Abraham L. Wolbarst: Difference between revisions
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) Add Boczko & Stanley reference. |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Image:Abraham L. Wolbarst.jpg|right|thumb|Abraham Leo Wolbarst]] | [[Image:Abraham L. Wolbarst.jpg|right|thumb|Abraham Leo Wolbarst]] | ||
'''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 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 | 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 | ||
| Line 76: | Line 76: | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
== Myth: protection against penile cancer == | |||
Wolbarst was solely responsible for the invention of the myth that [[circumcision]] rendered males immune to [[penile cancer]].<ref name="Wolbarst 1932">{{REFjournal | |||
|last=Wolbarst | |||
|first=A.L. | |||
|author-link=Abraham L. Wolbarst | |||
|title=Circumcision and penile cancer | |||
|journal=Lancet | |||
|volume=1 | |||
|issue=5655 | |||
|date=1932-01-16 | |||
|pages=150-153 | |||
}}</ref> Wolbarst wrote an article that was published in ''The Lancet'' in 1932, implicating human male smegma as carcinogenic.<ref name="Wolbarst 1932"/> 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="Fleiss 1996">{{REFjournal | |||
|last=Fleiss | |||
|first=P.M. | |||
|author-link=Paul M. Fleiss | |||
|last2=Hodges | |||
|first2=F. | |||
|author2-link=Frederick M. Hodges | |||
|title=Neonatal circumcision does not protect against cancer | |||
|journal=BMJ | |||
|date=1996 | |||
|volume=312 | |||
|issue=7033 | |||
|pages=779-780 | |||
}}</ref> | |||
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.<ref name=" | 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.<ref name="Fleiss 1996"/> | ||
Boczko & Stanley (1979) collected numerous cases of cancer in circumcised men.<ref name="boczko1979">{{REFjournal | Boczko & Stanley (1979) collected numerous cases of cancer in circumcised men.<ref name="boczko1979">{{REFjournal | ||
|last=Boczko | |last=Boczko | ||
|first=Stanley | |first=Stanley | ||
|last2=Freed | |last2=Freed | ||
|first2=Selwyn | |first2=Selwyn | ||
|title= Penile carcinoma in circumcised males | |title= Penile carcinoma in circumcised males | ||
|journal=N Y State J Med | |journal=N Y State J Med | ||
|date=1979-11 | |date=1979-11 | ||
|volume=79 | |volume=79 | ||
| Line 98: | Line 116: | ||
|pages=1903-04 | |pages=1903-04 | ||
|url=http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/boczko/ | |url=http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/boczko/ | ||
|pubmedID=292845 | |pubmedID=292845 | ||
|accessdate=2020-04-02 | |accessdate=2020-04-02 | ||
}}</ref> 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> | }}</ref> 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>{{REFdocument | ||
|title=Third national cancer survey: incidence data. | |||
|url= | |||
|contribution= | |||
|last=Cutler S.J., Young J.L. Jr. | |||
|first= | |||
|publisher=US Dept of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service | |||
|location=Bethesda, Md. | |||
|format= | |||
|date=1975 | |||
|accessdate= | |||
}}</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>{{REFjournal | |||
|last=Maden | |||
|first=C. | |||
|last2=Sherman | |||
|first2=K.J. | |||
|last3=Beckman | |||
|first3=A.M. | |||
|last4=Hislop | |||
|first4=T.G. | |||
|last5=Teh | |||
|first5=C.Z. | |||
|last6=Ashley | |||
|first6=R.L. | |||
|etal=yes | |||
|title=History of circumcision, medical conditions, and sexual activity and risk of penile cancer | |||
|journal=JNCI | |||
|date=1993 | |||
|volume=85 | |||
|pages=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 | 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 | ||