Circumcision in America in 1998

Attitudes, Beliefs, and Charges of American Physicians
  • Christopher R. Fletcher


Medicalised circumcision of newborn males—a non-therapeutic, non-religious amputation of the foreskin of non-consenting infant boys—is currently performed on approximately half of all boys born in the United States. As the most common surgical procedure performed in the United States, circumcision has become part of routine hospital and physician practice over the past few generations as a result of a combination of parental ignorance, medicalised myths, physician ignorance, and fear of “offending” misinformed parents. That physicians are also paid handsomely for what some perceive as “a mere snip” has not escaped the attention of those who have studied this almost uniquely American custom.


Family Physician Male Circumcision American Physician Penile Cancer Penile Shaft 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    National Center for Health Statistics 1996.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pate1 DA, Flaherty EG, Dunn J. Factors affecting the practice of circumcision. Am J Dis Child 1982;136:634–6.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bolande RP. Ritualistic surgery: circumcision and tonsillectomy. N Engl J Med 1969;280:591–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gonik B, Barrett K. The persistence of newborn circumcision: an American perspective. Br J Obstet Gynecol 1995; 102:940–1.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Briggs A. Circumcision: What Every Parent Should Know. Earlysville, Virginia: Birth and Parenting Publications. 1985.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wallerstein E. Circumcision, the uniquely American medical enigma. Urol CIin North Am 1985;12:123–32.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hodges F. A short history of the institutionalization of involuntary sexual mutilation in the United States In: Denniston GC, Milos MF, eds. Sexual Mutilations: A Human Tragedy. New York: Plenum Press. 1997:17–40.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    For examples of this sort of medical thinking, see: Remondino PC. History of Circumcision From the Earliest Times to the Present. Philadelphia: FA Davis. 1891:161–82.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goodman J. Challenging Circumcision: A Jewish Perspective. In: Denniston GC, Milos MF, eds. Sexual Muti1ations: A Human Tragedy. New York Plenum Press. 1997:175–8.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wiswell TE. Circumcision circumspection. N Engl J Med 1997;336:1244–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wiswell TE, Smith FR, Bass JW. Decreased incidence of urinary tract infections in circumcised male infants. Pediatrics 1985;75:901–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wiswell TE, Roscelli JD. Corroborative evidence for the decreased incidence of urinary infections in circumcised male infants. Pediatrics 1986;78:96–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dagher R, Selzer ML, Lapides J. Carcinoma of the penis and the anti-circumcision crusade. J Urol 1973;110:79–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schoen EJ. The relationship between circumcision and cancer of the penis. CA Cancer J Clin 1991;41:306–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moses S, Plummer FA, Bradley JE, Ndinya-Achola JO, Nagelkerke NJD, Ronald AR. The association between lack of male circumcision and risk of HIV infection: a review of the epidemiological data. Sex Transm Dis 1994;21:201–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fink AJ. A possible explanation for heterosexual male infection with AIDS [letter]. N Engl J Med 1986;315:1167.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Laumann EO, Masi CM, Zuckerman EW. Circumcision in the United States: prevalence, prophylactic effects, and sexual practice. JAMA 1997;277:1052–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Donovan B, Bassett I, Bodsworth NJ. Male circumcision and common sexually transmissible diseases in a developed nation setting. Genitourin Med 1994;70:317–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Reimbursement adviser. How to get reimbursed for circumcision. OBG Management (October 1993):25.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Christensen-Szalanski JJ, Boyce WT, Harrell H, Gardner MM. Circumcision and informed consent. Is more information always better? Med Care 1987;25:856–67.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ciesielski-Carlucci C, Milliken N, Cohen NH. Determinants of decision making for circumcision. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 1996;5:228–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ciesielski-Carlucci C, Milliken N, Cohen NH. Determinants of decision making for circumcision. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 1996;5:228–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gellis SS. Circumcision. Am J Dis Child 1978;132:1168–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gellis SS. Circumcision. Am J Dis Child 1979;133:1079–80.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Thompson HC, King LR, Knox E, Korones SB. Report of the ad hoc task force on circumcision. Pediatrics 1975;56:610–1.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Statement on Neonatal Circumcision. December 1978.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    American Academy of Family Physicians. Fact sheet for physicians regarding neonatal circumcision. Am Farn Physician 1995;52:523–6.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Storms MR. AAFP fact sheet on neonatal circumcision: a need for updating. Am Fam Physician 1996;54:1216–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Morgan WKC. The rape of the phallus. JAMA 1965;193:223–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gairdner D. The fate of the foreskin: a study of circumcision. BMJ 1949;2:1433–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Preston EN. Whither the foreskin? a consideration of routine neonatal circumcision. JAMA 1970;213:1853–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Grimes DA Routine circumcision of the newborn infant: a reappraisal. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1978:130:125–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kaplan GW. Circumcision: an overview. Curr Probl Pediatr 1977;7(5):1–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Van Howe RS. Variability in penile appearance and penile findings: a prospective study. Br J Urol 1997;80:776–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hodges F. Institutionalization of Involuntary Sexual Mutilation. In: Denniston GC, Milos MF, eds Sexual Mutilations: A Human Tragedy. New York Plenum Press. 1997:17–40.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ryan CA, Finer NN. Changing attitudes and practices regarding local analgesia for newborn circumcision. Pediatrics 1994;94:203–33.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wellington N, Rieder MJ. Attitudes and practices regarding analgesia for newborn circumcision. Pediatrics 1993;92:541–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Marwick C. Proponents gather to discuss practicing evidence-based medicine. JAMA 1997;278:531–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Milos MF, Macris D. Circumcision. A medical or a human rights issue? J Nurse Midwifery 1992; 37(2 Suppl):87S–96S.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Van Howe RS. Why does neonatal circumcision persist in the United States? In: Denniston GC, Milos MF, eds. Sexual Muti1ations: A Human Tragedy. New York: Plenum Press. 1997:111–9.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers, New York 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher R. Fletcher

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations