16,679
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Insert references
The continuing practice of routine neonatal nonreligious circumcision represents an enigma, particularly in the United States. About 80 percent of the world's population do not practice circumcision, nor have they ever done so. Among the non-circumcising nations are Holland, Belgium, France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Scandinavia, Russia, China, and Japan. People employing circumcision do so either for "health" reasons or as a religious ritual practiced by Muslims, Jews, most black Africans, non-white Australians, and others.
Read [[Edward Wallerstein]]'s pioneering article here.<ref>{{REFjournal |last=Wallerstein |first=Edward |author-link= |etal=no |title=Circumcision: The Uniquely American Medical Enigma |trans-title= |language= |journal=Urol Clin North Am |location= |date=1985-02 |volume=12 |issue=1 |pages=123-32 |url=http://www.cirp.org/library/general/wallerstein/ |quote= |pubmedID=3883617 |pubmedCID= |DOI= |accessdate=2019-11-13{{Citation needed}}</ref>
The origin of the ritual practice is unknown. There is evidence of its performance in Israel in Neolithic times (with flint knives) at least 6000 years ago. Jews accept the Old Testament origin as a covenant between God and Abraham, although it is generally agreed that the practice of circumcision in Egypt predated the Abrahamic Covenant by centuries. Ritual Circumcision is not germane to this discussion except insofar as the surgical ritual impinges upon accepted medical practice.
Remondino was not the only one expounding such views. In 1911, Dr. Joseph Preuss, in a monumental tome, ''Biblical-Talmudic Medicine'', claimed that Jewish ritual circumcision endowed health benefits; his sole source was Remondino. Some espoused more extreme views; in 1910 an article in J.A.M.A. described a new circumcision clamp. The author/inventor claimed that with this device, the operation was so simple that men and women could now circumcise themselves.
In the 75-year period (1875 to 1950) there was virtually no opposition to routine circumcision in the United States. Instead there were many articles in medical journal journals and textbooks extolling the practice; the issue was ignored in the popular press. Yet in the more than a century of acceptance of routine circumcision in the English-speaking countries, from 1870 to the present, no other country adopted newborn circumcision.
The first serious questioning of the practice did not occur until late 1949 (in England with the publication of [[Douglas Gairdner|Gairdner]]'s "The Fate of the Foreskin." <ref name="gairdner1949">{{REFjournal |last=Gairdner |first=D.M. |title=The fate of the foreskin: a study of circumcision |journal=British Medical Journal |volume=2 |issue=4642 |pages=1433-1437 |url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2051968/pdf/brmedj03656-0009.pdf |quote= |pubmedID=15408299 |pubmedCID=2051968 |DOI=10.1136/bmj.2.4642.1433 |date=1949 |accessdate=2019-10-28}}</ref> 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 about circumcision were still unknown. This was followed by several critiques of circumcision such as those by Morgan (1965 <ref name="morgan1965">{{REFjournal |last=Morgan |first=W.K.C. |author-link= |title=The rape of the phallus |journal=JAMA |date=1965 |volume=193 |issue= |pages=123-4 |url=https://jamanetwork.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 |first=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 |author-link= |etal=no |title=Whither the foreskin? A consideration of routine neonatal circumcision. |trans-title= |language= |journal=JAMA |location= |date=1970-09-14 |volume=213 |issue=11 |pages=1853-8 |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">{{Template:Jakob_Øster_1968}}</ref> as did Reichelderfer and Fraga, who presented a comprehensive study of circumcision. Yet some physicians continued to support circumcision for surprising reasons. For example, Dr. Robert P. BolandBolande, 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 circumcision: "Little serious objection can actually be raised against circumcision since its adverse effects seem miniscule."<ref>{{REFjournal |last=Bolande |first=RP |author-link= |etal=no |title=Ritualistic surgery--circumcision and 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>
<!-- {{REF}} -->