12-12-2012, 06:38 AM
Join Date: Apr 2008
Re: to circ or not to circ
What are the risks for adult circumcision vs. infant circumcision?
Originally Posted by lynn97
I will respectfully disagree with you still. I have known several men who have struggled with infections and had to be circumcised later in life. There many more risks for adult circumcision.
Sent from my iPhone using DS Forum
Taken from: http://www.moralogous.com/2012/02/20...-for-an-adult/
Often does not receive adequate anesthesia during surgery or pain relief during healing
Penis is undeveloped; foreskin has to be ripped from glans
Cannot foresee how much skin will be needed to cover penis and sustain erection; frenulum almost always lost
Wound is in a diaper exposed to irritating urine and feces
Foreskin remnants will try to readhere to glans, causing adhesions; medical professionals will often (mistakenly) advise ripping open adhesions every day, causing more pain and potential skin bridges
Can bleed to death (only 2.3 ounces of blood loss can kill a newborn)
Always receives anesthesia and pain relief afterward
Penis is fully grown and foreskin has separated from glans
Easy to see how much foreskin to remove; can preserve frenulum
Wound not exposed to urine and feces
Because laminopreputial membrane has long dissolved, no adhesions will form
Cannot bleed to death
In addition, your argument that it is better to do it in infancy presupposes that men will need to be circumcised in adulthood. In countries which do not practice routine infant circumcision (and thus most men have foreskins and know how to take care of them) the incidence of necessary circumcision is 6 per 100,000. This begs the question, why do so many men in the US "have" to be circumcised as adults? The answer is twofold: 1) Circumcision is inappropriately recommended by doctors for a large variety of unrelated reasons because the doctors themselves are part of the culture of circumcision, have no foreskins themselves, and thus do not value it; and 2) in the 20 century, parents were incorrectly instructed to retract the infant's foreskin and clean under it. As the foreskin is adhered to the glans during infancy by the same tissue that adheres nails to their fingerbeds, this cleaning practice caused scarring and infection, which often did lead to the inability to retract the foreskin in adulthood (scarred skin is not stretchy.)
There are very few conditions that truly require circumcision, and in cultures where circumcision is not common, everyone values the foreskin, doctors included, and they are able to treat almost all problems (rare as they actually are) with more conservative measures. Men and women can both get yeast or bacterial infections; we treat women with antifungal or antibiotic creams or pills, but then we say that men must cut off the offending parts?!
The foreskin as a diseased and potentially dangerous body part that must be removed at birth to prevent any number of future problems is a culturally-bound idea. Interestingly, in cultures that routinely circumcise women, they have the same ideas of female circumcision as a preventive or curative measure for various medical conditions that we would find bizarre and ridiculous. For example, read this quote from a circumcised woman from Indonesia (from http://www.moralogous.com/2012/02/17/a-cultural-cure/): "I found my circumcision beneficial to lessen my vagina odor, and prevent risk of bacterial vaginosis."
I don't know about you, but I have had several vaginal infections, and I would never consider removing my inner labia or clitoris to cure them, but in this woman's culture, this was a reasonable medical solution. Why is she obviously crazy, but when circumcision is recommended in the US to prevent UTIs, we think that normal?