Skip Navigation

Social History of Medicine 2003 16(1):57-78; doi:10.1093/shm/16.1.57
© 2003 by Society for the Social History of Medicine
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Darby, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

‘Where Doctors Differ’: The Debate on Circumcision as a Protection against Syphilis, 1855–1914

Robert Darby1

1 15 Morehead Street, Curtin ACT 2605, Australia. E-mail: robjld{at}webone.com.au

During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries there were two views on the relationship between syphilis and male circumcision: one was that circumcision provided protection against syphilis, another that circumcision was itself a significant source of syphilitic infection. This article reviews this debate, relates the first view to an influential article by Jonathan Hutchinson in 1855 and considers the subsequent use made of his statistics. It is suggested that the original statistics were of dubious value and that the promise of protection against syphilis was an additional argument for doctors who were keen to introduce universal circumcision of male infants for other reasons, the most significant of which was related to the conviction that it would discourage masturbation. The article further considers the controversy over whether Jews were healthier than other peoples, and the interaction among medical, moral, and customary/religious reasons for circumcising boys, and concludes that, while the operation never played any role in the control of syphilis, circumcision was indeed a significant cause of illness and death among male infants before the standardization of aseptic operating techniques.

Keywords: circumcision; foreskin; syphilis; venereal disease; Jonathan Hutchinson; Abraham Wolbarst; E. Harding Freeland; masturbation; diseases of children


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.