The Compulsion to Circumcise is Constant

The Reasons Keep Changing
  • Michael Katz
Chapter

Abstract

Routine non-ritual circumcision stands alone as an allegedly prophylactic procedure that is carried out on an enormous scale for the eventual benefit of only a small minority. Arguments in favor of this procedure have varied with time. They have included prevention of penile cancer, prevention of cervical cancer in sexual partners, and more recently prevention of urinary tract infections in infants and young boys, prevention of AIDS, and cost savings. Yet, no proper epidemiological evaluation of the risk/benefit ratio has been carried out. Instead the arguments have been largely polemical. These will be reviewed and available data assessed.

Keywords

Cervical Cancer Urinary Tract Infection Sexual Partner Male Circumcision Penile Cancer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Ricketts BM. Circumcision: the last fifty of two hundred circumcisions. New York Medical Journal 1894;58:431–2.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rickwood AM, Kenny SE, Donnell SC. Towards evidence based circumcision of English boys: survey of trends in practice. BMJ 2000;321(7264):792–3. [30 September 2000]PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shankar KR, Rickwood AM. The incidence of phimosis in boys. BJU Int 1999;84(1):101–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rickwood AM, Walker J. Is phimosis overdiagnosed in boys and are too many circumcisions performed in consequence? Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1989;71(5):275–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Spence J. Spence on circumcision. Lancet 1964;2(7365):902. [24 October 1964]Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hitchcock R. Commentary on: Benefits of newborn circumcision: is Europe ignoring medical evidence? Arch Dis Child 1997;77(3):26.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barrasso R. Cancer of the uterine cervix: epidemiology and virology. Rev Prat 1990;40:9–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kjaer SK, de Villiers EM, Dahl C et al: Case control study of risk factors for cervical neoplasia in Denmark. Role of the male factor in women with one lifetime sexual partner. Int Jour Cancer 1991;48:39–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wiswell TE, Smith FR, Bass JW. Decreased incidence of urinary tract infections in circumcised male infants. Pediatrics 1985;75:901–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Christakis DA, Harvey E, Zerr DM, et al. A trade-off analysis of routine newborn circumcision. Pediatrics 2000;105:246–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Agha M, Dick PT, et al. Cohort study on circumcision of newborn boys and subsequent risk of urinary-tract infections. Lancet 1998;352:1813–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kayaba H, Tamura H, Kitajima S, et al. Analysis of shape and retractability of the prepuce of 603 Japanese boys. Jour Urol 1996;156:1813–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goldman M, Barr J, Bistritzer T, Aladjem M. Urinary tract infection following ritual Jewish circumcision. Isr Jour Med Sci 1996;32:1098–102.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lavreys L, Rakwar JP, Thompson ML. Effect of circumcision on incidence of human deficiency virus type 1 and other sexually transmitted diseases; a prospective cohort study of trucking company employees in Kenya. Jour Infect Dis 1999;180:330–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schoen EJ, Colby CJ, Ray GT. Newborn circumcision decreases incidence and costs of urinary tract infections during the first year of life. Pediatrics 2000;105:789–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Spence J. Spence on circumcision. Lancet 1964;2(7365):902. [24 October 1964]Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Katz
    • 1
  1. 1.Columbia UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations