What to do with that pesky foreskin!

[Sascha Fitzpatrick]

This is not to start the age old 'do it/don't do it' debate, but more to give you some information on what a circumcised foreskin can be used for in 3rd degree burns. We had a discussion on new burn treatments at work today and this stuff was mentioned. I will circumcise my boys when they're born (I have my well-studied and discussed reasons), so I found this quite informative on a donation side too.


http://www.stopgettingsick.com/Conditions/condition_template.cfm/5596/17/1


So, what do people think. I think it is awesome - considering how hard it is to get grafts to work properly!

Sasch

 

[Reformationist]

I agree completely. Helping burn victims is a great reason to be circumcised. It doesn't carry the connotations that it did in the OT but it is definitely a way of helping and loving our neighbor.

On a personal note, both of my boys were circumcised and we asked that the hospital donate the skin to their burn center.

God bless

 

[Andry]

I can just see wear this thread is just going to end up regardless ....

But I will answer the question (though I assumed it was intended as rhetorical) of the OP: how about where God intended it to be?

Reformationist.... I'm waiting with baited breath..

God bless.

 

[Crofter]

You guys lost me... just why would anyone consider doing this to their babies...? Never heard of this being done outside certain religious groups...I'm gobsmacked!

 

[Reformationist]

You guys lost me... just why would anyone consider doing this to their babies...? Never heard of this being done outside certain religious groups...I'm gobsmacked!

You've never heard of circumcision?

Depending on the region circumcision is very common. As for the U.S., approximately 70% of the current male population have been circumcised.

It tends to be less in other areas but it definitely not a religious issue anymore.

God bless

 

[LiberatedChick]

Circumcision is not a common thing at all here in the UK. Personally, I wouldn't have it done to my son should I have one.

 

[Sascha Fitzpatrick]

My choice to have it done to my son has a lot of reasons attached

1) Cleanliness - kids aren't that great at cleaning themselves, so will help in preventing 'dead skin in nether region' which ends up preventing it from retracting

2) I work in a theatre, and I'd much rather them having it when their young (when pain relief is much easier to use and is more effective), then having them go in when they're older and need a general anesthetic (more risks associated) because of one accident.

3) Mission field work - easier if kids are circumcised.

4) The person who will possibly end up being my hubby is also circumcised - would like them to be as their father is.

5) Research has shown positive health results for those who have been circumcised - so much so that the pediatric health organisation had to change their status on circumcision from 'no increased health benefit' to 'some significant health benefits'

6) I knew a guy at school who was the only one left uncircumcised in our year. The girls found out because he was given a rather unfortunate nickname. Would like it if my kids didn't go through that - regardless of whether or not it made them tougher.

7) In my opinion, a circumcised penis looks MUCH cleaner than one that is left untouched (this is my opinion ok, and not based on fact)

Just a few of my numerous reasons,

Sasch

 

[Sascha Fitzpatrick]

anyway,

the question I was asking was about how you felt about the new dressings they are making with the donated foreskins - so...

What do you think?

 

[Jillian1527]

I think its a good idea, Just like umblical cord blood banking. if you can donate the forskin helps burn victims then thats awesome.. I dont see how this turned into the big will you wont you circumcise.that is a personal decision. I have had this talk with Dh and he says its his choice what we do since he is a circumcised male.. and I a woman who doesnt know what its like to have a penis...LOL

 

[kelijene]

Sasch, I tried the link and it opened to a blank page........

I think it's amazing what can be achieved in medicine these days, and I think it's great to hear that they can make good use of something that some have no use for.
Personally I would hesitate to submit my newborn baby to a procedure that is not to his direct benefit, and actually exposes him to unnecessary risks.

 

[Sascha Fitzpatrick]

Keli,

Sorry you can't open it - it's opening ok for me, so as I'm not a technophile, I probably can't tell you what is going on...

