Male Circumcision: A Social And Medical Misconception
University of Johns Hopkins
Introduction
Male circumcision is defined as a surgical procedure in which the prepuce
of the penis is separated from the glands and excised. (Mosby, 1986) Dating as
far back as 2800 BC, circumcision has been performed as a part of religious
ceremony, as a puberty or premarital rite, as a disciplinary measure, as a
reprieve against the toxic effects of vaginal blood, and as a mark of slavery.
(Milos & Macris, 1992) In the United States, advocacy of circumcision was
perpetuated amid the Victorian belief that circumcision served as a remedy
against the ills of masturbation and systemic disease. (Lund, 1990) The
scientific community further reinforced these ...
Want to read the rest of this paper?
Join Essayworld today to view this entire essay
and over 50,000 other term papers
|
procedure that is historically based on religious and cultural doctrine
and not of medical necessity. Possible complications of circumcision include
hemorrhage, infection, surgical trauma, and pain. (Gelbaum, 1992) Unless
absolute medical indications exist, why should male infants be exposed to these
risks? In essence, our society has perpetuated an unnecessary surgical procedure
that permanently alters a normal, healthy body part.
This paper examines the literature surrounding the debate over circumcision,
delineates the flaws that exist in the research, and discusses the nurse's role
in the circumcision debate.
Review of Literature
Many studies performed worldwide suggest a relationship between lack of
circumcision and urinary tract infection (UTI). In 1982, Ginsberg and McCracken
described a case series of infants five days to eight months of age hospitalized
with UTI. (Thompson, 1990) Of the total infant population hospitalized with UTI,
sixty-two were males and only ...
Get instant access to over 50,000 essays.
Write better papers. Get better grades.
Already a member? Login
|
that this
research is statistically weak and should not be the criteria on which to decide
for or against neonatal circumcision.
Lund (1990) reports that a study conducted by Parker and associates
estimates the relative risk of uncircumcised males to be double that of
circumcised males for acquiring herpes genitalis, candidiasis, gonorrhea, and
syphilis. Simonsen and coworkers performed a case-control study on 340 men in
Kenya, Africa in an attempt to explain the different pattern for acquired immune
deficiency syndrome (AIDS) virus in Africa as compared to the United States.
(Thompson, 1990) The authors conclude that the relative risk for AIDS was higher
for uncircumcised men. ...
Succeed in your coursework without stepping into a library.
Get access to a growing library of notes, book reports,
and research papers in 2 minutes or less.
|
CITE THIS PAGE:
Male Circumcision: A Social And Medical Misconception. (2006, April 28). Retrieved April 19, 2024, from http://www.essayworld.com/essays/Male-Circumcision-A-Social-Medical-Misconception/45111
"Male Circumcision: A Social And Medical Misconception." Essayworld.com. Essayworld.com, 28 Apr. 2006. Web. 19 Apr. 2024. <http://www.essayworld.com/essays/Male-Circumcision-A-Social-Medical-Misconception/45111>
"Male Circumcision: A Social And Medical Misconception." Essayworld.com. April 28, 2006. Accessed April 19, 2024. http://www.essayworld.com/essays/Male-Circumcision-A-Social-Medical-Misconception/45111.
"Male Circumcision: A Social And Medical Misconception." Essayworld.com. April 28, 2006. Accessed April 19, 2024. http://www.essayworld.com/essays/Male-Circumcision-A-Social-Medical-Misconception/45111.
|
Save
Report