The doctor that the mother has taken her son to is clueless about how to treat a foreskin other than "lop it off". According to an article in the Chicago Tribune, the doctor has not followed ANY useful medical protocol for treating the inflammation.

http://tinyurl.com/ncb3g

"Gibbons and Dr. Robert Van Howe, a pediatrician from Marquette, Mich., said balonitis [sic - it's balanitis], often caused by chemical irritants, is nearly always treatable with a steroid ointment.

Goldstein admitted the boy never received a steroid. The only medication recommended was an antibiotic ointment such as Neosporin, which Goldstein acknowledged did not help. The two experts said Neosporin is not recommended for balonitis and sometimes even causes inflammation.

Goldstein also testified that the boy had a history of phimosis, or adherence of the foreskin to the head of the penis. But he conceded under cross-examination that he could not document such a history in the child's chart.

Gibbons and Van Howe testified that phimosis is normal for a child of this age.

"Sixty-five percent of 9-year-old boys still have a partially attached foreskin," Gibbons said. The boy will turn 9 next month.""

~~~~~~~~~~

I don't see what's so radical about a father wanting his son to be treated by a doctor who might know what the heck he's doing rather than one whose first suggestion is amputating the foreskin. I mean, what other body part is it acceptable to lop off rather than treat the problem?

The father should bow out, because the harm here isn't circumcision- whether it's necesary or not, it's harmless, and sometimes beneficial- the harm here is two parents fighting publicly and litigiously over their poor son's penis. It's hard to imagine a parent not backing down before things went this far.

cayetana said - The father should bow out, because the harm here isn't circumcision- whether it's necesary or not, it's harmless, and sometimes beneficial- the harm here is two parents fighting publicly and litigiously over their poor son's penis. It's hard to imagine a parent not backing down before things went this far.

Since you seem to know something about this that the rest of us do not, can you enlighten us as to why it should be the father that backs down? Is your position merely based upon the spurious proposition that a circ is "harmless and sometimes beneficial"?

While I am no anti-circ activist (and in fact, I and my two boys are circumsized), there is a more important issue here, namely, the ability of the father to exercise his judicially-recognized rights to have a say in the medical treatment of his child. The reality is that a circ is a surgical procedure, and like all such procedures, bears a certain risk of negative outcomes.

Wouldn't it be prudent for the mother to allow her ex-husband to bring their son to another doctor for a second opinion and possible alternate treatment options short of removal of part of his anatomy?

I would fight tooth and nail in order that my son not have this procedure without seeing more then one specialist in the field who deemed it necessary for my son’s good health. It might be harmless, and on a baby who won’t remember it’s probably not such a big deal, but it’s a delicate surgery in a delicate area and I’d feel much better being wrong on the side of caution. I would not like my 9 year old son’s puberty to be marked with what sounds like a painful surgery (that he’ll always remember) that is going to make masturbation impossible, uncomfortable or even just slightly less pleasurable for any length of time. Slightly less pleasurable for the rest of his life (lots of research backs that statement up) sounds like a bad trade off when little topical cream might solve all the kid’s immediate problems – especially at this late date.

In a few years this boy will be all grown up and he can make his own decision.

Really, mom's, dad's and anyone else who suddenly 'discovered' something new about circumcision - - sit down & shut up. Keep your new age backwoods ignorant nonsense to yourself or at least worry yourselves about any of the other equally vogue yet stupid causes such as not vaccinating your kids. There is nothing new in the last 3500 years about circumcision and if there was some horrible harm caused by it I'm sure someone would have been able to prove it by now.

And for the neo Montessori liberal zingnuts here who prattle on about 'let him decide for himself' you should at least pretend to do the damn research about how complicated, painful and difficult a circumcision on a full grown man is.

I didn't have my son circumcised, despite his father screaming that he didn't want his kid to "look funny". The men in my family aren't circumcised (it seems a little bit like cutting off your hand bacause you don't want to wash it properly to me). When my son was 2 he did get an infection and the doctor said that if they became chronic, circumcision would help. They didn't. If they had, I would have gotten the procedure done.

I find it interesting that the mutilation of male genitalia is somehow considered acceptable by forward thinking progressive society. How different would this conversation be if the child in question was a girl? Male genital mutilation is a disgusting, barbaric practice that should be illegal.

prburkley, just to be clear, female genital mutilation is a whole other animal than male circumcision, as in FGM the clitoris (and often much of the labia) is removed. The male equivilent would be to remove the entire head of the penis.

- According to the article there is a 60 % circumcision rate in the U.S.

- There are countries like Austria, Switzerland, Germany, etc. that have no routine circumcision at all, yet their men seem to be fine.

- American and European men don't have significantly different anatomies

This does rather point to the conclusion that it's a "bizarre American custom," does it not?