Aposthia? - Mothering Forums
The Case Against Circumcision > Aposthia?
Shiloh's Avatar Shiloh 12:34 PM 01-17-2008
I was just curious as to what the approach would be of members in this group if they had a son born with aposthia?

Quote:
Some men are
born without a foreskin, the condition known as aposthia,
although this has no ill effects. The prophet Mohammed,
according to popular tradition, was born circumcised, that is,
he lacked a foreskin.
but if you were born without a foreskin would their really be no ill effects?

Frankly Speaking's Avatar Frankly Speaking 12:46 PM 01-17-2008
The effects of aposthia would be exactly the same as a normal man/child being circumcised, ie aposthia would be a birth defect or "natural" circumcision rather than with a blade.
Shiloh's Avatar Shiloh 12:49 PM 01-17-2008
Right but there would be no nerve endings cut.
Would it be wise to "restore" foreskin in a case like that?
Would that be a procedure medically covered as it is a birth defect?
Is restration ever medically insured?
LavenderMae's Avatar LavenderMae 04:21 PM 01-17-2008
I think the effects would be different than cirumcision though, it just seems it would have to be since there would be no ripping or cutting off the penis. That has to do more damage than if there just is no foreskin present. The glans would never be raw and then have to heal ect. Not to mention no trauma from the actual procedure.
LavenderMae's Avatar LavenderMae 04:23 PM 01-17-2008
Just wanted to add that calling this birth defect a 'natural circumcision' really pisses me off, that is the only way I've heard it addressed anywhere but here.
phdmama06's Avatar phdmama06 04:43 PM 01-17-2008
I think if my son had been born with aposthia, I would have left it alone and, if he wanted to restore when he was older (is that a possibility with this condition?) I would have been supportive of his choice.
thixle's Avatar thixle 05:02 PM 01-17-2008
Quote:
Just wanted to add that calling this birth defect a 'natural circumcision' really pisses me off, that is the only way I've heard it addressed anywhere but here.
yep

Quote:
Right but there would be no nerve endings cut.
Would it be wise to "restore" foreskin in a case like that?
Would that be a procedure medically covered as it is a birth defect?
Is restration ever medically insured?
Surgical restoration (I assume) would probably be covered. If you will look at photos and descriptions of surgical restoration, the scrotum is most often the donor tissue... But restoration by stretching is a gentle, effective self-treatment though not a recognized "medical" procedure. I'm sure a "normal" foreskin could be approximated by tugging, basically extending the shaft skin for glan coverage.
Shiloh's Avatar Shiloh 05:27 PM 01-17-2008
it is interesting when you think that because of the acceptability of circumcision that being devoid of foreskin (whether by birth defect or parental choice after birth) as defined here a necessary organ we haven't as a whole started necessitating that restoration/recreation is a right to be medically covered just as any other trauma or birth defect..

it is very interesting the way the world categorizes foreskin, but if you asked a doctor to cut off your daughter's labia .....I think you might raise a few eyebrows (and some telephones to the authorities...)
Frankly Speaking's Avatar Frankly Speaking 01:37 AM 01-18-2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh View Post
Right but there would be no nerve endings cut.
Would it be wise to "restore" foreskin in a case like that?
Would that be a procedure medically covered as it is a birth defect?
Is restration ever medically insured?
I was speaking of the long term implications rather than short term. The restoration possibilities would be determined if the complete foreskin was missing or if it were partially there. Insurance coverage would probably be determined on a case by case basis and the policy limitations and benefits.

There was a man in Canada last year that brought suit for his circumcision asking for funds for restoration and he did win his case.

.
Shiloh's Avatar Shiloh 11:19 AM 01-18-2008
It makes you think if they will start changing policy.
thixle's Avatar thixle 01:07 PM 01-18-2008
Quote:
The restoration possibilities would be determined if the complete foreskin was missing or if it were partially there. Insurance coverage would probably be determined on a case by case basis and the policy limitations and benefits.
Actually, no matter what, there will always be enough "foreskin" to restore- maybe not innerforeskin, but shaft-skin (aka outer foreskin) that can be stretched to cover the glans. So yes, if you have skin on your penis, but no fold of foreskin, you would still be able to restore.

I'm really confused about insurance coverage, though. Are you talking about surgical restoration or self restoration (tugging)? From everything I've read and *almost* everyone I've spoken with, surgical restoration is painful (or leaves numb spots), damaging, and quite unsightly (because they use scrotal skin)... and is only reccomended by doctors

Quote:
being devoid of foreskin (whether by birth defect or parental choice after birth) as defined here a necessary organ we haven't as a whole started necessitating that restoration/recreation is a right to be medically covered just as any other trauma or birth defect.
Dunno... would insurance cover devices (many of which are diy and/or very inexpensive- $200 or less)? Would they only cover surgery because "sane" men would only restore if it's "bad enough" for surgery? Or would they consider one of these devices to be medical equiptment? But then the devices would have to be regulated as medical equiptment- and I just don't know if that is the case now, or will ever be. I think circ would have to be made illegal before restoration were medically recognized. I think the TLC Tugger is medical grade, but that doesn't exactly make it a medical procedure, kwim?

