Male Circumcision: for or against?

[Deactivated] on 19/11/2015 - 19:49
Last edited 19/11/2015 - 20:40 by 1 other user

A family friend , who also happens to be a doctor, is urging us to consider getting our son circumcised.We've discussed it with our pediatrician and he's of the view that our son would benefit from it.My son has no health issues, other than infrequent nose-bleeds which are unlikely to be resolved by having his foreskin removed.Also both of those doctors are biased: the first one regularly performs the procedure and the second one, is muslim.

My wife is strongly opposed to circumcision for many reasons but it really comes down to the belief that only the owner of the penis has the right to decide if he would like its appearance, structure and function altered by circumcision. Even though we are his parents, we do not have the right to make that decision for him. I agree with her.

What are your thoughts? Would you/did you have your son circumcised? Do you regret having/not having had the procedure done?

Cheers,
JJB

Poll Options

  • 124
    My son is/will be circumcised because the benefits outweigh the risks.
  • 22
    My son is/will be circumcised because of religious reasons or to look like me.
  • 92
    My son is/will NOT be circumcised because the risks outweigh the benefits.
  • 2
    My son is/will NOT be circumcised because the procedure is too expensive.
  • 470
    My son is the only one who has the right to make that informed decision.
  • 16
    Other
Health & Beauty

closed Comments

    • AdrianW on 21/11/2015 - 20:25
      +2

      It's just like cutting off a baby's big toe just in case he gets an ingrown toenail at some point in the future.

      • GameChanger on 21/11/2015 - 20:28

        Can foreskin grow back?

        • [Deactivated] on 22/11/2015 - 12:24

          No. But I once read about how men having their circumcised skin stretched back after being circumcised as children was trending.

  • gasman70 on 19/11/2015 - 20:29
    +9

    Unless it's necessary for medical reasons, leave it as nature intended.

  • lenlynn on 19/11/2015 - 20:39
    +37

    Not gonna do it if I have a son in the future. I'm worried it will lead to decreased penile sensitivity and sexual pleasure for him!

    • ATangk on 19/11/2015 - 23:42
      +4

      The best response here :)
      But let them beware of first time!

    • rakerr on 20/11/2015 - 01:24
      +8

      But what about all that time saved not having to wash his dick?

      • ozkiwi75 on 20/11/2015 - 01:33
        +6

        This is OzBargain after all. Think of all the soap he would save as well over his lifetime. Lol

        • rakerr on 20/11/2015 - 01:53
          +5

          But what about missing out on the joy of finding a soap bargain!?

      • lousy on 20/11/2015 - 13:04
        +8

        I'm pretty sure he will still need to wash his dick, otherwise forget about the sexual pleasure in any case

    • canleyheights on 20/11/2015 - 13:16
      +3

      decreased penile sensitivity could be an advantage….ie last longer in bed.

    • Overtime2000 on 21/11/2015 - 17:31

      I think you meant "For her "

  • runtoparadise on 19/11/2015 - 21:00
    +14

    Decreased sexual pleasure… ummm I think I'm going to pass. What kind of monster would do that to their sons for no valid medical reason??!!?!?!?!!

    • srr on 20/11/2015 - 07:05

      Decreased pleasure? Why you're thinking so? I can affirm you no decreased pleasure - I know as I had it done at 19

      • runtoparadise on 20/11/2015 - 08:13
        +5

        Is it alright if I ask why you went ahead with it? For me its to do with the gliding action which plays an integral role in both sex and masturbation, I honestly cannot imagine life without it - sex/masturbation would seem dull and lifeless by comparison (although mind you still enjoyable but I mean its all comparative…). But that said my foreskin retracts fully, I can understand if one had phimosis then they may never have fully experienced this, perhaps having too much foreskin when erect is annoying as well I'm not sure as I've never experienced either.

      • dealman on 20/11/2015 - 13:08

        But how do you know how it was before? With foreskin

      • rakerr on 20/11/2015 - 14:05
        +3

        SRR do you honestly think your experience is the only possible experience? I would never want to lose mine! If i was cut as an infant i would have no idea what i would be missing out on. You really should keep an open mind and not make blanket statements based on 1 single case. Everyone has a different Body, Your affirmation is worthless to all but you. You should be very grateful you got to make your own choice.

      • mavis30551 on 20/11/2015 - 17:41
        +1

        How did you handle the Sensetivity????