Can I ask what 'unnecessary risks' you've heard about with circumcision? Just I know a few are myths, so would like to know what you've heard - not to debunk you, but just to make sure I've covered all bases in research and have made my opinion completely informed. Also - circumcision does have some direct benefit to the newborn, believe it or not

 

[alaskamolly]

When my dad fought in Vietnam, a very hot and 'moist' climate, he had a couple of men in his group get terrible infections in their...guy parts. They had to go get circumcised as adults--and whooooo boy, he said it was just awful for them, before AND after. He had all my brothers circumcised because of that experience...

We don't know where we'll go, or where our children will go, but we do have missions in the future agenda and are already working towards that... so a quick circumcision sounds like good preventative medicine, so we circumcised our boys.

I watched, by the way--couldn't stand not to. They did give my boys a shot to anesthetize the region, which was good, and recovery was pretty quick.

I don't know if I'd do it again, had I the ability to do it all over again, just because that little foreskin was really cute...(only a mother would say that!)...but at the same time, it's really nice not to have to worry about it ever again!


Love,

Molly

 

[kelijene]

Keli,

Sorry you can't open it - it's opening ok for me, so as I'm not a technophile, I probably can't tell you what is going on...

Can I ask what 'unnecessary risks' you've heard about with circumcision? Just I know a few are myths, so would like to know what you've heard - not to debunk you, but just to make sure I've covered all bases in research and have made my opinion completely informed. Also - circumcision does have some direct benefit to the newborn, believe it or not

Ok, so no debate, huh?
To be completely honest, although I did look into it at the time ( I have 2 and they are uncircumcised - unlike their Daddy), I've not researched this as thoroughly as you, as a nurse , may have; the risks I had in mind were nothing more sinister than the usual risks associated with ANY surgical procedure: infection and potential complications from the job not being done properly. Probably minimal these days in our western culture, but still potential risks that I don't see a reason to subject my little ones to just in case they have problems later.
I'm interested to know the benefit to the newborn? Thanks

 

[Crofter]

My choice to have it done to my son has a lot of reasons attached

1) Cleanliness - kids aren't that great at cleaning themselves, so will help in preventing 'dead skin in nether region' which ends up preventing it from retracting

2) I work in a theatre, and I'd much rather them having it when their young (when pain relief is much easier to use and is more effective), then having them go in when they're older and need a general anesthetic (more risks associated) because of one accident.

3) Mission field work - easier if kids are circumcised.

4) The person who will possibly end up being my hubby is also circumcised - would like them to be as their father is.

5) Research has shown positive health results for those who have been circumcised - so much so that the pediatric health organisation had to change their status on circumcision from 'no increased health benefit' to 'some significant health benefits'

6) I knew a guy at school who was the only one left uncircumcised in our year. The girls found out because he was given a rather unfortunate nickname. Would like it if my kids didn't go through that - regardless of whether or not it made them tougher.

7) In my opinion, a circumcised penis looks MUCH cleaner than one that is left untouched (this is my opinion ok, and not based on fact)

Just a few of my numerous reasons,

Sasch

In the UK you could post the opposite of most of these reasons ... kids would be seen as freaks if they were circumcised. I only know one baby boy who had this done for medical reasons but the mum was very distressed to mutilated her baby in this way. In the UK it just isn't the done thing. Men ans boys are quite fine and healthy just as they are and wouldn't want it any other way.

Wow it could be quite a shock to marry an American guy then couldn't it! Or if you moved to America...circumsision is certainly something I would never have imagined to be a consideration when we were looking into moving there a few years back...Israel, yes... there I would suspect it was common.


Reformationist... no I've neve heard of circumsision for no religious reason in moden civilised a nation in 2004.

 

[Sascha Fitzpatrick]

I was trying to post the whole article, but the site wouldn't let me (probably has something to do with the fact it is 150000 words long). If you want it in full (with references), go to http://www.circinfo.net/#benefits

TO SUMMARIZE:

Lack of circumcision:

Is responsible for a 12-fold higher risk of urinary tract infections. Risk = 1 in 20.

