a post on the men’s rights subreddit by a mother was asking about a circumcision recommendation doctors made because the baby boy had urinary tract infection (UTI), due to e. coli infection:
there’s absolutely no evidence that circumcision helps or prevents UTI.
the reddit post goes on to say that the doctor claimed that the boy had phimosis. however, it’s pretty much impossible to have that condition at that age. phimosis is the inability to retract the foreskin, but at that age, it’s only natural that that’s impossible. phimosis is a rare condition that some adult men have, and even then, there are alternative treatments for it, such as steroid creams, so no circumcision is needed.
many medical doctors, especially in the united states and canada wrongfully believe (or maybe want to believe?) that little children can get phimosis. they induce fear in parents and perpetuate false information on the so called “health benefits” of circumcision; phimosis is one of the most talked about ones. needless to say, there are zero health benefits of circumcision and there’s net harm done by it.
yet, let’s look specifically at phimosis or why and how doctors are misinformed about it.
there’s a great 2007 article by dan bollinger called “The Penis-Care Information Gap: Preventing Improper Care of Intact Boys”. the article lays out how doctors and therefor parents are systematically misinformed about phimosis and basic hygiene of intact male genitals.
to quote from the article: “The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) online bulletin, Care of the Uncircumcised Penis (1999), is not reaching those pediatricians too busy to surf the web for current information, or who mistakenly believe they already know how to properly care for an intact penis. Most parents are not likely to browse a medical association’s website. Unfortunately, what little information is reaching doctors and parents is biased against ongoing care and in favor of performing circumcision whenever a problem arises. Even the use of the biased term “uncircumcised,” as in this AAP bulletin’s title, indicates a benighted perspective. Labeling a normal part of the human body as “unamputated” would indicate a bias in favor of amputation. Of the thirty-two U.S. medical texts reviewed³ in the relevant fields (obstetrics, pediatrics, urology, family practice, and nursing), all but one suggest the foreskin will be retractable by age five or earlier. Only one current medical text, Avery’s Neonatology (MacDonald et al., 2005, p. 1008), correctly states that the natural membrane securing the foreskin to the glans may be expected to last until puberty with no adverse effects. Many of the other texts instruct that the child’s foreskin must be retracted regularly for cleaning or to “break the adhesions.” Not one of them contains a warning that such actions are unnecessary, painful, or might permanently harm the child’s penis (and psyche).”
widespread medical texts have this error in them, getting cited and repeated constantly. here’s another quote on outdated or outright false information being spread on popular medical websites, which even laymen use:
”Online medical websites are a source of health information for some parents. HealthWise, a medical information service for over 40 online medical websites including MSN Medical Encyclopedia, AARP Health Online, Yahoo! Health, and the popular WebMD, provides incorrect information to its clients regarding foreskin retraction and bathing practices, and does not offer any information on non-invasive alternatives to circumcision. A survey⁴of twelve online medical information websites found that none gave wholly accurate information, and that half were embarrassingly outdated. For instance, some warned against forcible retraction of the foreskin, and then provided poor information on hygiene. Others provided good hygiene guidelines, but failed to warn against forced retraction. One site mistakenly claimed that circumcision in men reduces cervical cancer in women. Other instances of foreskin misinformation are parenting and baby books that do not provide accurate information about hygiene, diaper changing, and foreskin retraction (discussed later).”
it goes to show that pro-cutters have way more influence than most people might think, when 40 medical websites promote pro-cutter nonsense like that.
there is a long history of phimosis being misdiagnosed, with shockingly high occurrence, quote from the article:
”Differentiating between pathological phimosis (an abnormal constriction of the foreskin that prevents it from being drawn back to uncover the glans penis) and a normal, physiologically, non-retractable foreskin is not within the experience or training of most U.S. and Canadian physicians. Yet this distinction is critical to avoiding a misdiagnosis, which can (and often does) result in “corrective” circumcision (Patel, 1996; Van Howe, 1998). Referrals for circumcision for misdiagnoses of phimosis occur 75 percent of the time (Griffiths & Freeman, 1984). In recent years, corresponding to the increase in the number of newborns remaining intact, there has been “an increase in referrals for newborn circumcision after discharge from the hospital” (Blalock, Vemulakonda, Ritchey, & Ribbeck, 2003, p. 232).”
a misdiagnosis rate of 75% in 1984! and given that the popular discourse on the subject still talks about phimosis ignorantly, the level of misinformation does not seem to have reduced since 1984.
lastly, i want to highlight the painful consequences, if the foreskin is forcefully retracted due to a misdiagnosis of phimosis, quote from the article:
”Premature forced foreskin retraction (PFFR) is essentially being skinned alive. The action splits a highly innervated skin layer down the middle, producing excruciating pain. The tears in the BPL create an entry point for infection (Gairdner, 1949) and later result in skin bridges that lead to acquired preputial stenosis. It can also leave scarring and adhesions and cause castration anxiety in the victim (Yilmaz, Batislam, Basar, & Basar, 2003). Some healthcare providers still forcibly retract foreskins. Physicians were known to forcibly retract foreskins, causing bleeding and other complications, as early as 1910.”
this torture and child abuse of innocent boys has a long history. it is pure evil and sadistic. for decades, boys have literally been skinned alive because of sadism and pro-cutter propaganda. male genital mutilation (MGM) as circumcision should rather be called, needs to be outlawed.
help the fight against this cruel practice by signing this petition, which calls for the immediate ban of a pro-cutter subreddit!
I once had a UTI, i took antibiotics and it went away, no pretext to cut a part of the body off over it.