        I cant even have the O'le boy hanging out of his hood hanging in my pants. Anything touching it feels rough and very sensitive??

        Did you eventually get over it or?

    • Utopian on 20/11/2015 - 20:48

      No science showing benefits? Blind.

  • tj101 on 19/11/2015 - 21:08
    +12

    Cicumcision can be botched resulting in the loss of the entire penis. And… there are men who attempt to regrow their foreskin as adults in order to regain the sexual pleasure that comes with having a foreskin. And finally… we have soap in Australia, so hygiene is not a legitimate reason.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bw24j0Litlc
    http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/how-and-why-to-regrow-your-fo…

    • [Deactivated] on 19/11/2015 - 21:41

      Considering the likes of Caitlyn Jenner who make headlines purely for a gender change, some people might think loss of the entire penis is the new black :-\

      • infinite on 20/11/2015 - 06:33
        +2

        He didn't chop the sausage - just added a boob job.

  • Cluster on 19/11/2015 - 21:09
    +7

    The only disadvantage to leaving the foreskin in place is you have to teach your son to wash underneath it. That's it. There are no real reasons (beyond religious convictions) for doing the removal. I would leave the circumcision decision up to your son. Since he can't legally consent, I would say don't do it.

    Think of it this way. If he really wants the foreskin removed at a later time, he can always order the operation. It's much harder to try and restore what's lost.

    • onetwothreefour on 19/11/2015 - 21:49
      +14

      (beyond religious convictions)

      That's not a real reason either.

  • baycie on 19/11/2015 - 21:26
    +19

    I agree with your wife, as I sit here holding my infant Son. No one has the right to circumcise a baby, male or female. It is a outdated barbaric procedure that should be illegal. I often hear people say "but he needs to look like his Father" (this being the reason my Husband was circumcised) and I always have to ask "how often do you all stand around comparing penises?", "never" or silence being the usual response.

    • airzone on 19/11/2015 - 21:48
      +1

      Lol, I can't remember ever comparing dicks to my dad.. I sense an awkward conversation coming up…

    • Wallyt99 on 20/11/2015 - 06:07
      +4

      Never… Or silence… Silence = fortnightly.

    • Jayphen on 20/11/2015 - 14:09

      He needs to look like his father!? I don't often discuss circumcision with mothers, but that sounds extremely bizarre.

      • [Deactivated] on 22/11/2015 - 00:10

        Hopefully the person who sees the father's penis does not see the son's….
        beyond family members and doctors

      • [Deactivated] on 22/11/2015 - 00:10

        duplicate post

  • maxy 414 on 19/11/2015 - 21:35
    -7

    Please do a quick search on penile foreskin and its association to diseases like HIV , Gonorhea and Chalamydia. Also the risk of having a cancer(penile carcinoma) increases ten folds if you dont opt for circumcision.

    Doctors are taught not to make decisions based on religious belief. If I were you I would trust my doctor or I wouldnt go to him in the first place.

    Children cant decide for themself as a minors.No wonder our youth is easily radicalized.

    You would rather have risk of STIs minimized (evidence available ) than worry for their sexual pleasures ( no evidence available )

    Yes , I work in allied health (infectious diseases) and thats what I learnt while I was working at Sexual health clinic Parramatta .

    • [Deactivated] on 19/11/2015 - 21:38
      +2

      Do you have evidence that the evidence does or does not exist?

      How exactly does it help prevent HIV?

      • jorf on 20/11/2015 - 09:02

        Actually there is evidence that it reduces the risk of passing HIV to other people (there have been articles in New Scientist etc), but the important part, which maxy conveniently left out, is that this is only really an issue in countries where HIV is a major problem (ie. not Australia).

        Circumcision where there is no existing medical problem is largely pointless.

    • [Deactivated] on 19/11/2015 - 21:43
      +3

      Evidence available?

      Where?

      …..

      Wikipedia? Internet?

      Well I guess Charlie Sheen should've done it, right?

      spare me the scare tactics

    • scrimshaw on 19/11/2015 - 23:23
      +1

      Please cite peer reviewed sources, otherwise we may just assume you're just reading BS created by journos who simply gloss over scientific papers and re-write it as clickbait.

      I think the correlation between circumcision and diseases is not actually directly correlated anyway. The main contributing factor for skin disease and cancer is poor hygiene. As long as you're not a caveman or living in a 3rd world war-torn country with no access to running water you should have no excuse for not keeping your genitalia clean.

