Doctors Group: AAP conflict of interest hampers honest circumcision policy

Quite true. But do you know why it became popular in the US for example?

The modern use of Hebrew circumcision as a medicalized practice dates from about 1865 in England and about 1870 in the US.10 The procedure accepted for medical use essentially was the Jewish peri'ah. Moscucci reports that circumcision was imposed in an attempt to prevent masturbation.15 Gollaher further describes the history of medicalized circumcision.10 No scientific studies were carried out to determine the efficacy and safety of circumcision prior to its introduction into medical practice,10 nor were any studies conducted to determine the social effects of imposing genital alteration surgery on a large portion of the population.

South Koreans started to circumcise children during the American trusteeship following World War II. The American cultural practice of circumcision became nearly universal in South Korea after the Korean War of 1950-52.24

In 1949, Gairdner wrote that circumcision was medically unnecessary and non-beneficial,3 and contraindicated because of complications and deaths.3 The British National Health Service (NHS) deleted non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision from the schedule of covered procedures in 1950. The incidence of neonatal circumcision in the United Kingdom declined sharply to a very low level after publication of this article after the procedure was delisted by the NHS.

America waited another 20 years before addressing the problem of non-therapeutic circumcision. The Journal of the American Medical Association published an influential landmark article by Dr. E. Noel Preston, Captain, MC, USAF.4 Dr. Preston established that there is no therapeutic or prophylactic benefit to circumcision. He also cited "undesirable psychologic, sexual, and medico-legal difficulties."4

Influenced by Preston, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), in 1971, issued a statement that "[t]here are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period."10 This marked the beginning of the end of America's infatuation with male circumcision. The incidence of male neonatal circumcision in the U.S. peaked in 1971 and began a slow decline that continues to the present day.

(Source)
​

Nice..

Non-religious circumcision in English-speaking countries arose in a climate of negative attitudes towards sex, especially concerning masturbation. In her 1978 article The Ritual of Circumcision,[11] Karen Erickson Paige writes: "In the United States, the current medical rationale for circumcision developed after the operation was in wide practice. The original reason for the surgical removal of the foreskin, or prepuce, was to control 'masturbatory insanity' - the range of mental disorders that people believed were caused by the 'polluting' practice of 'self-abuse.'"

"Self-abuse" was a term commonly used to describe masturbation in the 19th century. According to Paige, "treatments ranged from diet, moral exhortations, hydrotherapy, and marriage, to such drastic measures as surgery, physical restraints, frights, and punishment. Some doctors recommended covering the penis with plaster of Paris, leather, or rubber; cauterization; making boys wear chastity belts or spiked rings; and in extreme cases, castration." Paige details how circumcision became popular as a masturbation remedy:

"In the 1890s, it became a popular technique to prevent, or cure, masturbatory insanity. In 1891 the president of the Royal College of Surgeons of England published On Circumcision as Preventive of Masturbation, and two years later another British doctor wrote Circumcision: Its Advantages and How to Perform It, which listed the reasons for removing the 'vestigial' prepuce. Evidently the foreskin could cause 'nocturnal incontinence,' hysteria, epilepsy, and irritation that might 'give rise to erotic stimulation and, consequently, masturbation.' Another physician, P.C. Remondino, added that 'circumcision is like a substantial and well-secured life annuity...it insures better health, greater capacity for labor, longer life, less nervousness, sickness, loss of time, and less doctor bills.' No wonder it became a popular remedy." [12]
​

At the same time circumcisions were advocated on men, clitoridectomies (removal of the clitoris) were also performed for the same reason (to treat female masturbators). The US "Orificial Surgery Society" for female "circumcision" operated until 1925, and clitoridectomies and infibulations would continue to be advocated by some through the 1930s.

One of the leading advocates of circumcision was John Harvey Kellogg, who is well known for his pseudoscientific views on human sexuality. He advocated the consumption of Kellogg's corn flakes to prevent masturbation, and he believed that circumcision would be an effective way to eliminate masturbation in males.

"Covering the organs with a cage has been practiced with entire success. A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases. The soreness which continues for several weeks interrupts the practice, and if it had not previously become too firmly fixed, it may be forgotten and not resumed. If any attempt is made to watch the child, he should be so carefully surrounded by vigilance that he cannot possibly transgress without detection. If he is only partially watched, he soon learns to elude observation, and thus the effect is only to make him cunning in his vice." ​

​

(Source)
​

 

I didn't mean to be short Asguard. Kids have both been violently ill this past week and now I've come down with it as well. So my fuse is quite short at the moment.

And yes, I do think genital mutilation legislation should cover boys, as well as girls. Unless there is a medical reason for it, it should not be allowed.

 

I never would have pegged you as being so vain Sam. A surgical procedure on a baby boy, causing him immeasurable pain, just so that his penis will look aesthetically pleasing? Is it worth it? Is it worth doing that to a child?

[Deleted]

Do you think that child consented to it? Does that child look happy to you? So make a child suffer that much pain because you'd prefer that his "dick" does not look natural?

No offense, but there is nothing appealing about doing this to a child for purely cosmetic reasons. Your flippancy about this astounds me a bit to be honest.

 

Some facts about circumcision. Sobering thoughts.

http://www.infocirc.org/facts.htm

 

Actually, local anesthesia is rarely used due to the fact that it can and does cause local swelling and could cause further complications. It is being encouraged now because studies have found that newborns do feel pain, regardless of the complications it might cause. And no, that image is not pure propaganda. That is actually indicative of the type of pain newborns suffer during "routine" circumcisions. There is a move now to give pain relief, but that only lasts for a little while. Newborn babies cannot be given pain relief medication after the procedure, because they are so small. Not even paracetamol.

Different debate, but that picture actually looks like the birth of a fully developed fetus that has either gone wrong, or has severe defects. Twelve week old or even 22 week old fetuses do not actually look like that.