Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Sexual Mutilations pp 111–119Cite as

Why Does Neonatal Circumcision Persist in the United States?

  • Chapter

Abstract

The United States leads the world in per capita medical spending; however, in this era of rising health-care costs and drastic budget cuts, closer scrutiny must be given to the allocation of increasingly scarce health-care dollars. Perhaps the most obvious target for scrutiny is the routine amputation of the prepuce, euphemistically known as circumcision. Shortly after World War II, the British Medical Journal published a landmark study by Douglas Gairdner that disproved the alleged justifications for circumcision.1 This, coupled with the socialization of the medical system in Great Britain, resulted in a precipitous drop in the number of procedures performed. The American medical establishment has remained a fee-for-service system, despite attempts by Harry Truman to follow the British example.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Gairdner D. The fate of the foreskin: a study of circumcision. BMJ 1949; 2: 1433–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Morgan WKC. The rape of the phallus. JAMA 1965; 193: 223–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Fetus and Newborn. Standards and Recommendations for Hospital Care of Newborn Infants. 5th ed. Evanston, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics; 1971: 110.

    Google Scholar 

  4. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Statement on Neonatal Circumcision. December 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Patel DA, Flaherty EG, Dunn J. Factors affecting the practice of circumcision. Am J Dis Child 1982; 136: 634–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. American Academy of Pediatrics: Report of the Task Force on Circumcision. Pediatrics. 1989; 84: 388–91.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Wiswell TE, Enzenauer RW, Holton ME, Cornish JD, Hankins CT. Declining frequency of circumcision: implications for changes in the absolute incidence and male to female sex ratio of urinary tract infections in early infancy. Pediatrics. 1987; 79: 338–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wiswell TE, Miller GM, Gelston HM Jr; Jones SK, Clemmings AF. Effect of circumcision status on peri-urethral bacterial flora during the first year of life. J Pediatr 1988; 113: 442–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Wiswell TE, Roscelli JD. Corroborative evidence for the decreased incidence of urinary tract infections in circumcised male infants. Pediatrics 1986; 78: 96–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wiswell TE, Smith FR, Bass JW. Decreased incidence of urinary tract infections in circumcised male infants. Pediatrics. 1985; 75: 901–3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gonik B, Barrett K. The persistence of newborn circumcision: an American perspective. Br J Obstet Gynecol 1995; 102: 940–1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Nellist CC. Is circumcision a job for ob. gyns. or pediatricians? opinions vary. Pediatric News 1994 (May):20.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Becker MD. Going around and around on circumcision: pediatricians talk back: Circumcision `turf war.’ Pediatric News 1994 (Aug):16.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Washburn ER. Going around and around on circumcision: pediatricians talk back: Ajob for pediatricians. Pediatric News 1994 (Aug):16.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gilhooly J. Going around and around on circumcision: pediatricians talk back: Discourages `genital mutilation.’ Pediatric News 1994 (Aug):16.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Rodham H. Children’s Rights: Contemporary Perspectives, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Spence A. Advocates fear parents’ rights bill will trample child abuse laws. AAP News 1996 (July); 12(7):1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Schoen EJ. The status of circumcision of newborns. N Engl J Med. 1990; 322: 1308–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Schoen EJ. Urologists and circumcision of newborns. Urology. 1992; 40: 99–101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Schoen EJ. The relationship between circumcision and cancer of the penis. CA Cancer J Clin. 1991; 41: 306–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Schoen EJ. `Ode to the circumcised male’ [letter] Am J Dis Child. 1987;141:128.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Schoen EJ. Is it time for Europe to reconsider newborn circumcision? letter] Acta Paediatr Scand. 1991; 80: 573–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Roberts JA. Is routine circumcision indicated in the newbom? An affirmative view. J Fam Pract. 1990; 31: 185–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Roberts JA. Does circumcision prevent urinary tract infection. J Urol. 1986; 135: 991–2.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Roberts JA. Neonatal circumcision: an end to the controversy? South Med J 1996; 89: 167–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Wiswell TE. Circumcision: an update. Curr Probl Pediatr. 