|

Circumcision Decision
* I fianlly came across an article that actually summed up everything one needs to know about circumcision. We chose not to circumcise for many reason but the ones listed are right up there at the top.
So please read through this very well articulated, well researched, and well written article about circumcision's history, myths, and medical research.*
The Case Against Circumcision
Paul M. Fleiss, MD
Paul M. Fleiss, MD, MPH, is assistant clinical professor of pediatrics
at the University of Southern California Medical Center. He is the
author of numerous scientific articles published in leading national
and international medical journals.
Published in Mothering: The Magazine of Natural Family Living, Winter
1997, pp. 36--45.
Created as a Mothers Against
Circumcision Web Page w/express permission from the author and
Mothering.
"Routine circumcision of babies in the United States did not begin until
the Cold War era. Circumcision is almost unheard of in Europe, Southern America,
and non-Muslim Asia. In fact, only 10 to 15 percent of men throughout the
world are circumcised."
"The natural penis requires no special care. A child's foreskin, like his
eyelids, is self-cleansing. Forcibly retracting a baby's foreskin can lead
to irritation and infection. The best way to care for a child's intact penis
is to leave it alone."
The Foreskin Is Necessary
By Paul M. Fleiss, MD, MPH
Western countries have no tradition of circumcision.
In antiquity, the expansion of the Greek and Roman Empires brought Westerners
into contact with the peoples of the Middle East, some of whom marked their
children with circumcision and other sexual mutilations. To protect these
children, the Greeks and Romans passed laws forbidding circumcision.1 Over
the centuries, the Catholic Church has passed many similar laws.2,3 The
traditional Western response to circumcision has been revulsion and indignation.
Circumcision started in America during the
masturbation hysteria of the Victorian Era, when a few American doctors
circumcised boys to punish them for masturbating. Victorian doctors knew
very well that circumcision denudes, desensitizes, and disables the penis.
Nevertheless, they were soon claiming that circumcision cured epilepsy,
convulsions, paralysis, elephantiasis, tuberculosis, eczema, bed-wetting,
hip-joint disease, fecal incontinence, rectal prolapse, wet dreams, hernia,
headaches, nervousness, hysteria, poor eyesight, idiocy, mental retardation,
and insanity.4
In fact, no procedure in the history of medicine
has been claimed to cure and prevent more diseases than circumcision. As
late as the 1970s, leading American medical textbooks still advocated routine
circumcision as a way to prevent masturbation.5 The antisexual motivations
behind an operation that entails cutting off part of the penis are obvious.
The radical practice of routinely circumcising
babies did not begin until the Cold War era. This institutionalization of
what amounted to compulsory circumcision was part of the same movement that
pathologized and medicalized birth and actively discouraged breastfeeding.
Private-sector, corporate-run hospitals institutionalized routine circumcision
without ever consulting the American people. There was no public debate or
referendum. It was only in the 1970s that a series of lawsuits forced hospitals
to obtain parental consent to perform this contraindicated but highly profitable
surgery. Circumcisers responded by inventing new "medical" reasons for
circumcision in an attempt to scare parents into consenting.
Today the reasons given for circumcision have
been updated to play on contemporary fears and anxieties; but one day they,
too, will be considered irrational. Now that such current excuses as the
claim that this procedure prevents cancer and sexually transmitted diseases
have been thoroughly discredited, circumcisers will undoubtedly invent new
ones. But if circumcisers were really motivated by purely medical considerations,
the procedure would have died out long ago, along with leeching, skull-drilling,
and castration. The fact that it has not suggests that the compulsion to
circumcise came first, the "reasons," later.
Millions of years of evolution have fashioned
the human body into a model of refinement, elegance, and efficiency, with
every part having a function and purpose. Evolution has determined that mammals'
genitals should be sheathed in a protective, responsive, multipurpose foreskin.
Every normal human being is born with a foreskin. In females, it protects
the glans of the clitoris; in males, it protects the glans of the penis.
Thus, the foreskin is an essential part of human sexual anatomy.
Parents should enjoy the arrival of a new child
with as few worries as possible. The birth of a son in the US, however, is
often fraught with anxiety and confusion. Most parents are pressured to hand
their baby sons over to a stranger, who, behind closed doors, straps babies
down and cuts their foreskins off. The billion-dollar-a-year circumcision
industry has bombarded Americans with confusing rhetoric and calculated scare
tactics.
