Our 3 month old baby was circumcised right after he was born, and all appeared to go smoothly at first. We are concerned because for about the last month, his penis has not come out from the surrounding skin. The first couple of months he had erections, but not recently. Is this a problem?
Loading...
Hi, its been awhile since your post but if you havnt gotten any answers.. here goes!
My son had this problem and what happened in his case is that the raw skin after the circ grew and attatched over most of the head of his penis. It had to be surgically recut due to the scar tissue and possible bleeding.
Id have his Dr address your concerns about this asap. If they need to perform another circumcision its best to do it while hes as young as possible.
Good luck!!
My son had this problem and what happened in his case is that the raw skin after the circ grew and attatched over most of the head of his penis. It had to be surgically recut due to the scar tissue and possible bleeding.
Id have his Dr address your concerns about this asap. If they need to perform another circumcision its best to do it while hes as young as possible.
Good luck!!
Loading...
For any future children, the problem could easily be avoided by not circumcising. It is an unnecessary and harmful procedure. There is NO major medical association in the world (The AAP included) that supports routine infant circumcision. Please do the research.
Loading...
This is why people usually dont give their kid a circumcision in other countries...it usually leads to more problems. Contrary to popular belief uncut boys are just as lucky to get an infection as cut. Circumcision....is cutting the skin...if youre trying to prevent infection, isn't cutting the skin a pretty poor way to do that....
Loading...
Factually inaccurate! First of all, your post and the one above your did nothing to help the original poster. They were simply your rants against circumcision.
In regards to the first poster, this is normal with younger babies who are circumcised - not because of their penises, but because of the fat pad around the penis. What appeared to be the full penis poking out when your son was first born was predominately foreskin, not shaft or glans. After all, why should circumcision - which removes an outer layer of skin - have shortened your son's penis? Just wait until he gets older and starts to lose some weight and all will be corrected. Many uncirc'ed babies seem to have longer penises simply because what you're seeing is foreskin above the surface. Their actual penis length might really be quite short.
Now, concerning the anti-circ posters and their flimsy arguments:
1) I'm not sure what you mean about 'don't give their kid a circ in other countries'. Do you mean western countries? Because it's almost universal in the Muslim world, Africa and some parts of Asia. Worldwide estimates are at about 30%.
2) "...just as likely to get an infection as cut..." - Simply untrue! 1 UTI in 25 for uncut boys, 1 in 500 for cut. And keep in mind that 1 in 3 babies with UTI can develop blood toxicity. In some rare cases this is even fatal.
3) "...if youre trying to prevent infection, isn't cutting the skin a pretty poor way to do that..." - You do know that the cut doesn't stay exposed forever, right? That it heals up just like anything else? While there can be complications to any medical procedure, the complications from circumcision done properly are relatively small and mostly correctable/avoidable. . Take UTI's alone, for example. 6 UTIs will be prevented for every 1 circ complication (see link).
4) *previous poster's comment about AAP not suggesting it* - Not many bodies will 'suggest' it because it's a very personal decision with social, cultural, religious and medical implications and is therefore best left in the hands of parents. However, this doesn't mean they haven't recognized medical benefits. Here's a partial list of bodies that recognize benefits:
John's Hopkins University
National Institutes of Health
Center for Disease Control
World Health Organization
UNAIDS
American Urological Association
American Academy of Pediatrics
Canadian Pediatric Society
Royal Australasian College of Physicians
(
Even the AAP has recognized the benefits. They just fall short of advising infant circumcision for the reason I gave above.
***edited by moderator*** web addresses not allowed
In regards to the first poster, this is normal with younger babies who are circumcised - not because of their penises, but because of the fat pad around the penis. What appeared to be the full penis poking out when your son was first born was predominately foreskin, not shaft or glans. After all, why should circumcision - which removes an outer layer of skin - have shortened your son's penis? Just wait until he gets older and starts to lose some weight and all will be corrected. Many uncirc'ed babies seem to have longer penises simply because what you're seeing is foreskin above the surface. Their actual penis length might really be quite short.
Now, concerning the anti-circ posters and their flimsy arguments:
1) I'm not sure what you mean about 'don't give their kid a circ in other countries'. Do you mean western countries? Because it's almost universal in the Muslim world, Africa and some parts of Asia. Worldwide estimates are at about 30%.
2) "...just as likely to get an infection as cut..." - Simply untrue! 1 UTI in 25 for uncut boys, 1 in 500 for cut. And keep in mind that 1 in 3 babies with UTI can develop blood toxicity. In some rare cases this is even fatal.
3) "...if youre trying to prevent infection, isn't cutting the skin a pretty poor way to do that..." - You do know that the cut doesn't stay exposed forever, right? That it heals up just like anything else? While there can be complications to any medical procedure, the complications from circumcision done properly are relatively small and mostly correctable/avoidable. . Take UTI's alone, for example. 6 UTIs will be prevented for every 1 circ complication (see link).
4) *previous poster's comment about AAP not suggesting it* - Not many bodies will 'suggest' it because it's a very personal decision with social, cultural, religious and medical implications and is therefore best left in the hands of parents. However, this doesn't mean they haven't recognized medical benefits. Here's a partial list of bodies that recognize benefits:
John's Hopkins University
National Institutes of Health
Center for Disease Control
World Health Organization
UNAIDS
American Urological Association
American Academy of Pediatrics
Canadian Pediatric Society
Royal Australasian College of Physicians
(
Even the AAP has recognized the benefits. They just fall short of advising infant circumcision for the reason I gave above.
***edited by moderator*** web addresses not allowed
Loading...