard time getting that baby be thankful that you got him dont risk his life for something that is not needed if in the future if it is needed then his body will be stronger to be able to deal with it babies do die getting cut so why put a child that you struggled to get in to this world risk his life

I see the point you are trying to make, but (respectfully) I don't know if I want to be that harsh/direct. I think my friend would see that as hurtful if I were to in any way suggest that she is risking her baby's life after so desperately wanting him in her family.

I know some will read that and say, "Well, that's just the hard truth! She is risking his life". I realize that is true in the most absolute sense. But I guess I'm saying I don't think it's realistic to tell her that, in hopes she'll change her mind:

Death as a complication of circumcision is very, very rare. If I want her to give weight to such an unlikely event, then I should also give weight to the very unlikely prospect that this new baby would have a medical issue at age 5 that a doctor would say required circumcision to correct. I don't want her to choose newborn circumcision to prevent that very unlikely outcome. So I don't think it's fair to cite very-unlikely death as a reason to avoid the circumcision now.

Oh, the poor little boy :gloomy:

What a horrible experience for the whole family :(

.

Oh my god.

It sounds to me like the foreskin was starting to separate! It's totally normal to have a "hose-like" spray.

Wow.

:(

Misinformation, lies and intimidation lead to his circ.

:yeah:

Manitobamom, would you mind if I shared this story with someone? I know someone who is going to circ her DS when he turns 1 and is perfectly content in her knowledge that he will have adequate pain relief.

Manitobamom, would you mind if I shared this story with someone?

Go ahead and share. . . I'd have to be pretty spaced-out to consider anything I've shared on the internet to be "private" somehow! :lol

I questioned whether I should post about this situation in such detail. I don't think my friend is likely to be on this forum, but she would certainly recognize this story as her own if she read it. Unfortunately, I didn't think I would be able to get meaningful advise if I posted without all the background about their son's botched surgery and their difficulties in adding child #3 to their family. I would hope that if she ever sees any of this, she can see that it is all in my sincerest effort to honour our friendship and do well by her and her baby.

Regarding your friend: I can't imagine why she would be comfortable in that idea. "Adequete" anesthetic? So what?! No poking/prodding/cutting medical procedure on the body is painless, no matter what you get for drugs! I had local anesthetic as a child when a plantar's wart was removed. It hurt like #@$%&! (The HUGE needle for the anesthetic AND and actual removal). We've all read stories about women who had c-section with proper/normal/adequete anesthetic versus those few who receive inadequete anesthetic. Have you ever heard of any of the properly-anesthetized women referring to the ordeal as "painless"!? Yeesh! :dizzy:

You need to find out exactly what happened with their first son then show them that he was circed for no reason. I know making them feel worse is not something you want but they need to know they were lied to and that lead to their ds1 having pain and trauma that should never have happened.

The only true medical reasons for circ are cancer, frostbite, gangrene and irriparable accident. Any other thing UTI, spraying while urinating, ballooning etc. are NOT reasons to circ. It sounds to me like he was starting to seperate and that would have resolved given enough time. Even if he had some skin over the urinary opening that was causing issues. Circing him was not the answer removing the skin covering the opening was.

I am so sorry he went thru all that for no reason. I hope you can show them that is the case and save this new little one from trauma and usless pain.

I see the point you are trying to make, but (respectfully) I don't know if I want to be that harsh/direct. I think my friend would see that as hurtful if I were to in any way suggest that she is risking her baby's life after so desperately wanting him in her family.

I know some will read that and say, "Well, that's just the hard truth! She is risking his life". I realize that is true in the most absolute sense. But I guess I'm saying I don't think it's realistic to tell her that, in hopes she'll change her mind:

Death as a complication of circumcision is very, very rare. If I want her to give weight to such an unlikely event, then I should also give weight to the very unlikely prospect that this new baby would have a medical issue at age 5 that a doctor would say required circumcision to correct. I don't want her to choose newborn circumcision to prevent that very unlikely outcome. So I don't think it's fair to cite very-unlikely death as a reason to avoid the circumcision now.

i said it so harsh cause i know where she is coming from i also lost babies and had 2 difficult pg's so i know how much of a joy it is to get them in your arms healthy

Have you mentioned to them about "risk of grievous harm" from a hospital circ of an infant? Specifically the baby that died in Canada after circ. This was just published recently. Also, lots of risk of infection, etc to a newborn from the circ.

Having lost 2 babies, they should be extra protective of their new son. Do you know any intactivist pediatricians they could talk to? Can you get a copy of the informed consent form they will get at the hospital? Point out the parts about what might go wrong.

