22,208
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
using Template:MD
== Circumcision as prevention myth==
The myth that circumcision rendered males immune to penile cancer was invented in 1932 by a New York doctor named [[Abraham L. Wolbarst]], M.D.{{MD}}<ref>Wolbarst, AL. Circumcision and penile cancer. ''Lancet'' 1932; 150-3.</ref> Wolbarst wrote an article that was published in ''The Lancet'' in 1932, implicating human male [[smegma]] as carcinogenic.<ref>Wolbarst A. Circumcision and Penile Cancer. ''The Lancet'', vol. 1 no. 5655 (January 16, 1932): pp. 150-153.</ref> His hypothesis had absolutely no basis in valid scientific and epidemiological research.<ref>Fleiss PM, Hodges F. [http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/fleiss/ Neonatal circumcision does not protect against cancer]. ''BMJ'' 1996;312(7033):779-80.</ref> Wolbarst was directly responsible for proliferation of this myth, and all subsequent repetitons of it can be traced to his opinion article, although Wolbarst himself advocated universal neonatal circumcision principally as a preventive for epilepsy, paralysis, and [[masturbation]].<ref>Fleiss PM, Hodges F. [http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/fleiss/ Neonatal circumcision does not protect against cancer]. ''BMJ'' 1996;312(7033):779-80.</ref>
Wolbarst's opinion piece led to the perpetuation of the myth that penile cancer could not happen to males that were circumcised in infancy. This myth was completely disproven when Boczko et al. (1979) reported the 9th documented case of penile cancer in a man who had been circumcised in infancy from the time of Wolbarst's opinion piece to the time of the report in 1968 (though they would maintain that "performing [circumcision] in infancy continues to be the most effective prophylactic measure against penile carcinoma").<ref name="boczko1979">Boczko S, Freed S. [http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/boczko/ Penile carcinoma in circumcised males]. ''N Y State J Med'' 1979; 79(12):1903-4.</ref> Boczko et al. (1979) wrote: ''"The diagnosis in our patient was made late, as in the other cases reported, perhaps because the disease was presumed not to occur in those circumcised in infancy. This is clearly not so. Although rare, the diagnosis must be considered when evaluating a penile lesion even in a circumcised individual."''