Re: The urologist examined me, regarding my foreskin
It is alarming how many physicians lack a basic understanding about the foreskin.
I would guess that his rough handling of yours is an indication that he lacks one of his own. Like many Western doctors, his first instinct is to simply say, “Cut it off!” when faced with an issue about it (real or perceived).
True story: my neighbours are from Europe and took their 5 month old son to a new paediatrician. They came home furious. The man had informed them that a circumcision was “absolutely necessary” because the skin was “unable to retract,” which he insisted would urinary tract infections later in life.
Some of you might wonder why this made them so upset. Simple: the foreskin
is not supposed to retract until the child is a toddler, and sometimes not even until later.
But back to the OP:
The second thing that tells me this guy might be a little out-of-touch is his quote about “cancer risks.”
The American Cancer Society has requested of the American Medical Association to stop doctors from using this excuse when proposing circumcision to parents or individuals. As you can read on
the ACS’s website,
“In the past, circumcision has been suggested as a way to prevent penile cancer. This was based on studies that reported much lower penile cancer rates among circumcised men than among uncircumcised men. But most researchers now believe those studies were flawed because they failed to consider other risk factors, such as smoking, personal hygiene, and the number of sexual partners.”
Additionally, I’m betting that this doctor did not mention that Penile Cancer is most often an extremely rare form of melanoma which occurs in less than 1% of men over the age of 70. (The pro-circumcision crowd tens to neglect that tidbit, so please release any fear over this right here and now.)
The newest line in the pro-circ club is that circumcised men have a lower rate of STD infection. This claim, and the study that prompted it, has also come under a lot of fire from international medical associations. The original study was conducted in West Africa, where the number of circumcised men is very low and the number of STD infections is very high. To conclude that intact men have ‘more STDs’ in this setting would be akin to me vising a Cancer hospital in China and concluding that only Chinese people get cancer.
In fact, there are relatively few studies about supposed health-benefits of circumcision and absolutely none of them have been conclusive. As such, the American Academy of Paediatrics does not recommend routine circumcision of infant males… hence the pro-circ doctors/proponents need to rely on a crutch of junk-science and scare tactics.
My advice to you would be to get in touch with a qualified medical doctor who is A) familiar with the foreskin, B) is versed in dealing with intact men and their medical issues and C) is knowledgeable about non-surgical remedies for many of the common ailments that intact men can face, from dryness, to cracked/chapped skin, to tightness (circumcision is not always necessary!), to infections and inflammation. There are many non-surgical treatments for all these things and many more… how else do you think the men of Europe deal with it?
Contact
Doctors Opposing Circumcision to get the name of some in your area:
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/
I hope this helps!
PS: If you decide circumcision is the right thing for you, than I totally support that. I just urge people to get all the facts before making a decision. In the end, it is your decision -- just as it should be. All the best to you!
