Difference between revisions of "United States of America"

From IntactiWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Early twentieth century: Add text.)
(Late twentieth century: Add text and citation.)
Line 398: Line 398:
 
  |accessdate=2021-10-05
 
  |accessdate=2021-10-05
 
}}</ref>  
 
}}</ref>  
 +
 +
Preston considered the matter of infant circumcision. He examined and debunked claims that male circumcision could prevent cancer of the cervix in women, cancer of the penis and cancer of the prostate in men. Preston concluded:<blockquote>
 +
Routine circumcision of the newborn is an unnecessary procedure. It provides questionable benefits and is associated with a small but definite incidence of complications and hazards. These risks are preventable if the operation is not performed unless truly medically indicated. Circumcision of the newborn is a procedure that should no longer be considered routine.<ref>{{REFjournal
 +
|last=Preston
 +
|first=E. Noel
 +
|init=
 +
|author-link=
 +
||etal=no
 +
|title=Whither the foreskin? A consideration of routine neonatal circumcision.
 +
|trans-title=
 +
|language=
 +
|journal=JAMA
 +
|location=
 +
|date=1970-09-14
 +
|volume=213
 +
|issue=11
 +
|article=
 +
|page=
 +
|pages=1853-8
 +
|url=http://www.cirp.org/library/general/preston/
 +
|archived=
 +
|quote=
 +
|pubmedID=5468911
 +
|pubmedCID=
 +
|DOI=10.1001/jama.213.11.1853
 +
|accessdate=2021-10-05
 +
}}</ref></blockquote>
 +
 +
  
 
{{REF}}
 
{{REF}}
  
 
[[Category:USA]]
 
[[Category:USA]]

Revision as of 21:27, 5 October 2021

Construction Site

This article is work in progress and not yet part of the free encyclopedia IntactiWiki.

 

Flag of the United States of America (USA)

The United States of America are also known as the United States or simply America or by acronyms such as USA or US or U.S.A. or U.S.. The United States are predominantly an English-speaking nation. As in other English-speaking nations, non-therapeutic circumcision of boys was popularized in the nineteenth century, however, the practice of non-therapeutic circumcision of boys is now in decline.

History

Jews have lived in America since before the Revolutionary War. They have always practiced ritual circumcision (Brit Milah) of boys on the eighth day of life in accordance with the Abrahamic covenant, however this was only for a very small percentage of the population.

One may be certain that the eighteenth century Founding Fathers of the United States of America were men with intact foreskins as were the foreskinned men who fought the American Civil War (1861-1865).

Non-therapeutic circumcision of males for non-religious reasons originated with Claude-Francois Lallemand in 1832 in France but soon spread to the United Kingdom in the early nineteenth century, from which it eventually spread to other English-speaking nations.

Late nineteenth century

The first recorded non-religious circumcision of a boy in the United States occurred in 1870 when Lewis Albert Sayre, a prominent New York City doctor, circumcised a boy of five years of age for paralysis. Sayre then continued to advocate circumcision for numerous reasons until his death in 1900. According to Sayre, circumcision was recommended for paralysis, epilepsy, hernia, lunacy, curvature of the spine, and clubfoot.

M. J. Moses (1871) advocated circumcision to prevent masturbation.[1]

H. H. Kane (1879) 'discovers' that circumcision cures nocturnal emissions and abdominal neuralgia.[2]

Seventh-day Adventist John Harvey Kellogg, M.D.[a 1], of Battle Creek, Michigan, was an important 19th century promoter of male circumcision. Although masturbation is never mentioned in the Bible, Dr. Kellogg believed that masturbation was immoral, sinful, and caused one to dream "impure dreams", which he believed was harmful to the mental faculties, resuling in mental disorders, such as feeblemindness.[3] He believed that the urge to masturbate could be prevented by eating bland foods, for which purpose, he and his brother invented corn flakes.

Dr. Kellogg also recommended circumcision in cases "in which irritation is produced by retained secretions".[3]

Dr. Kellogg perhaps is most famous for his book, Plain facts for young and old (1879), in which he advocated circumcision of boys as punishment for masturbation.[3]

Elizabeth Blackwell, ̣̻M.D.[a 1], (1821 – 1910), born in England, but attended medical school in the United States. She was the first woman to become a medical doctor in the United States. Blackwell thought masturbation was immoral but that circumcision was not the way to correct it. She wrote against it in her 1894 book:

Appeals to the fears of uninstructed parents on the grounds of cleanliness or of hardening the part are entirely fallacious and unsupported by evidence. It is a physiological fact that the natural lubricating secretion of every healthy part is beneficial, not injurious to the part thus protected, and that no attempt to render a sensitive part insensitive is either practicable or justifiable. The protection which nature affords to these parts is an aid to physical purity by affording necessary protection against constant external contact of a part which necessarily remains keenly sensitive; and bad habits in boys and girls cannot by prevented by surgical operations. Where no malformation exists, bad habits can only be forestalled by healthy moral and physical education.[4]

Peter Charles Remondino, M.D.[a 1], was a San Diego, California physician, who was born in Turin (Torino) in 1846, but migrated with his family to the United States at the age of eight. There is some reason to believe that he was of Sephardic Jewish descent and had been circumcised while still in Turin, however this is uncertain.