Confers a higher risk of death in the first year of life (from complications of urinary tract infections: viz. kidney failure, meningitis and infection of bone marrow).

One in ~400-900 uncircumcised men will get cancer of the penis. A quarter of these will die from it and the rest will require at least partial penile amputation as a result. (In contrast, invasive penile cancer never occurs or is infinitesimally rare in men circumcised at birth.) (Data from studies in the USA, Denmark and Australia, which are not to be confused with the often quoted, but misleading, annual incidence figures of 1 in 100,000).

Is associated with balanitis (inflammation of the glans), posthitis (inflammation of the foreskin), phimosis (inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (constriction of the penis by a tight foreskin). Up to 18% of uncircumcised boys will develop one of these by 8 years of age, whereas all are unknown in the circumcised. Risk of balanoposthitis = 1 in 6. Obstruction to urine flow = 1 in 10-50.

Means increased risk of problems that may necessitate circumcision later in life. Also, the cost can be 10 times higher for an adult.

Is the biggest risk factor for heterosexually-acquired AIDS virus infection in men. 8-times higher risk by itself, and even higher when lesions from STDs are added in. Risk per exposure = 1 in 300.

Is associated with higher incidence of cervical cancer in the female partners of uncircumcised men.

Getting circumcised will result in:

Having to go through a very minor surgical procedure that carries with it small risks.

Improved hygiene.

Much lower risk of urinary tract infections.

Much lower chance of acquiring AIDS heterosexually.

Virtually complete elimination of the risk of invasive penile cancer.

More favourable hygiene for the man and his sexual partner.

Better sexual function on average.

A penis that is regarded by most as being more attractive.



Data apply to the 2 million boys circumcised in the USA annually. (Kindly provided by Dr Tom Wiswell, USA)

 

[kelijene]

I was trying to post the whole article, but the site wouldn't let me (probably has something to do with the fact it is 150000 words long). If you want it in full (with references), go to http://www.circinfo.net/#benefits

TO SUMMARIZE:



Lack of circumcision:



Is responsible for a 12-fold higher risk of urinary tract infections. Risk = 1 in 20.



Confers a higher risk of death in the first year of life (from complications of urinary tract infections: viz. kidney failure, meningitis and infection of bone marrow).



One in ~400-900 uncircumcised men will get cancer of the penis. A quarter of these will die from it and the rest will require at least partial penile amputation as a result. (In contrast, invasive penile cancer never occurs or is infinitesimally rare in men circumcised at birth.) (Data from studies in the USA, Denmark and Australia, which are not to be confused with the often quoted, but misleading, annual incidence figures of 1 in 100,000).



Is associated with balanitis (inflammation of the glans), posthitis (inflammation of the foreskin), phimosis (inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (constriction of the penis by a tight foreskin). Up to 18% of uncircumcised boys will develop one of these by 8 years of age, whereas all are unknown in the circumcised. Risk of balanoposthitis = 1 in 6. Obstruction to urine flow = 1 in 10-50.



Means increased risk of problems that may necessitate circumcision later in life. Also, the cost can be 10 times higher for an adult.



Is the biggest risk factor for heterosexually-acquired AIDS virus infection in men. 8-times higher risk by itself, and even higher when lesions from STDs are added in. Risk per exposure = 1 in 300.



Is associated with higher incidence of cervical cancer in the female partners of uncircumcised men.



Getting circumcised will result in:



Having to go through a very minor surgical procedure that carries with it small risks.



Improved hygiene.



Much lower risk of urinary tract infections.



Much lower chance of acquiring AIDS heterosexually.



Virtually complete elimination of the risk of invasive penile cancer.



More favourable hygiene for the man and his sexual partner.



Better sexual function on average.



A penis that is regarded by most as being more attractive.







