Difference between revisions of "Abraham L. Wolbarst"
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) (Add text.) |
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) (Add text and references) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
'''Abraham Leo Wolbarst''', M.D.,({{LifeData|1872|1952}}) a New York City physician, was a notorious promoter of non-therapeutic neonatal male circumcision. | '''Abraham Leo Wolbarst''', M.D.,({{LifeData|1872|1952}}) a New York City physician, was a notorious promoter of non-therapeutic neonatal male circumcision. | ||
| − | Holt (1913) reported that tubercular ''mohelim'' were infecting baby boys with tuberculosis by the performance of ritual circumcision | + | Holt (1913) reported in an article published in the ''Journal of the American Medical Association'' (JAMA) that tubercular ''mohelim'' were infecting baby boys with tuberculosis by the performance of ritual circumcision .<ref name="holt1913">{{REFjournal |
|last=Holt | |last=Holt | ||
|first=L. Emmet | |first=L. Emmet | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
|DOI= | |DOI= | ||
|accessdate=2020-03-30 | |accessdate=2020-03-30 | ||
| − | }}</ref> Wolbarst was incensed by what he perceived as an attack on ritual circumcision, so he resolved to defend ritual circumcision by arguing that | + | }}</ref> Wolbarst was incensed by what he perceived as an attack on ritual circumcision, so he resolved to defend ritual circumcision by arguing that [[circumcision]] provided health benefits. Wolbarst's defense of circumcision was published in ''JAMA'' in 1914 and entitled "''Universal Circumcision as a Sanitary Measure''".<ref name="wolbarst1914">{{REFjournal |
|last=Wolbarst | |last=Wolbarst | ||
|first=Abraham L. | |first=Abraham L. | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
| − | This was before the days of evidence-based medicine, when doctors relied on medical ''opinion'', instead of scientific evidence. Wolbarst collected the ''opinions'' of several physicians and published those opinions as evidence for his argument that circumcision prevented diseases. Wolbarst argued that non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision prevented numerous diseases including venereal disease. | + | This was before the days of evidence-based medicine, when doctors relied on medical ''opinion'', instead of scientific evidence. Wolbarst collected the ''opinions'' of several physicians and published those opinions as evidence for his argument that circumcision prevented diseases. Wolbarst argued that non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision prevented numerous diseases including venereal disease (now known as sexually transmitted disease). |
Wolbarst's article appeared on the eve of World War I. It apparently influenced American military commanders to order circumcision of military personnel under their command to prevent venereal diseases and improve military readiness.<ref name="hill2002">{{REFweb | Wolbarst's article appeared on the eve of World War I. It apparently influenced American military commanders to order circumcision of military personnel under their command to prevent venereal diseases and improve military readiness.<ref name="hill2002">{{REFweb | ||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
|last=Hill | |last=Hill | ||
|first=George | |first=George | ||
| − | |author-link= | + | |author-link=George Hill |
|publisher= | |publisher= | ||
| − | |website= | + | |website=purewatergazette |
|date=2002-11-04 | |date=2002-11-04 | ||
|accessdate=2020-03-30 | |accessdate=2020-03-30 | ||
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
|quote= | |quote= | ||
}}</ref> No statistics exist to document how many men were circumcised because of Wolbarst's article. | }}</ref> No statistics exist to document how many men were circumcised because of Wolbarst's article. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The adoption of circumcision as a prophylactic amputation by American military services falsely stigmatized the [[foreskin]] as being unhealthy. Van Howe (1999) has exhaustively shown that circumcision does not protect against STDs.<ref name="vanhowe1999">{{REFjournal | ||
| + | |last=Van Howe | ||
| + | |first=Robert S. | ||
| + | |author-link=Robert Van Howe | ||
| + | |etal=no | ||
| + | |title=Does circumcision influence sexually transmitted diseases?: A literature review | ||
| + | |trans-title= | ||
| + | |language= | ||
| + | |journal=BJU Int | ||
| + | |location= | ||
| + | |date=1999 | ||
| + | |volume=83 Supple 1 | ||
| + | |issue= | ||
| + | |pages=52-62 | ||
| + | |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1052.x | ||
| + | |quote= | ||
| + | |pubmedID=10349415 | ||
| + | |pubmedCID= | ||
| + | |DOI=10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1052.x | ||