Remondino clearly was highly intelligent. He mastered English, started medical school at age 17, treated wounded soldiers during the Civil War, and later moved to San Diego for his health.

After moving to San Diego, he practiced medicine, served as an officer of several medical societies, and other regulatory agencies.

Remondino is famous for his 346 page book, The History of Circumcision.[5]

When Remondino described the foreskin, he used the most horrific, derogatory,and disparaging language. He devoted several chapters to the alleged evils of the foreskin. It is not clear why he had such an extreme dislike for a natural and functional body part. His recommendation, of course, was for circumcision.

By the end of the nineteenth century, America, had at least one prominent physician and surgeon on the east coast promoting circumcision and another prominent physician and surgeon on the west coast promoting circumcision. There was no real medical science with which to dispute and discredit their false claims. Non-therapeutic circumcision of males was now well-established in the United States.

Early twentieth century

Ernest G. Mark (1901) notes that the "pleasurable sensations that are elicited from the extremely sensitive" inner lining of the foreskin may encourage a child to masturbate, which is why he recommends circumcision since it "lessens the sensitiveness of the organ".[6]

Brimhall (1902) reported an amputation of a penis after circumcision.[7]

Roswell Park (1902) publishes paper 'proving' that foreskin causes epilepsy and that circumcision cures it.[8]

L. Emmet Holt (1913) reported that tubercular mohels were infecting infant Jewish boys with tuberculosis during ritual circumcision.[9]

Abraham L. Wolbarst, M.D.[a 1], a Jewish New York doctor, apparently considered Holt's paper to be an attack on ritual circumcision or perhaps Judaism. He collected opinions from other doctors of the alleged value of circumcision for health and published those opinions as scientific fact in a 1914 JAMA article.[10] Wolbarst's paper appeared shortly before the start of World War I. It is thought that Wolbarst's false claims inspired some military commanders to require men under their command to be circumcised so as to reduce venereal disease (VD).

Reuben (1916) (1917) reported additional cases of tuberculosis after ritual circumcision.[11][12]

Brennermann (1921) reported that meatal disease occurs only in circumcised boys who lack the protection of the foreskin.[13]

Wolbarst (1926) made his claim for the first time that male circumcision prevents penile cancer.[14]

Wolbarst (1932) put forward his claim again that circumcision would prevent penile cancer in the British journal, The Lancet.[15] In those long ago days, the true causes of cancer were unknown so it was impossible to disprove Wolbarst's falsehoods.

Laumann et al., writing in 1997, reported an incidence of circumcision of 31 percent in 1933.[16]

Hiram S. Yellen and Aaron Goldstein invented the Gomco clamp in 1934-5. The clamp, by crushing the foreskin in an intensely painful procedure, reduced the risk of hemorrhage,[17] but increased the pain.[18] The availability of the Gomco clamp increased the popularity of non-therapeutic infant circumcision.

Brown (1937) reported restoration of the skin of the penis after a denudation complication of circumcision.[19]

Laumann et al. (1997) reported an incidence of circumcision of 53 percent in 1941.[16]

World War II. America entered the war after the Empire of Japan attached the American naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii on 7 December 1941. This was followed by Germany declaring war on the United States.

The information on military circumcision in WWII is sketchy and anecdotal. It appears that many foreskinned American men were encouraged and, in some cases, forced to be circumcised. It appears that the American military's foreskin-phobia and circumcision policy persisted through the Korean War (1950-52) but was discontinued by a change in policy thereafter.

The "Sand Myth" circulated among English-speaking armies. According to the Sand Myth, foreskinned men who fought in the Saharan desert had medical issues due to sand collecting under the foreskin. Intact Italian and German men who fought in the same desert had no such problems.[20]

In the post-war era after WWII, the popularity of non-therapeutic circumcision, driven by medical promotion by doctors seeking a nice surgical fee as an alleged preventive of penile cancer and by the adamant request of circumcised men home from the war who became fathers.

Non-therapeutic, medically-unnecessary circumcision of boys had become a "routine" surgical operation that usually was performed automatically on newborn boys even without consent from anyone.

Laumann et al. (1997) reported an incidence of non-therapeutic circumcision of boys of 85 percent in 1948.[16]

The publication of a landmark article by Douglas Gairdner(1949) in the United Kingdom showing that infant circumcision is non-therapeutic and unnecessary that called for preservation of the foreskin[21] was totally ignored by the circumcision industry in the United States.

