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 most prolific enumerator of the ritual practice is unknownalleged health benefits of [[circumcision]] was Dr. [[Peter Charles Remondino| P. C. There is evidence of its performance in Israel in Neolithic times (with flint knives) at least 6000 years agoRemondino]]. Jews accept In 1891 this physician claimed that the Old Testament origin as surgery prevented or cured about a covenant between God hundred ailments, including alcoholism, epilepsy, asthma, enuresis, hernia, gout, rectal prolapse, rheumatism, kidney disease, and so forth. Such ludicrous claims are still disseminated and Abrahampossibly believed. The book was reprinted in 1974, without change, although it is generally agreed that and the practice Circulating Branch Catalogue of circumcision in Egypt predated the Abrahamic Covenant by centuriesNew York Public Library (1983) listed the Remondino book, showing a publication date of 1974. Ritual Circumcision is not germane to this discussion except insofar as One physician, writing in ''Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality'' (1974), called the surgical ritual impinges upon accepted medical practicebook "pertinent and carefully thought out."

So called "health" circumcision originated in Remondino was not the nineteenth centuryonly one expounding such views. In 1911, when most diseases were of unknown etiologyDr. Within the miasma of myth and ignoranceJoseph Preuss, in a theory emerged monumental tome, ''Biblical-Talmudic Medicine'', claimed that masturbation caused many and varied illsJewish ritual circumcision endowed health benefits; his sole source was Remondino. It seemed logical to some physicians to perform genital surgery on both sexes to stop masturbationSome espoused more extreme views; the major technique applied to males was in 1910 an article in ''JAMA'' described a new circumcisionclamp. This was especially true in the English-speaking countries because it accorded The author/inventor claimed that with this device, the mid-Victorian attitude toward sex as sinful operation was so simple that men and debilitating.women could now circumcise themselves!

The most prolific enumerator of In the health benefits of 75-year period (1875 to 1950) there was virtually no opposition to "routine" non-therapeutic [[circumcision was Dr. P. C. Remondino. In 1891 this physician claimed that ]] in the surgery prevented or cured about a hundred ailments, including alcoholism, epilepsy, asthma, enuresis, hernia, gout, rectal prolapse, rheumatism, kidney disease, and so forth[[United States]]. Such ludicrous claims are still disseminated Instead there were many articles in medical journals and possibly believed. The book textbooks extolling the practice; the issue was reprinted ignored in 1974, without change, and the Circulating Branch Catalogue of popular press. Yet in the New York Public Library (1983) listed the Remondino book, showing more than a publication date century of 1974. One physician, writing acceptance of [[Routine Infant Circumcision| routine circumcision]] in Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality (1974)the English-speaking countries, called from 1870 to the book "pertinent and carefully thought outpresent, no other country adopted non-therapeutic newborn circumcision."

Remondino was 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">{{GairdnerDM 1949}}</ref> which began to affect the only one expounding such viewspractice of [[circumcision]] in the [[United Kingdom]]. In 1911, Dr. Joseph Preuss1963, an editorial in a monumental tome''JAMA'' called the attitude of the medical profession paradoxical and confused, Biblicaland admitted that the facts about [[circumcision]] were still unknown.<ref>{{REFjournal |last=Shaw |first= |init=RA |author-Talmudic link= |last2=Robertson |first2= |init2=WO |author2-link= |etal=no |title=Routine Circumcision: A Problem for Medicine, claimed that Jewish ritual |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 followed by several critiques of circumcision endowed health benefits; his sole source was Remondino46 Some espoused more extreme views; in 1910 an such as those by Morgan (1965)<ref name="morgan1965">{{REFjournal |last=Morgan |init=WKC |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 in -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 JAust |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 foreskin? Aconsideration 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.M11.A1853 |accessdate=}}</ref>. described In 1968 [[Jakob Øster|Øster]] confirmed [[Douglas Gairdner|Gairdner]]'s findings,<ref name="Øster1968">{{OesterJ 1968}}</ref> as did Reichelderfer and Fraga, who presented a new comprehensive study of circumcision. Yet some physicians continued to support [[circumcision clamp]] for surprising reasons. For example, Dr. Robert P. Bolande, writing in ''[[New England Journal of Medicine|The author/inventor claimed that New England Journal of Medicine]]'' in 1969, compared circumcision with this devicetonsillectomy, the operation was so simple that men 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 |title=Ritualistic surgery--circumcision and women could now circumcise themselvestonsillectomy |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>

The first serious questioning of the practice did not occur until late 1949 (in England with the publication of [[Douglas Gairdner|GairdnerCategory:Film]]'s "The Fate of the Foreskin." 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 about circumcision were still unknown. This was followed by several critiques of circumcision such as those by Morgan (1965 and 1967) and Preston (1970). In 1968 Øster confirmed intactivism]][[Douglas Gairdner|GairdnerCategory:History]]'s findings, 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. 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 circumcision: "Little serious objection can actually be raised against circumcision since its adverse effects seem miniscule."

<!-- {{REF}} --> [[Category:Film]][[Category:Films about circumcision and intactivismUSA]]