Monday, September 7, 2009

1954 Time Magazine Article Promotes Universal Circumcision

Sometimes the old ways of doing things make the most sense, even if the reasons for doing them advance with medical science. That's what came to mind as I read this 1954 article in an April 5 issue of Time Magazine. Entitled "Medicine: Circumcision & Cancer," the weekly news magazine, which I'm told (before my time) influenced a few generations of American parents, reinforced the growing belief among the parents of Babyboomers in the USA that a clean-cut penis was the only penis to have.

I'm going to reprint the article with my comments in bold italics. Enjoy.


Medicine: Circumcision & Cancer
TIME: April 5, 1954

"The fact that 85% of the boy babies born in U.S. private hospitals nowadays are circumcised, regardless of the parents' religious beliefs, may be an important factor in reducing cancer of the uterine cervix (neck of the womb) in years to come. Dr. Ernest L. Wynder. of Manhattan's Memorial Center for Cancer and Allied Diseases, has reached this comforting conclusion after studying the striking differences in the incidence of cervical cancer among women with different marital histories."

So by 1954, 85% of American boys were clean cut. That number probably grew to 95% ten years later. America had become, even 55 years ago, a circumcised nation. And reinforcing a mother's view that her son should be clean-cut is this report that a male's circumcision reduces cervical cancer in a woman.

"It all began with the oft-quoted observation that among Jewish women whose husbands have been routinely, ritually circumcised, cervical cancer is only one-tenth to one-fifth as common as among non-Jewish women of similar age and social status. Was this coincidence or what? To find out, Dr. Wynder arranged exhaustive interviews of 1,900 women in twelve U.S. hospitals scattered over four states; one-third of them had cervical cancer, while the rest (the controls) had other diseases of the pelvis."

"The answers ruled out the possibility of coincidence. They also ruled out pregnancy and number of pregnancies, abortions, miscarriages and douches as possible causes of this type of cancer (which, in frequency, is second only to breast cancer among U.S. women, and takes an estimated 14,000 lives a year, despite thousands of operations for removal).

Looks like Dr. Wynder knew what he was doing here, using lots of women (1,900) in four states. I suspect the anti-circ fanatics (and, fortunately, there were not any at the time) would have found something to complain about.

"Dr. Wynder's key findings:

¶ A woman whose husband is uncircumcised runs 2½ times as great a risk of cervical cancer as a woman, married only once, whose husband has been circumcised.

¶ A woman married only once, but beginning intercourse at 16, is twice as likely to develop cervical cancer as a woman married between 20 and 24. The likelihood keeps going down as the marriage age goes up.

¶ A woman who has two or more marital partners runs a proportionately greater risk of cervical cancer than those married once.

Note that circumcision is not the only factor Dr. Wynder found in the reduced rate of cervical cancer in women. Multiple husbands and early intercourse can increase the rates. But a woman whose husband has a foreskin is 2-1/2 times more likely to get cervical cancer than the woman with a clean-cut circumcised husband. Given that women so often call the shots about whether their son is circumcised, this kind of medical evidence must have been very persuasive indeed.

"That marriage and sexual relations are not the only elements in cervical cancer was shown by the fact that 1% of the victims had never had intercourse. To test his U.S. findings, Dr. Wynder enlisted the help of physicians in India and found direct confirmation: cervical cancer is far commoner among the wives of uncircumcised Hindus than among those of circumcised Moslems, though their hygienic standards are about the same. "

Again, even though cleanliness was the same among both, the wives of uncircumcised Hindus were at greater risk for cancer than circumcised Muslims. No surprise there. In fact, it matches the earlier observation about lower cervical cancer rates among Jewish women.

"Among men, penile cancer is far rarer than cervical cancer among women, but its occurrence follows the same pattern. Dr. Wynder's deduction: circumcision may be a big help in preventing both, presumably because it facilitates personal cleanliness."

When Time Magazine calls circumcision "a big help" back in 1954, you know that American parents were listening. Today, with so much more medical evidence in support of newborn circumcision because it reduces the risk of STDs, HIV, HPV, cancer, and the like, you have to wonder why the Centers for Disease Control and the American Academy of Pediatrics are being so slow to embrace what their parents and grandparents embraced 55 years ago. Except for a few fanatics with loud voices, the vast majority of American parents want to keep America a clean circumcised nation. We knew it in 1954 -- and we know it in 2009!

13 comments:

  1. circumcision is the way to go. we knew then and we know now. its great, im just so disappointed some people use their lives to spread lies and utter tripe about circumcision.

    but its ok because we are winning, science will always win over emotive drivel.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have a slight correction. You are misinterpretting "85% of the boy babies born in U.S. private hospitals nowadays are circumcised" to mean "So by 1954, 85% of American boys were clean cut." That's a mistake -- the rate only refers to private hospital births, not to public hospital or home births. While by the mid-50's the vast majority of Americans were born in hospital, it was still far from universal.

    Consequently, the estimate is that about 75% of American newborns were being circumcised in 1955.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Perhaps Time could be requested to commission a similar article today. Unfortuantely, people seem to dismiss all the evidence about circumcision reducing HIV infection as coming from Africa and therefore irrelevant to the US or UK. Of course, it is equally relevant. We need as much publicity as possible about the health benefits of circumcision - for boys and for their future partners. Routine circumcision as a baby should be the entitlement of every male.

    ReplyDelete
  4. there are several new surveys which have found that circumcision gives far less protection from hiv than the first surveys would have you believe,it appears now that the original surveys were biased or at least had a hidden agenda. the new surveys have scared the WHO and aids charities so much they refused to allow some lectures on them at a recent aids symposium fearing a legal backlash,however the gates foundation has recognized them and accepts there findings but will still offer circumcisions but only when requested by individuals for themselves,its good to see that common-sense still exits occasionally

    ReplyDelete
  5. judging from the number of people who have contracted hiv in the u.s. since it started and bearing in mind its a highly circumcised population it would appear that being circumcised gives little or no protection from the virus.
    suggesting that circumcision is an entitlement like being educated or having a state pension is a very offensive remark,making something compulsory can only lead to a dictatorial society where no freedom or ability to opt out is allowed by law punishable by laws .

    ReplyDelete
  6. To respond to the anonymous comment of 8:54PM:

    there are several new surveys which have found that circumcision gives far less protection from hiv than the first surveys would have you believe

    What "surveys" do you mean? There have been exactly 3 randomised controlled trials investigating the effect of circumcision on female to male transmission of HIV. No more, no less. However, in addition to these, fairly large numbers (more than 40) of observational studies have also been conducted, the majority of which have been consistent with the RCTs.

    it appears now that the original surveys were biased or at least had a hidden agenda

    The combination of extraordinary claims and no evidence whatsoever is entertaining, to say the least.

    the new surveys have scared the WHO and aids charities so much they refused to allow some lectures on them at a recent aids symposium fearing a legal backlash

    Citing some sources would be advisable at this point...

    And to reply to the anonymous post dated 9:07PM:

    judging from the number of people who have contracted hiv in the u.s. since it started and bearing in mind its a highly circumcised population it would appear that being circumcised gives little or no protection from the virus.

    What utter nonsense! I do wish people would think before typing.

    First, the evidence is too indirect to support the conclusion that you wish to draw. By a "highly circumcised population", you actually mean that a relatively large proportion (about 80%) of the population is circumcised. But that still leaves about 20% of the male population of the US uncircumcised, and it is perfectly possible for HIV rates to differ between the two groups. Hypothetically speaking, there could be an HIV rate of 100% among uncircumcised males and 0% in circumcised males, with an overall rate of 20%.

    Second, circumcision grants relative protection, not absolute protection. That is, it reduces the risk of HIV infection, but it does not eliminate it. So one would in fact expect that circumcised individuals would become HIV positive, and the existence of such cases does not show otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  7. www.intactamerica.org

    educate yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Rjd wrote:

    www.intactamerica.org ... educate yourself.

    Hmm, yes. As with most anti-circumcision propaganda sites, some education is advisable, since the site does make some highly dubious claims. The only question is whether it's better to educate oneself before or after visiting.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dear Webmaster,

    Pathology.org is the largest up to date informational database consisting of general health and disease information. The only way to combat disease and promote healthy living is to provide the public current information on health and diseases. Pathology.org consists of breaking news in the health world and offers the information needed to take preventive and combative measures to fight disease. Your website seems to be a very credible resource and would beneficial to us in the fight to combat the contraction and spread of disease. You can aid us in this fight by simply putting a banner or link up for us, making our site available to your vast public. I have included the code for the banner within this email showing you exactly what this banner will look like. Thank you for your time, effort, and work you have done, we look forward to any thoughts you may have.

    Pathology.org is awarding you as top resource and if you would like to get the banner, please email me back with the subject line as your URL to avoid Spam and also to make sure that you only get the banner.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Since breast cancer is so common among women, would you also recommend preventive mastectomy for all women after a certain age? Come on, think rationally, because recommanding circumcision is based on the same logic.
    Try to convince women, they will fight for their integrity, whereas men are on their knees to get that glorious mutilation!

    ReplyDelete
  11. I was born on August 12, 1954 in a Methodist hospital. I probably went home by August 17 or 18. And I went home without my foreskin, which was tossed into the trash and burned in the hospital incinerator. (Today Oprah would use it on her face!) I was cut "tight" most likely with a Gomco clamp and the surgical result was/is very pleasing, thoroughly skinned back, improved appearance and no place for germs to hide! The doc probably had done hundreds of circumcisions before trimming my tallywhacker! So practice makes perfect applies here also.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Why aren't all men circumcised to prevent cervical cancer. My husband and son are. If we have another boy, he will circumcised also.

    Linda

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why? Uninformed or irresponsible parents, or women not organizing for this cause..

      Delete