| + | |accessdate=2020-03-31 | ||
| + | }}</ref> | ||
He was solely responsible for the invention of the myth that [[circumcision]] rendered males immune to [[penile cancer]].<ref name="wolbarst1932">Wolbarst, AL. Circumcision and penile cancer. ''Lancet'' 1932; 150-3.</ref> Wolbarst wrote an article that was published in ''The Lancet'' in 1932, implicating human male smegma as carcinogenic.<ref name="wolbarst1932"/> Wolbarst's myth was based entirely on unverifiable anecdotes, ethnocentric stereotypes, a faulty understanding of human anatomy and physiology, a misunderstanding of the distinction between association and cause, and an unbridled missionary zeal, and it had absolutely no basis in valid scientific and epidemiological research.<ref name="fleiss1996">Fleiss PM, Hodges F. [http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/fleiss/ Neonatal circumcision does not protect against cancer]. ''BMJ'' 1996;312(7033):779-80.</ref> | He was solely responsible for the invention of the myth that [[circumcision]] rendered males immune to [[penile cancer]].<ref name="wolbarst1932">Wolbarst, AL. Circumcision and penile cancer. ''Lancet'' 1932; 150-3.</ref> Wolbarst wrote an article that was published in ''The Lancet'' in 1932, implicating human male smegma as carcinogenic.<ref name="wolbarst1932"/> Wolbarst's myth was based entirely on unverifiable anecdotes, ethnocentric stereotypes, a faulty understanding of human anatomy and physiology, a misunderstanding of the distinction between association and cause, and an unbridled missionary zeal, and it had absolutely no basis in valid scientific and epidemiological research.<ref name="fleiss1996">Fleiss PM, Hodges F. [http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/fleiss/ Neonatal circumcision does not protect against cancer]. ''BMJ'' 1996;312(7033):779-80.</ref> | ||
| Line 59: | Line 81: | ||
Epidemiological studies disproved Wolbarst's myths long ago. In North America the rate of penile cancer has been estimated to be 1 in 100,000<ref>Cutler SJ, Young JL Jr. ''Third national cancer survey: incidence data''. Bethesda, Md. US Dept of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, 1975</ref>. Maden ''et al'' (1993) reported penile cancer among a fifth of elderly patients from rural areas who had been circumcised neonatally and had been born at a time when the rate of neonatal circumcision was about 20% in rural populations.<ref>Maden C, Sherman KJ, Beckman AM, Hislop TG, Teh CZ, Ashley RL, ''et al''. History of circumcision, medical conditions, and sexual activity and risk of penile cancer. ''JNCI'' 1993;85:19-24</ref> Their study also shows that the rate of penile cancer among men circumcised neonatally has risen in the United States relative to the rise in the rate of neonatal circumcision. | Epidemiological studies disproved Wolbarst's myths long ago. In North America the rate of penile cancer has been estimated to be 1 in 100,000<ref>Cutler SJ, Young JL Jr. ''Third national cancer survey: incidence data''. Bethesda, Md. US Dept of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, 1975</ref>. Maden ''et al'' (1993) reported penile cancer among a fifth of elderly patients from rural areas who had been circumcised neonatally and had been born at a time when the rate of neonatal circumcision was about 20% in rural populations.<ref>Maden C, Sherman KJ, Beckman AM, Hislop TG, Teh CZ, Ashley RL, ''et al''. History of circumcision, medical conditions, and sexual activity and risk of penile cancer. ''JNCI'' 1993;85:19-24</ref> Their study also shows that the rate of penile cancer among men circumcised neonatally has risen in the United States relative to the rise in the rate of neonatal circumcision. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Although Wolbarst's falsehoods were disproved decades ago, they had entered into the American psyche where they continue to exert influence that they do not deserve.<ref name="hill2000">{{REFjournal | ||
| + | |last=Hill | ||
| + | |first=George | ||
| + | |author-link=George Hill | ||
| + | |etal=no | ||
| + | |title=The Ghosts of Abraham Wolbarst and Aaron Fink | ||
| + | |trans-title= | ||
| + | |language= | ||
| + | |journal=BMJ | ||
| + | |location= | ||
| + | |date=2000-06-22 | ||
| + | |volume= | ||
| + | |issue= | ||
| + | |pages= | ||
| + | |url=https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/28/ghosts-abraham-wolbarst-and-aaron-fink | ||
| + | |quote= | ||
| + | |pubmedID= | ||
| + | |pubmedCID= | ||
| + | |DOI=https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7249.1592 | ||
| + | |accessdate=2020-03-31 | ||
| + | }}</ref> | ||
{{SEEALSO}} | {{SEEALSO}} | ||
Revision as of 14:36, 31 March 2020
Abraham Leo Wolbarst, M.D.,(1872 – 1952) a New York City physician, was a notorious promoter of non-therapeutic neonatal male circumcision.