Data apply to the 2 million boys circumcised in the USA annually. (Kindly provided by Dr Tom Wiswell, USA)

It has recently come to light that most of the uncircumcised boys in the studies by Thomas Wiswell, the main source of data for the view that uncircumcised boys are more subject to UTIs, were born in US military hospitals, where the rule was to retract their foreskins in infancy for cleaning purposes. This harmful practice is contrary to all current medical knowledge advice and is known to be a major cause of injury and infection. It is thus likely that the higher incidence of UTIs shown by these unfortunate boys was the result of the forcible retraction of their foreskins by ignorant doctors and nurses. The foreskin probably provides protection against UTIs. Further informationhttp://www.circinfo.org/research.html



A glance at the rates of HIV-infection and circumcision in selected western (developed) countries, however, suggests that there is no correlation at all between having a foreskin and greater susceptibility to HIV-AIDS. On the contrary, the country with one of the highest proportions of circumcised males (the USA with 75 per cent) also has the second highest rate of HIV infection (61 cases per 100,000). The countries with the lowest incidence of HIV infection are Finland and Japan, which also have the world's lowest proportion of circumcised males. In between, patterns are hard to find.http://www.circinfo.org/hiv.html

​

The incidence of cervical cancer in Australia has been declining as the rate of male circumcision has declined. The effect of media reports based on the press release issued by the NEJM has been to give ammunition to advocates of routine circumcision in wealthy countries, enabling them to scare parents into having their newborn sons circumcised. This is despite the fact that cervical cancer rates in the developed world are low, and declining, and that male circumcision, if it has any impact at all, is a blunt and relatively ineffective means of intervention, with regrettably severe side effects. They suit doctors such as Australia's Dr Terry Russell who has boasted of getting "a lot of personal satisfaction" from performing up to 2,000 circumcisions a year, and has claimed that "there is no other single procedure that would give a person as much protection against as many diseases as does circumcision" (60 Minutes, 8 October, 2000).

Other advocates of circumcision make equally bizarre claims. According to Dr Edgar Schoen, perhaps the most aggressive champion of forcible and universal routine circumcision in the USA (though he is keen to see it everywhere else as well), "A one-week-old circumcised boy has a significant health advantage over his uncircumcised contemporary." If that were the case, one might expect males in the USA to enjoy better health than their counterparts in comparable developed countries, but this table, showing circumcision rate in comparison with life expectancy and rates of HIV infection and cervical cancer, does not appear to support that contention:

(Sorry,The table didn't load correctly, it was here:
http://www.circinfo.org/cervical.html



In "Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy," Edward Wallerstein writes 14: "If infant circumcision reduces penile cancer we could expect to see proportionately less penile cancer in circumcising nations as compared to noncircumcising ones. No such difference is found." Wallerstein reports that, for various years between 1966 and 1972, the annual rate of new cases of penile cancer was 0.8 for the United States (which circumcises), and 0.5 for Finland, 0.9 for Denmark and 1.1 for both Norway and Sweden (all of which do not). None of these differences is statistically significant. Further, within the same time frame, both France and the United States had the same rate, 0.3, of deaths due to penile cancer.12 http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/

 

[LiberatedChick]

In the UK you could post the opposite of most of these reasons ... kids would be seen as freaks if they were circumcised.

Very true...circumcison is not a common practice here. I should think most school kids here would single out a circumcised boy and bully him.

Much lower chance of acquiring AIDS heterosexually.

And I fail to see how this could be true.

 

[Sascha Fitzpatrick]

As I state AGAIN not for a debate - just showing where I got my information from, one of many places... If you don't agree with me, I don't really care - but some people don't know the positives of circumcision and put it there for information...

Go read my article I posted earlier, and look at the 200+ references it had to back it up.

Oh yeah, that circinfo site has been around for ages, and many people have debunked it with their own research... I don't agree with a lot of what it says, cos it's research was a bit more squewiffed and biased - however it does make some good points that I had to go and do research on before coming to my decision to circumcise...

Thanks for the feedback though, always nice to see where people base their decisions on...

And thanks for those who gave me reps for what I had to say!

Anyway, back to the original thread issue - donating foreskins to burns units.. what do you think of THAT?

Sasch