Intact older men. . . question - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 17 Old 01-08-2006, 02:42 AM - Thread Starter
AAK
 
AAK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Eastern Washington
Posts: 3,087
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
OK, I am assuming that I am having another girl because of the u/s tech. However, I thought it was a rather poor angle, so just in case I wanted to make sure I was well-educated on the circ. issue. I am the oddball in the family and the only person who will accept/praise my "intact" stance is even more odd than me

My younger sister works at an urology clinic. Because of her experience there, she would NEVER leave a male child intact. So, reminding her that she doesn't get a chance to see men without problems, I asked "why". Apparantly (now I may have misunderstood this), many of the older patients with an intact penis have difficulties with urination. That the foreskin is a barrier somehow. The remedy is to circ the man. My sister thinks that it is better to just get it over with while they are babies and won't remember it.

I can't imagine that this problem isn't preventable (even in intact men). And, I suspect it is rare. So, I am curious. . .what problems might an intact man face in his older years? Why? And how would he prevent them?

Thanks,

Amy

Mom to three very active girls Anna (14), Kayla (11), Maya (8). 
AAK is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 of 17 Old 01-08-2006, 08:36 AM
 
Daisyuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 929
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Because, in the States, most of the older men are intact. The circ rate didn't reach the dizzying heights of 80-90% until the 1970s, and of course those men are only in their 30s.

I expect that the rate of circumcised men with these UTI and other penis age related problems will increase steadily as the population ages and as they do, then nurses like your sister will start to see that "all the old men with all these problems are circumcised". I'm almost looking forward to the day that penile cancer -another disease of old men - turns up more in circumcised men in the States than intact (but sadly I probably won't be around to see it). Ask her how many old women with urinary problems that she sees are intact, and wouldn't it be better to get all those folds and flaps removed at birth?

Quite apart from that, removing a body part in case someone has a problem with it in old age is really lame and completely unethical. How DARE she make the assumption that someone would give up a lifetime's use of a body part just to prevent it having to be removed in old age, that is both presumptious, arrogant, and a decision that really isn't hers to make.

Men over here are overwhelmingly intact, and somehow any penis problems in later years are dealt with without the foreskins being amputated. My own father had a couple of UTIs before he died (and a chest infection and ulcerated legs) and guess what? They didn't amputate anything, they gave him antibiotics. When he had urine retention problems (the bladder doesn't empty completely each time), again not foreskin related at all, they gave him a catheter - which was also put in leaving the foreskin in situ. If anyone had suggested a circ to "cure" what was wrong with him, not only would I (and he) have been tempted to deck them, but I would have been putting in a compaint about medical malpractice. I think the only reason this happens in the States is because of left over Victorian Quackery and cultural reasons, your medics are way too cut happy over there, it just isn't necessary.
Daisyuk is offline  
#3 of 17 Old 01-08-2006, 08:38 AM
 
keptwoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 41
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I have no idea what problems occur later in life. But Id rather give my sons 50-70 years with the benefit of their foreskins even if they do end up needing to be cut off (under a GA after a lifetime of enjoyment) However, I doubt they will need to be cut off.
keptwoman is offline  
#4 of 17 Old 01-08-2006, 09:29 AM
Banned
 
Pandora114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Shamelessly using "devices"
Posts: 6,717
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
IMO, UTI's in older men shouldn 't be looked on as a foreskin problem but a prostate problem.


How many men come into that clinic complaining of insufficient voiding, and get their foreskins cut off but the reality is a pre cancerous prostate?

How many lives have been cut short by this?

*infuriated*

***** Late grandfather was intact, he also had prostate cancer, he survived and was taken by COPD. if his drs blamed his foreskin for it *the lack of urinairy voiding which what tipped my Gpa off in the first place, but it wouldn't suprise me if they blame the foreskin on his COPD*, then he very well would have died a helluva lot earlyer than he did.


So I'd rip into that Urology clinic....stupid farking money grubbers.....not getting to the REAL problem till it's too late to do anything

*Grumbles about how anti man this world truly is*
Pandora114 is offline  
#5 of 17 Old 01-08-2006, 10:43 AM
 
Frankly Speaking's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: North Atlanta
Posts: 4,928
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The only situation I know of is phimosis as a complication of diabetes. This is a fairly rare situation where the distal tip of the foreskin loses it's elasticy and will not retract. It is usually diagnosed in the late 50's or later. Management of the diabetes can forstall the condition or eliminate it altogether. As would be expected, a urologist would see many more of this than any other segment of the medical industry and would skew your sister's thinking on the subject.

To my knowledge, the cure for advanced cases is circumcision. But you have to realize that the hard numbers are very low in the population even in diabetics.




