[Kim22]

I know this is going to be my MIL's main "reasoning" for wanting my son to be circ'd. She has a nephew who was left intact as an infant, but later in life got some sort of infection and 'needed' to be circ'd. I don't know the whole story, and I suspect she doesn't really know the whole story either.

Before this topic comes up again, I want to have some facts and statistics ready to throw at her.

What are the odds that my child will need to be circ'd later in life? Can good hygiene absolutely prevent that? (If for whatever reason he "had" to be circ'd, wouldn't it be better that he be circ'd as an adult rather than as an infant so they can use anesthesia? Am I missing something there?) What are the causes for someone to need a circ in adulthood?

Can anyone help prepare me for this debate?

: Thanks so much! I love this forum!

 

[woobysma]

I don't have any stats - but I do want to warn you, if you are searching on your own, make sure you distinguish between % who ARE circ'd later in life and % who NEED to be circ'd later in life.......

If you are well-informed and have a supportive ped, a lot of possible problems can be dealt with w/o circ. You may (and will) find stats that don't consider this.

I'm sure the other regulars in this forum will be able to give specific numbers or good estimates.

 

[LavenderMae]

Quote:

Once in a great while a medical necessity for circumcision does occur. However, if the foreskin is left alone during the first few years and handled very gently throughout life (by not being subjected to forced retractions and aggressive cleaning attempts), 99% will never have any problems with their foreskin that cannot be treated nonsurgically. [Verner] The odds that American women will develop breast cancer are much higher. Her chances are one in 10, and yet no one suggests that breasts should be automatically amputated in order to prevent an onset of the disease.

http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/later.htm

These links tell ways to treat penile problems (that aren't very likely to occur) w/o circumcising.
http://www.cirp.org/library/treatment/
http://faculty.washington.edu/~gcd/DOC/altern.html

 

[Sarah]

Actually it's probably a convoluted idea of "good hygene" which got your nephew into that situation... but regardless... no one needs to have a body part cut off if it gets infected unless it's flesh eating bacteria... like what hit this poor circumcised kid... (save the link for your MIL- but don't pain yourself looking if you can't stomach it) http://www.infocirc.org/fourn.htm

or here is a gory story - some folks in the staff were spreading staph - "In Aug 1998, a 150-bed naval hospital in eastern North Carolina identified an outbreak in the newborn nursery. Cases were newborn males who had undergone a circumcision procedure and post-discharge required antimicrobial treatment for severe pustulous diaper rash. A total of 36 cases were identified from Aug to Jan 1999." http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/hoffman1/

or here- "This report describes the nosocomial infection with MRSA of 22 male infants in a neonatal nursery during a 7-month period and the infection control procedures that effectively brought this outbreak under control and eliminated recurrence for more than 3 1/2 years." http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/zafar1/

intact kids, sometimes get yeast infections, they are treated like... uhhh- yeast infections. Sometimes intact kids get diaper rashes on their foreskins- and they are treated like diaper rashes... anti -fungals, anti-biotics, barrier cream, clean water.... no knives.

On the other hand- our circumcision culture has spawned tons of people with attitudes like this idea that one half of the human race needs to be sterile:
http://www.kidsgrowth.com/interact/viewresp.cfm?id=4
"If you could guarantee the personal hygiene needed to maintain a clean, germ-free area, then circumcision should not be performed. But without that kind of guarantee, and of course, one does not exist, girlfriends and wives are at constant risk not only from infection, but possible cervical cancer down the road. These facts were discovered over 45 years ago. "

Love Sarah

 

[A&A]

"The biggest problem an intact boy will ever have is that someone will THINK he has a problem!"

Read this article by Dr. Fleiss about protecting your intact son: (It details the stupid reasons docs will give for your son "needing" a circ, and why those are all myths).

http://www.mothering.com/10-0-0/html...rcson103.shtml

If for some reason that link doesn't work, you can find the article under the sticky on this forum titled, "Fleiss articles."

One HUGE misconception about intact boys is that you should retract to clean underneath before the foreskin is retractible on its own. Again, this is a MISCONCEPTION. You should NOT do this. What happens to boys who are repeatedly forcibly retracted is that they can develop scar tissue, which can, sometimes, result in a circ. So, ironically, sometimes attempts to "take care of" the foreskin make the problem a lot worse! Some of those "had to be circ'd" cases may have been the result of forcible retraction. There is nothing inherently wrong with the foreskin, just with the way people treat it!

The foreskin is somewhat like a fingernail--completely fused at birth. Just like you don't need to pull the fingernail back to clean the nail bed, you also don't need to push back the foreskin to clean underneath.

Your son should be the first person to retract his foreskin. It will be retractable sometime before puberty. When HE can retract it, then you should teach him to clean underneath it with WATER only. (Using soap can result in irritation.)

