The Case Against Circumcision
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.
"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
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. Marketing of human foreskin is a big business.
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.
For More Information:
The National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource
Centers (NOCIRC), PO Box 2512 San Anselmo, CA 94979-2512 415-488-9883
http://www.nocirc.org
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
- T. J. Ritter and G. C. Denniston, Say No
to Circumcision: 40 Compelling Reasons, 2nd ed. (Aptos, CA:
Hourglass, 1996),6-20.
- "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.
- 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.
- See Note 10, 17-40.
- 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.
- 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.
- M. Davenport, "Problems with the Penis and Prepuce:
Natural History of the Foreskin" (photograph 1), British
Medical Journal 312 (1996): 299-301.
- J. Øster, "Further Fate of the Foreskin,"
Archives of Disease in Childhood 43 (1968): 200-203.
- H. L. Tan, "Foreskin Fallacies and Phimosis,"
Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore 14 (1985): 626-630.
- 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.
- A. B. Hyman and M. H. Brownstein, "Tyson's 'Glands':
Ectopic Sebaceous Glands and Papillomatosis Penis," Archives
of Dermatology 99 (1969): 31-37.
- 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.
- 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.
- P. J. Flower et al., "An Immunopathologic Study of
the Bovine Prepuce," Veterinary Pathology 20 (1983):189-202.
- Z. Halata and B. L. Munger, "The Neuroanatomical
Basis for the Protopathic Sensibility of the Human Glans Penis,"
Brain Research 371 (1986): 205-230.
- 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.
- 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.
- D. Ohmori, "Über die Entwicklung der Innervation
der Genitalapparate als Peripheren Aufnahmeapparat der Genitalen
Reflexe," Zeitschrift für Anatomie und Entwicklungsgeschichte
70 (1924): 347-410.
- 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.
- A. S. Dogiel, "Die Nervenendigungen in der Haut der
äusseren Genitalorgane des Menschen," Archiv für
Mikroskopische Anatomie 41 (1893): 585-612.
- 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.
- 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.
- R. K. Winkelmann, "The Cutaneous Innervation of Human
Newborn Prepuce," Journal of Investigative Dermatology
26 (1956): 53-67.
- 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.
- See Note 12.
- American Academy of Pediatrics, Newborns: Care of the
Uncircumcised Penis: Guidelines for Parents (Elk Grove Village,
IL: American Academy of Pediatrics, 1994).
- See Note 1.
- See Note 1.
- 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.
- National Center for Health Statistics of the United States
Department of Health and Human Services, 1994.
- See Note 17.
- G. T. Klauber and J. Boyle, "Preputial Skin-Bridging:
Complication of Circumcision," Urology 3 (1974): 722-723.
- 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.
- R. D. Talarico and J. E. Jasaitis, "Concealed Penis:
A Complication of Neonatal Circumcision," Journal of
Urology 110 (1973): 732-733.
- R. Persad et al., "Clinical Presentation and Pathophysiology
of Meatal Stenosis Following Circumcision," British Journal
of Urology 75 (1995): 90-91.
- A. Taddio et al., "Effect of Neonatal Circumcision
on Pain Responses during Vaccination in Boys," Lancet
345 (1995): 291-292.
- A. Taddio et al., "Effect of Neonatal Circumcision
on Pain Response during Subsequent Routine Vaccination,"
Lancet 349 (1997): 599-603.
- J. W. Prescott, "Genital Pain vs. Genital Pleasure:
Why the One and Not the Other?" Truth Seeker 1 (1989):
14-21.
- R. Goldman, Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma (Boston: Vanguard
Publications, 1997), 139-175.
- M. Terris et al., "Relation of Circumcision to Cancer
of the Cervix," American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
117 (1973): 1056-1065.
- 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.
- M. Frisch et al., "Falling Incidence of Penis Cancer
in an Uncircumcised Population (Denmark 1943-90)," British
Medical Journal 311 (1995): 1471.
- B. Donovan et al., "Male Circumcision and Common
Sexually Transmissible Diseases in a Developed Nation Setting,"
Genitourinary Medicine 70 (1994): 317-320.
- G. L. Smith et al., "Circumcision as a Risk Factor
for Urethritis in Racial Groups," American Journal of
Public Health 77 (1987): 452-454.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- G. W. Kaplan, "Complications of Circumcision,"
Urologic Clinics of North America 10 (1983): 543-549.
- 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.
- B. V. Kirkpatrick and D. V. Eitzman, "Neonatal Septicemia
after Circumcision," Clinical Pediatrics 13 (1974): 767-768.
- J. M. Scurlock and P. J. Pemberton, "Neonatal Meningitis
and Circumcision," Medical Journal of Australia 1 (1977):
332-334.
- G. R. Gluckman et al., "Newborn Penile Glans Amputation
during Circumcision and Successful Reattachment," Journal
of Urology 153 (1995): 778-779.
- B. S. Strimling, "Partial Amputation of Glans Penis
during Mogen Clamp Circumcision," Pediatrics 87 (1996):
906-907.
- J. Sherman et al., "Circumcision: Successful Glandular
Reconstruction and Survival Following Traumatic Amputation,"
Journal of Urology 156 (1996): 842-844.
- J. R. Sharpe and R. P. Finney, "Electrocautery Circumcision,"
Urology 19 (1982): 228.
- C. K. Pearlman, "Caution Advised on Electrocautery
Circumcisions," Urology 19 (1982): 453.
- C. K. Pearlman, "Reconstruction Following Iatrogenic
Burn of the Penis," Journal of Pediatric Surgery 11 (1976):121-122.
- 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.
- 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.
- J. Money, "Ablatio Penis: Normal Male Infant Sex-Reassigned
as a Girl," Archives of Sexual Behavior 4 (1975): 65-71.
- D. A. Gilbert et al., "Phallic Construction in Prepubertal
and Adolescent Boys," Journal of Urology 149 (1993):
1521-1526.
- R. S. Thompson, "Routine Circumcision in the Newborn:
An Opposing View," Journal of Family Practice 31 (1990):
189-196.
- T. E. Wiswell, "Circumcision Circumspection,"
New England Journal of Medicine 336 (1997): 1244-1245.
- R. N. Emde et al., "Stress and Neonatal Sleep,"
Psychosomatic Medicine 33 (1971): 491-497.
- R. E. Marshall et al., "Circumcision: II. Effects
upon Mother-Infant Interaction," Early Human Development
7 (1982): 367-374.
- Committee on Bioethics, "Informed Consent, Parental
Permission, and Assent in Pediatric Practice," Pediatrics
95 (1995): 314-317.
Last Modification: 7/10/98
|