Information about the foreskin itself is
almost always missing from discussions about circumcision. The mass circumcision
campaigns of the past few decades have resulted in pandemic ignorance about
this remarkable structure and its versatile role in human sexuality. Ignorance
and false information about the foreskin are the rule in American medical
literature, education, and practice. Most American medical textbooks depict
the human penis, without explanation, as circumcised, as if it were so by
nature.
What Is the Foreskin?
The foreskin is a uniquely specialized, sensitive,
functional organ of touch. No other part of the body serves the same purpose.
As a modified extension of the penile shaft skin, the foreskin covers and
usually extends beyond the glans before folding under itself and finding
its circumferential point of attachment just behind the corona (the rim of
the glans). The foreskin is, therefore, a double-layered organ. Its true
length is twice the length of its external fold and comprises as much as
80 percent or more of the penile skin covering.6,7
The foreskin contains a rich concentration
of blood vessels and nerve endings. It is lined with the peripenic muscle
sheet, a smooth muscle layer with longitudinal fibers. These muscle fibers
are whirled, forming a kind of sphincter that ensures optimum protection
of the urinary tract from contaminants of all kinds.
Like the undersurface of the eyelids or the inside
of the cheek, the undersurface of the foreskin consists of mucous membrane.
It is divided into two distinct zones: the soft mucosa and the ridged mucosa.
The soft mucosa lies against the glans penis and contains ectopic sebaceous
glands that secrete emollients, lubricants, and protective antibodies. Similar
glands are found in the eyelids and mouth.
Adjacent to the soft mucosa and just behind the
lips of the foreskin is the ridged mucosa. This exquisitely sensitive structure
consists of tightly pleated concentric bands, like the elastic bands at the
top of a sock. These expandable pleats allow the foreskin lips to open and
roll back, exposing the glans. The ridged mucosa gives the foreskin its
characteristic taper.
On the underside of the glans, the foreskin's
point of attachment is advanced toward the meatus (urethral opening) and
forms a bandlike ligament called the frenulum. It is identical to the frenulum
that secures the tongue to the floor of the mouth. The foreskin's frenulum
holds it in place over the glans, and, in conjunction with the smooth muscle
fibers, helps return the retracted foreskin to its usual forward position
over the glans.
Retraction of the Foreskin
At birth, the foreskin is usually attached to
the glans, very much as a fingernail is attached to a finger. By puberty,
the penis will usually have completed its development, and the foreskin will
have separated from the glans.8 This separation occurs in its own time; there
is no set age by which the foreskin and glans must be separated. One wise
doctor described the process thus, "The foreskin therefore can be likened
to a rosebud which remains closed and muzzled. Like a rosebud, it will only
blossom when the time is right. No one opens a rosebud to make it blossom."9
Even if the glans and foreskin separate naturally
in infancy, the foreskin lips can normally dilate only enough to allow the
passage of urine. This ideal feature protects the glans from premature exposure
to the external environment.
The penis develops naturally throughout childhood.
Eventually, the child will, on his own, make the wondrous discovery that
his foreskin will retract. There is no reason for parents, physicians, or
other caregivers to manipulate a child's penis. The only person to retract
a child's foreskin should be the child himself, when he has discovered that
his foreskin is ready to retract.
Parents should be wary of anyone who tries to
retract their child's foreskin, and especially wary of anyone who wants to
cut it off.
Human
foreskins are in great demand for any number of commercial enterprises, and
the marketing of purloined baby foreskins is a multimillion-dollar- a-year
industry. Pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies use human foreskins
as research material. Corporations such as Advanced Tissue Sciences,
Organogenesis, and BioSurface Technology use human foreskins as the raw materials
for a type of breathable bandage.10
What Are the Foreskin's Functions?
The foreskin has numerous protective, sensory,
and sexual functions.
-
Protection: Just as the eyelids protect the eyes, the foreskin protects
the glans and keeps its surface soft, moist, and sensitive. It also maintains
optimal warmth, pH balance, and cleanliness. The glans itself contains no
sebaceous glands-glands that produce the sebum, or oil, that moisturizes
our skin.11 The foreskin produces the sebum that maintains proper health
of the surface of the glans.
