[ ARC forum 2 ]

Synechotomy (Opinion)

Written by Charles II at 28 Dec 2003 02:38:00:

As an answer to: Synechotomy written by Joe at 27 Dec 2003 08:18:56:

>"Joe" (halfclip) wrote:
>I've average prepuce, but my sons have their foreskins more short
>that mine. They are worn bared glans since early childhood, I think that is the effect, ... we have (cured) illnes in our penis. And, I return with my advice: the constant retracted foreskin is the best habit for uncut (boys and) men's healthy genitals.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Reply:
For those that didn't see it, Joe cited the treatment called "synechotomy" described at straffon.org. At that site, you can read the text in either English or Spanish. However, it isn't necessary. If you click on "tecnica..." you will see a series of 17 diagrams that make the procedure perfectly clear.
My initial reaction is this. The procedure is already practiced during most newborn and very young circumcisions where it is necessary to first make the foreskin fully retractable before it can be circumcised. There are, of course, a minority of newborns and very young boys that are already retractable (or retracted), making this procedure unnecessary. We are also learning of more and more parents that get their sons retracted in very early months or years without need of this treatment.
I agree with Dr. Straffon that the treatment serves the purpose intended, and is a good idea that can do no apparent harm. I go further to agree that it is an essential treatment for boys that are not to be circumcised, if other techniques fail.
Where I come into disagreement with the treatment is in the very last diagram (#17), where the doctor pulls the retracted foreskin back down again to completely cover the penis head. What reasoning is there for that? After the first 16 diagrams, he was almost to the finish line, then he turned around and went back.



Answers: