17,131
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
Italicise.
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 Infant Circumcision| 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">{{GairdnerDM 1949}}</ref> which began to affect the practice of [[circumcision by ]] in the British[[United Kingdom]]. In 1963, an editorial in ''J.A.M.A.JAMA'' 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
|DOI=10.1001/jama.213.11.1853
|accessdate=
}}</ref>. 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 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
|init=RP