  • [Deactivated] on 19/11/2015 - 21:37
    +7

    We have this thing called running water in our houses, coming out of things like shower heads…and this thing called soap….oh and we don't live in the 2300 BCE!!!

    • [Deactivated] on 19/11/2015 - 21:43
      +3

      What's this soap thing you speak about??

      • airzone on 19/11/2015 - 22:57
        +5

        It's the thing that is ill advised to drop in the communal washing facilities of a correctional centre.

        • [Deactivated] on 20/11/2015 - 13:36

          As in "Wears the soap".

  • [Deactivated] on 19/11/2015 - 21:46
    -2

    Why don't humans have tails? Because we don't need it.

    Humans do have what's called a "vestigial" tail, meaning that it's a sort of evolutionary leftover.

    Similarly, if humans did not need the foreskin, it would've also become an evolutionary leftover.

    The reason it exists today would suggest that it is in some fashion necessary.

    • mskeggs on 19/11/2015 - 22:17
      +12

      That isn't how evolution works.
      Evolution favours adaptions that increase the individual's chance of passing on their genetic material to a new generation. If you have a characteristic that does not impact chances of procreating, evolution will not effect it. For example, you still carry around an appendix, even though it isn't any use.
      And since it is possible for a boy to grow up with a foreskin intact, even though his antecedents for generations were circumcised, we can't really draw any conclusion about the evolutionary utility of a foreskin.
      If you could observe the mutation that resulted in current foreskin morphology, it might reveal whether the trend is toward more or less foreskin (I don't know).

      In any case, I think there are very strong arguments against circumcision without requiring an evolutionary one.

      • [Deactivated] on 20/11/2015 - 02:48
        +1

        … you still carry around an appendix, even though it isn't any use.

        For a so-called-vestigial organ, it's probably pretty useful:
        http://sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090820175901.htm

        • mskeggs on 20/11/2015 - 07:34
          +4

          Interesting. The longer I live the more examples I find of things I was told definitively turn out to be untrue. It makes me take dietary warnings with a grain of salt (hah!), for example. The latest findings are always trumpeted as certainty, even if they conflict with what was certainty just a few years ago.

        • [Deactivated] on 20/11/2015 - 08:23

          @mskeggs: I'm really hoping that no topics relating to a couple of diet specifics (I'm not even going to mention them) get a run. I really will have to walk away /run, from those.

  • bambooculm on 19/11/2015 - 21:52
    +6

    In previous times in history when it was not possible to wash every day, especially in deserts, where water was reserved for drinking, it made sense as a hygiene precaution, but in the modern world, it is possible for people to wash properly every day. I am circumcised, but my son is not, as it is not necessary in today's world. When I was a baby, it was done routinely, but I believe that in this century, the child should be allowed to decide for himself.

    • [Deactivated] on 19/11/2015 - 23:03

      Is that why all those special folk who live in the desert are habitually circumc… nah, won't get too racist now.

    • momov3 on 20/11/2015 - 09:20

      Note: you said it is POSSIBLE to wash everyday (assuming they wash where they should and how they should)
      However, not all guys wash everyday and then again not how they are supposed to. I don't see how a child can decide for himself, to place a child in that position is merciless. You mean adult deciding for himself and willing to go through anesthesia to have it done, but a child shouldn't be expected to make a health decision such as this which involves pain and removal of a body part.

      • [Deactivated] on 22/11/2015 - 12:31

        Similarly, how traumatic for someone else to make that decision for you as a child and force it upon you.

  • maxy 414 on 19/11/2015 - 22:05
    -7

    OmG , people calm down op asked for opinion and everybody has a different one.

    I dont wish to answer with stupid illogical answers .
    For people who have soap and shower is sufficient , they shouldnt have access to antibiotics and vaccines in the first place. If a soap is enough for protection against all potential infectious microbes I would have been unemployed by now. Duh

    Adressing those who believe its a barbaric practice. What about those who have their appendix removed or those who need therapeutic amputation. Guys circumcision is a medical procedure. Please dont mix science and religion.

    Those wo need evidence can pm me , and I can send you link to some of the latest journal articles and papers

    Studies undertaken in Sub Saharan Africa reveals that circumcised individuals have lower probability of acquiring HIV then general population which is later confirmed by numerous case control studies.Yes i know we don't have the similar conditions in Australia but we are all humans and share the same genetic make up even the idiots.

    It all comes down to your choice, just like getting your kid vaccinated.
    They say this for good " Prevention is better than Cure"

    Good luck with your decision.

    • mskeggs on 19/11/2015 - 22:26
      +16

      Would you amputate your arm to remove the risk of skin cancer on that arm? Absurd.
      Do you advise people to have appendectomies when their appendix is normal? Absurd.
      Do you recommend children undergo a painful procedure on the off chance they might might move to an impoverished region with a high prevalence of HIV? Apparently. But it sounds equally absurd to me.

      Medically necessary surgery is not the same as a painful procedure performed for religious or aesthetic reasons that happens to provide limited clinical benefits that could be more reliably achieved via education or prophylaxis. Presenting it as an equivalent leads me to question your judgement. I'm not even going to touch your comment that is is equivalent to vaccination. Dear me, a bit of a train wreck.

      • tebbybabes on 19/11/2015 - 23:15

        I think the idea of comparing it to getting vaccinations was to show it was a "choice" - not presenting it as medically valid as vaccination.

        • xsacha on 21/11/2015 - 00:57
          +2

          Vaccination shouldn't be a choice and neither should circumcision.
          Vaccination is necessary to eliminate preventable illnesses and diseases and modern implementations carry no side-effects.

          Circumcision has no benefits (how to pee and cleaning actually come instinctively if you aren't taught, btw) unless your doctor advises you it is necessary for some genetic issue. HIV really isn't a valid issue for us.
          It also has plenty of side-effects.

        • tebbybabes on 21/11/2015 - 10:06

          @xsacha:
          Don't worry, you and I are on the same page regarding vaccinations. I was just making a case for @maxy 414's statement.

      • Deridas on 20/11/2015 - 09:22

        Well explained.

    • outlander on 19/11/2015 - 22:44
      +3

      Seems like the bar to become a doctor has dropped considerably.

      Circumcision has considerable risks. The only time I would ever advocate its use is in particular family lines that have a high likehood of developing infections. Certain groups, like orthodox jews, can have genetic susceptibility to these things, in part due to inbreeding over the years. So it makes sense to put a person through a small procedure when they're young to avoid a lifetime of discomfort.

      For everyone else, not much point.

      • tebbybabes on 19/11/2015 - 23:16
        +1

        I don't think @Maxy 414 presented him/herself as a doctor.

      • [Deactivated] on 22/11/2015 - 00:13

        Pardon?
        Please source this.

        Orthodox Jews are not a genetic group…Wtf. It's a religion. Are Buddhists a genetic group?
        And yes I am an Orthodox Jew so I know what I am talking about.
        How do you explain religious conversions then? Do you change your genetic makeup?

        What about Reform or Liberal Jews? Is their genetic makeup different to Orthodox ones? What about if an Orthodox Jew becomes Liberal?

        • outlander on 22/11/2015 - 11:56

          https://www.jewishgenetics.org/about-us

          Whole website devoted to it there. While judaism is not a race, it is a group with restricted entry, and pairing with those outside the group is generally discouraged. The consequence of this will naturally be inbreeding, resulting in higher incidences of recessive traits. That can be good or bad, but its generally bad.

          You ever heard of the island of pingelap? Something like 10% of the inhabitants have total color blindness, due to inbreeding over 200 years ago. Does that mean if you move there, you'll become color blind? If one of the inhabitants move to another country, are they cured? No, its just an observation that applies to a group of people, who happen to have locality as a common element.

          Every group has it, to some degree, but this conversation is on circumcision, a procedure heavily associated with judaism. Naturally, the spot light will be on them.

    • airzone on 19/11/2015 - 22:54
      +6

      OmG , people calm down op asked for opinion and everybody has a different one.

      Yes, some people believe that mutilating vaginas is acceptable too.

      I dont wish to answer with stupid illogical answers .
      For people who have soap and shower is sufficient , they shouldnt have access to antibiotics and vaccines in the first place. If a soap is enough for protection against all potential infectious microbes I would have been unemployed by now. Duh

      Personal hygiene is an important aspect to keeping disease free. But having unprotected sex always invites the possibility that you will contract something regardless of how much you wash yourself.. As a child, hygiene is important - but as an adult we need to take responsibility for our own actions. A man with a thing for casual bareback sex has the authority of body and mind to go and arrange a circumcision if he feels it will make it safer (but I suspect a condom will be successful). However, we are talking about young boys here.