How sad for everyone. After 2 lost pregnancies, they really need your support.

Death may be a rare complication of circumcision, but here's a common one directly related to circumcision: meatal stenosis. Meatal stenosis is where the meatus, i.e. the urethral opening, is irritated and scarred due to exposure to urine and mechanical irritation in the diaper (causing meatitis). Ten percent -- 1 in 10 -- circumcised boys will suffer from meatal stenosis and may require a further surgical procedure to re-open the urethra. Meatal stenosis doesn't occur in intact boys; it's a complication of circumcision.

Mainstream medical source for this: http://www.emedicine.com/ped/topic2356.htm

As to their first son -- I'm very much afraid they were sold a bill of goods. :gloomy: What their boy went through was entirely within normal limits for intact boys undergoing foreskin separation.

There are two parts to normal separation. One is the release of the adhesions (synechia) holding the foreskin to the glans. The other is the loosening of the sphincter at the tip of the foreskin, the ridged band, to allow retraction. These can happen at different times -- they don't always happen simultaneously. Ballooning and/or spraying can result, but both are perfectly normal.

From Dr. Paul Fleiss, Protect Your Uncircumised [sic] Son: Expert Medical Advice for Parents (http://www.mothering.com/articles/new_baby/circumcision/protect-uncircson.html), published in Mothering magazine:

-Your son sprays when he urinates. Circumcision will correct this.

In almost every intact boy, the urine stream flows out of the urinary opening in the glans and through the foreskin in a neat stream. During the process of penile growth and development, some boys go through a period where the urine stream is diffused. Undoubtedly, many of these boys take great delight in this phase, while mothers, understandably, find it less amusing. If your boy has entered a spraying phase, simply instruct him to retract his foreskin enough to expose the meatus when he urinates. He will soon outgrow this phase.

-Your son's foreskin balloons when he urinates. He needs to be circumcised or else he will suffer kidney damage.

Ballooning of the foreskin during urination is a normal and temporary condition in some boys. It results in no discomfort and is usually a source of great delight for little boys. Ballooning comes as a surprise only to those adults who have no experience with this phase of penile development. It certainly does not cause kidney damage; it has nothing to do with the kidneys. Ballooning disappears as the foreskin and glans separate and the opening of the foreskin increases in diameter. It requires no treatment.

I would lay extremely long odds that, apart from the mess, there was absolutely nothing wrong with their 5 year old, and that he was able to void all his urine, just not very neatly. What a horror that he was circumcised -- and so traumatically -- for nothing. :gloomy:

I would advise you to advise them to contact Doctors Opposing Circumcision and have them send their older son's medical records for review before making any decisions about their next baby. The Fleiss article above also might be helpful for them. They will probably have a tremendous amount of grief and guilt to process over this, but they NEED to understand how badly they were misled by their doctors. :(

Death may be a rare complication of circumcision, but here's a common one directly related to circumcision: meatal stenosis. Meatal stenosis is where the meatus, i.e. the urethral opening, is irritated and scarred due to exposure to urine and mechanical irritation in the diaper (causing meatitis). Ten percent -- 1 in 10 -- circumcised boys will suffer from meatal stenosis and may require a further surgical procedure to re-open the urethra. Meatal stenosis doesn't occur in intact boys; it's a complication of circumcision.

Mainstream medical source for this: http://www.emedicine.com/ped/topic2356.htm

As to their first son -- I'm very much afraid they were sold a bill of goods. :gloomy: What their boy went through was entirely within normal limits for intact boys undergoing foreskin separation.

There are two parts to normal separation. One is the release of the adhesions (synechia) holding the foreskin to the glans. The other is the loosening of the sphincter at the tip of the foreskin, the ridged band, to allow retraction. These can happen at different times -- they don't always happen simultaneously. Ballooning and/or spraying can result, but both are perfectly normal.

From Dr. Paul Fleiss, Protect Your Uncircumised [sic] Son: Expert Medical Advice for Parents (http://www.mothering.com/articles/new_baby/circumcision/protect-uncircson.html), published in Mothering magazine:



I would lay extremely long odds that, apart from the mess, there was absolutely nothing wrong with their 5 year old, and that he was able to void all his urine, just not very neatly. What a horror that he was circumcised -- and so traumatically -- for nothing. :gloomy:

I would advise you to advise them to contact Doctors Opposing Circumcision and have them send their older son's medical records for review before making any decisions about their next baby. The Fleiss article above also might be helpful for them. They will probably have a tremendous amount of grief and guilt to process over this, but they NEED to understand how badly they were misled by their doctors. :(

that is exactly what I was thinking!