1992; 22: 424–31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Wiswell TE. Do you favor routine neonatal circumcision? Yes. Postgrad Med. 1988;84:98, 100, 102 passim.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Wiswell TE. John K. Lattimer Lecture. Prepuce presence portends prevalence of potentially perilous peri-urethral pathogens. J Urol. 1992; 148: 739–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Wiswell TE. Routine neonatal circumcision: a reappraisal. Am Fam Physician. 1990; 41: 859–63.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Weiss GN, Weiss EB. A perspective on controversies over neonatal circumcision. Clin Pediatr Phila. 1994; 33: 726–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Weiss GN. Neonatal circumcision. South Med J. 1985; 78: 1198–2000.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Wiswell TE, Geschke DW. Risks from circumcision during the first month of life compared with those for uncircumcised boys. Pediatrics. 1989; 83: 1011–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Wiswell TE, Tencer HL, Welch CA, Chamberlain JL. Circumcision in children beyond the neonatal period. Pediatrics. 1993; 92: 791–3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Perlmutter DF, Lawrence JM, Krauss AN, Auld PA. Voiding after neonatal circumcision. Pediatrics. 1995; 96: 1111–2.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Blass EM, Hoffmeyer LB. Sucrose as an analgesic for newborn infants. Pediatrics. 1991; 87: 215–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Taddio A, Goldbach M, Ipp M, Stevens B, Koren G Effect of neonatal circumcision on pain responses during vaccination in boys. Lancet. 1995; 345: 291–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Cook LS. Koutsky LA. Holmes KK. Clinical presentation of genital warts among circumcised and uncircumcised heterosexual men attending an urban STD clinic. Genitourin Med 1993; 69: 262–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Taylor JR, Lockwood AP, Taylor AJ. The prepuce: specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision. Br J Urol 1996; 77: 291–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. O’Brien TR, Calle EE, Poole WK. Incidence of neonatal circumcision in Atlanta, 1985–1986. South Med J. 1995; 88: 411–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Mansfield CJ, Hueston WJ, Rudy M. Neonatal circumcision: associated factors and length of hospital stay. J Fam Pract. 1995; 41: 370–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Schoen EJ. Circumcision updated-indicated? Pediatrics 1993;92:860-I.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Correspondence of February 18, 1994 from Louis Emmet Mahoney, Acting Chief Medical Officer of the Public Health Service of the Department of Health and Human Services, to Frederick Hodges.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Correspondence of March 8, 1994 from Louis Emmet Mahoney, Medical Consultant to the Public Health Service of the Department of Health and Human Services, to Frederick Hodges.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Christensen Szalanski JJ, Boyce WT, Harrell H, Gardner MM. Circumcision and informed consent. Is more information always better? Med Care 1987; 25: 856–67.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Ciesielski Carlucci C, Milliken N, Cohen NH. Determinants of decision making for circumcision. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 1996; 5: 228–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Enzenauer RW, Powell JM, Wiswell TE, Bass JW. Decreased circumcision rate with videotaped counseling. South Med J. 1986; 79: 717–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Wright JE. The treatment of childhood phimosis with topical steroid. Aust N Z J Surg. 1994; 64: 327–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Lang K. Eine konservative Therapie der Phimose. Conservative therapy of phimosis] Monatsschr Kinderheilkd. 1986; 134: 824–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Kikiros CS, Beasley SW, Woodward AA. The reponse of phimosis to local steroid application. Pediatr Surg Int 1993; 8: 329–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Jorgensen ET, Svensson A. Phimosis hos pojkar kan behandlas med steroidsalva Phimosis in boys can be treated by a steroid ointment (letter)]. Lakartidningen 1994; 91: 1291.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Jorgensen ET, Svensson A. The treatment of phimosis in boys, with a potent topical steroid (clobetasol propionate 0.05%) cream. Acta Derm Venereol 1993; 73: 55–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Muller I, Muller H. Eine neue konservative Therapie der Phimose. Monatsschr Kinderheilkd 1993; 141: 607–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Wahlin N. “Triple incision plasty.” A convenient procedure for preputial relief. Scand J Urol Nephrol 1992; 26: 107–10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Hoffman S, Metz P, Ebbehoj J. A new operation for phimosis: prepuce saving technique with multiple Y-Vplasties. Br J Urol 1984; 56: 319–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Leal MJ, Mendes J. A circuncisao ritual e correccao plastica da fimose. Ritual circumcision and the plastic repair of phimosis] Acta Med Port 1994; 7: 475–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Emmett AJ. Z plasty reconstruction for preputial stenosis a surgical alternative to circumcision. Aust Paediatr J 1982; 18: 219–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Emmett Al Four V flap repair of preputial stenosis (phimosis). Plast Reconstr Surg 1975; 55: 687–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. de Castella H. Prepuceplasty: an alternative to circumcision. