Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Neonatal Circumcision

Neonatal Circumcision Abstract Sir.—Thompson's editorial "The Value of Neonatal Circumcision: An Unanswered and Perhaps Unanswerable Question"1 was a welcome contribution in clarifying the confusion within the American Academy of Pediatrics Ad Hoc Task Force on Circumcision, which Thompson chaired. Thompson wrote that their 1975 report2 was a "compromise" that stated there was no "absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn." The confusion engendered by such a "compromise" is reflected in his editorial on three issues: venereal disease (VD), cancer, and hygiene. A century ago there was general acceptance that syphilis and gonorrhea were associated with foreskin retention. Circumcision was thought to prevent VD. The most recent physician-authored book on circumcision (1973) was titled by urologist Abraham Ravich: Preventing VD and Cancer by Circumcision (New York, Philosophical Library Inc). Virtually no one, to my knowledge, accepts this view today. Today, the "whipping boy" is genital herpes. Thompson takes cognizance References 1. Thompson HC: The value of neonatal circumcision: An unanswered and perhaps unanswerable question . AJDC 1983;137:939-940. 2. Report of the Ad Hoc Task Force on Circumcision . Pediatrics 1975;56:610-611. 3. Kaplan GW: Circumcision: An overview . Curr Probl Pediatr 1977;7:1-33. 4. Kalcev B: Circumcision and personal hygiene in schoolboys . Med Off 1964;112:171-173. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png American Journal of Diseases of Children American Medical Association

Neonatal Circumcision

Abstract

Abstract Sir.—Thompson's editorial "The Value of Neonatal Circumcision: An Unanswered and Perhaps Unanswerable Question"1 was a welcome contribution in clarifying the confusion within the American Academy of Pediatrics Ad Hoc Task Force on Circumcision, which Thompson chaired. Thompson wrote that their 1975 report2 was a "compromise" that stated there was no "absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn." The confusion engendered...
Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-medical-association/neonatal-circumcision-09iF4cPww1
Publisher
American Medical Association
Copyright
Copyright © 1984 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.
ISSN
0002-922X
DOI
10.1001/archpedi.1984.02140480091029
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract Sir.—Thompson's editorial "The Value of Neonatal Circumcision: An Unanswered and Perhaps Unanswerable Question"1 was a welcome contribution in clarifying the confusion within the American Academy of Pediatrics Ad Hoc Task Force on Circumcision, which Thompson chaired. Thompson wrote that their 1975 report2 was a "compromise" that stated there was no "absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn." The confusion engendered by such a "compromise" is reflected in his editorial on three issues: venereal disease (VD), cancer, and hygiene. A century ago there was general acceptance that syphilis and gonorrhea were associated with foreskin retention. Circumcision was thought to prevent VD. The most recent physician-authored book on circumcision (1973) was titled by urologist Abraham Ravich: Preventing VD and Cancer by Circumcision (New York, Philosophical Library Inc). Virtually no one, to my knowledge, accepts this view today. Today, the "whipping boy" is genital herpes. Thompson takes cognizance References 1. Thompson HC: The value of neonatal circumcision: An unanswered and perhaps unanswerable question . AJDC 1983;137:939-940. 2. Report of the Ad Hoc Task Force on Circumcision . Pediatrics 1975;56:610-611. 3. Kaplan GW: Circumcision: An overview . Curr Probl Pediatr 1977;7:1-33. 4. Kalcev B: Circumcision and personal hygiene in schoolboys . Med Off 1964;112:171-173.

Journal

American Journal of Diseases of ChildrenAmerican Medical Association

Published: Oct 1, 1984

References