Changes

The continuing practice of routine neonatal nonreligious circumcision represents an enigma, particularly in the United States. About 80 percent of the worldRead [[Edward Wallerstein]]'s population do not practice circumcision, nor have they ever done sopioneering article here. Among the non<ref name="wallerstein1985">{{REFjournal |last=Wallerstein |first=Edward |init=E |author-link=Edward Wallerstein |etal=no |title=Circumcision: The Uniquely American Medical Enigma |trans-title= |language= |journal=Urol Clin North Am |location= |date=1985-circumcising nations are Holland, Belgium, France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Scandinavia, the U02 |volume=12 |issue=1 |pages=123-32 |url=http://www.Scirp.S.R., China, and Japan. People employing circumcision do so either for "health" reasons or as a religious ritual practiced by Muslims, Jews, most black Africans, nonorg/library/general/wallerstein/ |quote= |pubmedID=3883617 |pubmedCID= |DOI= |accessdate=2019-11-white Australians, and others.13}}</ref>

Read The origin of the ritual practice is unknown. There is evidence of its performance in [[Israel]] in Neolithic times (with flint knives) at least 6,000 years ago. Jews accept the Old Testament origin as a covenant between God and Abraham (Genesis 17), although it is generally agreed that the practice of circumcision in Egypt predated the [[Edward WallersteinAbrahamic covenant]]'s pioneering article here: http://wwwby centuries.cirpRitual Circumcision is not germane to this discussion except insofar as the surgical ritual impinges upon accepted medical practice.org/library/general/wallerstein/

The origin So called "health" circumcision originated in the nineteenth century, when most diseases were of the ritual practice is unknownetiology. There is evidence Within the miasma of its performance in Israel in Neolithic times (with flint knives) at least 6000 years ago.38 Jews accept the Old Testament origin as a covenant between God myth and Abrahamignorance,18 although it is generally agreed a theory emerged that [[masturbation]] caused many and varied ills. It seemed logical to some physicians to perform genital surgery on both sexes to stop [[masturbation]]; the practice of major technique applied to males was [[circumcision ]]. This was especially true in Egypt predated the Abrahamic Covenant by centuries.55 Ritual Circumcision is not germane to this discussion except insofar English-speaking countries because it accorded with the mid-Victorian attitude toward sex as the surgical ritual impinges upon accepted medical practicesinful and debilitating.65

So called "The most prolific enumerator of the alleged health" benefits of [[circumcision originated in ]] was Dr. [[Peter Charles Remondino| P. C. Remondino]]. In 1891 this physician claimed that the nineteenth centurysurgery prevented or cured about a hundred ailments, including alcoholism, when most diseases were of unknown etiologyepilepsy, asthma, enuresis, hernia, gout, rectal prolapse, rheumatism, kidney disease, and so forth. Such ludicrous claims are still disseminated and possibly believed. Within The book was reprinted in 1974, without change, and the miasma Circulating Branch Catalogue of myth and ignorancethe New York Public Library (1983) listed the Remondino book, showing a theory emerged that masturbation caused many and varied illspublication date of 1974. It seemed logical to some physicians to perform genital surgery on both sexes to stop masturbation; the major technique applied to males was circumcision. This was especially true One physician, writing in ''Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality'' (1974), called the English-speaking countries because it accorded with the mid-Victorian attitude toward sex as sinful book "pertinent and debilitatingcarefully thought out.64"

The most prolific enumerator of Remondino was not the health benefits of circumcision was Dronly one expounding such views. P. C. Remondino.50 In 1891 this physician claimed that the surgery prevented or cured about a hundred ailments1911, including alcoholismDr. Joseph Preuss, epilepsyin a monumental tome, asthma''Biblical-Talmudic Medicine'', enuresis, hernia, gout, rectal prolapse, rheumatism, kidney disease, and so forthclaimed that Jewish ritual circumcision endowed health benefits; his sole source was Remondino. Such ludicrous claims are still disseminated and possibly believed. The book was reprinted Some espoused more extreme views; in 1910 an article in 1974, without change, and the Circulating Branch Catalogue of the New York Public Library (1983) listed the Remondino book, showing ''JAMA'' described a publication date of 1974new circumcision clamp. One physician, writing in Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality (1974)The author/inventor claimed that with this device, called the book "pertinent operation was so simple that men and carefully thought out."63women could now circumcise themselves!

Remondino In the 75-year period (1875 to 1950) there was not virtually no opposition to "routine" non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] in the only one expounding such views[[United States]]. In 1911, Dr. Joseph Preuss, Instead there were many articles in a monumental tome, Biblical-Talmudic Medicine, claimed that Jewish ritual circumcision endowed health benefitsmedical journals and textbooks extolling the practice; his sole source the issue was Remondino46 Some espoused more extreme views; ignored in 1910 an article the popular press. Yet in J.A.M.A. described the more than a new century of acceptance of [[Routine Infant Circumcision| routine circumcision clamp. The author/inventor claimed that with this device]] in the English-speaking countries, from 1870 to the operation was so simple that men and women could now circumcise themselvespresent, no other country adopted non-therapeutic newborn circumcision.30

