I mentioned in another thread that my reasoned opinion is that if our leading medical associations that deal with children's health, the AAP & the AAFP, were to take positions decidedly more pro-intact, it would encourage thousands of healthcare professionals to finally speak out against RIC.
In fact, this is more or less what occurred in the UK in the 1940s. Most people, especially within the medical profession, perceived that there was an undeniable undercurrent of discomfort among doctors and nurses regarding infant circumcision. Not that it was even that widespread -- maybe peaked at 35% or so in England by the 40's, predominantly among the upper and upper-middle class. Rare in Scotland & Wales. Yet virtually no one dared question circumcision too loudly.
But two things happened closely together. In July 1948 the National Health Service (NHS) began operation. While it didn't (and still doesn't) exclude infant circumcision, it left treatment prioritization to physicians and hospitals, which immediately put infant circumcision low on the list. With budgets desperately thin right after WWII, this effectively meant no circs.
The second event was a blunt essay by a highly-regarded senior Pediatrician, Douglas Gairdner, published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) on Christmas Eve 1949 -- today is actually the 60th anniversary of this literate, momentous review, entitled The Fate of the Foreskin. Gairdner opened a lot of eyes with his irrefutable anatomical description. He concluded succinctly: "The prepuce of the young infant should therefore be left in its natural state." BMJ, Volume 2, Pages 1433-1437, December 24, 1949. A lot of discussion ensued, and opinion within the British Medical Association (BMA) turned decidedly against RIC.
Well then. These two events had the remarkable effect of virtually halting infant circumcision in its tracks in England within 2-3 years. Suddenly doctors and nurses everywhere sighed a breath of relief and didn't hesitate to talk parents out of even considering circumcision. Quickly it got to the point where RIC was seldom even brought up, and by the mid 1950's the UK's RIC rate was under 1%, like in the rest of Europe.
We've seen this effect to a lesser extent now in Australia, New Zealand and Canada. But Gairdner was among the first to come right out and say the emperor had no clothes -- it liberated the rest of his profession to speak up. In the US we had author Joseph Lewis in 1949 and AF Capt. Noel Preston in 1970 saying much the same thing as Gairdner, but their voices were drowned out by bestselling author Benjamin Spock (who finally in 1989 came out against RIC -- 43 years after igniting the circumcision craze in the baby boom years with his book, Baby and Child Care).
It still irks me a little that the Brits conspired with the US to popularize childhood and then infant circumcision, only to casually walk away from RIC after just 2 generations of dabbling in it. Now they look at the Americans like, "You took this whole 'cut the kids' thing entirely too seriously, mates! We wuz just havin' a laff."
It's a good time to reflect on Doug Gairdner and the profound effect that an éminence grise can have on professional opinion. Someone to say, "Hey, what are we doing? Snap out of it!" We need those clearheaded leaders today.
In fact, this is more or less what occurred in the UK in the 1940s. Most people, especially within the medical profession, perceived that there was an undeniable undercurrent of discomfort among doctors and nurses regarding infant circumcision. Not that it was even that widespread -- maybe peaked at 35% or so in England by the 40's, predominantly among the upper and upper-middle class. Rare in Scotland & Wales. Yet virtually no one dared question circumcision too loudly.
But two things happened closely together. In July 1948 the National Health Service (NHS) began operation. While it didn't (and still doesn't) exclude infant circumcision, it left treatment prioritization to physicians and hospitals, which immediately put infant circumcision low on the list. With budgets desperately thin right after WWII, this effectively meant no circs.
The second event was a blunt essay by a highly-regarded senior Pediatrician, Douglas Gairdner, published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) on Christmas Eve 1949 -- today is actually the 60th anniversary of this literate, momentous review, entitled The Fate of the Foreskin. Gairdner opened a lot of eyes with his irrefutable anatomical description. He concluded succinctly: "The prepuce of the young infant should therefore be left in its natural state." BMJ, Volume 2, Pages 1433-1437, December 24, 1949. A lot of discussion ensued, and opinion within the British Medical Association (BMA) turned decidedly against RIC.
Well then. These two events had the remarkable effect of virtually halting infant circumcision in its tracks in England within 2-3 years. Suddenly doctors and nurses everywhere sighed a breath of relief and didn't hesitate to talk parents out of even considering circumcision. Quickly it got to the point where RIC was seldom even brought up, and by the mid 1950's the UK's RIC rate was under 1%, like in the rest of Europe.
We've seen this effect to a lesser extent now in Australia, New Zealand and Canada. But Gairdner was among the first to come right out and say the emperor had no clothes -- it liberated the rest of his profession to speak up. In the US we had author Joseph Lewis in 1949 and AF Capt. Noel Preston in 1970 saying much the same thing as Gairdner, but their voices were drowned out by bestselling author Benjamin Spock (who finally in 1989 came out against RIC -- 43 years after igniting the circumcision craze in the baby boom years with his book, Baby and Child Care).
It still irks me a little that the Brits conspired with the US to popularize childhood and then infant circumcision, only to casually walk away from RIC after just 2 generations of dabbling in it. Now they look at the Americans like, "You took this whole 'cut the kids' thing entirely too seriously, mates! We wuz just havin' a laff."
It's a good time to reflect on Doug Gairdner and the profound effect that an éminence grise can have on professional opinion. Someone to say, "Hey, what are we doing? Snap out of it!" We need those clearheaded leaders today.
