Doctor commenting on circumcision status

I have often thought how exciting it would be if a doctor/examiner made a comment about the patient's circumcision status and have been disappointed that this never happened with the numerous examiners I by whom I have undergone physicals. This would not need to include any aspect of approval or disdain, but just a passing comment about the fact. I have thought of such phrases as "ok, you're circumcised," "ah, your penis is circumcised," "I see you have been circumcised," "since your penis is uncircumcised, I need to retract your foreskin," "since you are not circumcised, I need for you to retract your foreskin for me." I like the fact that this is a totally unnecessary type of statement that may be embarrassing to the patient and can be inferred as approval or disapproval of the patient's circumcision status. When I have performed exams on play patients, I have always included this type of statement as the first step after the undershorts are pulled down. I have generally said, "good, I'm glad to see that your penis is circumcised" or "since your penis has not been circumcised, would you please retract the foreskin for me?"

I am curious to know if any men have ever had a doctor make a comment about their circumcision status during a real physical exam? If, like me, you have not had this occur during an exam, would you like to have it happen and what type of comment would you like the doctor to make?Please share specific details.

In real exams I to find little interest. I have a female doctor and maybe I should switch to a male. It may take some time to find a medfet friendly one though. Your thoughts are right in line with what should happen. I would even appreciate a comment on the quality of the surgery. There may even be a need then for a second surgery, I hope.

Years ago I needed a college physical and went to my parents dr. When it came time for the hernia check he did comment. He said you know your are not circumcised. I answered yes. He then asked if I wanted to be circumcised. He even offered to do it.

Yes, a doctor made a comment about my circumcision, he said (I translate):

" You were circumcised a long time ago. "

It is true, I was a baby, I'm now 56. I got a copy of the medical report, it is mentionned twice that I'm circumcised, at the beginning in a summary and in the text.

I've never had any comments about my circumcision status (yes, I'm cut). To be honest I've never really thought about the issue before. I just assume that the doctor may make a mental note of my status as she's examining me, and then perhaps make a note in my chart -- or perhaps not. It's really not a big issue for me, although if the doctor would happen to say something it would probably add to the excitement of the exam.

Believe it or not, in the US, doctors are trained to make note of the patient's circumcision status in the chart. Unless there's an issue, they'll rarely if ever voice that finding. The chart will read something like "45 yo (un)circumcised male."

If the foreskin needs to be retracted for the exam, the doctor will simply do it (saying what they're doing before doing it) or ask the patient to do it. There's no reason to state the obvious.

Sorry, I forgot a second remarks about my circumcision. I was 5, my mother, my brother and I had influenza. The doctor made a home visit and we had to remove our pajamas. We had no briefs and we were totally nude. The doctor said to my mother that it is very good to be circumcised (my brother is intact).

Several years ago I had a mild stroke. I was in the hospital for three days while they ran tests to try to determine the cause. It had taken 24 hours to determine that what had happened to me was a stroke, so it was too late for any treatment. I was examined by a neurologist after the MRI confirmed the stroke and I noted that his exam notes stated that I had been circumcised . The relevance of that long ago surgery to the field of neurology has seemed obscure to me.

Every year my urologist tells me the my being circumcised is a good thing in his opinion.

I am circumcised, but only had a urologist mention it on my first appointment in a very subtle way and made note of it in my chart. No other doctor has ever mentioned it.

I've never had a doctor comment verbally but I obtained my records a couple years ago and it was documented in the genitourinary section of the physical exam by my then current PCP--basically it was "Testes normal. Penis normal. Circumcised."

In the exams I do, I will ask about circumcision status in the patient history and if a guy is cut then during the exam I will note if the circumcision is normal.

in the exams I do, I will ask about circumcision status in the patient history and if a guy is cut then during the exam I will note if the circumcision is normal.

That is an interesting approach. Personally, I would rather be surprised to see what his status is when he pulls his shorts down.

Years ago I needed a college physical and went to my parents dr. When it came time for the hernia check he did comment. He said you know your are not circumcised. I answered yes. He then asked if I wanted to be circumcised. He even offered to do it.

Two questions for you. First, did he then retract the foreskin or tell you to do it or did he just leave the foreskin alone? Second, were you at all tempted to have a circumcision done?

Every year my urologist tells me the my being circumcised is a good thing in his opinion.

Sorry, I forgot a second remarks about my circumcision. I was 5, my mother, my brother and I had influenza. The doctor made a home visit and we had to remove our pajamas. We had no briefs and we were totally nude. The doctor said to my mother that it is very good to be curcumcised (my brother is intact).

Years ago I needed a college physical and went to my parents dr. When it came time for the hernia check he did comment. He said you know your are not circumcised. I answered yes. He then asked if I wanted to be circumcised. He even offered to do it.

Not trying to get political here, but these are prefect examples of the brainwashing that happened in the 40s - 70s. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I'm circumcised and it has never been an issue. I believe that it was done at birth.

At a complete physical by a new practitioner I would expect a comment in the notes, nothing more.

In a first visit to a urologist I would also expect a comment in the notes and nothing more unless there was a problem.

Not trying to get political here, but these are prefect examples of the brainwashing that happened in the 40s - 70s. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I don't think it's a political (correct) issue - circumcision should be nothing but a scientifically deliberated medical issue. Nothing else.

And if it were also a religious issue, then that too is tolerably understandable, since people do tend to have wildly irrational beliefs.

But in the US it's become much more than a religious question. For some almost unfathomable reason it's become a social and dare I say it, but also partially a patriotic issue (the clean-cut American boy thing ... also another way to be exceptionally different from other countries and cultures). The peer pressure, not only amongst boys themselves, but also amongst parents is very great and it's hard to withstand.

I would imagine the foreskin has evolved for a reason over many many years, most likely to protect the head of the penis. Personally I see no reason to remove it unless it's for health reasons or personal choice of course.

The appendix is not routinely removed but it serves little purpose these days.

Just my opinion of course.

The topic of this thread is "i have often thought how exciting it would be if a doctor/examiner made a comment about the patient's circumcision status and have been disappointed that this never happened with the numerous examiners I by whom I have undergone physicals. This would not need to include any aspect of approval or disdain, but just a passing comment about the fact."

Whether or not circumcisions should be done has been covered in other threads. Please stay on the subject here.

I would imagine the foreskin has evolved for a reason over many many years. Personally I see no reason to remove it unless it's for health reasons or personal choice of course.

The appendix is not routinely removed but it serves little purpose these days.

Just my opinion of course.

The appendix is part of the immune system. Doctors have been removing it for so long without obvious adverse effects that there is no money or will to research why it's there - they just call it vestigial.

Same thing for the foreskin, but also a large dose of rationalization. "If we routinely cut it off and people can still reproduce, no harm." I call BS. Natural selection demands that all our parts have a function, even if we don't use that function anymore.

At the age of 17 I needed to be circumcised, went into the hospital, that night the nurse gave me a full 2 qt enema. that was better then getting circumcised.CDXUR

Whenever a new doctor examines me for the first time, they note the fact am uncircumcised, and on subsequent exams, they always either retract my foreskin or ask me to do it for them.

Whenever a new doctor examines me for the first time, they note the fact am uncircumcised, and on subsequent exams, they always either retract my foreskin or ask me to do it for them.

That is great that the doctor notes your circumcision status and that your foreskin is retracted with each exam. It seems from what I have read that this is an important step in examining the genitalia of an uncircumcised man. My question is what you mean that the doctor "notes" the fact that you are uncircumcised ? Is this verbally, written or both? Can you please be specific?

Just out of curiosity, I wonder if any circumcised Europeans here have ever been asked by their doctor why they were circumcised? That would be on the same order as all these American doctors commenting on organs that are still in their natural condition.

But on a more serious note, European doctors would probably never ever ask such a question, since here circumcision is usually a result of religious beliefs of the parents. Which is not really a polite subject to get into.

Still it does come back to the odd fascination of American doctors that I keep reading about here. Why do they get to be so fascinated about a natural and normal condition?

Just out of curiosity, I wonder if any circumcised Europeans here have ever been asked by their doctor why they were circumcised? That would be on the same order as all these American doctors commenting on organs that are still in their natural condition.

But on a more serious note, European doctors would probably never ever ask such a question, since here circumcision is usually a result of religious beliefs of the parents. Which is not really a polite subject to get into.

Still it does come back to the odd fascination of American doctors that I keep reading about here. Why do they get to be so fascinated about a natural and normal condition?

American doctors (and I'm sure their European colleagues) don't comment on physical findings that are not issues. The 'comments' doctors make are confined to their notes. They are trained to note the circumcision status of a male patient as a physical finding, the same way they might note that you're over- or underweight. The note would say something like 'A 45 year old circumcised male.... Hair distribution normal. Genitalia WNL (Within Normal Limits). Testes normal.'

American doctors (and I'm sure their European colleagues) don't comment on physical findings that are not issues. '

I'm certain that this is indeed the correct protocol on the matter. But clearly some accounts here seem to indicate that some doctors do indeed comment, on paper and also verbally. This would almost certainly be the case where doctors recommend circumcision ... I don't see how it could be otherwise. If a doctor recommends (heartily or subtly) circumcision he's invariably going to have to talk about it.

And it also seems from some accounts here, that this recommendation comes without any specific medical necessity, but more as if rising from an unspecified feeling of not adhering to a social norm. Which is certainly not within a doctors brief.

I know my doctor made a note of my status in my file. I got a copy of my file as part of a referral and nosed through it, she wrote "normal adult penis, circumcised."

I'm certain that this is indeed the correct protocol on the matter. But clearly some accounts here seem to indicate that some doctors do indeed comment, on paper and also verbally. This would almost certainly be the case where doctors recommend circumcision ... I don't see how it could be otherwise. If a doctor recommends (heartily or subtly) circumcision he's invariably going to have to talk about it.

And it also seems from some accounts here, that this recommendation comes without any specific medical necessity, but more as if rising from an unspecified feeling of not adhering to a social norm. Which is certainly not within a doctors brief.

It would be interesting to correlate that recommendation with the year it was made and the age of the doctor at the time.

I know that in the 70s, it was difficult to get your new born son out of the hospital intact here in the US. I even know of a couple that didn't get their son circumcised and had to fight with the hospital cashier because that fee was routinely added.

I created an informal poll here:

http://www.zity.biz/index.php?mx=forum;ox=display;topic=87149;msg=627650

My examiner during my most-recent fantasy exam commented. Otherwise, nothing. But I'm sure they've noticed ... particularly my current GP, who's gay. And the one before him definitely wasn't 100% straight. I'm sure they made mental notes ... and I fantasize about them masturbating to the thought of my exam, and my (lack of) foreskin.