phimosis

It's also true that the procedure can be a treatment for Phimosis or other chronic infection issues.

Occasionally, the foreskin on an uncircumcised penis can be difficult or impossible to retract (phimosis).

Because it was implicit - we are discussing circumcision of infants, not circumcision of adult males with phimosis.

That's not the case for circumcision where most doctors agree it shouldn't be performed other than for actual medical reasons like phimosis.

There are medical reasons for the removal of foreskins such as phimosis [1].

It’s not quite the same, but I had a frenulectomy done due to severe phimosis leading to pain and bleeding.

Relatively few cases will be for a medical reason (something like phimosis).

I wonder how much more prevalent phimosis would be if infant circumcision weren’t a thing, though.

This reminded me of my own story, when I was 15 and had phimosis.

Of course, the pain of circumcision is entirely unnecessary (for the vast majority of people, since of course phimosis is a thing that affects some people).

Circumcision has a long history because we lacked the medical equipment to resolve phimosis, so everyone had to have it removed earlier.

It's still legal, but it's not health care (except presumably in rare special cases like phimosis where it may be warranted if other solutions are not effective).

For others: ”phimosis: A condition in which tight foreskin can't be pulled back over the head of the penis.

Phimosis doesn't manifest until around puberty and can almost always be treated non-surgically.

Phimosis still exists, and does affect a minority of boys.

> There is absolutely no medical reason to do this Phimosis, Fournier's gangrene, and potentially permanent deformation of the glans.