      Adressing those who believe its a barbaric practice. What about those who have their appendix removed or those who need therapeutic amputation. Guys circumcision is a medical procedure. Please dont mix science and religion.

      Having an appendix removed because of appendicitis is one thing. People just don't do it for shits and giggles. We don't look at a kid and think "hey, maybe this guy is going to have knee problems in his 50's, so let's cut off his legs". Just as we don't remove eyes on the off chance of glaucoma. You're suggesting to remove a body part that is otherwise healthy on the off-chance that it may get diseased in the future? Yes, the procedure to circumcise is medical, but the underlying motivation is nearly always religious, no?

      Those wo need evidence can pm me , and I can send you link to some of the latest journal articles and papers

      Studies undertaken in Sub Saharan Africa reveals that circumcised individuals have lower probability of acquiring HIV then general population which is later confirmed by numerous case control studies.Yes i know we don't have the similar conditions in Australia but we are all humans and share the same genetic make up even the idiots.

      You are correct, conditions are not the same here. Rape is not rampant. Safe sex is generally well taught, and sexual health is a legitimate source of both products and medical attention. Maybe a comparison with the US (where it is supposedly common to circumcise) to UK (where is it supposedly not).

      It all comes down to your choice, just like getting your kid vaccinated.
      They say this for good " Prevention is better than Cure"

      There is a difference between boosting immunity through medication and cutting off appendages to possibly prevent disease some time in the future.

      Now if only we could ban that dangerous additive in processed fruit juice - aka dihydrogen monoxide - the world will be a safer place!

  • bargainslut on 19/11/2015 - 22:14
    +1

    It all depends on the 'circumstances'

  • j5ive on 19/11/2015 - 22:17
    +13

    Foreskins are better than none.

    • Kranbone on 20/11/2015 - 20:29

      fiveskins are better than fore ;)

  • GameChanger on 19/11/2015 - 22:18
    +4

    Looks like a stolen thread from Whirlpool, another classic fake story by JJB.

    In depth answers to this topic is available on WP and google.

    • [Deactivated] on 19/11/2015 - 22:56
      +5

      Yuup! Seems a nice guy, but likes to provoke the audience with these tales.

      • airzone on 19/11/2015 - 23:05
        +1

        It helps to think of him as a devil's advocate at times, provoking spirited discussion. But he's been quiet lately, so why not bite?

    • [Deactivated] on 21/11/2015 - 21:21

      Looks like a stolen thread from Whirlpool, another classic fake story by JJB.

      In depth answers to this topic is available on WP and google.

      If this is correct, why are you asking such gems as :

      GameChanger on 20/11/2015 - 17:00 ¶
      Has anyone died from an 'unhygienic' foreskin?

      or

      GameChanger 52 min ago new ¶
      Can foreskin grow back?

      Shouldn't you already know the answer to those questions? o.O

  • gstfree on 19/11/2015 - 22:30

    Unless there are proven benefits, don't do it.

    However, you may have to do it for medical or religion reasons.

  • ITveteran on 19/11/2015 - 22:32
    +2

    There is a reason we are born like we are. Leave a heathy child alone.

  • BangkokBreakfast on 19/11/2015 - 23:03

    Agreed, if it's a medical or religious reason then sure. I don't think any other reason is acceptable at 6. You can get a circumcision at almost any age, so if there is no immediate issues right now just leave it be. if he decides that he wants to have it done in the future, he will be happy you let him make the decision on his own.

  • whodidthat on 19/11/2015 - 23:06
    +3

    Against. If males were not supposed to have a foreskin, they would not be born with them. Let evolution/nature decide on that one.

    • lordra on 20/11/2015 - 00:08
      +2

      Agreed!

    • anonymous01 on 20/11/2015 - 09:56
      +2

      Evolution doesn't even know male nipples don't produce milk! Evolution is good but it's too slow for our time frame. It could be currently in the process of getting rid of the foreskin and we wouldn't even notice it for next few thousand, if not millions of years. That said, I also don't want to be circumcised. Just wanted to clear up the misconception of Evolution.

  • [Deactivated] on 19/11/2015 - 23:08
    +1

    Was probably the smart thing to do for health centuries ago.
    With showers and antibiotics, surgery seems an extreme choice.

    I'd leave it to my son to choose. Suggest it to him at 12 or 15yo maybe.

    The alternative of course is to get half the foreskin removed, and start a new stylish trend.

    • swiggity swag on 20/11/2015 - 09:12
      +2

      Antibiotics? Antibiotics should be a last resort, too often overused and misused and soon common infections won't be treatable.

