Mothering Forums - Reply to Topic

Thread: 2mo referred to urologist even though he appears completely normal--advice? Reply to Thread
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:


Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.

  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
04-07-2014 09:28 PM

Your son doesn't need to see a urologist, he needs a ped who actually knows what normal male anatomy looks like. The average age of retraction is 10 1/2 and the longer is stays tightly closed the better, as it keeps it clean. As you observed he pees a good stream, because the end of the foreskin has a sphincter muscle that closes down when he isn't peeing, which your Dr would know if he was at all educated. All your son need to do is pee, retracting is for sex only, and I don't think he has that in his immediate future! If you plan to saty with this same Dr I would print off the AAP care guide and highlight the relevant parts and make him read it.

04-06-2014 01:39 PM
Galatea Your doctor is ignorant of the normal foreskin. Your son has no problems and I wouldn't go to the specialist. I remember the time I noticed that my newborn son's "peehole" was the size of a pin and freaked out... And then he peed a nice, thick stream! It's very stretchy skin with a muscle inside to keep it closed and your baby is normal. Please consider giving your doctor information from Doctors Opposing Circumcision so his misinformation does not hurt other boys.
04-06-2014 01:16 PM

The main thing is that your son is having no trouble urinating and doesn't seem to be experiencing any pain or problems. Right? So, if there's no problem, there's no problem.


You said the first doctor wanted to prevent "further" infections. Did your son already have an infection in that area?

04-06-2014 08:57 AM
Springshowers How was the appointment?
04-02-2014 09:25 AM

I think the only problem your son has is a foreskin-ignorant primary care doctor.  Since the vast majority of medical texts do not discuss the functions/purpose/normal development of the foreskin, this doctor has never learned it.


It is normal for the hole to appear very small.  If you watch him pee some time, you'll see that the stream is pretty wide.  The only time this is a problem in a newborn is when there is no urine output.  You said that's not the case.


The organization Doctors Opposing Circumcision likely has material on their website that you can take to your appt w/ the urologist and/or to the reg doc the next time.  Hopefully if it comes from other doctors, they'll respect it.  Other medical associations in other parts of the world may have stuff you can take too or at least links you can provide.  I can assure you that in the majority of the world, most baby penises aren't in need of circ for the reasons you were given.


Congrats on your intact son!  From reading here over the years, I think the most you have to worry about w/ his penis is what others think should be done with it.


Best wishes,



PS - If you go to the urologist, I'd be interested to hear what happens, so please share, if you're willing!

04-02-2014 08:44 AM
Margo B

Sounds like you know that your baby is fine, and healthy and normal.  Not a bad idea to go to the urologist like you said, just to see if there is anything of any real concern.  I think if the urologist expresses concern about not being able to retract (and of course, be very vocal about him not trying to retract anyways!) perhaps you could have some information along with you that supports why you don't understand what the problem is - something about how that is completely normal at this stage for your baby.  If they are concerned about the size of the opening, that might be something different (I'm not familiar with that), but as you said, not being retractable is completely normal, and protective.  Chances are the the urologist will be much more educated on this topic, or at least I hope so!  I have a friend who is a urologist in Germany and he is very pro-intact boys since that is his area of expertise, so hopefully that isn't just a cultural phenomenon :)

04-02-2014 08:34 AM

Backstory: I have a 2mo son who is my first uncircumcised boy.
At our first well-baby checkup, our doctor looked at him with great concern, saying that the opening in his foreskin was very small, and that he had phimosis since it was not retractable at all.  He recommended that we circumcise him to prevent future infections and gave me a referral to a urologist.  He also asked if my son had had any trouble urinating.  He definitely hasn't had any problem urinating--plenty of wet diapers, and I have been peed on during diaper changes, so I know that he produces a healthy stream of urine (ha ha!) with no apparent discomfort.  He has no redness or irritation that I can see.  I care for him by normal wiping at diaper changes, and my baby bathtime routine is just water at this age, maaaybe shampoo on their hair but not on their body.  I have done my reading on what a normal uncircumcised newborn should look like, and he looks COMPLETELY normal.  My understanding is that newborns have *physiological phimosis*, not *pathological phimosis*; i.e. the foreskin isn't supposed to retract at this age anyway.  

So I decided to go to the urologist appointment anyway, partly to get a second opinion, and partly so that our doctor (who really is wonderful) won't continue to ask me about it.  The appointment is tomorrow.  But my worry is, what if the urologist thinks that the fact that a 2mo is not retractable (with no signs of distress or infection) is a reason for circumcision too?!  I don't really have any other doctors in this are I can go to.  I would of course like to know if there really were a problem, but all signs point to there not actually being a problem.  Any advice for me?  Thank you!

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may 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