Infection: Difference between revisions
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) |
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) →Infection myth: Revise text. |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
When American surgeons are seeking [[informed consent]] for the [[amputation]] of the [[foreskin]], they [[Informed_consent#Physician_behavior| customarily omit information]] about the [[immunological and protective function of the foreskin]], and which will be destroyed and will result in increased risk of infection, from the information provided to parents. | When American surgeons are seeking [[informed consent]] for the [[amputation]] of the [[foreskin]], they [[Informed_consent#Physician_behavior| customarily omit information]] about the [[immunological and protective function of the foreskin]], and which will be destroyed and will result in increased risk of infection, from the information provided to parents. | ||
==Infection myth== | ==Infection myth== | ||
There is a myth prevalent and widely believed in the [[United States]] that the human [[foreskin]] is prone to infection. The myth is false and is caused by antiquated, incorrect medical information that was published | There is a myth prevalent and widely believed in the [[United States]] that the human [[foreskin]] is prone to infection. The myth is false and is caused by antiquated, incorrect medical information that was published more than a century ago by a [[Circumcised doctors| circumcised Jewish doctor]], [[Abraham L. Wolbarst]], with an ulterior motive.<ref name="wolbarst1914">{{REFjournal | ||
|last=Wolbarst | |last=Wolbarst | ||
|first=Abraham L. | |first=Abraham L. | ||
| Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
|url=https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/453164 | |url=https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/453164 | ||
|accessdate=2020-03-30 | |accessdate=2020-03-30 | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> a later 1945 government document advised the foreskin should be retracted, and the area washed, which actually provides an entryway for infection.<ref>{{REFbook | ||
|last=Anonymous | |last=Anonymous | ||
|first= | |first= | ||
| Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
|publisher=Federal Security Agency | |publisher=Federal Security Agency | ||
|ISBN= | |ISBN= | ||
|quote=In a boy the foreskin should be pushed up so the tip of the penis can be cleaned. This can be done by putting two fingers on the penis and pushing the foreskin away from the tip, much as you would work your finger into a snug glove. Clean the part of the penis under the foreskin with cotton dipped in clear water or in oil. Then gently pull the foreskin back into place. The foreskin should never be left pushed up after cleaning. | |quote=In a boy the foreskin should be pushed up, so the tip of the penis can be cleaned. This can be done by putting two fingers on the penis and pushing the foreskin away from the tip, much as you would work your finger into a snug glove. Clean the part of the penis under the foreskin with cotton dipped in clear water or in oil. Then gently pull the foreskin back into place. The foreskin should never be left pushed up after cleaning. | ||
|accessdate=2026-03-11 | |accessdate=2026-03-11 | ||
|note= | |note= | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
==Circumcision infection== | American parents may still be told this ancient myth when doctors and/or hospitals fish for an additional [[Financial incentive| fee]] for a medically-unnecessary, harmful [[circumcision]] of a newborn son. | ||
Neonatal [[circumcision]] is an elective, medically-unnecessary, non-therapeutic [[amputation]] of the healthy [[foreskin]] that is done only after parents sign a [[circumcision consent form]]. It exposes an infant to surgical risks, but does not treat or prevent disease.<ref name="deacon2022">{{REFjournal | |||
==Circumcision infection actual facts== | |||
The [[foreskin]], like the eyelid, also serves an important [[Foreskin#Immunological_functions| protective and hygienic function]]. The [[foreskin]] provides physical protection of the delicate [[glans]] of the [[penis]] and puts the [[urethra]] at a distance from its environment, protecting it from foreign pathogens and contaminants of all kinds while simultaneously shielding the [[penis]] from traumatic injury.<ref name="fleiss-hodges-vanhowe1998">{{FleissP HodgesF VanHoweRS 1998}}</ref> [[Amputation]] of the protective foreskin by circumcision increases risk of infection. | |||
Neonatal [[circumcision]] is an elective, medically-unnecessary, non-therapeutic, harmful [[amputation]] of the healthy [[foreskin]] that is done only after parents sign a [[circumcision consent form]]. It exposes an infant to surgical risks, but does not treat or prevent disease.<ref name="deacon2022">{{REFjournal | |||
|last=Deacon | |last=Deacon | ||
|first=Matthew | |first=Matthew | ||
| Line 101: | Line 105: | ||
|DOI=10.1038/s41443-021-00502-y | |DOI=10.1038/s41443-021-00502-y | ||
|accessdate=2022-02-02 | |accessdate=2022-02-02 | ||
}}</ref> Circumcision is a surgical operation and [[amputation]] that creates an open surgical wound on the [[penis]] that is kept inside a feces-laden diaper. [[Rosemary Romberg]] (2021) described infection as a "fairly common complication."<ref name="romberg2021">{{REFbook | }}</ref> Circumcision is a harmful, injurious surgical operation and [[amputation]] that creates an open surgical wound on the [[penis]] that is kept inside a feces-laden diaper. [[Rosemary Romberg]] (2021) described infection as a "fairly common complication."<ref name="romberg2021">{{REFbook | ||
|last=Romberg | |last=Romberg | ||
|first=Rosemary | |first=Rosemary | ||
| Line 302: | Line 306: | ||
|url=http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/kaplan/#n62 | |url=http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/kaplan/#n62 | ||
|accessdate=2020-06-15 | |accessdate=2020-06-15 | ||
}}</ref> | |||
Fendereski et al. (2024) reported a massive study using data from a private insurance company database that found that [[circumcised]] boys have three times as many penile issues as compared with [[intact]] boys through age 5. This study matched 852,051 [[circumcised]] boys with 852,051 [[intact]] boys who served as controls.<ref name=fendereski2024">{{REFjournal | |||
|last=Fendereski | |||
|first= | |||
|init=K | |||
|author-link= | |||
|last2=Horns | |||
|first2= | |||
|init2=JJ | |||
|author2-link= | |||
|last3=Driggs | |||
|first3= | |||
|init3=N | |||
|author3-link= | |||
|last4=Lau | |||
|first4= | |||
|init4=G | |||
|author4-link= | |||
|last5=Shaeffer | |||
|first5= | |||
|init5=AJ | |||
|author5-link= | |||
|etal=no | |||
|title=Comparing Penile Problems in Circumcised vs. Uncircumcised Boys: Insights From a Large Commercial Claims Database With a Focus on Provider Type Performing Circumcision | |||
|trans-title= | |||
|language= | |||
|journal=J Pediatr Surg | |||
|date=2024-11 | |||
|volume=59 | |||
|issue=11 | |||
|article=161614 | |||
|url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S002234682400407X | |||
|archived= | |||
|quote= | |||
|pubmedID=39084960 | |||
|pubmedCID=11486584 | |||
|DOI=10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2024.06.022 | |||
|accessdate=2026-03-11 | |||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
| Line 515: | Line 558: | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
Curran & Al-Salihi (1980) reported an outbreak of staphylococcal scalded skin syndrome (SSSS) at the Margaret Hague Maternity Hospital in Jersey City, New Jersey. The outbreak affected 68 newborns over a 115 day period. The male to female ratio was 5.5 to one, which clearly indicated that the circumcision wound in boys was the entry point for the infection in most cases. The infants had generalized exfoliative disease with loses of large patches of skin. No deaths were reported.<ref name="curran1980">{{REFjournal | Curran & Al-Salihi (1980) reported an outbreak of staphylococcal scalded skin syndrome (SSSS) at the [https://njcu.libguides.com/margarethague Margaret Hague Maternity Hospital] in Jersey City, New Jersey. The outbreak affected 68 newborns over a 115 day period. The male to female ratio was 5.5 to one, which clearly indicated that the [[circumcision]] wound in boys was the entry point for the infection in most cases. The infants had generalized exfoliative disease with loses of large patches of skin. No deaths were reported.<ref name="curran1980">{{REFjournal | ||
|last=Curran | |last=Curran | ||
|first= | |first= | ||