-
Immunological Defense: The mucous membranes that line all body orifices
are the body's first line of immunological defense. Glands in the foreskin
produce antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as lysozyme.12 Lysozyme
is also found in tears and mother's milk. Specialized epithelial Langerhans
cells, an immune system component, abound in the foreskin's outer surface.13
Plasma cells in the foreskin's mucosal lining secrete immunoglobulins, antibodies
that defend against infection.14
-
Erogenous Sensitivity: The foreskin is as sensitive as the fingertips
or the lips of the mouth. It contains a richer variety and greater concentration
of specialized nerve receptors than any other part of the penis.15 These
specialized nerve endings can discern motion, subtle changes in temperature,
and fine gradations of texture.16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23
-
Coverage During Erection: As it becomes erect, the penile shaft becomes
thicker and longer. The double-layered foreskin provides the skin necessary
to accommodate the expanded organ and to allow the penile skin to glide freely,
smoothly, and pleasurably over the shaft and glans.
-
Self-Stimulating Sexual Functions: The foreskin's double-layered sheath
enables the penile shaft skin to glide back and forth over the penile shaft.
The foreskin can normally be slipped all the way, or almost all the way,
back to the base of the penis, and also slipped forward beyond the glans.
This wide range of motion is the mechanism by which the penis and the orgasmic
triggers in the foreskin, frenulum, and glans are stimulated.
-
Sexual Functions in Intercourse: One of the foreskin's functions is
to facilitate smooth, gentle movement between the mucosal surfaces of the
two partners during intercourse. The foreskin enables the penis to slip in
and out of the vagina nonabrasively inside its own slick sheath of
self-lubricating, movable skin. The female is thus stimulated by moving pressure
rather than by friction only, as when the male's foreskin is missing.
-
The foreskin fosters intimacy between the two partners by enveloping the
glans and maintaining it as an internal organ. The sexual experience
is enhanced when the foreskin slips back to allow the male's internal organ,
the glans, to meet the female's internal organ, the cervix-a moment of supreme
intimacy and beauty.
The foreskin may have functions not yet recognized
or understood. Scientists in Europe recently detected estrogen receptors
in its basal epidermal cells.24 Researchers at the University of Manchester
found that the human foreskin has apocrine glands.25 These specialized glands
produce pheromones, nature's chemical messengers. Further studies are needed
to fully understand these features of the foreskin and the role they play.
Care of the Foreskin
The natural penis requires no special care. A
child's foreskin, like his eyelids, is self-cleansing. For the same reason
it is inadvisable to lift the eyelids and wash the eyeballs, it is inadvisable
to retract a child's foreskin and wash the glans. Immersion in plain water
during the bath is all that is needed to keep the intact penis clean.26
The white emollient under the child's foreskin
is called smegma. Smegma is probably the most misunderstood, most unjustifiably
maligned substance in nature. Smegma is clean, not dirty, and is beneficial
and necessary. It moisturizes the glans and keeps it smooth, soft, and supple.
Its antibacterial and antiviral properties keep the penis clean and healthy.
All mammals produce smegma. Thomas J. Ritter, MD, underscored its importance
when he commented, "The animal kingdom would probably cease to exist without
smegma."27
Studies suggest that it is best not to use soap
on the glans or foreskin's inner fold.28 Forcibly retracting and washing
a baby's foreskin destroys the beneficial bacterial flora that protect the
penis from harmful germs and can lead to irritation and infection. The best
way to care for a child's intact penis is to leave it alone. After puberty,
males can gently rinse their glans and foreskin with warm water, according
to their own self-determined needs.
How Common Is Circumcision?
Circumcision is almost unheard of in Europe, South
America, and non-Muslim Asia. In fact, only 10 to 15 percent of men throughout
the world are circumcised, the vast majority of whom are Muslim.29 The neonatal
circumcision rate in the western US has now fallen to 34.2 percent.30 This
relatively diminished rate may surprise American men born during the era
when nearly 90 percent of baby boys were circumcised automatically, with
or without their parents' consent.
How Does Circumcision Harm?
The "medical" debate about the "potential health
benefits" of circumcision rarely addresses its real effects.
-
Circumcision denudes: Depending on the amount of skin cut off,
circumcision robs a male of as much as 80 percent or more of his penile skin.
Depending on the foreskin's length, cutting it off makes the penis as much
as 25 percent or more shorter. Careful anatomical investigations have shown
that circumcision cuts off more than 3 feet of veins, arteries, and capillaries,
240 feet of nerves, and more than 20,000 nerve endings.31 The foreskin's
muscles, glands, mucous membrane, and epithelial tissue are destroyed, as
well.
-
Circumcision desensitizes: Circumcision desensitizes the penis radically.
Foreskin amputation means severing the rich nerve network and all the nerve
receptors in the foreskin itself. Circumcision almost always damages or destroys
the frenulum. The loss of the protective foreskin desensitizes the glans.