And what if the man only used his hands (manual tugging) which gives really good results if the shaft skin is extremely tight? I'm assuming that would be the case with "severe" aposthia which would function like a tight circ. But how would insurance cover that? Monthly visits to the doctor to get your fauxskin measured and examined? Hell, even if a doctor just suggested restoration, it would be a huge leap.
Shiloh's Avatar Shiloh 02:45 AM 01-19-2008
Quote:
I'm really confused about insurance coverage, though. Are you talking about surgical restoration or self restoration (tugging)?
I am not that familiar with restoration options I always assumed it was just tugging - where would they get extra skin from (I see scrotum - scrotum skin is really the most different skin its like raisin like...)for surgical restoration a skin graft? that sounds horrid. I've had surgery the nerves if they do grow back (and often don't or cause altered sensations) take a while and its not fun...

Quote:
Dunno... would insurance cover devices (many of which are diy and/or very inexpensive- $200 or less)?
Shouldn't they? Would they for a child? (can they even be used on a child? like for the example if you had a son born without foreskin could you use the tugging methods?)
Quote:
Hell, even if a doctor just suggested restoration, it would be a huge leap.
true I saw one of those fauxskin products to give the feeling of protection and foreskin...I bet they wouldn't be covered either by any insurance company but it doesn't make much sense if you were missing hair they'd cover a portion atleast of a wig..and from what I've read foreskin can be more important than hair on your head?

or is it because how many men are really going to demand these devices be medically covered as its embarrassing to begin with...
Frankly Speaking's Avatar Frankly Speaking 02:50 PM 01-19-2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by thixle View Post
Actually, no matter what, there will always be enough "foreskin" to restore- maybe not innerforeskin, but shaft-skin (aka outer foreskin) that can be stretched to cover the glans. So yes, if you have skin on your penis, but no fold of foreskin, you would still be able to restore.

There is a potential problem here. The inner foreskin is mucosal tissue or tissue that is designed to be constantly damp or wet. The epidermis (skin on the rest of the body) is not designed for this environment. I have seen speculation that this would present problems but have never found anything to support that speculation.


Quote:
I'm really confused about insurance coverage, though. Are you talking about surgical restoration or self restoration (tugging)? From everything I've read and *almost* everyone I've spoken with, surgical restoration is painful (or leaves numb spots), damaging, and quite unsightly (because they use scrotal skin)... and is only reccomended by doctors
Since the cost of non-surgical restoration is minimal, I doubt that anyone would apply for coverage. A tape and elastic or weight type restoration costs less than $100.00 from start to finish. Surgical restoration is quite a different animal though. Information from sites set the cost at approximately $40,000.00 back in the early 1990's and I suspect that has increased due to inflation since then. At the time, there were only 2 doctors in all of North America doing surgical restorations, Dr. Alter (appropriate name, huh?) and Dr. Stubbs in Ontario, Canada. (IRC) Obviously, this would also involve travel and lodging expenses for the vast majority of men. The odd thing about surgical restoration is that all of the doctors who have/do provide it require the patient to undergo psychological evaluation prior to the procedure. Why is this the case when the parents that had the foreskin cut off were not required to undergo psychological evaluations?



.
Frankly Speaking's Avatar Frankly Speaking 03:12 PM 01-19-2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh View Post
I am not that familiar with restoration options I always assumed it was just tugging - where would they get extra skin from (I see scrotum - scrotum skin is really the most different skin its like raisin like...)for surgical restoration a skin graft? that sounds horrid.

Well, yes, it is pretty horrid. Here's a brief description of the surgery:

The skin on the penis is cut all the way around. Then a cut is made at the base of the penis in the scrotum and another cut is made at the bottom of the scrotum. The penis is then threaded through the scrotum via these two cuts and is sutured to the scrotum. This is left for usually several months and then the scrotum is cut releasing the penis with the scrotal skin attached. The scrotum is sutured shut and the transferred scrotal skin is sutured along the underside of the penis. After healing, the patient returns to have the hair on the transferred scrotal skin removed. During the process, the man has to sit to urinate and he has to be given medications to prevent erections. The process normally takes several months and up to 9 months. Of course, during this time, sex is out of the question.

This operation does not have desirable cosmetic results. As you said, the scrotum skin has a raisin like texture that is very different than the skin on the penis and that doesn't even consider the ample scarring. The only other skin on the body that is similar to penile skin is the eyelids and I doubt any man would give up his eyelids to have a foreskin. Incidentally, the foreskin has been suggested as a skin graft replacement for a man who has lost his eyelid in an accident. The skin types are the same on both sides and there is elastic tissue to hold the transferred skin tight to the eye. The only thing missing is the eye lashes. A man having this surgical replacement would give a whole new meaning to a wink!



.
Shiloh's Avatar Shiloh 03:24 AM 01-20-2008
good old dr stubbs (most famous for penis enargment here in his home town

Quote:
The B.C. Health Ministry paid for 90 per cent of his $12,000 bill and Tinari hopes it will set a precedent for other men.
and that's canadian which depending on the day is at par or somewhere about that..but would have been like so much cheaper last year..
http://www.canada.com/theprovince/ne...a-cc9bbb859142
Up