Circumcision Debate

Baby boys circumcised today are more likely to have a "loose" circumcision - one that takes off less foreskin than was the norm in the past. The reason for this is the realization that cutting off too much was causing problems for adult men - painful erections, unnatural curvature of the penis, etc. A loose circumcision errs on the side of caution - better to cut less than more, so the boy has some room to grow.

But what effect does this have on the reported medical benefits of infant circumcision? No study I've ever read specifies whether the circumcised group had a tight or a loose circumcision. Certainly any statistics dealing with penile cancer - a disease of old men - will not include many (if any) loose circumcision, since this is a more recent trend. Is there any evidence that a loose circumcision offers any protection against penile cancer?

The same is true for UTI studies (I haven't read any real recent ones). Since we know that the foreskin remaining from a loose circumcision may or may not re-adhere to the glans, or may partially re-adhere, a loosely circumcised baby is far more likely to get "stuff" trapped under his foreskin than an intact baby, whose foreskin is firmly attached. How does this affect a circumcised boy's risk of UTI?

This topic is something that interests me very much because I do believe that my younger son has a loose circ.  He definitely did have issues in his first year of the remaining foreskin readhering to the glans and the doctor had to gently pull it away at one appointment.  I look at both my boys in the bathtub and there is definitely more glans showing on my older boy than on my younger boy.

I've come to hope that maybe, just maybe with a loose circ he will retain *some* of the function of a full foreskin and not lose it all.  That maybe at least his glans will retain more of the original sensitivity that it was supposed to have.

I'm very interested to see other's opinions and info on this topic.

Ann, since infant circumcision is not only alien to me but also anathema, I'm more inclined to question the motives of American doctors who choose to practice loose circumcisions.

Perhaps the very fact that nature does its utmost to re-adhere the remains of a foreskin, pricks a subconscious awareness that what they are doing is somehow wrong?

Or do they close their minds to nature's intent and view it as just a modern-day, tiresome acknowledgement that too much skin removed - 'useless' skin though it is - causes unfortunate problems in the boy-become-man? The adhesions have to be torn away, with the danger of infection and resulting scars from the the wounds. What price a boy's foreskin after that?

I can see the benefit of a 'loose' circumcision if it's done in adulthood. The foreskin won't try to re-attach, and the remaining skin will give him some comfort, I imagine. (Nothing of mine remains.) With regard to circumcised boys, I honestly can do nothing more than speculate. Perhaps a boy's age is a positive hope. As his penis grows, his foreskin's natural attempt to re-adhere to the glans will obviously cease - but this will be to no avail if attempts are made to tear the adhesions before nature is ready to release them.

Whether loose or total removal of a foreskin, is it not common sense that a circumcised boy is in greater danger from UTIs and infections of any kind, than a boy protected by his foreskin? Primary biology tells us that.

Christopher

"I've come to hope that maybe, just maybe with a loose circ he will retain *some* of the function of a full foreskin and not lose it all.  That maybe at least his glans will retain more of the original sensitivity that it was supposed to have."

I do hope so, Traci.  You say your youngest son's adhesions were 'gently' pulled away. Was that incrementally - a little at a time? Did it hurt him or give him some momentary discomfort?

Christopher

<<I do hope so, Traci.  You say your youngest son's adhesions were 'gently' pulled away. Was that incrementally - a little at a time? Did it hurt him or give him some momentary discomfort?>>

It was in one doctor's office visit.  It was a process.  Alex was laying down on the table.  The doctor gently, a little bit at a time, pulled the skin away from the glans.  It was like he was trying to get it to release on it's own but coaxing it to release at the same time.  The whole process probably took about 5 minutes.  Alex was squirming and fussing a lot and let out a few cries but not a full blown all out crying the entire time.  So yes, the doctor did not just rip it away in one fell swoop but it was done at one visit.  I believe the only reason the doctor did it in the first place is because so much skin had readhered that really only his urethral opening was poking out at the end.  For a circ'd boy, that's not the way it's supposed to be.  I believe after that a very little bit adhered back again back around the ridge but I'm not worrying about that.  I figure it will naturally release on it's own as he gets to an age where he has more erections and is naturally playing with it more.  I will let him do it on his own.

I also wanted to address your question in your other post in this thread.  You asked about why some doctors feel compelled to do the loose circ.  I have a theory on that.  Here in the US, I feel we are in a transition period.  We are transitioning out of the fad of circumcision but the transition will take time.  In this time of transition, I think there are probably many doctors who deep down really know that circumcision is wrong and that it should not be done.  But there are still so many parents who are requesting it (especially here in the Midwest where I live) that it is still viewed in general as an acceptable procedure.  So maybe for these doctors who know it's wrong but are still catering to parental request, a loose circ is the doctors way of finding a middle ground.  A middle ground between what they think is right (intact) and what the parents are requesting (circ).  There are still so many parents out there that don't even know what an infant circ is "supposed" to look like that they wouldn't even question a loose circ.

In regards to this theory, I think of my own two boys.  They were both circ'd by our family practicioner.  Adam's looks more like what would be considered a "normal" circ.  Alex's looks like what would be a loose circ.  The only difference in the procedures was a 2 year 2 month separation.  Perhaps over those two years, our doctor moved more to a loose circ (I don't know his reasons, I've never asked).  The other factor is that my two boys are complete opposite in almost every way.  They have very different body types.  Maybe that has something to do with how the circ looks on them as well.  IDK.

Only time will tell how they will each grow into their circ, and as the parent I may never know the whole story.  As soon as they are old enough to toilet on their own and bathe on their own, I have no intentions of seeing them naked on a regular basis (I already see too much of their butt's as it is ;) )  If it's a subject they want to broach with me, fine.  I have no intention of broaching the subject with them.