Because the membrane covering the permanently externalized glans is now subjected
to constant abrasion and irritation, it keratinizes, becoming dry and tough.
The nerve endings in the glans, which in the intact penis are just beneath
the surface of the mucous membrane, are now buried by successive layers of
keratinization. The denuded glans takes on a dull, grayish, sclerotic appearance.
-
Circumcision disables: The amputation of so much penile skin permanently
immobilizes whatever skin remains, preventing it from gliding freely over
the shaft and glans. This loss of mobility destroys the mechanism by which
the glans is normally stimulated. When the circumcised penis becomes erect,
the immobilized remaining skin is stretched, sometimes so tightly that not
enough skin is left to cover the erect shaft. Hair-bearing skin from the
groin and scrotum is often pulled onto the shaft, where hair is not normally
found. The surgically externalized mucous membrane of the glans has no sebaceous
glands. Without the protection and emollients of the foreskin, it dries out,
making it susceptible to cracking and bleeding.
-
Circumcision disfigures: Circumcision alters the appearance of the
penis drastically. It permanently externalizes the glans, normally an internal
organ. Circumcision leaves a large circumferential surgical scar on the penile
shaft. Because circumcision usually necessitates tearing the foreskin from
the glans, pieces of the glans may be torn off, too, leaving it pitted and
scarred. Shreds of foreskin may adhere to the raw glans, forming tags and
bridges of dangling, displaced skin.32
Depending on the amount of skin cut off and how
the scar forms, the circumcised penis may be permanently twisted, or curve
or bow during erection.33 The contraction of the scar tissue may pull the
shaft into the abdomen, in effect shortening the penis or burying it
completely.34
-
Circumcision disrupts circulation: Circumcision interrupts the normal
circulation of blood throughout the penile skin system and glans. The blood
flowing into major penile arteries is obstructed by the line of scar tissue
at the point of incision, creating backflow instead of feeding the branches
and capillary networks beyond the scar. Deprived of blood, the meatus may
contract and scarify, obstructing the flow of urine.35 This condition, known
as meatal stenosis, often requires corrective surgery. Meatal stenosis is
found almost exclusively among boys who have been circumcised.
Circumcision also severs the lymph vessels,
interrupting the circulation of lymph and sometimes causing lymphedema, a
painful, disfiguring condition in which the remaining skin of the penis swells
with trapped lymph fluid.
-
Circumcision harms the developing brain: Recent studies published
in leading medical journals have reported that circumcision has long-lasting
detrimental effects on the developing brain,36 adversely altering the brain's
perception centers. Circumcised boys have a lower pain threshold than girls
or intact boys.37 Developmental neuropsychologist Dr. James Prescott suggests
that circumcision can cause deeper and more disturbing levels of neurological
damage, as well. 38, 39
-
Circumcision is unhygienic and unhealthy: One of the most common myths
about circumcision is that it makes the penis cleaner and easier to take
care of. This is not true. Eyes without eyelids would not be cleaner; neither
would a penis without its foreskin. The artificially externalized glans and
meatus of the circumcised penis are constantly exposed to abrasion and dirt,
making the circumcised penis, in fact, more unclean. The loss of the protective
foreskin leaves the urinary tract vulnerable to invasion by bacterial and
viral pathogens.
The circumcision wound is larger than most people
imagine. It is not just the circular point of union between the outer and
inner layers of the remaining skin. Before a baby is circumcised, his foreskin
must be torn from his glans, literally skinning it alive. This creates a
large open area of raw, bleeding flesh, covered at best with a layer of
undeveloped proto-mucosa. Germs can easily enter the damaged tissue and
bloodstream through the raw glans and, even more easily, through the incision
itself.
Even after the wound has healed, the externalized
glans and meatus are still forced into constant unnatural contact with urine,
feces, chemically treated diapers, and other contaminants.
Female partners of circumcised men do not report
a lower rate of cervical cancer,40 nor does circumcision prevent penile cancer.41
A recent study shows that the penile cancer rate is higher in the US than
in Denmark, where circumcision, except among Middle-Eastern immigrant workers,
is almost unheard of.42 Indeed, researchers should investigate the possibility
that circumcision has actually increased the rate of these diseases.
Circumcision does not prevent acquisition or
transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). In fact, the US has
both the highest percentage of sexually active circumcised males in the Western
world and the highest rates of sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS.
