17,131
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Add section; revise text.
<youtube>ajP8pMBYBhI</youtube>
<br>
== Discussion ==
The continuing practice of [[Routine Infant Circumcision| routine]] neonatal nonreligious [[circumcision]] represents an enigma, particularly in the [[United States]]. About 80 percent of the world's population do not practice circumcision, nor have they ever done so. Among the non-circumcising nations are Holland, Belgium, France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Scandinavia, Russia, China, and Japan. People employing circumcision do so either for "health" reasons or as a religious ritual practiced by Muslims, Jews, most black Africans, non-white Australians, and others.
The most prolific enumerator of the alleged health benefits of [[circumcision]] was Dr. [[Peter Charles Remondino| P. C. Remondino]]. In 1891 this physician claimed that the surgery prevented or cured about a hundred ailments, including alcoholism, epilepsy, asthma, enuresis, hernia, gout, rectal prolapse, rheumatism, kidney disease, and so forth. Such ludicrous claims are still disseminated and possibly believed. The book was reprinted in 1974, without change, and the Circulating Branch Catalogue of the New York Public Library (1983) listed the Remondino book, showing a publication date of 1974. One physician, writing in ''Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality'' (1974), called the book "pertinent and carefully thought out."
Remondino was not the only one expounding such views. In 1911, Dr. Joseph Preuss, in a monumental tome, ''Biblical-Talmudic Medicine'', claimed that Jewish ritual circumcision endowed health benefits; his sole source was Remondino. Some espoused more extreme views; in 1910 an article in J.A.M.A. ''JAMA'' described a new circumcision clamp. The author/inventor claimed that with this device, the operation was so simple that men and women could now circumcise themselves.!
In the 75-year period (1875 to 1950) there was virtually no opposition to "routine " non-therapeutic [[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]] in the [[United Kingdom]]. In 1963, an editorial in ''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