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1994; 76: 257–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Cuckow PM, Rix G, Mouriquand PD. Preputial plasty: a good alternative to circumcision. J Pediatr Surg 1994; 29: 561–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Holmlund DE. Dorsal incision of the prepuce and skin closure with Dexon in patients with phimosis. Scand J Urol Nephrol 1973; 7: 97–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Diaz A, Kantor HI. Dorsal slit. A circumcision alternative. Obstet Gynecol 1971; 37: 619–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Ohjimi T, Ohjimi H. Special surgical techniques for relief of phimosis. J Dermatol Surg Oncol 1981; 7: 326–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Parkash S. Phimosis and its plastic correction. J Indian Med Assoc 1972; 58: 389–90.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Moro G, Gesmundo R, Bevilacqua A, Maiullari E, Gandini R. La circoncisione con postoplastica. Nota di tecnica operatoria. [Circumcision with preputioplasty. Note on operative technic] Minerva Chit-1988; 43: 893–4.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Gil Barbosa M, Aguilera Gonzalez C, Alipaz A, Garcia Sanchez JL. La balanolisis como sustituto de la circuncision. [Balanolysis as a substitute of circumcision] Salud Publica Mex 1976; 18: 893–9.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Ohjimi H, Ogata K, Ohjimi T. A new method for the relief of adult phimosis. J Urol 1995; 153: 1607–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Lawler FH, Bisonni RS, Holtgrave DR. Circumcision: a decision analysis of its medical value. Fam Med 1991; 23: 587–93.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Ganiats TG, Humphrey JB, Taras HL, Kaplan RM. Routine neonatal circumcision: a cost utility analysis. Med Dis Making 1991; 11: 282–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Chessare JB. Circumcision: is the risk of urinary tract infection really the pivotal issue? Clin Pediatr Phila 1992; 31: 100–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Cadman D, Gafni A, McNamee J. Newborn circumcision: an economic perspective. Can Med Assoc J 1984; 131: 1353–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Van Howe RS. Neonatal circumcision: cost utility analysis. Presented at “Strategies for Intactivists” Conferenence. Evanston, Illinois. April 11, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Lehman BA. The age old question of circumcision. Boston Globe June 22, 1987: 41.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Garry T. Circumcision: a survey of fees and practices. OBG Management 1994 (October):34–6.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Medical Economics Pediatrics Edition. 1995(11);14:34.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Denniston GC. Circumcision in Canada: a twenty year decline. In press.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Briggs A. Circumcision: What Every Parent Should Know. Earlysville, Virginia: Birth & Parenting Publications, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Maden C, Sherman KJ, Beckmann AM, Hislop TG, Teh CZ, Ashley RL, Daling JR. History of circumcision, medical conditions, and sexual activity and risk of penile cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993; 85: 19–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Donovan B, Bassett I, Bodsworth NJ. Male circumcision and common sexually transmissible diseases in a developed nation setting. Genitourin Med. 1994; 70: 317–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Bassett I, Donovan B, Bodsworth NJ, Field PR, Ho DW, Jeansson S, Cunningham AL. Herpes simplex virus type 2 infection of heterosexual men attending a sexual health centre. Med J Aust. 1994; 160: 697–700.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Storms MR. AAFP fact sheet on neonatal circumcision: a need for updating. Am Fam Physician. 1996; 54: 1216–1218.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Robert S. Van Howe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA

    George C. Denniston

  2. Information Resource Centers, National Organization of Circumcision, San Anselmo, California, USA

    Marilyn Fayre Milos

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1997 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Van Howe, R.S. (1997). Why Does Neonatal Circumcision Persist in the United States?. In: Denniston, G.C., Milos, M.F. (eds) Sexual Mutilations. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-2679-4_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-2679-4_9

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-3275-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4757-2679-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation