Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In almost all cases it doesn't matter either way.

I personally know three men who had to be circumcised as adults and no boys or men who have had botched circumcisions, so we chose to circumcise. I asked my OB and other doctor friends and all leaned toward circumcision. It went fine.

And if those men lived in many other countries, they probably would have been treated without circumcision just fine. We jump to it very quickly, in part because the functions of the foreskin are not known or valued in our society with a high adult circ rate.

Anonymous wrote:Europe is always behind in medicine because they have systems that are not quick to pay for new advances.

Anonymous wrote:In almost all cases it doesn't matter either way.

I personally know three men who had to be circumcised as adults and no boys or men who have had botched circumcisions, so we chose to circumcise. I asked my OB and other doctor friends and all leaned toward circumcision. It went fine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work in adult urology. 90% of my day is spent diagnosing, treating, and instrumenting penises.
I only have daughters, but if I had a son, he'd be circumcised, no hesitation.

How do you think countries such as Germany, England, Sweden and Argentina are able to avoid adult penile complications? You realize that over 95% of the adult male populations in those countries (and many, many other countries as well) are intact and do not experience the same type of problems that adult intact males seem to experience in the United States? Mull that one over. Perhaps your diagnoses are incorrect and your treatments are harmful and/or unnecessary. Maybe the way doctors instruct the parents of intact boys to care for their foreskins actually leads to the types of problems you have witnessed.

Furthermore, by your logic, we should just start cutting off any body part that could cause a problem later in life. You realize that specialists see diseased body parts every day? For example, men are likely to get breast cancer than penile cancer. Why not remove male breast tissue at birth? Think of all the pain it could save in the future! There is an endless list of problem body parts. My question to you is: why the foreskin? Why do you think the foreskin, in particular is so expendable and so important to remove?

I think the problem is that some adult men DON'T take care of their foreskin. Or they don't address their incontince or terminal dribbling issues. Just a few days of yeast infection involving the foreskin can result in phimosis. The fix for phimosis is a circ.
I voiced my opinion, which I formulated after seeing hundreds of cases (ie penises) every week, for YEARS. Mull that over.

No matter my opinion, the OP will do well if she does a bit of research, discusses her concerns with her physicians and close friends, weighs her husband's wants equally with hers.

Anonymous wrote:K, you are definitely the expert! Congrats.

Medical providers may recommend topical steriod ointment application for children with phimosis. This is an effective treatment in most males.

Male circumcision refers to the surgical removal of the foreskin. Circumcision is often not required for treatment of phimosis.

Anonymous wrote:K, you are definitely the expert! Congrats.

The fix for phimosis is a circ.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work in adult urology. 90% of my day is spent diagnosing, treating, and instrumenting penises.
I only have daughters, but if I had a son, he'd be circumcised, no hesitation.

How do you think countries such as Germany, England, Sweden and Argentina are able to avoid adult penile complications? You realize that over 95% of the adult male populations in those countries (and many, many other countries as well) are intact and do not experience the same type of problems that adult intact males seem to experience in the United States? Mull that one over. Perhaps your diagnoses are incorrect and your treatments are harmful and/or unnecessary. Maybe the way doctors instruct the parents of intact boys to care for their foreskins actually leads to the types of problems you have witnessed.

Furthermore, by your logic, we should just start cutting off any body part that could cause a problem later in life. You realize that specialists see diseased body parts every day? For example, men are likely to get breast cancer than penile cancer. Why not remove male breast tissue at birth? Think of all the pain it could save in the future! There is an endless list of problem body parts. My question to you is: why the foreskin? Why do you think the foreskin, in particular is so expendable and so important to remove?

Anonymous wrote:I work in adult urology. 90% of my day is spent diagnosing, treating, and instrumenting penises.
I only have daughters, but if I had a son, he'd be circumcised, no hesitation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only sensible person in the thread says....

Anonymous wrote:As a doula, I've had women literally sobbing in my arms because they allowed their sons to be circumcised (against their better judgement). I think there is quite a difference between a mom who "would rather not but is okay with doing it" and the mom who truly does not want it done, but agrees to, only to try to keep peace in the house. A close friend of mine is SO bitter and resentful and it has nearly caused a divorce for them; she cannot forgive her husband or herself, and her son is five. In her case, the healing process was difficult and her son needed revision surgeries, which is rare but definitely fueled her anger.

The only path that does not force spouses to choose between two opposing viewpoints is to agree to let the boy decide for himself. Accept that you and your husband have dramatically different beliefs and allow each one to share that perspective as the boy matures, and encourage him to make a decision for himself when he reaches adulthood.

I realize there is a lot talk about how much easier it is to do as a baby, but that is not actually medically true. In reality, an adult (or even older child) circumcision is easier because 1. the boy/man receives general anesthesia during the procedure and can fully self-medicate as needed afterwards; and 2. in an adult, because the penis is fully grown and the foreskin is already retractable, there is no "guessing" as to the correct amount to be removed, thus reducing complications such as tight erections or skin bridges. It also removes the need to forcibly separate the foreskin from the penis, which in an infant circumcision can sometimes cause scarring or other damage such as metal stenosis. Yes, a grown man does have to face the psychological and cultural drama of (potentially) having penile surgery, but at least he can be fully informed, get proper pain relief, and make the decision for himself. Perhaps your husband would be willing to approach the matter in this way?

Um, anyone who thinks that a procedure requiring general anesthesia is "medically" easier than one that doesn't is not sensible. They're dangerously uninformed. There are plenty of arguments against circumcision, sure, but that's not one of them.

It's amazing how otherwise intelligent people can so easily accept that a surgery which requires general anesthesia for an adult, magically "doesn't hurt that much" for a baby. Since, as you correctly point out, general anesthesia brings certain (albeit quite rare) medical risks, wouldn't the safest thing by far be to just give an adult the same simple numbing cream we give babies? If it works for the pain, it works for the pain! (yes, I'm being sarcastic here.)

At any rate, aside from the potential risk of the anesthesia, the surgery itself is easier in an adult for the reasons I stated. There is far less of a chance of an accident of the glans, far less of a chance of taking off too much or too little of the skin, and no damage due to the forced separation of foreskin (as an adult it is already retractable). Additionally, an adult can properly medicate afterwards as well as provide feedback regarding any developing infection. Last but not least, an adult would already know if they have a blood clotting disorder. Unfortunately for some babies, their circumcision is the first time they've been cut, and at one or two days old, even loosing an ounce of blood equals a life-threatening hemorrhage. Babies can and do die every year in our country as a result of their non-medically indicated circumcision. But hey, what's a little death-risk in order to make sure his penis looks pretty?!

I never said it "doesn't hurt that much" for a baby. When our son was circumcised, it was under local anesthesia, and we gave him Tylenol afterwards. Pain-free, no. But did we manage his pain? Yes, we did.

The risks of complications from circumcision are incredibly rare. And death? I looked up the stats: it's something like 100 babies die each year from related complications, out of one *million* who have the procedure annually in the US. So I'd say that speaks to the overwhelming safety of the procedure, especially when done by an experienced pediatric surgeon, as we did.

You don't want to circumcise your son? Then don't. No one's forcing you to. The amount of energy you're expending over other people's legitimate choices is mind-boggling.