A bit of an upset within the pro-circumcision community
Saturday, January 14th, 2012January 12, 2012
Dear Dr. Reed,
A bit of an upset within the pro-circumcision community. Your name was mentioned as the exponent of a particular opinion concerning circumcision style. I’d like to check whether you have been correctly quoted. It’s the old high/low debate again. The opposing factions are lined up thus: One group is saying, in effect, that all circumcisions should be in the ‘high’ style (ample retention of inner foreskin) because (a) that is more sensitive and (b) subsequent conversion to a ‘low’ style is a possibility whereas the converse (conversion low-to-high) is not. The opposing opinion is that the ‘low’ style (minimum retention of inner foreskin) should be contemplated on a “where appropriate to the objective” basis. This second group do not express disagreement with the tenets (a) and (b) of the first group, but go on from that point to reason thus: If retention of inner foreskin enhances sensitivity, then it follows that removal of inner foreskin should reduce it. Such reduction may be beneficial especially in instances where the objective is to increase what is sometimes termed ‘latency time’. An instance would be a problem of premature ejaculation. So: [A] Do you ALWAYS rule out ‘low’ styles, and if so… why?
Gary
Good morning Gary,
Thank you for your interesting questions.
My position is:
1. For most man who practice good hygiene and are monogamous, a circumcision is not a medically necessary operation. Can 350,000 years of human evolution be all that wrong?
2. Pre-mature ejaculation is as commonly seen in circumcised as in uncircumcised men. This is confirmed in our practice and my training is that no studies have shown otherwise.
3. Large studies involving perhaps 20,000 cohorts of men (Kaiser Permanente Clinic in California), circumcised versus non, show no difference in penile sensitivity as a rule. True if a doctor cuts inappropriately deep, there can be nerve injury. In our practice we believe “a circumcsion is about removing skin.”
4. The problem with very low circumcsion is that the circumference near the coronal sulcus or neck” is narrower versus the main portion of the shaft and marrying 2 circle or ellipses of unequal circumference can result in puckers in the larger circle, unless a V-cut or some other remedy is employed to reduce the larger circle.
5. Moderation is always a good idea, although we try if possible to accede to patient request.
6. For the present, I think we can agree circumcsion will continue for some to remain an emotionally charged subject, contexted and laden with misrepresentation and exaggeration.
7. Yesterday did an 11 week old boy with a huge tubular umbilical hernia (its size, the diameter of a garden hose and stuck out about 2 inches, 5 cm.). The mother has been told to follow this expectantly as it might recede. He also had a pin point phimosis that barely admitted the tip of a fine malleable rounded edge probe. Surprised that he could urinate at all.
I didn’t believe for one second the umbilical hernia will go away, nor would the phimosis. Did an uneventful circumcsion using a Mogen clamp.
Harold M. Reed, M.D.
305-865-2000