Frank
Frankly Speaking is offline  
#6 of 17 Old 01-08-2006, 10:55 AM
 
njeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Iowa
Posts: 1,907
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think that the vast majority of circ's done on older men in the U.S. are unnecessary; proper nursing care in the nursing homes would have avoided many of them.
And yes, working in a urologist's office would skew her viewpoint. Urologists see the problems; they don't see the vast majority of older men who never have any problems with their foreskins.
As a PP has stated, difficulty urinating is a problem of an enlarged prostate. If an older man develops trouble urinating, he should have his prostate examined first.
njeb is offline  
#7 of 17 Old 01-08-2006, 12:09 PM
A&A
 
A&A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankly Speaking
The only situation I know of is phimosis as a complication of diabetes.

And untreated diabetics would be facing blindness, foot problems, neuropathy, etc. Diabetes causes a lot of problems.

"Our task is not to see the future, but to enable it."
A&A is online now  
#8 of 17 Old 01-08-2006, 12:58 PM
 
Quirky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Princeton, NJ
Posts: 11,770
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Ask your sister whether she would have a baby girl's breast buds cut off. After all, the lifetime risk for breast cancer in the US is now some insane number like 1 in 7.

Quote:
Breast Cancer Cases/Deaths Per Year (U.S. and World)

Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths in women today (after lung cancer) and is the most common cancer among women, excluding nonmelanoma skin cancers. According to the World Health Organization, more than 1.2 million people will be diagnosed with breast cancer this year worldwide. The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2005, approximately 211,240 women in the United States will be diagnosed invasive breast cancer (Stages I-IV). The chance of developing invasive breast cancer during a woman's lifetime is approximately 1 in 7 (13.4%). Another 58,490 women will be diagnosed with in situ breast cancer, a very early form of the disease. Though much less common, breast cancer also occurs in men. An estimated 1,690 cases will be diagnosed in men in 2005.

It is estimated that 40,410 women and 460 men will die from breast cancer in the United States this year. According to the American Cancer Society, the chance that breast cancer will be responsible for a woman's death is about 1 in 33 (3%). The incidence rate of breast cancer (number of new breast cancers per 100,000 women) increased by approximately 4% during the 1980s but leveled off to 100.6 cases per 100,000 women in the 1990s. The death rates from breast cancer also declined significantly between 1992 and 1996, with the largest decreases among younger women. Medical experts attribute the decline in breast cancer deaths to earlier detection and more effective treatments.
http://imaginis.com/breasthealth/statistics.asp

So breast cancer is the second-leading cause of cancer death in women...far safer to have your dd's breastbuds cut off at birth! She won't remember it, it will be over quickly, and it's way better to undergo that minor surgery at the beginning of her life than endure months and months of chemo and radiation, not to mention surgery, later.

If she worked in a gynecological oncologist's office and saw all these middle-aged women with their heads in scarves because of chemo and radiation, and the grueling course of treatment they have to undergo to prolong their survival, I'm sure she'd agree.

(Seriously, I mean it - cut and paste my post and email it to her.)

Come visit the NEW QuirkyBaby website -- earn QB Bucks rewards points for purchases, reviews, referrals, and more! Free US shipping on great brands of baby slings and carriers and FREE BabyLegs or babywearing mirror on orders of $100+. Take the QB Quiz for personalized advice!

Quirky is offline  
#9 of 17 Old 01-08-2006, 01:02 PM
 
Ann-Marita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,429
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by A&A
And untreated diabetics would be facing blindness, foot problems, neuropathy, etc. Diabetes causes a lot of problems.
So, by a lot of people's logic, we should just remove the eyes and feet before they become problematic.


Ann-Marita. I deleted my usual signature due to, oh, wait, if I say why, that might give too much away. 

Ann-Marita is offline  
#10 of 17 Old 01-08-2006, 01:13 PM
 
earthmama369's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 6,792
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I used to work in DMR group homes -- most of the guys were older and many were intact. Quite frankly, their fingernails and toenails were more of a risk for infection than their foreskins. An ingrown toenail could lead to a serious infection if uncaught for long enough, and there were TWENTY of those to try to keep clean and cared for, not just one! So by her logic, we should have just pulled everyone's nails and let them scar over in order to prevent possible infections? Once you carry her logic out to its natural conclusion for her (since she's clearly not able to do so herself), it's ridiculous nature is revealed.
earthmama369 is offline  
#11 of 17 Old 01-08-2006, 01:21 PM
 
Slabobbin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by keptwoman
I have no idea what problems occur later in life. But Id rather give my sons 50-70 years with the benefit of their foreskins even if they do end up needing to be cut off (under a GA after a lifetime of enjoyment) However, I doubt they will need to be cut off.
This.

Mama to:Ben (12), Natalie (9), Zoe (5)
 
 
 
     

Slabobbin is offline  
#12 of 17 Old 01-08-2006, 01:32 PM - Thread Starter
AAK
 
AAK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Eastern Washington
Posts: 3,087
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quirky
Ask your sister whether she would have a baby girl's breast buds cut off. After all, the lifetime risk for breast cancer in the US is now some insane number like 1 in 7.

Funny you should mention that. . .one day when I was arguing with her, I mentioned that very same thought. She of course thought that that would be going to far because then no one would be able to bf. So I followed up with the women who are choosing mastecomies before being diagnosed and said maybe we should have ALL women with family history of cancer have their breasts removed after they are finished with bf. She still thought that was absurd, but wouldn't consent to the fact that routine circ is absurd too.

Anyways, I know she is full of it, but since I didn't know anything about what could happen to older men, I wanted information so that when she says "you are setting him up for xyz", I could then say that I looked into that and feel comfortable with my decision. Thanks everyone.

Amy

Mom to three very active girls Anna (14), Kayla (11), Maya (8). 
AAK is online now  
#13 of 17 Old 01-08-2006, 01:55 PM
 
Bm31's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 625
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daisyuk
Because, in the States, most of the older men are intact. The circ rate didn't reach the dizzying heights of 80-90% until the 1970s, and of course those men are only in their 30s.

I expect that the rate of circumcised men with these UTI and other penis age related problems will increase steadily as the population ages and as they do, then nurses like your sister will start to see that "all the old men with all these problems are circumcised".
I suspect that this will be the case also. What will they do when they can't blame the foreskin?

I'm only 39 and I've noticed more frequent urination lately, and I suspect I may not be voiding completely. I should probably have it checked out, but since I already had a circ and re-circ (both poorly done, leaving me with a useless penis my whole life) I'm not sure there's much more they could do for me. Given my history with them, I have NO trust in urologists.
Bm31 is offline  
#14 of 17 Old 01-09-2006, 01:14 PM
 
LeosMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N.Colorado
Posts: 1,916
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
AAK, it's not absurd at all. But you're comparing the wrong body parts.

You need to compare sensory equivalents. The ridged band is like the clitoris.
So we should removed the clitoris to prevent (insert problem of old age here). We shouldn't care about the 70 years of pleasure the female would get from her clitoris, only about the possibility of (problem) when she's old and dying.
LeosMama is offline  
#15 of 17 Old 01-10-2006, 12:24 AM
 
baybee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,533
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
One of the things that I have learned (among many) by being on this forum is that life is messy, snotty, stinky, funky, bloody, gungy, blocked up, backed up and pasty---so what!!! We all need to give up thinking that amputating is an option---it's not. Just as with every part of the beautiful human body, male penile skin is not negotiable. It stays put.
Baybee
baybee is offline  
#16 of 17 Old 01-10-2006, 02:11 AM
 
nd_deadhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankly Speaking
The only situation I know of is phimosis as a complication of diabetes. This is a fairly rare situation where the distal tip of the foreskin loses it's elasticy and will not retract. It is usually diagnosed in the late 50's or later. Management of the diabetes can forstall the condition or eliminate it altogether. As would be expected, a urologist would see many more of this than any other segment of the medical industry and would skew your sister's thinking on the subject.

To my knowledge, the cure for advanced cases is circumcision. But you have to realize that the hard numbers are very low in the population even in diabetics.
Frank
If I'm not mistaken, diabetics sometimes have to have their toes amputated because of lack of circulation in the extremities. Seems pretty silly to me to amputate MY sons' toes just in case they develop diabetes and have poor circulation and might HAVE to have their toes amputated some day.

If the chips are down, the buffalo is empty.

nd_deadhead is offline  
#17 of 17 Old 01-10-2006, 02:25 AM
 
pdx.mothernurture's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,288
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankly Speaking
The only situation I know of is phimosis as a complication of diabetes. This is a fairly rare situation where the distal tip of the foreskin loses it's elasticy and will not retract. It is usually diagnosed in the late 50's or later. Management of the diabetes can forstall the condition or eliminate it altogether. As would be expected, a urologist would see many more of this than any other segment of the medical industry and would skew your sister's thinking on the subject.

To my knowledge, the cure for advanced cases is circumcision. But you have to realize that the hard numbers are very low in the population even in diabetics.
ITA, Frank. And, diabetics have more problems with their extremeties, like toes too...poor circulation leads to poor healing and the feet especially are prone to sores and infections. But, of course, no one in their right mind would ever suggest amputating the toes of healthy babies because they *might* someday develop diabetes and *might* need them amputated.

Jen

Edited to add, nd_deadhead, great minds think alike! I posted before I'd read the whole thread.
pdx.mothernurture is offline  
Reply

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off