15,940
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
Wikify foreskin retraction; other minor revision.
|DOI=10.1093/pch/9.9.630
|accessdate=2020-03-16
}}</ref> They are also much more likely to injure [[intact]] boys during office visits by premature [[Forced foreskin retraction| forcible foreskin retraction ]] (PFFR).<ref>{{REFjournal
|last=Narvaez
|first=Darcia
}}</ref> [[Lewis Albert Sayre|Sayre]] then continued to advocate circumcision for numerous reasons until his death in 1900. According to [[Lewis Albert Sayre|Sayre]], circumcision was recommended for paralysis, epilepsy, hernia, lunacy, curvature of the spine, and clubfoot.
[[M. J. Moses]] (1871) advocated [[circumcision ]] to prevent [[masturbation]].<ref name="moses1871">{{Moses1871}}</ref>
[[H. H. Kane]] (1879) 'discovers' that [[circumcision ]] cures nocturnal emissions and abdominal neuralgia.<ref>{{Kane1879}}</ref>
Seventh-day Adventist [[John Harvey Kellogg]], {{MD}}, 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, resulting in mental disorders, such as feeblemindness.<ref name="kellogg1888">{{Kellogg1888}}</ref> He believed that the urge to masturbate could be prevented by eating bland foods, for which purpose, he and his brother invented corn flakes.
}}</ref>
[[Elizabeth Blackwell]], {{MD}}, ({{LifeData|1821|1910}}), was 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:
<blockquote>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.<ref>{{REFbook
|first=Elizabeth
}}</ref>
J. Brennermann (1921) reported that [[Meatal stenosis| meatal disease ]] occurs only in circumcised boys who lack the protection of the [[foreskin]].<ref name="brennermann2021>{{REFjournal
|last=Brennermann
|init=J
}}</ref>
[[Abraham L. Wolbarst|Wolbarst]] (1926) made his claim for the first time that male circumcision prevents [[penile cancer]].<ref name="wolbarst1926!>{{REFjournal
|last=Wolbarst
|first=Abraham L.
}}</ref> 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.<ref name="brown1837">{{REFjournal
|last=Brown
|init=JB
Laumann et al. (1997) reported an incidence of non-therapeutic circumcision of boys of 85 percent in 1948.<ref name="laumann1997" />
[[Eugene H. Hand]], {{MD}}, (1949) falsely claimed that circumcision would prevent cancer of the tongue and [[Circumcision and STDs| venereal disease]].<ref name="HandEH1949">{{REFjournal
|last=Hand
|first=Eugene H.
}}</ref>
Preston (1970) 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
}}</ref> The new statement had not a single citation of any other document. While it recognized the validity of the 1971 statement, It claimed without any basis that parents had a right to circumcise a newborn infant boy for "traditional, cultural, and religious factors".<ref name="aap1975" />
The statement falsely claimed facilitation of hygiene, prevention of [[phimosis]], and prevention of [[penile cancer]] as reasons that parents may elect non-therapeutic infant circumcision.<ref name="aap1975" />
The statement expressed no concern for the [[pain]] of circumcision, nor did it provide information on the functions and value of the [[foreskin]] nor did it recognize the child as a person with domestic and international rights to self-determination and physical integrity. The statement carefully avoided recommending [[circumcision]] and placed the responsibility for the certain amputation injury on the parents rather than on the attending physician.<ref name="aap1975" />
|date=2021-01-12
|accessdate=2021-10-17
}}</ref> Sidney S. Gellis, {{MD}} (1978) estimated that the number of deaths from infant circumcision exceeded the number of deaths from [[penile cancer]].<ref name="gellis1978">{{REFjournal
|last=Gellis
|first=
}}</ref>
David Grimes, {{MD}}, (1978), recognized the increasing controversy regarding the practice of non-therapeutic infant [[circumcision]]. Grimes discussed several concerns including:
* Irrational patient selection.
}}</ref>
Robert Leon Baker, {{MD}} (1979) estimated 229 [[Death| deaths ]] per year in the United States from circumcision complications.<ref name="baker1979">{{REFjournal
|last=Baker
|first=Robert L.
* attempting to shift responsibility for the performance of an injurious and harmful amputation from the medical operator to the parents.
The advocacy of [[circumcision ]] to prevent UTI spurred a debate in the medical literature until the AAP published a new statement in 1999 that softened the claims.
[[Charles A. Bonner|Bonner]] & Kinane (1989) discussed the legal and constitutional issues of non-therapeutic male circumcision under United States and California law.<ref name="bonner1989">{{REFjournal
}}</ref>
[[Robert S. Van Howe|Van Howe]] & [[J. Steven Svoboda|Svoboda]] (2013) criticized the 2012 AAP statement because it failed to include important points, in accurately inaccurately analyzed and interpret interpreted current medical literature, and made unsupported conclusions.<ref name="vanhowe2013">{{REFjournal
|last=Van Howe
|first=Robert S.