Holt (1913) reported in an article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) that tubercular mohelim were infecting baby boys with tuberculosis by the performance of ritual circumcision .[1] Wolbarst was incensed by what he perceived as an attack on ritual circumcision, so he resolved to defend ritual circumcision by arguing that circumcision provided health benefits. Wolbarst's defense of circumcision was published in JAMA in 1914 and entitled "Universal Circumcision as a Sanitary Measure".[2]
This was before the days of evidence-based medicine, when doctors relied on medical opinion, instead of scientific evidence. Wolbarst collected the opinions of several physicians and published those opinions as evidence for his argument that circumcision prevented diseases. Wolbarst argued that non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision prevented numerous diseases including venereal disease (now known as sexually transmitted disease).
Wolbarst's article appeared on the eve of World War I. It apparently influenced American military commanders to order circumcision of military personnel under their command to prevent venereal diseases and improve military readiness.[3] No statistics exist to document how many men were circumcised because of Wolbarst's article.
The adoption of circumcision as a prophylactic amputation by American military services falsely stigmatized the foreskin as being unhealthy. Van Howe (1999) has exhaustively shown that circumcision does not protect against STDs.[4]
He was solely responsible for the invention of the myth that circumcision rendered males immune to penile cancer.[5] Wolbarst wrote an article that was published in The Lancet in 1932, implicating human male smegma as carcinogenic.[5] Wolbarst's myth was based entirely on unverifiable anecdotes, ethnocentric stereotypes, a faulty understanding of human anatomy and physiology, a misunderstanding of the distinction between association and cause, and an unbridled missionary zeal, and it had absolutely no basis in valid scientific and epidemiological research.[6]
Wolbarst was directly responsible for its proliferation. All subsequent repetions of this myth are directly traceable to Wolbarst's article, though Wolbarst himself advocated universal neonatal circumcision principally as a preventive for epilepsy, paralysis, and masturbation. Circumcision advocates such as Wolbarst do not seem to have promoted this myth because they have a genuine interest in reducing penile cancer; they used it instead as a scare tactic in the promotion of neonatal circumcision.[6]
Epidemiological studies disproved Wolbarst's myths long ago. In North America the rate of penile cancer has been estimated to be 1 in 100,000[7]. Maden et al (1993) reported penile cancer among a fifth of elderly patients from rural areas who had been circumcised neonatally and had been born at a time when the rate of neonatal circumcision was about 20% in rural populations.[8] Their study also shows that the rate of penile cancer among men circumcised neonatally has risen in the United States relative to the rise in the rate of neonatal circumcision.
Although Wolbarst's falsehoods were disproved decades ago, they had entered into the American psyche where they continue to exert influence that they do not deserve.[9]
See also
References
- ↑
Holt, L. Emmet. Tuberculosis acquired through ritual circumcision. JAMA. 12 July 1913; 61(2): 99-102. Retrieved 30 March 2020.
- ↑ Wolbarst, Abraham L.. Universal Circumcision as a Sanitary Measure. JAMA. 10 January 1914; 62(2): 92-97. Retrieved 30 March 2020.
- ↑
Hill, George (4 November 2002). The Rise and Fall of Neonatal Circumcision: The Irrational Abuse Of Helpless Children
, purewatergazette. Retrieved 30 March 2020. - ↑ Van Howe, Robert S.. Does circumcision influence sexually transmitted diseases?: A literature review. BJU Int. 1999; 83 Supple 1: 52-62. PMID. DOI. Retrieved 31 March 2020.
- ↑ a b Wolbarst, AL. Circumcision and penile cancer. Lancet 1932; 150-3.
- ↑ a b Fleiss PM, Hodges F. Neonatal circumcision does not protect against cancer. BMJ 1996;312(7033):779-80.
- ↑ Cutler SJ, Young JL Jr. Third national cancer survey: incidence data. Bethesda, Md. US Dept of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, 1975
- ↑ Maden C, Sherman KJ, Beckman AM, Hislop TG, Teh CZ, Ashley RL, et al. History of circumcision, medical conditions, and sexual activity and risk of penile cancer. JNCI 1993;85:19-24
- ↑ Hill, George. The Ghosts of Abraham Wolbarst and Aaron Fink. BMJ. 22 June 2000; DOI. Retrieved 31 March 2020.
