Changes

|last=Wallerstein

|first=Edward

|author-link=

|etal=no

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

|title=The fate of the foreskin: a study of circumcision

|journal=British Medical Journal

}}</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

|author-link=

|title=The rape of the phallus

}}</ref> and 1967<ref name="morgan1967">{{REFjournal

|last=Morgan

|author-link=

|etal=No

|last=Preston

|first=E. Noel

|author-link=

|etal=no

}}</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. Bolande, writing in ''[[New England Journal of Medicine|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

|author-link=

|etal=no