Originally posted by SJ247But do you agree with 'dags' as to its cosmetic attraction in later life?
I have a son, and had this performed.
And regretted the decision once the procedure started.
You've held down babies, and compare it to nothing more distressing than a minor procedure?
Witnessing this is hell. I have yet to talk to another parent that actually accompanied their child into the room, but I insisted, with the doctor stumped at my presen ...[text shortened]... they tote your child off, for a little "minor procedure". Take my word, it is not minor.
- Joined
- 05 Oct 05
- Moves
- 63425
Originally posted by NargagunaI haven't seen an uncircumcized penis, so cannot answer that.
But do you agree with 'dags' as to its cosmetic attraction in later life?
And, I now view the whole thing as I view something like breast implants. If appearances are that important to someone, go for it. But it's a decision that one can make for himself as an adult, or older child. Next people will start putting C cups into the chests of infant girls, to make them more "attractive" when they're older. I have a hard time believing that cutting something off, that is a natural part of the body, is in some way more beneficial than leaving it there.
Originally posted by SJ247The few I've seen were all performed with a lignocaine gel for pain prevention. I would be disgusted if a Dr did it without some form of anaesthetic and would stop them from doing it until something was being used (which I'm quite within my rights to do and have no issue with standing up for a Pt's rights however young they are).
I have a son, and had this performed.
And regretted the decision once the procedure started.
You've held down babies, and compare it to nothing more distressing than a minor procedure?
Witnessing this is hell. I have yet to talk to another parent that actually accompanied their child into the room, but I insisted, with the doctor stumped at my presen ...[text shortened]... they tote your child off, for a little "minor procedure". Take my word, it is not minor.
Parents here have to be quite insistant that they want it done as it's generally discouraged but there is no denying the health benefits later in life.
I fully agree that doing this or any other type of surgury without anaesthetic is barbaric. Parents having it done to their child should be informed of the risks and benefits and topical anaesthetic should be used. Parent's here are commonly encouraged to remain with their child.
There are a few procedures performed for preventative purposes and I believe this to be one of them, which is why I have no moral objections to having being involved in it.
Originally posted by XanthosNZOk, I've not had anything to do with any of this for years since I work in a different area now. All this is from this site http://www.circinfo.net/#infection
You want to actually back that up with some stats?
Wiswell looked at the complication rates of having or not having circumcision performed in a study of 136,000 boys born in US army hospitals between 1980 and 1985. 100,000 were circumcised and 193 (0.19đ” had complications, mostly minor, with no deaths, but of the 36,000 who were not circumcised the problems were more than ten-times higher and there were 2 deaths [397]. A study by others found that of the 11,000 circumcisions performed at New York's Sloane Hospital in 1989, only 6 led to complications, none of which were fatal [301]. An early survey saw only one death amongst 566,483 baby boys circumcised in New York between 1939 and 1951 [240]. (There are no deaths today from medical circumcisions in developed countries.)
Problems involving the penis are encountered relatively frequently in pediatric practice [204]. A retrospective study of boys aged 4 months to 12 years found uncircumcised boys exhibited significantly greater frequency of penile problems (14% vs 6%; P < 0.001) and medical visits for penile problems (10% vs 5%; P < 0.05) compared with those who were circumcised. In infants born in Washington State from 1987-96, 0.2% had a complication arising from their circumcision, i.e., 1 in every 476 circumcisions [65]. It was concluded that 6 urinary tract infections could be prevented for every circumcision complication, and 2 complications can be expected for every penile cancer prevented [65].
A survey in London of 150 uncircumcised and 75 circumcised men found 4% of circumcised compared with 26% of uncircumcised men had inferior genital hygiene behavior, i.e., did not always wash the entire penis (the uncircumcised men did not always wash under the foreskin) [249]. Balanitis, phimosis or other foreskin conditions that made foreskin retraction painful might have contributed to their inferior hygiene. The circumcised men also washed the genitals more than once per day (37% vs 19%; P = 0.01).
The possible protection afforded by circumcision against syphilis, genital herpes and urethritis was recognized over a century ago [290]. Subsequently, in 1947, a study involving 1,300 consecutive patients in a Canadian Army unit, showed that being uncircumcised was associated with a 9-fold higher risk of syphilis and 3-times higher gonorrhea [388]. Then, in the mid-70s work by the London Hospital showed higher chancroid (an infectious venereal ulcer), syphilis, papillomavirus and herpes in uncircumcised men [352]. Subsequent to this, a study in 1983 at the University of Western Australia, showed twice as much herpes and gonorrhea, 5-times more candidiasis and 5-fold greater incidence of syphilis [266]. In South Australia, a study in 1992 showed that uncircumcised men had more chlamydia (odds ratio 1.3) and gonoccocal infections (odds ratio 2.1) [151]. Others have reported higher rates of non-gonococcal urethritis in uncircumcised men [333].
In 5 major series in the USA, starting in 1932 [402], not one man with invasive penile cancer had been circumcised neonatally [216], i.e., this disease is almost completely confined to uncircumcised men. In fact penile cancer is so rare in a man who had been circumcised in infancy, that when it does occur it can even be the subject of a published case report [175]. The finite residual risk appears to be greater in those circumcised after the newborn period, but still less than the uncircumcised. Overall there were 50,000 cases of penile cancer in the USA from 1930 to 1990 and these resulted in 10,000 deaths. Only 10 of these cases were in circumcised men [311].
Only 2% preferred an uncircumcised penis for fellatio, with 82% preferring the circumcised variety. Preference for intercourse for circ. vs uncirc. was 71% vs 6%, respectively; manual stimulation, 75% vs 5%; visual appeal, 76% vs 4%. What then is sexier about a circumcised penis? Quite likely it is that the glans is exposed in both the erect and un-erect state.
I think that's the main bits, after re-reading actual paper books about it again due to this thread I couldn't find any real reason not to do it other than the parent's wishes.
- Joined
- 05 Oct 05
- Moves
- 63425
Originally posted by dagsWhy is it generally discouraged, given all the "benefits"?
Parents here have to be quite insistant that they want it done as it's generally discouraged but there is no denying the health benefits later in life.
There are a few procedures performed for preventative purposes and I believe this to be one of them, which is why I have no moral objections to having being involved in it.
Preventative for what? The (small amount) of reading I've done states that penile cancer is a rarity, circumcized or not. That STD's should always be avoided using protection/staying with a healthy partner, circumcized or not. That cleanliness is dependent on the person's motivation to wash himself, circumcized or not.
Leaving what? Cosmetic purposes, which again should be decided on as an adult.
Originally posted by SJ247I don't know why it's gone out of favour, as I said I haven't worked somewhere that I would be involved in this for a few years so I've had no reason to ask.
Why is it generally discouraged, given all the "benefits"?
Preventative for what? The (small amount) of reading I've done states that penile cancer is a rarity, circumcized or not. That STD's should always be avoided using protection/staying with a healthy partner, circumcized or not. That cleanliness is dependent on the person's motivation to wash himse ...[text shortened]... or not.
Leaving what? Cosmetic purposes, which again should be decided on as an adult.
In the regional hospitals where I've worked there is little resistance by Dr's to performing it, but the Dr's have tended to be older, so that might have something ot do with it. But a friend who want her son snipped did have trouble getting it done in the city (dr's tend to be younger).
The site I quoted is quite comprehensive and includes the risks involved for both having it done and not having it done (both early and later in life and for both partners (i.e a 4-fold higher risk of cervical cancer [5]. (site ref as above)).