# Re: neonatal circ. : a realistic perspective

> Written by Gerald N. Weiss, M.D. on 31. August 1999 at 00:45:28:

> In Reply to: routine neonatal circ. : no scientific basis. written by RS on 13. August 1999 at 23:23:14:

> >Hello Robin:

> >I`m glad to be corresponding with you in a truly scientific endeavor.

> I agree with your basic scientific endeavors, but years of medical practice are
> punctuated with the fact that Medicine/surgery is an INEXACT science. That,
> however, should not prevent study and research from being an on- going condition.
> My belief is that there are 3 kinds of circumcision: ritual, med/surgical type for
> pathology or cosmetic reasons and prophylactic. "Routine" is and should be a
> MISNOMER. Until QUALIFIED circumcisers are available to ALL-- there should never be
> ROUTINE surgery!! Those Orthodox Jews who believe in ritual as well as
> other countless millions in this world of other persuasions do so by FAITH. My
> thesis is that RITUAL beliefs have often have good scientific basis-- as the
> Hebraic circumcision (please review and comment on my article Prophylactic
> Neonatal Surgery and Infectious Diseases). Prophylactic (neonatal or older)
> attempts to PREVENT the problems you are so clearly defining!
> Hebraic neonatal circumcision done by qualified Mohels is both ritual AND
> prophylactic. True med/surgical circumcisions are done for pathologic conditions
> not amenable to medical therapy or for cosmetic purposes.
> You should read the excellent book by P.C. Remondino, M.D. entitled HISTORY OF
> CIRCUMCISION from the earliest times to the present. "Moral and physical reasons
> for its performance." Anyway its a pleasure to be able to discuss rationally a
> mutually interesting subject that only expands my knowlege and convictions by your
> work and findings.
> "Techniques in Large Animal Surgery", Second Edition by A.S.Turner et al. recom-
> mend prophylactic circumcision in the bull-- an old veterinarian practice in this
> country. The recommended oblique rather than transverse amputation of the pendu
> lous sheath results in oval rather than circular scar (this seems to be the phi-
> mosis problem you have so identified in post-adult circumcisions.)

> >
> >>I heartily endorse this attitude and commend Robin for his outstanding work which
> >>serves to elaborate so well the COMPLICATIONS of those who have not been fortunate
> >>enough to have been PROPHYLACTICALLY circumcised neonatally.

> >I completely distance myself from this conclusion. My
> >suggested modern methods of PREVENTION (which you answered
> >to above) have nothing to do with "PROPHYLACTIC" circumcision.

> TRUE-- BUT IMAGINE HOW MUCH MISERY WOULD BE PREVENTED IF PROPER
> NEONATAL CIRCUMCISION HAD BEEN DONE!! ON THE OTHER HAND YOUR
> EFFORTS FROM A VERY PRACTICAL VIEWPOINT ARE TO BE CONGRATULATED!!

> >The modern medical attitude and the conclusion of my study is
> >that children must be checked and these conditions prevented.

> ROUTINE circumcision or nothing at all = this is a total fallacy!
> GNW
> >
> >___________________________________

> Answers:

> - Re: Lucky bulls and your silly neonatal ideas RS 18.9.99 (0)

ARC forum main index
forum1 index
page1 /page2

The Origins of a Taboo