Changes

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 non-therapeutic 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. <ref>{{REFjournal |last=Shaw |first= |init=RA |author-link= |last2=Robertson |first2= |init2=WO |author2-link= |etal=no |title=Routine Circumcision: A Problem for Medicine |trans-title= |language= |journal=JAMA |location= |date=1963-08 |volume=106 |issue=2 |article= |page= |pages=216-7 |url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14056822/ |archived= |quote= |pubmedID=14056822 |pubmedCID= |DOI=10.1001/archpedi.1963.02080050218017 |doi= |accessdate=2023-10-20}}</ref> This was followed by several critiques of circumcision such as those by Morgan (1965)<ref name="morgan1965">{{REFjournal