      • [Deactivated] on 20/11/2015 - 14:45

        Actually I believe I am a victim of anti-fungals (Lamasil tablets). Digestion damaged badly. So I do know about the importance of this similar prescription-based problem.

        Antibiotics used in extreme cases, not available centuries ago, might render this surgery less important.

  • ranmalynx on 19/11/2015 - 23:36
    +2

    I'm circumcised. I was also planning to have my son circumcised. However, I changed my mind after watching this video (NSFW) —> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCSWbTv3hng

  • ozscharfschutze on 19/11/2015 - 23:37
    +2

    @JJB - Slightly off topic, for those infrequent nose bleeds, personally I found a link between kids eating foods with naturally high levels of salicylates and subsequent nose bleeding. Salicylates are blood thinners, so if your kids like to eat foods high in salicylates (e.g. strawberries, most melons, etc), try reducing the amount of those foods, or make up for it by giving them food high in vitamin K (which works as a blood clotter).

    • outlander on 20/11/2015 - 09:02
      +1

      I used to get nosebleeds alot. Heavy ones, too. Some nights I'd wake up and my entire pillow would be covered in blood.

      In my case, its due to the vain being very close to the nasal wall. As long as I keep properly hydrated, its not a problem, but if I go for too long without drinking, the skin starts to dry out, it cracks and the red sauce escapes. Its a genetic trait.

      • [Deactivated] on 21/11/2015 - 21:44

        Both my dad and my sister have nosebleeds from time to time. So yep, its probably genetic in his case too.

        the vain

        Freudian slip? :)

    • [Deactivated] on 21/11/2015 - 21:41

      He likes his fruits and veggies :)

      He was in a car accident. At least, that's how he likes to describe it. What actually happened was that he was racing his sister to get to the diced watermelon in the fridge first.

      He slammed into hubby's stationary car and fell backwards on the concrete driveway. It knocked the breath out of him but he still managed to get to the fridge before his sister. Neither my husband nor I saw the incident. His twin sister "dob" on him.

      He had bruises on his bum, back, elbow and his hands were sore.Refused to eat or drink. Cuddles and cold compresses were all he wanted. The nosebleed started that night, which did freak us out. He's had a few tests done but they couldn't find the cause, and concluded that it is most likely hereditary.

  • dlakers3peat on 19/11/2015 - 23:47
    +5

    https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/conditionsandtrea…

    Medical reasons for circumcision

    Recent research suggests that circumcision may bring medical benefits such as:
    A 10 times lower risk of a baby getting a urinary tract infection (UTI) in his first year of life (remembering that only one per cent of babies are at risk of a UTI, so 1,000 circumcisions are needed to prevent one UTI)
    No risk of infants and children getting infections under the foreskin
    Easier genital hygiene
    Much lower risk of getting cancer of the penis (although this is a very rare condition and good genital hygiene also seems to reduce the risk. More than 10,000 circumcisions are needed to prevent one case of penile cancer)
    A possibly lower risk of men getting sexually transmissible infections (STIs) than men who are not circumcised (although these studies have not been scientifically confirmed and safe sex practices are far more effective in preventing these infections).

    • RocketSwitch on 20/11/2015 - 11:59
      +1

      May bring, and possibly lower risk. Why would anyone even consider based on the risks involved and the cons? Makes no sense. It's easier enough to be clean down there, shouldn't be a "medical" reason.

      • pxrnm on 20/11/2015 - 14:05

        That is why this is not rule that you MUST/HAVE TO do it. It's more of a choice with advantages and disadvantages of doing it.

  • BestofOZB on 20/11/2015 - 00:00
    +6

    I suggest you see another doctor that you think may not be biased.

    As a doctor I suggest circumcision for all boys unless parents have strong views against it. I strongly recommend it if the boy gets recurrent UTI's or balanitis (foreskin and tip of penis infection) which are very common during toilet training periods and can cause serious infections.

    There is clear evidence that people who are not circumcised have higher rates of UTI's and STI's, although not significantly higher.

    The procedure (done correctly) is very simple with minimal trauma.

    I think you do not have to wait for your boy to grow up to make a decision, as his parents it is your duty to make the best decisions for him, especially if he starts to have problems with infections.

    Based on your comment, my opinion is also biased.

    • maxy 414 on 20/11/2015 - 00:51
      +1

      Finally a logical comment

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join