Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
I AM SURPRISED !
- Fawad Farooqi (3 March 1999)
-
Doing an article about circumcision and want to speak to British men
- Sophie Radice (7 May 2000)
-
New Information About Male Circumcision
- George Hill (19 July 2000)
|
|
|||
|
Fawad Farooqi, SWEDEN CANADA
Send response to journal:
|
||||
|
|
|||
|
Sophie Radice, Journalist Observer Newspaper
Send response to journal:
|
I read your letter on the circumcision of children. I am writing for the health pages of the Observer and want to write from both sides. My own son was nearly circumcised at the age of eight because he has repeated problems with a tight foreskin.His foreskin got caught back after he was trying to clean it in a bath and it swelled up massively. He suffered greatly because the hospital tried to manipulate his foreskin and although they gave him morphine and gas and air pain was too great and they had to put him under and remove the fluid. The hosiptal wanted to perform a circumcision then and there because they didn't want him to suffer the same thing again. I couldn't agree to it because I felt it was too drastic even though my brother had to have a circumcision when he was eleven because of the same problem. I was amazed at how emotional the issue became for the men in my family all of whom defended their own penile state almost to the death. Those who were circumcised felt they were cleaner, able to enjoy a larger erection and more pleasing to the eye. Those who were uncircumcised felt that they enjoyed greater sexual pleasure. My father's generation seem to have been routinely circumcised. Are there any figures on this or why it happened. I would be keen to hear from British males becuase there is so much anti-circ information on the net from America. I have to write this by Tuesday. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
George Hill, Retired
Send response to journal:
|
To the Editor: Premature retraction of the foreskin of intact boys is a real problem in America. Most American male doctors were circumcised as infants and don't understand the foreskin. Now that more and more boys are preserved intact, the problems are mounting. Sophie Radice mentions that she did not know the proper technique for managing her son's prematurely retracted foreskin.1 The National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers (NOCIRC) provides information on the prevention of premature retraction and what to do if it occurs.2 The swollen oedematous prepuce is easily reduced using injections of hyaluronidase.3 Circumcision is not necessary. When Radice's son's prepuce matures after puberty it will spontaneously widen and loosen.4 Paraphimosis will no longer be a danger once his prepuce has matured. Radice should not be surprised that circumcision creates deep emotional divisions between the circumcised males and the non-circumcised males in her family. Male circumcision involves reduction of the male phallus under adverse neonatal conditions of great trauma.5 This creates great anxiety in the circumcised male as to the state of his phallus. Many circumcised males are in denial of their loss.5 Many suffer from feelings of low self esteem and shame.5 Circumcised men tend to deny their loss of erogenous sensation although research published in the 1990s makes clear the drastic loss of pleasure receptors.6 The research indicates that the non-circumcised men in her family are correct in their claim of far greater sexual pleasure as the prepuce is required for normal copulatory behaviour.7 Circumcision was common in England until the publication of Gairdner's classic work, The Fate of the Foreskin in 1949.8 The NHS delisted neonatal circumcision in 1950 after which the popularity of the procedure in England declined sharply. This may explain why many members of Radice's father's generation were circumcised while the present generation is not. Very truly yours,
George Hill
|
|||