Late twentieth century

WKC Morgan, a Canadian medical doctor on the faculty of the University of Maryland School of Medicine, in a highly critcal letter pubbished by JAMA (1965), slammed the practice of non-therapeutic circumcision of boys as it had developed in the United States.[22]

Preston considered the matter of infant circumcision. He examined and debunked claims that male circumcision could prevent cancer of the cervix in women, cancer of the penis and cancer of the prostate in men. Preston concluded:

Routine circumcision of the newborn is an unnecessary procedure. It provides questionable benefits and is associated with a small but definite incidence of complications and hazards. These risks are preventable if the operation is not performed unless truly medically indicated. Circumcision of the newborn is a procedure that should no longer be considered routine.[23]


References

  1. REFjournal Moses MJ. The value of circumcision as a hygienic and therapeutic measure. New York Medical Journal. November 1871; 14(4): 368-74.
  2. REFjournal Kane HH. Seminal emissions, abdominal neuralgia: circumcision: cure. Southern Clinic. October 1879; 2(1): 8-11.
  3. a b c REFbook Kellogg, John Harvey (1888): Plain Facts for Old and Young: Natural History and Hygiene of Organic Life (Sex, Marriage & Society Series). Ayer Publishing. Retrieved 3 October 2021.
  4. REFbook Blackwell, Elizabeth (1894): The Human Element in Sex; being a Medical Inquiry into the Relation of Sexual Physiology to Christian Morality. Edition: 2. London: J.& A. Churchill. Pp. 35-36.
  5. REFbook Remondino, Peter Charles (1891): History of Circumcision. Philadelphia: F. A. Davis. Retrieved 29 September 2021.
  6. REFjournal Mark EG. Circumcision. American Practitioner and News. 15 February 1901; 31(4): 122-126.
  7. REFjournal Brimhall JB. Amputation of the penis following a unique method of preventing hemorrhage after circumcision. St. Paul Med J.. 1902; 4: 490. Retrieved 5 October 2021.
  8. REFjournal Park R. The surgical treatment of epilepsy. American Medicine. 22 November 1902; 4(21): 807-9.
  9. REFjournal Holt LE. Tuberculosis acquired through ritual circumcision. JAMA. 12 July 1913; LXI(2): 99-102. Retrieved 4 October 2021.
  10. REFjournal Wolbarst AL. Universal circumcision as a sanitary measure. JAMA. 10 January 1914; 62(2): 92-97. Retrieved 4 October 2021.
  11. REFjournal Reuben MS. Tuberculosis from ritual circumcision. Proceedings of the New York Academy of Medicine. 15 December 1916; : 333-4. Retrieved 4 October 2021.
  12. REFjournal Reuben MS. Tuberculosis following ritual circumcision. Arch Pediatr. March 1917; XXXIV: 186-90. Retrieved 4 October 2021.
  13. REFjournal Brennermann J. The ulcerated meatus in the circumcised child. Am J Dis Child. 1921; 21: 38-47. Retrieved 4 October 2021.
  14. REFjournal Wolbarst AL. Is circumcision a prophylactic against penis cancer?. Cancer. July 1926; 3(4): 301-10.
  15. REFjournal Wolbarst AL. Circumcision and penile cancer. Lancet. 16 January 1932; 1(5655): 150-153.
  16. a b c REFjournal Laumann, Edward O., Masi, christopher M., Zuckerman, Ezra W.. Circumcision in the United States. JAMA. 2 April 1997; 277(13): 1052-7. PMID. Retrieved 5 October 2021.
  17. REFjournal Yellen, Hiram. Bloodless circumcision of the newborn. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 1935; 30: 146-7. Retrieved 5 October 2021.
  18. REFjournal Sinkey RG, Eschenbacher MA, Walsh PM, Doerger RG, Lambers DS, Sibai BM, Habli MA. The GoMo study: a randomized clinical trial assessing neonatal pain with Gomco vs Mogen clamp circumcision. Am J Obstet Gynecol. May 2015; 212(5): 664.e1-8. PMID. DOI. Retrieved 5 October 2021.
  19. REFjournal Brown JB. Restoration of the entire skin of the penis. Surg Gynecol Obstetr. 1937; 65(362-5) Retrieved 5 October 2021.
  20. REFjournal Darby, Robert. The riddle of the sands: circumcision, history, and myth. NZ Med J. 15 July 2005; 118(1218): U1564. PMID. Retrieved 5 October 2021.
  21. REFjournal Gairdner DMT. The fate of the foreskin: a study of circumcision. British Medical Journal. 1949; 2(4642): 1433-7. PMID. PMC. DOI. Retrieved 28 October 2019.
  22. REFjournal Morgan WKC. The rape of the phallus. JAMA. 19 July 1965; 193: 223-4. PMID. DOI. Retrieved 5 October 2021.
  23. REFjournal Preston, E. Noel. Whither the foreskin? A consideration of routine neonatal circumcision.. JAMA. 14 September 1970; 213(11): 1853-8. PMID. DOI. Retrieved 5 October 2021.


Cite error: <ref> tags exist for a group named "a", but no corresponding <references group="a"/> tag was found, or a closing </ref> is missing