Until then, though, you just wipe the outer part of the foreskin, like you would a finger.

Again, read the Fleiss article. It's very enlightening about these "had to" circ cases.

 

[Marsupialmom]

Ok, I can be crude and crass-I have had this discussion with relatives.

One was my grandfather, I found out why he was so passionate about this issue was because he was circ'ed as an adult to cure gonorrhea. It was WW II and circ cured STD's. So the last time he mentioned it later I just told him if he would used a condom or kept his dick in his pants gonorrhea or any other STD would not be much of on issue. This cause the discussion to stop because he now knew I knew his secret.

My mom brought it up many times. I told her the fact if 80% of the world is still uncirc their dicks are not falling off, nor are they running out for this surgery then obvious the need for it later is a non-issue. If it was soooooo common for it to be done later or men would have bad sex later because of their foreskin you would sure bet more of the world would jump on the circ bandwagon.

 

[Frankly Speaking]

The experience of scandinavian countries who do not even consider circumcision is that 6 out of 100,000 boys will actually need a circumcision. In adults, the number is slightly higher due to complications of diabetes. However, these diabetics have far more serious problems and problems with their foreskins is a minor one.

The incidence of "necessary" circumcisions in the US is much higher. These "necessary" circumcisions, as you can guess, are not because American boys are different, it's because American doctors are different. American doctors have put themselves in a position that they don't have experience with the intact child.

The problems fall into three categories. Iatrogenic, (doctor caused) improper care,(doctor caused) and improper treatment. (doctor caused) Iatrogenic causes are usually when a doctor has forcibly retracted a boy and has instructed a mother to clean inside the foreskin. Improper care is when a mother has taken it on herself to clean inside the foreskin and improper treatment has it's own categories.

They include failure to properly diagnose. Probably the most common is the misdiagnosis of phimosis. There is a common misconception among doctors that a child should absolutely be retractile by 3 years old. Actually only 1/3 are naturally retractile by this age so the other 2/3 are diagnosed with phimosis and a circumcision is recommended. Next, the common and natural occurance of inflamation associated with separation is diagnosed as an infection. This inflamation normally self resolves within 24 hours but the doctor prescribes an antibiotic and when the inflamation does go away in 24 hours, assumes infection was the cause and prescribes a circumcision to prevent future episodes. Finally, when there is a problem, the doctors to not do a culture to learn what the real pathogen is and when it fails to respond to shotgun treatment (as can be expected) they prescribe a circumcision.

The long and short of it is that thanks to Mothering.com, you will have the correct information and your son's chances of needing a circumcision later will be far less than the chances that he will die of his circumcision wounds. Now, to address another issue, that he will choose a circumcision as an adult. Polls show that only 3% of intact men in America have ever considered circumcision and only .06% have actually had it done. I suspect that all of the cases of adult circumcision are a very few men that everyone knows! They must be extremely popular! That or there a lot of the cases of adult circumcision that never actually happened. Hmmmmm . . . . . .

Sheacoby:

RE: "However, if the foreskin is left alone during the first few years and handled very gently throughout life."

Have you ever seen what young boys do with that thing? They pull, stretch, twist and manipulate it in every way you can imagine. How the heck can you stop it? Actually, the foreskin is just as durable as any other part except maybe the soles of the feet and the palms of the hands. No special care is required.

Marsupialmom:

I hope your grandfather doesn't really believe his foreskin had anything to do with his case of gonnorhea or that his circumcision had anything to do with the cure. Neither is true. He would have gotten it even if he had been circumcised and he would have been cured without the circumcision. The circumcision was totally unnecessary.

Frank

 

[simonee]

HEre in Holland about 4% of non-religious circing men is circed. I think it's less ~ I've never seen one, and I've seen my fair share

including on nude beaches and in saunas

 

[Kim22]

Exactly the information I was looking for! Thank you!

 

[TigerTail]

the one fellow i knew that had been circ'd as a 13 yr old (after coming to the us from scotland

; suddenly it was found to be 'necessary') was due to phimosis. i suspect he would've liked to have known about stretching & creams, as he lost the ability to *orgasm* forever (even through masturbation!)

of course, this is the kind of malarkey that is put forth as a reason for infant circumcision, instead of an indictment of circumcision as a cure-all.

(boy, did this guy hate the us last i talked to him!)

suse

 

[Sarah]

Simonee- You should also factor in the fact that a Scandanavian man who has been circumcised may feel awful about the way his penis looks circumcised and may be intentionally avoiding beaches and saunas... the fact that you haven't seen them might just be that they are more private with nudity.