In The first serious questioning of the 75-year period practice did not occur until late 1949 (1875 in England with the publication of [[Douglas Gairdner|Gairdner]]'s "The Fate of the Foreskin",<ref name="gairdner1949">{{GairdnerDM 1949}}</ref> which began to 1950) there was virtually no opposition to routine affect the practice of [[circumcision ]] in the [[United StatesKingdom]]. Instead there were many articles In 1963, an editorial in ''JAMA'' called the attitude of the medical journal profession paradoxical and confused, and textbooks extolling the practice; admitted that the facts about [[circumcision]] were still unknown.<ref>{{REFjournal |last=Shaw |first= |init=RA |author-link= |last2=Robertson |first2= |init2=WO |author2-link= |etal=no |title=Routine Circumcision: A Problem for Medicine |trans-title= |language= |journal=JAMA |location= |date=1963-08 |volume=106 |issue =2 |article= |page= |pages=216-7 |url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14056822/ |archived= |quote= |pubmedID=14056822 |pubmedCID= |DOI=10.1001/archpedi.1963.02080050218017 |doi= |accessdate=2023-10-20}}</ref> This was ignored in followed by several critiques of circumcision such as those by Morgan (1965)<ref name="morgan1965">{{REFjournal |last=Morgan |init=WKC |author-link= |title=The rape of the popular pressphallus |journal=JAMA |date=1965 |volume=193 |issue= |pages=123-4 |url=https://jamanetwork. Yet in com/journals/jama/article-abstract/656072 |quote= |pubmedID=14310332 |pubmedCID= |DOI=10.1001/jama.1965.03090030045013 |accessdate=2019-10-15}}</ref> and 1967<ref name="morgan1967">{{REFjournal |last=Morgan |init=WKC |author-link= |etal=No |title=Penile plunder |trans-title= |language= |journal=Med J Aust |location= |date=1967 |volume=1 |issue= |pages=1102-3 |url=http://www.cirp.org/library/general/morgan2/ |quote= |pubmedID=4226264 |pubmedCID= |DOI= |accessdate=2019-10-31}}</ref>) and Preston (1970)<ref>{{REFjournal |last=Preston |first=E. Noel |init=EN |author-link= |etal=no |title=Whither the more than a century of acceptance foreskin? A consideration of routine neonatal circumcision in the English. |trans-title= |language= |journal=JAMA |location= |date=1970-09-14 |volume=213 |issue=11 |pages=1853-speaking countries8 |url=http://www.cirp.org/library/general/preston/ |quote= |pubmedID= |pubmedCID= |DOI=10.1001/jama.213.11.1853 |accessdate=}}</ref>. In 1968 [[Jakob Øster|Øster]] confirmed [[Douglas Gairdner|Gairdner]]'s findings,<ref name="Øster1968">{{OesterJ 1968}}</ref> as did Reichelderfer and Fraga, from 1870 who presented a comprehensive study of circumcision. Yet some physicians continued to the presentsupport [[circumcision]] for surprising reasons. For example, Dr. Robert P. Bolande, writing in ''[[New England Journal of Medicine|The New England Journal of Medicine]]'' in 1969, compared circumcision with tonsillectomy, calling both procedures "ritualistic, " and "widely performed on a non-scientific basis." He opposed routine tonsillectomy but concluded vis-a-vis circumcision: "Little serious objection can actually be raised against circumcision since its adverse effects seem miniscule."<ref>{{REFjournal |last=Bolande |init=RP |author-link= |etal=no other country adopted newborn |title=Ritualistic surgery--circumcisionand tonsillectomy |trans-title= |language= |journal=N Engl J Med |location= |date=1969-03-13 |volume=280 |issue=11 |pages=591-6 |url=https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM196903132801105?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3Dpubmed |quote= |pubmedID=4885060 |pubmedCID= |DOI=10.1056/NEJM196903132801105 |accessdate=2019-11-13}}</ref>{{SEEALSO}}* [[United States of America]]{{REF}}

The first serious questioning of the practice did not occur until late 1949 (in England with the publication of Gairdner's "The Fate of the Foreskin."17 which began to affect the practice of circumcision by the British. In 1963, an editorial in J.A.M.A. called the attitude of the medical profession paradoxical and confused, and admitted that the facts [[Category:Film]][[Category:Film about circumcision were still unknown.14 This was followed by several critiques of circumcision such as those by Morgan (1965 and 1967)38 and Preston (1970).45 In 1968 Øster confirmed Gairdner's findings,42 as did Reichelderfer and Fraga,49 who presented a comprehensive study of circumcision. Yet some physicians continued to support circumcision for surprising reasons. For example, Dr. Robert P. Boland, writing in The New England Journal of Medicine in 1969, compared circumcision with tonsillectomy, calling both procedures "ritualistic," and "widely performed on a non-scientific basis." He opposed routine tonsillectomy but concluded vis-a-vis circumcisionintactivism]][[Category: "Little serious objection can actually be raised against circumcision since its adverse effects seem miniscule."5History]]

[[Category:Films about circumcision and intactivismFrom IntactWiki]]

[[Categoryde:From IntactWiki{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]