Go ahead and share. . . I'd have to be pretty spaced-out to consider anything I've shared on the internet to be "private" somehow! :lol

I questioned whether I should post about this situation in such detail. I don't think my friend is likely to be on this forum, but she would certainly recognize this story as her own if she read it. Unfortunately, I didn't think I would be able to get meaningful advise if I posted without all the background about their son's botched surgery and their difficulties in adding child #3 to their family. I would hope that if she ever sees any of this, she can see that it is all in my sincerest effort to honour our friendship and do well by her and her baby.

Regarding your friend: I can't imagine why she would be comfortable in that idea. "Adequete" anesthetic? So what?! No poking/prodding/cutting medical procedure on the body is painless, no matter what you get for drugs! I had local anesthetic as a child when a plantar's wart was removed. It hurt like #@$%&! (The HUGE needle for the anesthetic AND and actual removal). We've all read stories about women who had c-section with proper/normal/adequete anesthetic versus those few who receive inadequete anesthetic. Have you ever heard of any of the properly-anesthetized women referring to the ordeal as "painless"!? Yeesh! :dizzy:
Thanks. i didn't want to use it without permission first. I think that anyone reading what you wrote can see the love in it, so I wouldn't worry too much about that. And as far as my "friend", so not a friend. My only interest in this is the baby. And she's comfortable with the anesthesia because she's a nitwit.:dizzy:

I had 2 C-sections and they both sucked. In fact when I found out I had to have a second C, I cried.

If you do go with the route of trying to show her that the circ for her first son was unnecessary and they rec'd poor medical advice, here are a few more articles to support that:

(Incidentally, given that they already believe that the dr messed up the operation, they may be more open to the idea that he was incompetent from the start.)

http://www.mothersnature.com/toddlers/info/safeguard.html
Ballooning and spraying is rather common and not a condition that requires circumcision. The argument that it may cause back pressure or damage to the kidneys is unfounded. This ballooning and spraying, although often disconcerting to parents, is a delight to most little boys. As long as he is able to void there is no danger or problem that warrants surgical intervention. Be assured that as his foreskin becomes more pliant and retractable, the ballooning will subside and spraying will not be a problem. As he is being potty trained, you may have him retract his foreskin gently while urinating. This should provide better aim and reduce the spraying.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2004.04935.x (from the British Journal of Urology, 2004)
Both physiological phimosis and ballooning of the prepuce cause considerable parental concern/anxiety, and GPs and paediatricians frequently request surgical consultations for presumed phimosis and possible obstructed
voiding [8,9]. It is unclear why, despite reports supporting the conservative management of foreskin ballooning and physiological phimosis, paediatric surgeons continue to receive ‘inappropriate’ referrals for circumcision. Obviously one reason could be a failure of the medical profession, and particularly surgeons, to disseminate information and educate primary-care
physicians appropriately.

I haven't read the entire thread but my first instinct is to encourage them to get their son's medical records, figure out the exact diagnosis that lead to the circumcision of their first son, and then research it. Find out how he'd been cared for, if he'd ever been retracted by a care provider or anything, etc. My guess is it was probably a case of ballooning (which is normal) and inaccurately diagnosed phimosis...it's super common. Once you know what the problem was, you can share with them the statistics, alternative treatments, etc. so they know that even in the rare instance that it did occur again with proper, up-to date, competent medical care circumcision is really almost certainly not necessary.

Jen

So sorry that they didn't have a foreskin friendly urologist back with their first son. Sadly, there are those out there (a friend of mind used to work for one) who only know how to cut it off. :gloomy:

Due to son's young age, mom was sometimes present in bathroom to help with pants, etc (he's not a particularly-independent kid). She noticed one day that the normal "stream" of urine wasn't normal anymore - kinda' splattering and spluttering and "looking funny" as it came out. Over about a month or so, this got visibly worse and worse. . . I don't know exactly, but I think some of it was streaming out from the penis like normal, some sort of running underneath the bottom of the head and dribbling. There were multiple streams directing off the head of the penis in various ways, thus he couldn't really properly direct where it was going b/c it wasn't one normal contained stream. That's my best understanding of what was going on - might not be fully correct.

:splat That is completely normal!!!

So, this Dr decided to torture a fully conscious child, for no reason. He definitely deserves to be sued. Anesthesia is standard for children over 6 months and there was absolutely nothing wrong with their son.

If you won't get into the complete lack of reason for their first son's circ (I realize it may be counter productive for now) you could point out that they wouldn't be thinking of getting an appendectomy for the new baby just b/c their previous child needed one.

If you won't get into the complete lack of reason for their first son's circ (I realize it may be counter productive for now) you could point out that they wouldn't be thinking of getting an appendectomy for the new baby just b/c their previous child needed one.
The concern I'd have with not helping them understand that their first son didn't need a circ is that, even if you do manage to convince them not to circ their new little boy, it sounds like he likely will experience the same "problem" at some point if this is normal. If they don't understand that it isn't, in fact, a problem, then this new little guy may be destined to suffer needlessly like his big brother did.

:splat That is completely normal!!!

So, this Dr decided to torture a fully conscious child, for no reason. He definitely deserves to be sued. Anesthesia is standard for children over 6 months and there was absolutely nothing wrong with their son.

If you won't get into the complete lack of reason for their first son's circ (I realize it may be counter productive for now) you could point out that they wouldn't be thinking of getting an appendectomy for the new baby just b/c their previous child needed one.

So, this Dr decided to torture a fully conscious child, for no reason. He definitely deserves to be sued. Anesthesia is standard for children over 6 months and there was absolutely nothing wrong with their son.

PS. sued sued sued for a LOOOOOOT of money! :irked:

The concern I'd have with not helping them understand that their first son didn't need a circ is that, even if you do manage to convince them not to circ their new little boy, it sounds like he likely will experience the same "problem" at some point if this is normal. If they don't understand that it isn't, in fact, a problem, then this new little guy may be destined to suffer needlessly like his big brother did.

:yeah:

The concern I'd have with not helping them understand that their first son didn't need a circ is that, even if you do manage to convince them not to circ their new little boy, it sounds like he likely will experience the same "problem" at some point if this is normal. If they don't understand that it isn't, in fact, a problem, then this new little guy may be destined to suffer needlessly like his big brother did.
I agree that they need to become aware of this I just think it's a matter of timing. First get the new baby home intact without making emotionally vunerable parents defensive. Then help them understand that the :censored :censored :firedevil Dr should be punished for torturing their child.

The concern I'd have with not helping them understand that their first son didn't need a circ is that, even if you do manage to convince them not to circ their new little boy, it sounds like he likely will experience the same "problem" at some point if this is normal. If they don't understand that it isn't, in fact, a problem, then this new little guy may be destined to suffer needlessly like his big brother did.

I totally agree. You can't properly convince her to not circ #2 without teacher showing her that what happened to DS#1 was totally normal and the circ was unessisary. Sadly, not many doctors know how to properly take care of an intact penis. They don't know how it works and what normal is.

Hello Everyone,

I just wanted to post to let you know how this situation turned out. . .

Baby Boy is just as perfect as his mommy's body grew him! Yay!

The baby was born a month ago - 2 weeks early. There were some concerns that led to an induction. Then there were a few harrowing minutes at the birth. After an intense/scary culmination of a very stressful pregnancy, I didn't think it was considerate to pounce on my friends with "So, did you cut him?" or insist that I would LOVE to do a diaper change!

So I waited. . . The busy lives of both families and tons of out-of-town visitors they received delayed our visits. But I happened to see the other day that he is intact. I'm so relieved.

In the end, we didn't discuss with them the possible needlessness of their older son's circumcision. After posting on here that I didn't think I could tell them about that, I stewed on it for a while and thought maybe it was the key to the whole thing and a necessary evil to speak about with them. My husband and I talked about it at-length and decided that since I had already spoke to the wife once with her agreement to talk to her husband, it would be my husband's turn to follow up with the other dad.

We had talked about my husband discussing the likelihood that the surgery was unnecessary. But when the time came, my husband felt that it would really hurt our friends and cause them to dwell on something they couldn't change anyway. The conversation he had with the husband was pretty laid back. But within that, our disapproval was clear. The husband said they were now leaning back toward not circumcizing. My husband felt that while that wasn't an absolute statement against circumcision, it was enough. He felt that if our friends proceeded with a circumcision with this conversation having occurred, they would have really felt that they had to "own up to us" about it. We wouldn't take credit for the decision since it seems they were leaning that way again anyway, but it does appear that it's a case of some positive peer pressure adding a gentle nudge.

I really want to thank everyone for all the advice shared in this thread. The discussion about ballooning, etc really opened my eyes - even in consideration of our own intact boys. When my friend intitially described the "problem" with her oldest son, I thought it sounded a little fishy but wasn't going to jump in and blast the advice they'd gotten from doctors. But I know that if I had happened along the exact same "problem" with our own sons in later years, that coincidence alone would have made me suspicious.

