Talk:Hypospadias

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Epispadias

Epispadias is not related to hypospadias, but rather to bladder exstrophy . I was suprised to find that Epispadias redirects to hypospadias. I propose that epispadias should have its own article. A parent whose child has epispadias (a very rare conditions) is not served by looking it up and then wading through hypospadias stuff (especially if their child is female!).Tony Makhlouf

Your wish is our command. See epispadias, but it is only a stub at this point. Feel free to add water and make it grow. alteripse 20:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What needs to be established

I removed some unsubstantiated insertions that I think are misleading and incorrect, but am willing to reconsider parts or rephrasing if support can be given. I also consider the removal of one of the universally attested facts about hypospadias -- that they are usually sporadic birth defects of unknown cause to be evidence of bad faith and fringe POV by the editor. Furthermore, a lower opening on the shaft created by surgery is called a fistula not a hypospadias; no one but someone trying to confuse rather than clarify the topic would attempt to conflate the two. But let's hear the support for some of the more obscure claims? alteripse 01:35, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Alas, this was the anti-circumcision advocates at it again, people for whom every article is an opportunity to fit something in about circumcision. Yes, some circumcisions cause unintended damage, even catastrophic damage in some cases (note that I'm not taking a position for or against circumcision here). However, the place to write about that is in the circumcision article, or even the iatrogenesis article, and not this article, which is quite unrelated. -- Karada 12:58, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Karada's personal attack aside, one can search for "iatrogenic hypospadias" and all becomes clear. Cetinkaya describes a clear instance [1]. In non-circumcising cultures, a urethral catheter can also be a cause of the defect (Andrews [2]), so that might be added too. A fistula can also be iatrogenically induced, but it is a separate phenomonon. The AMA site specifically lists hypospadias [3]. Why is there a knee-jerk motivation to censor iatrogenic sources? DanP 19:08, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

DanP, 1. Do NOT accuse me of "kneejerk censorship" of iatrogenic problems. THEY ARE ALREADY DESCRIBED IN THE ARTICLE under the appropriate section, and I explained exactly why I reverted: because you removed important info and replaced it with confusing and erroneous info. A iatrogenic opening in the urethra is nearly always called a fistula, not a hypospadias. 2. According to the AMA citation a 21 year old review mentions circumcision as a possible cause. It is extremely rare, but we can mention it. 2. if you would like to have a sentence that an EXTREMELY rare cause of a fistula, is a urinary catheter, we could probably accommodate that with a reference but your desire to put that into this brief summary confirms exactly what Karada accuses you of-- that you have a bizarre single-minded fringe POV 2. and your removal of valid information (that we have no explanation for the majority of hypospadias and they are sporadic birth defects) is hard for me to understand. Are you trying to make it sound like most hypospadias are iatrogenic? Do you believe that? Why do you want to give us that impression? 3. DONT do unexplained deletions of important information 4. What is the difference between you and Borert Brookes? You complain about him on your user page, but you behave the same way: unexplained reversions, EXTREME singleminded POV while dishonestly denying it, and unwarranted insults to the rest of us. You and he are both a blight here and I am being extremely restrained in my response. I am adding your points. You didn't have to be so offensive to get this added. alteripse 21:45, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for careless mistake - my efforts here are in good faith. Information I deleted was clearly implying that congenital hypospadias is the only variety. I should have edited more carefully. The initial response to me was hostile, and you should at least know that I did not throw the first stone. I am well aware of what a fistula is. The fact that it is not the term used in cases of iatrogenic hypospadias is remarkable enough of a distinction, and the flow of urine is another distinction. There are clear cases of iatrogenic hypospadias as I mentioned. I am not aware of exact percentages, but it is wrong to merely speculate. If you believe it important to push iatrogenic hypospadias out, I will respect that. Robert Brookes makes no effort to seek truth or consensus, yet I still respect his perspective no matter how much I am critical of it (I have repeatedly told him this). I believe that is a valuable distinction to be made before you make your broad claims. I deny nothing about my disagreement with his view -- I never have denied any such thing. Any accusations that I make such denials are entirely fabrications. In the end, the feigned neutrality of some folks leave Wikipedia with the attitude "so be it if the article leaves out facts". Obviously you have already decided what hypospadias does and does not include. Yet the circumcision advocates get away with inclusion of material with far less substantiation, whereas iatrogenic hypospadias had been clearly photographed. While I thank you for explaining my mistake, at the same time I take your accusation of being a "blight" as a personal attack, and as ad hominem by definition. I have extended the olive branch to the circumcision advocates on several occasions, and there is no need to use name-calling here on either side. DanP 19:36, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Apology accepted, but you still removed twice with no explanation the simple and unarguable statement that the causes of most hypospadias is unknown congenital birth defect and even in the paragraph just above you misrepresent the sentence as saying congenital hypospadias is the only variety. Iatrogenic hypospadias that are results of circumcision are so rare I have never heard of it (which doesn't mean that it hasn't happened sometime somewhere in a single case in the medical literature) and I suspect you have not bothered to look up the citation in the 1983 Urol Clin review article, which I suspect simply mentioned it in a list just like the AMA review does. I have never heard the term hypospadias applied to a iatrogenic opening and still suspect it is a semantic anomaly. I bend over backwards to accommodate valid material in a medical article, if there is a reference, and every article I have written includes complications. It is certainly POV, and not quite honest, to find a single case of a pair of problems caused by an "itinerant Turkish circumciser" and insert here as if medical procedures are a significant cause. I still would like to see you and Robert Brookes locked away together in any number of circumcision articles you two want to fight about so the rest of us can write an encyclopedia without the kind of stuff you just pulled here. alteripse 00:07, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image

The image was quite large and explicit. Therefore, I have decided to Be Bold and move it below the fold. DrExtreme 01:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)