I think this situation may also exist in the USA in the reverse- circumcised men might swear up and down that they never saw ONE intact man EVER... but the fact is- they exist, but because of the way that this intimidation scene has been talked up- the intact guys may have just opted to change in privacy.

Love Sarah

 

[Frankly Speaking]

Sarah:

How often have you seen another woman's vulva? Probably about as often as I have seen another man's penis. Somehow, there is this perception that men stand around with their parts hanging out for all to see. It's just not true. Unless I'm some kind of odd ball, I think it is a pretty rare thing for a man to see another man's penis. I can't remember seeing one in years.

I'm old enough (Here when dirt was brand new) to remember old locker rooms where there were communal showers and urinals but those things are very unusual now (unless I live in a very advanced part of the country) and men are afforded a good bit of privacy and they seem to take it.

Maybe I need to visit a nudist resort and take a poll.

Frank

 

[boingo82]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frankly Speaking Sarah: How often have you seen another woman's vulva? Probably about as often as I have seen another man's penis. Somehow, there is this perception that men stand around with their parts hanging out for all to see. ..

Frank - I think the reason we assume that is that men's parts are more "out there" than women's - and usually when we have occasion to see them they are REALLY "out there". Of course I also realise that it's a BIG taboo for guys to be looking.

TO the OP: Your son is about as likely to "need" a circumcision as you are to need one. I'm sure you know the infections and whatnot that we women have to deal with - yeast, UTIs, etc, we get them more often than intact men - but nobody tries to cut off our bits to "fix" the problem. We use creams and antibiotics, which is the proper way to treat these things. Chances are your son won't be dealing with them anyway. Lord knows I got more yeast infections while pregnant (thank you hormones) than my 4 intact brothers have gotten put together. In fact none of them has EVER had any infection. Meanwhile my mom is plagued by repeat UTIs. Foreskin isn't the demon it's made out to be.

 

[simonee]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarah Simonee- You should also factor in the fact that a Scandanavian man who has been circumcised may feel awful about the way his penis looks circumcised and may be intentionally avoiding beaches and saunas... the fact that you haven't seen them might just be that they are more private with nudity.

Sarah, good thought, but with all respect I don't think so. First, "privacy" in this country (most densely populated in the world after Bangladesh, and btw not in Scandinavia LOL ) means "half a stall door when you poop". Second, I've seen my share in more private situations too, and have discussed this with quite a few men and women (advantage of lack of privacy perception). Third, bc circ is rare, some men circ consciously (esp when aids first appeared but then it went out of fashion again, or so I'm told), so embarrassment would not be all that common.

boingo, excellent point!

 

[LavenderMae]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frankly Speaking Sheacoby: RE: "However, if the foreskin is left alone during the first few years and handled very gently throughout life." Have you ever seen what young boys do with that thing? They pull, stretch, twist and manipulate it in every way you can imagine. How the heck can you stop it? Actually, the foreskin is just as durable as any other part except maybe the soles of the feet and the palms of the hands. No special care is required

Believe me I know!! My son can be quite rough with his.LOL I took this to mean others shouldn't be rough with their sons foreskin (or allow a doctor to be), such as forcibly retracting or using harsh soaps etc... I didn't really think about the quote and it's not my words. Now I can see how off the "treat gently thru out life" advice is. They should have chosen a better word but I do think they mean you don't need to aggressively clean it and not to forcibly retract it. Of course you are absolutely right, Frank!!

 

[Stardust27]

Quote:

Originally Posted by simonee HEre in Holland about 4% of non-religious circing men is circed. I think it's less ~ I've never seen one, and I've seen my fair share including on nude beaches and in saunas

Simonee, where did you get the figure from? I'm asking because I know it is difficult to obtain any realistic information about the rate in Germany and because certain groups out there like to exaggerate the number of circumcised men in a country. I once found a figure of 20% circumcised in Germany!

Now I've not been with many different men and I don't frequently visit nude beaches/saunas either, but I can't imagine that this number is true, not even if you count in Muslim (5+ % of the population) and Jewish (marginal due to our shameful history) religious circumcision. So I would be careful about such numbers floating around, unless they come directly from medical sources such as medical articles, doctor's associations and health insurance statistics.

Having said that, I actually think that 4% is quite reasonable, considering that alternative treatments haven't been around for that long, that many people (and some doctors) still perceive circumcision as THE cure for phimosis and that many parenting books, and probably also medical textbooks as well as some doctors still blabber about the "magical retraction age" at 3-4 years.