Beyond that, it's been really good to learn in greater detail up-front about how much of this nonsense pervades main-stream medicine. Until some of the things I've read in this forum, I never would have thought about needing to instruct babysitters and/or medical personnel about not retracting our boys. It just seemed so obvious to me. But the stories in this forum did give me an "aha!" moment as I recalled a drawn-out tale a co-worker was once telling about how you "need" to pull it back and clean it all out and the misery some realative had experienced for being negligent in that care. I guess I was just missing the boat about how much misinformation is out there.

Thanks again for all the thoughtful replies and good advice!

I am so glad he is intact. I would make sure this time they have all the information they need on what to expect with the intact penis. A good article is here.
http://www.mothering.com/articles/new_baby/circumcision/protect-uncircson.html

I am so glad he is intact. I would make sure this time they have all the information they need on what to expect with the intact penis. A good article is here.
http://www.mothering.com/articles/new_baby/circumcision/protect-uncircson.html

I agree 100%. Although I applaud your desire not to make them feel bad about what happened to their first son, the problem is, they are still uneducated about the intact penis and how to care for it and its normal slight variations and issues that come up. Their second son may be intact for the moment, but that could change quickly unless they have the knowledge they need to protect him and keep him safe from the advice of any more ignorant medical professionals they encounter.

Again, I think it's great that your dh has talked to them, but they've already cut one older boy -- they may end up doing the same thing again, just with better pain relief this time around. Many boys are circumcised under general anesthesia every year, and that's about as good operative pain relief as you can get.

I hope you can get past your discomfort on a subject that has the potential to make them feel bad to get them the information they truly need. Think of it this way -- by sheltering them from the knowledge of their mistake, you may be protecting their feelings, but you're also protecting the ignorant doctors who so badly misled them. And you're not protecting their second baby. Think of how badly they will feel, and whether they will ever fully recover emotionally, if they circ a second boy for no good reason and find out later that BOTH circs could have been avoided.

I second the pp...these people need to be informed about what is normal with a natural penis. If they don't learn about ballooning or changes in urination spray...well, they're likely to have this one see a second ignorant physician and go through this all over again.

Hmmm. . . I see the point. . . I'm just not sure I agree with it 100%. If second son later does experience ballooning, etc, don't you think it would give the parents pause to question what the doctors had told them before about the whole "abnormality" their eldest son experienced?

Hmmm. . . I see the point. . . I'm just not sure I agree with it 100%. If second son later does experience ballooning, etc, don't you think it would give the parents pause to question what the doctors had told them before about the whole "abnormality" their eldest son experienced?

Considering the rest of the story, it seems more likely that they will think lightening struck them twice and that they need to put another child through that.

I agree with previous posters. I think it is wonderful :thumb that your friends left their second son intact, but it sounds like their confidence can be easily shaken by what their pedi says, given what happened to their DS #1. And of course, we know how "reliable" (as in not) a lot of pedis' opinions about intact care can be. I believe that gently educating them about what is normal and how to properly care for their DS #2 wouldn't be out of place here. Like someone else said, if DS #2 has the same "hose" effect in a couple of years during separation, it sounds like they might easily be convinced that lightning struck twice and that they'd have to get another circ done. Good luck!

ITA with the 2 PP -- I think it's far more likely that they will think that intact penises just have things that go wrong, and that circumcision is the way to go.

Also, it might not be ballooning this time around -- what if he has some separation trauma, or a UTI, or a yeast infection, or a mild inflammation, or it's not retractable by a certain age? There are many, many invalid reasons that doctors recommend circumcision. This family is far more likely to fall prey to ignorant medical professionals because they've already done it once -- and they don't want to recognize that they made a mistake once. If they circ the second, they're more likely to feel better about circing the first.

Who the *UA violation* circs a five year old without general anesthesia?

The same *UA violation* who circs a newborn (at all, because GA is
too dangerous for newborns).

I would like to add that newborns feel more than 5 years olds.

Oh wow, how fantastic!

Obviously it is an immense pity about the first one but that any boy has been saved such suffering is superb news. :)

We had talked about my husband discussing the likelihood that the surgery was unnecessary. But when the time came, my husband felt that it would really hurt our friends and cause them to dwell on something they couldn't change anyway.

They may not be able to change it for their son, but they could be protecting someone else's child from the same thing their went through, if they do something to hold the doctor responsible for his ignorance, inhumanity and violation of medical ethics. They need to know the harm that was caused so that they can protect other children from that pitiful excuse for a human being who they trusted with their child.