Rigorously controlled prospective studies show that circumcised American
men are at a greater risk for bacterial and viral STDs, especially gonorrhea,43
nongonoccal urethritis,44 human papilloma virus,45 herpes simplex virus type
2,46 and chlamydia.47
-
Circumcision is always risky: Circumcision always carries the risk
of serious, even tragic, consequences. Its surgical complication rate is
one in 500.48 These complications include uncontrollable bleeding and fatal
infections.49 There are many published case reports of gangrene following
circumcision.50 Pathogenic bacteria such as staphylococcus, Proteus, Pseudomonas,
other coliforms, and even tuberculosis can cause infections leading to death.51,
52 These organisms enter the wound because it provides easy entry, not because
the child is predisposed to infection.
Medical journals have published numerous accounts
of babies who have had part or all of their glans cut off while they were
being circumcised.53, 54, 55 Other fully conscious, unanesthetized babies
have had their entire penis burned off with an electrocautery gun.56, 57,
58 The September 1989 Journal of Urology published an account of four such
cases.59 The article described the sex-change operation as "feminizing
genitoplasty," performed on these babies in an attempt to change them into
girls. The March 1997 Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine described
one young person's horror on learning that "she" had been born a normal male,
but that a circumciser had burned his penis off when he was a baby.60 Many
other similar cases have been documented.61, 62 Infant circumcision has a
reported death rate of one in 500,000.63, 64
-
Circumcision harms mothers: Scientific studies have consistently shown
that circumcision disrupts a child's behavioral development. Studies performed
at the University of Colorado School of Medicine showed that circumcision
is followed by prolonged, unrestful non-REM (rapid-eye-movement) sleep.65
In response to the lengthy bombardment of their neural pathways with unbearable
pain, the circumcised babies withdrew into a kind of semicoma that lasted
days or even weeks.
Numerous other studies have proven that circumcision
disrupts the mother-infant bond during the crucial period after birth. Research
has also shown that circumcision disrupts feeding patterns. In a study at
the Washington University School of Medicine, most babies would not nurse
right after they were circumcised, and those who did would not look into
their mothers' eyes.66
-
Circumcision violates patients' and human rights: No one has the right
to cut off any part of someone else's genitals without that person's competent,
fully informed consent. Since it is the infant who must bear the consequences,
circumcision violates his legal rights both to refuse treatment and to seek
alternative treatment. In 1995, the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee
on Bioethics stated that only a competent patient can give patient consent
or informed consent.67An infant is obviously too young to consent to anything.
He must be protected from anyone who would take advantage of his defenselessness.
The concept of informed parental permission allows for medical interventions
in situations of clear and immediate medical necessity only, such as disease,
trauma, or deformity. The human penis in its normal, uncircumcised state
satisfies none of these requirements.
Physicians have a duty to refuse to perform
circumcision. They also must educate parents who, out of ignorance or
misguidance, request this surgery for their sons. The healthcare professional's
obligation is to protect the interests of the child. It is unethical in the
extreme to force upon a child an amputation he almost certainly would never
have chosen for himself.
Common Sense
To be intact, as nature intended, is best. The
vast majority of males who are given the choice value their wholeness and
keep their foreskins, for the same reason they keep their other organs of
perception. Parents in Europe and non-Muslim Asia never have forced their
boys to be circumcised. It would no more occur to them to cut off part of
their boys' penises than it would to cut off part of their ears. Respecting
a child's right to keep his genitals intact is normal and natural. It is
conservative in the best sense of the word.
A circumcised father who has mixed feelings about
his intact newborn son may require gentle, compassionate psychological counseling
to help him come to terms with his loss and to overcome his anxieties about
normal male genitalia. In such cases, the mother should steadfastly protect
her child, inviting her husband to share this protective role and helping
him diffuse his negative feelings. Most parents want what is best for their
baby. Wise parents listen to their hearts and trust their instinct to protect
their baby from harm. The experience of the ages has shown that babies thrive
best in a trusting atmosphere of love, gentleness, respect, acceptance,
nurturing, and intimacy. Cutting off a baby's foreskin shatters this trust.
Circumcision wounds and harms the baby and the person the baby will become.
Parents who respect their son's wholeness are bequeathing to him his
birthright-his body, perfect and beautiful in its entirety.
