22,335
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
using template :GairdnerDM1949
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 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 |init=DM |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=2019-10-28GairdnerDM1949}}</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
|init=WKC