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)