Infection: Difference between revisions
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) →Circumcision infection actual facts: Add text and citation. |
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) →Infection myth: Revise text. |
||
| (2 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 83: | Line 83: | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
American parents may still be told this myth when doctors and/or hospitals | 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. | ||
==Circumcision infection actual facts== | ==Circumcision infection actual facts== | ||
| Line 558: | 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= | ||