READERS' RESPONSES:Men should be told about the detrimental effect circumcision can have on their sex lives
Re: Men’s Health Matters, September 29th
Dear Sir,
As a charity which works to protect boys and men from unnecessary circumcision in Ireland and the UK, we thank Thomas Lynch for advising (in Men's Health Matters) that there are alternatives to circumcision. Our experience is that most men and boys who are referred for this surgery do not need it, but few are informed of their options.
It is odd, however, that Mr Lynch should devote space to the cultural history of foreskin excision, but fail to tell his correspondent about the important role of this body part, and the material effect its removal will have on his sex life.
The foreskin has been present in all mammals for over 60 million years, but is most highly developed and erogenous in the human male.
In addition to protecting the glans and producing chemicals such as pheromones and anti- viral substances it contains a profusion of nerves.
The president-elect of the International Society for Sexual Medicine, Dr John Dean, has commented on his netdoctor entry on circumcision that a reduction in penile sensation is an “almost universal’’ result of the surgery.
Mr Lynch’s correspondent may well be better off without his foreskin if it is damaged or extremely troublesome, but to review his options and make his decision, a knowledge of its function is vital.
The history of its sacrifice to appease pagan deities in ancient Egypt is, we contend, entirely irrelevant and serves only to give the surgery a mystique it does not deserve.
Yours, etc,
Laura MacDonald,
On behalf of NORM-UK,
Granville Chambers,
2 Radford Street,
Stone, Staffordshire.
United Kingdom.
Dear Sir,
In the article, Tightness is causing pain during sex, a consultant urologist recommends circumcision rather than gentle stretching as the solution to a tight foreskin, despite the fact that not a single national medical organisation in the world recommends it.
In America, we have learned that we cannot trust urologists with the genital organs. Virtually all of them think it is all right to remove half of the normal skin from the penis for no valid medical reason. (They also recommend radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer, which has a 40 per cent cure rate, when radiation has an 80-90 per cent cure rate, and fewer harmful side effects).
Thousands of men are actually succeeding in re-covering the tip of their penis with skin by stretching, to give themselves back some of the sensation lost by circumcision.
If they can do that, then anyone who has a foreskin can gently stretch it until it is wide enough to be comfortable.
Yours, etc,
George C Denniston MD, MPH (Harvard), President, Doctors Opposing Circumcision, an international organisation with members on six continents
Thomas Lynch writes:
In situations where the foreskin is tight and clearly not normal due to chronic scarring then, in these selected cases as discussed last week, circumcision is usually indicated for medical reasons. In a previous column I have discussed alternatives to a formal circumcision which should be performed if possible, and that it is very important to discuss these issues with your surgeon before you make any decision ( Irish Times, Men's Health, April 29th, 2008).
No urologist would suggest a circumcision for a normal foreskin and would often deter patients from taking such a course of action. I have repeatedly stated in the Men's Healthcolumn that there are no clinical indications for routine circumcision, and that the foreskin should be preserved whenever possible (April 29th, 2008; June 24th 2008; March 9th, 2009). Foreskin restoration has also been covered previously (June 24th, 2008).