Does your friend know that one in five circumcised boys has a fully covered glans?
If she thinks that seeing the coronal ridge is proof of circumcision... she's wrong. I wish more parents know that this cosmetic sugery was not even going to give them the look they are so dead set on getting.
More boys are circumcised TWICE (the second one to make it look like the way they wanted that first one to appear) than intact boys will ever "need" to be circumcised for a first time. Tnhat isa shocking concept to any parent who is making the excuse that they should do it now and avoid "having" to do it later... the odds of a circumcised boy having genital surgery at a later date are higher than if he was left intact.
Here is an article published in the BJU: http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/vanhowe/
"Findings in the circumcised group under 3 years included: fully exposed glans (n=78, 35.6%), partially covered glans (n=67, 30.6%), adhesions (25.6%), completely covered glans (20.1%), entrapped desquamated epithelial debris (24.7%), reddened meatus (19.1%), balanitis (15.5%), and preputial stenosis (0.9%)."
Here are photos of some kids whose parents were worried about their circumcisions not looking like circumcisions.http://www.rogerknapp.com/medical/circ_incomplete.htm
This is totally common.
Why was it that they did this after all? Don't bother to answer...
Please pass this info onto your friend and her husband... it will help if they understand that this is even more upsurd than it appears at first glance.