Shortly after we adopted our barely 4 year old son from an Eastern European country, we took him to a local pediatrician for an routine examination. He had no medical needs at that time, but we wanted to get familiar with the doctor. Our new son had already been examined by the international adoption clinic at a major hospital, so we knew his medical needs were met.
The doctor examined our son quickly and asked us if we'd thought about
circumcision. Yes, I told him, and we were not interested. The doctor
quickly explained the reasons for why we might want to have it done,
including "increased risk of infections". "We haven't dealt with
infections yet, and if they become a problem, perhaps we'll consider
it", I told him. Then he told me that "it would be best done before
kindergarten" and when I dismissed that as well, he quickly gave me a
patronizing nod before leaving the room.
I had not even researched circumcision that that point. I knew that most
of Europe no longer practices routine infant circumcision, including my
child's native country, and that was enough for me. It did not seem
like a fair choice for me to make for my child at 4 years old. A child I
barely knew at that point. I was shocked that our doctor would advise
an unneccesary cosmetic procedure on a young child, who had recently
been through the trauma of international adoption. He barely spoke any
English at this point, and our doctor was advocating that he go under
anesthesia to be surgically altered. I will absolutely seek necessary
medical care for my child, but I do not believe it is my business to
make cosmetic decisions about his penis.
My son is now 6 years old. We now have 2 intact adopted sons and
have never had a single infection or problem with either of their
genitals. Now that I know more about circumcision, I am very glad I
followed my gut and completely ignored the doctor's advice.