Organizations
Doctors Opposing Circumcision
(DOC) 2442 N.W. Market Street, Suite 42 Seattle, WA 98107 206-368-8358
weber.u.washington.edu/~gcd/DOC/
The National Organization of Circumcision
Information Resource Centers (NOCIRC), PO Box 2512 San Anselmo, CA 94979-2512
415-488-9883 http://www.nocirc.org
The National Organization to Halt the Abuse
and Routine Mutilation of Males (NOHARMM) PO Box 460795 San Francisco,
CA 94146-0795 415-826-9351 http://www.noharmm.org
Nurses for the Rights of the Child,
369 Montezuma, Suite 354 Santa Fe, NM 87501 505-989-7377
http://www.cirp.org/nrc/
Books
Available from bookstores, from the publishers, or from NOCIRC.
Bigelow, Jim, PhD. The Joy of Uncircumcising! Exploring Circumcision: History,
Myths, Psychology, Restoration, Sexual Pleasure and Human Rights. 2nd ed.
Aptos, CA: Hourglass, 1995.
Denniston, George C., MD, MPH, and Marilyn Fayre Milos, RN, eds. Sexual
Mutilations: A Human Tragedy. (Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium
on Sexual Mutilations, Lausanne, Switzerland, 1996). New York: Plenum Press,
1997.
Goldman, Ronald, PhD. Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma: How an American Cultural
Practice Affects Infants and Ultimately Us All. Boston: Vanguard Publications,
1997.
Goldman, Ronald, PhD. Questioning Circumcision: A Jewish Perspective. 2nd
ed. Boston: Vanguard Publications, 1997.
O'Mara, Peggy, ed. Circumcision: The Rest of the Story-A Selection of Articles,
Letters, and Resources 1979- 1993. Santa Fe, NM: Mothering,1993.
Ritter, Thomas J., MD, and George C. Denniston, MD. Say No to Circumcision!
40 Compelling Reasons Why You Should Respect His Birthright and Keep Your
Son Whole, 2nd ed. Aptos, CA: Hourglass, 1996.
Video
Whose Body, Whose Rights? Examining the Ethics and the Human Rights Issue
of Infant Male Circumcision. Award-winning documentary. 56 min. VHS. Personal
use: VideoFinders, 1-800-343-4727
Educational facilities
UC Center for Media and Independent Learning 2000 Center Street, 4th Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704 510-642-0460.
For World Wide Web ordering and preview:
www.cirp.org/CIRP/pages/reviews/whosebody/
Notes
1. T. J. Ritter and G. C. Denniston, Say No to Circumcision: 40 Compelling
Reasons, 2nd ed. (Aptos, CA: Hourglass, 1996),6-20.
2. "Incipit Libellus De Ecclesiasticis Disciplinis et Religione Christiana
Collectus. Liber II.XC, XCI" in Patrologiæ Cursus Completus, vol. 132
(Paris: Apud Garnier Fratres, Editores et J. P. Migne Successores, 1880),
301-302.
3. S. Grayzel, The Church and the Jews in the XIIth Century, vol. 2, ed.
K. R. Stow (Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1989), 246-247.
4. See Note 10, 17-40.
5. M. F. Campbell, "The Male Genital Tract and the Female Urethra," in Urology,
eds. M. F. Campbell and J. H. Harrison, vol. 2, 3rd ed. (Philadelphia: W.
B. Saunders, 1970), 1836.
6. See photographic series: J. A. Erickson, "Three Zones of Penile Skin."
In M. M. Lander, "The Human Prepuce," in G. C. Denniston and M. F. Milos,
eds., Sexual Mutilations: A Human Tragedy (New York: Plenum Press, 1997),
79-81.
7. M. Davenport, "Problems with the Penis and Prepuce: Natural History of
the Foreskin" (photograph 1), British Medical Journal 312 (1996): 299-301.
8. J. Øster, "Further Fate of the Foreskin," Archives of Disease in
Childhood 43 (1968): 200-203.
9. H. L. Tan, "Foreskin Fallacies and Phimosis," Annals of the Academy of
Medicine, Singapore 14 (1985): 626-630.
10. F. A. Hodges, "Short History of the Institutionalization of Involuntary
Sexual Mutilation in the United States," in G. C. Denniston and M. F. Milos,
eds., Sexual Mutilations: A Human Tragedy (New York: Plenum Press, 1997),
35.
11. A. B. Hyman and M. H. Brownstein, "Tyson's 'Glands': Ectopic Sebaceous
Glands and Papillomatosis Penis," Archives of Dermatology 99 (1969): 31-37.
12. A. Ahmed and A. W. Jones, "Apocrine Cystadenoma: A Report of Two Cases
Occurring on the Prepuce," British Journal of Dermatology 81 (1969): 899-901.
13. G. N. Weiss et al., "The Distribution and Density of Langerhans Cells
in the Human Prepuce: Site of a Diminished Immune Response?" Israel Journal
of Medical Sciences 29 (1993): 42-43.
14. P. J. Flower et al., "An Immunopathologic Study of the Bovine Prepuce,"
Veterinary Pathology 20 (1983):189-202.
15. Z. Halata and B. L. Munger, "The Neuroanatomical Basis for the Protopathic
Sensibility of the Human Glans Penis," Brain Research 371 (1986): 205-230.
16. J. R. Taylor et al., "The Prepuce: Specialized Mucosa of the Penis and
Its Loss to Circumcision," British Journal of Urology 77 (1996): 291-295.
17. H. C. Bazett et al., "Depth, Distribution and Probable Identification
in the Prepuce of Sensory End-Organs Concerned in Sensations of Temperature
and Touch; Thermometric Conductivity," Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry
27 (1932): 489-517.
18. D. Ohmori, "Über die Entwicklung der Innervation der Genitalapparate
als Peripheren Aufnahmeapparat der Genitalen Reflexe," Zeitschrift für
Anatomie und Entwicklungsgeschichte 70 (1924): 347-410.
19. A. De Girolamo and A. Cecio, "Contributo alla Conoscenza dell'innervazione
Sensitiva del Prepuzio Nell'uomo," Bollettino della Societa Italiana de Biologia
Sperimentale 44 (1968): 1521-1522.
20. A. S. Dogiel, "Die Nervenendigungen in der Haut der äusseren
Genitalorgane des Menschen," Archiv für Mikroskopische Anatomie 41 (1893):
585-612.
21. A. Bourlond and R. K. Winkelmann, "L'innervation du Prépuce chez
le Nouveau-né," Archives Belges de Dermatologie et de Syphiligraphie
21 (1965): 139-153.
22. R. K. Winkelmann, "The Erogenous Zones: Their Nerve Supply and Its
Significance," Proceedings of the Staff Meetings of the Mayo Clinic 34 (1959):
39-47.
23. R. K. Winkelmann, "The Cutaneous Innervation of Human Newborn Prepuce,"
Journal of Investigative Dermatology 26 (1956): 53-67.
24. R. Hausmann et al., "The Forensic Value of the Immunohistochemical Detection
of Oestrogen Receptors in Vaginal Epithelium," International Journal of Legal
Medicine 109 (1996): 10-30.
25. See Note 12.
26. American Academy of Pediatrics, Newborns: Care of the Uncircumcised Penis:
Guidelines for Parents (Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics,
1994).
27. See Note 1.
28. See Note 1.
29. S. A. Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh, "Jehovah, His Cousin Allah, and Sexual
Mutilations," in Sexual Mutilations: A Human Tragedy, eds. G. C. Denniston
and M. F. Milos (New York: Plenum Press, 1997), 41-62.
30. National Center for Health Statistics of the United States Department
of Health and Human Services, 1994.
31. See Note 17.
32. G. T. Klauber and J. Boyle, "Preputial Skin-Bridging: Complication of
Circumcision," Urology 3 (1974): 722-723.
33. J. P. Gearhart, "Complications of Pediatric Circumcision," in Urologic
Complications, Medical and Surgical, Adult and Pediatric, ed. F. F. Marshall
(Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1986), 387-396.
34. R. D. Talarico and J. E. Jasaitis, "Concealed Penis: A Complication of
Neonatal Circumcision," Journal of Urology 110 (1973): 732-733.
35. R. Persad et al., "Clinical Presentation and Pathophysiology of Meatal
Stenosis Following Circumcision," British Journal of Urology 75 (1995): 90-91.
36. A. Taddio et al., "Effect of Neonatal Circumcision on Pain Responses
during Vaccination in Boys," Lancet 345 (1995): 291-292.
37. A. Taddio et al., "Effect of Neonatal Circumcision on Pain Response during
Subsequent Routine Vaccination," Lancet 349 (1997): 599-603.
38. J. W. Prescott, "Genital Pain vs. Genital Pleasure: Why the One and Not
the Other?" Truth Seeker 1 (1989): 14-21.
39. R. Goldman, Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma (Boston: Vanguard Publications,
1997), 139-175.
40. M. Terris et al., "Relation of Circumcision to Cancer of the Cervix,"
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 117 (1973): 1056-1065.
41. C. J. Cold et al., "Carcinoma in Situ of the Penis in a 76-Year-Old
Circumcised Man," Journal of Family Practice 44 (1997): 407-410.
42. M. Frisch et al., "Falling Incidence of Penis Cancer in an Uncircumcised
Population (Denmark 1943-90)," British Medical Journal 311 (1995): 1471.
43. B. Donovan et al., "Male Circumcision and Common Sexually Transmissible
Diseases in a Developed Nation Setting," Genitourinary Medicine 70 (1994):
317-320.
44. G. L. Smith et al., "Circumcision as a Risk Factor for Urethritis in
Racial Groups," American Journal of Public Health 77 (1987): 452-454.
45. L. S. Cook et al., "Clinical Presentation of Genital Warts among Circumcised
and Uncircumcised Heterosexual Men Attending an Urban STD Clinic," Genitourinary
Medicine 69 (1993): 262-264.
46. I. Bassett et al., "Herpes Simplex Virus Type 2 Infection of Heterosexual
Men Attending a Sexual Health Centre," Medical Journal of Australia 160 (1994):
697-700.
47. E. O. Laumann et al., "Circumcision in the United States: Prevalence,
Prophylactic Effects, and Sexual Practice," Journal of the American Medical
Association 277 (1997): 1052-1057.
48. W. F. Gee and J. S. Ansell, "Neonatal Circumcision: A Ten-Year Overview:
With Comparison of the Gomco Clamp and the Plastibell Device," Pediatrics
58 (1976): 824-827.
49. G. W. Kaplan, "Complications of Circumcision," Urologic Clinics of North
America 10 (1983): 543-549.
50. S. J. Sussman et al., "Fournier's Syndrome: Report of Three Cases and
Review of the Literature," American Journal of Diseases of Children 132 (1978):
1189-1191.
51. B. V. Kirkpatrick and D. V. Eitzman, "Neonatal Septicemia after
Circumcision," Clinical Pediatrics 13 (1974): 767-768.
52. J. M. Scurlock and P. J. Pemberton, "Neonatal Meningitis and Circumcision,"
Medical Journal of Australia 1 (1977): 332-334.
53. G. R. Gluckman et al., "Newborn Penile Glans Amputation during Circumcision
and Successful Reattachment," Journal of Urology 153 (1995): 778-779.
54. B. S. Strimling, "Partial Amputation of Glans Penis during Mogen Clamp
Circumcision," Pediatrics 87 (1996): 906-907.
55. J. Sherman et al., "Circumcision: Successful Glandular Reconstruction
and Survival Following Traumatic Amputation," Journal of Urology 156 (1996):
842-844.
56. J. R. Sharpe and R. P. Finney, "Electrocautery Circumcision," Urology
19 (1982): 228.
57. C. K. Pearlman, "Caution Advised on Electrocautery Circumcisions," Urology
19 (1982): 453.
58. C. K. Pearlman, "Reconstruction Following Iatrogenic Burn of the Penis,"
Journal of Pediatric Surgery 11 (1976):121-122.
59. J. P. Gearhart and J. A. Rock, "Total Ablation of the Penis after
Circumcision with Electrocautery: A Method of Management and Long-Term Followup,"
Journal of Urology 142 (1989):799-801.
60. M. Diamond and H. K. Sigmundson, "Sex Reassignment at Birth: Long-Term
Review and Clinical Implications," Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent
Medicine 151 (1997): 298-304.
61. J. Money, "Ablatio Penis: Normal Male Infant Sex-Reassigned as a Girl,"
Archives of Sexual Behavior 4 (1975): 65-71.
62. D. A. Gilbert et al., "Phallic Construction in Prepubertal and Adolescent
Boys," Journal of Urology 149 (1993): 1521-1526.
63. R. S. Thompson, "Routine Circumcision in the Newborn: An Opposing View,"
Journal of Family Practice 31 (1990): 189-196.
64. T. E. Wiswell, "Circumcision Circumspection," New England Journal of
Medicine 336 (1997): 1244-1245.
65. R. N. Emde et al., "Stress and Neonatal Sleep," Psychosomatic Medicine
33 (1971): 491-497.
66. R. E. Marshall et al., "Circumcision: II. Effects upon Mother-Infant
Interaction," Early Human Development 7 (1982): 367-374.
67. Committee on Bioethics, "Informed Consent, Parental Permission, and Assent
in Pediatric Practice," Pediatrics 95 (1995): 314-317.
Last Modification: 7/10/98

|