Oh, BTW, great match on Tuesday, wasn't it? http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung...ie_flagge8.gif http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung...ie_flagge6.gif

As far as the question of the OP is concerned, I once did some calculations based on two articles published in medical journals:

In this French study

Berdeu, D., Sauze, L., Ha-Vinh, P. & Blum-Boisgard, C. Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatments for phimosis: a comparison of surgical and medicinal approaches and their economic effect. BJU International 2001 87 (3), 239
http://www.bjui.org/87/3/article/bju033.asp

the authors estimate that the number of medical circumcisions performed in France in 1998 was 51 080. That sounds like a huge number, but let's look at it as a percentage of the French population of 59 million people. Assuming that half of them (29.5 million) are male, the percentage of French boys and men undergoing circumcision for a medical reason (phimosis etc.) in 1998 was 0,2 %.

But that's not the end of it: Berdeu et al. found out that in 85 % of cases of phimosis, the problem could be successfully remedied with 4 or 8 weeks of (painless) steroid creme application and stretching. That means that 43 418 of those 51 080 circumcisions might have been unnecessary. Which leaves only 7662 French boys and men which would have had to be circumcised in that particular year - or 0,03 % of the total male population.

Circumcision risk: 0,03 % per year or a theoretical "life risk" of 2 % for a 70 year old man

And they didn't even discuss the possibility of preputioplasty, an operation which preserves all of the foreskin, is much less traumatic and can replace circumcision in many cases. It is described in this study from Germany:

Saxena AK, Schaarschmidt K, Reich A, Willital GH. Non-retractile foreskin: a single center 13-year experience. Int Surg 2000;85(2):180-3.
http://www.cirp.org/library/treatment/phimosis/saxena1/

In a German hospital, 2554 boys have been treated for non-retractile foreskin between 1984 and 1997. Stretching / steroid therapy was either not possible or had been tried unsuccessfully in these cases.

2177 (85 %) of them have been successfully treated with preputioplasty. The patients tolerated the treatment well and were satisfied with the (cosmetic) result.
284 (11 %) of them had adhesions, the separation of which solved the problem.
73 (3 %) of them have been circumcised. But of these circumcisions, only 2 (0,08 %) were unavoidable. The remaining 71 circumcisions were performed because the parents explicitly wished so (mainly for religious reasons).

2 medically necessary circumcisions in 13 years! If it wasn't for those "parental wish" circumcisions, the doctors might have forgotten how to do them altogether! (Every intactivist's dream, I know.

)

Circumcision risk: 0,08 %

Unfortunately, with the information I have, it's impossible to convert this figure into a percentage of a total population of boys, but if we assume that one of ten boys ended up in that hospital, it would be 0,008 % of all boys, if it was only one in a hundred, it drops to 0,0008 % and so on. Suddenly, the "Finnish figure" of 0,006 % or 1 of 16 667 men doesn't sound as insanely low as it did before...

Stardust

 

[Frankly Speaking]

Stardust:

I think you could probably repeat those figures any where in the world. There has been a similar study in Australia that although the numbers were much higher, it was finally surmised that had all of the unnecessary circumcisions been taken out, the final percentages would have been about those you quote.

A Swedish study was done where all of the unnecessary procedures were taken out and it was found that lichen sclerosis and BXO in repeated bouts were the cause for all of the necessary circumcisions which also approximated your figures. I have seen sites promoting circumcision using these infections as reasons for prophylactic circumcision and your figures show just how little sense that approach makes.

Frank

 

[Stardust27]

Even more proof that these figures are reasonable and "true".

Too bad that no scientist has done a meta-analysis of all these studies yet, with the results published in the mass media with a huge ballyhoo:

Circumcision - A Therapy threatened with Extinction

Now that is a headline I would love to read instead of all the "Foreskin causes AIDS" crap.

Oh well, I can dream, can't I?

Stardust

 

[sahli29]

She has a nephew who was left intact as an infant, but later in life got some sort of infection and 'needed' to be circ'd. I don't know the whole story, and I suspect she doesn't really know the whole story either.>>>>

This really annoys me.Why is the foreskin so darn expendable??? I have gotten this as well from people.And my response now is," There is no expendable parts on my children.I treat infections with medication not amputation.My dd has had toe infections that lasted weeks.It would have been easier to have no toe nails.Shoot cut off the toe,she's got 9 more!And eye infections? 2 times in both kids.Maybe next time I could just cut off those eyelids,and save myself the aggrevation of getting off all that mucus from the eyelashes.Who needs eyelashes anyway??? Sound silly no? Well so is cutting off the most important parts of the male genitalia for an infection.Think about it."

 

[simonee]

Stardust I don't rmember where I got that. Mustabeen a very reliable source, like a paper or something :LOL

I hope the finals, where they meet again, will be less boring

And now i try thtat smilie thing you do http://members.home.nl/simonepaul/waterpomptang.jpg
heh heh that's me and ds. Neither of us is mutilated

Looks like Cynthia forgot to turn the images off.