Citaat:
Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door quercus
|
Bedankt voor de nuance, want in die link staat wel een en ander dat de zgn ‘medische voordelen’ van besnijdenis tegenspreekt:
“Circumcision, or removal of the foreskin from the penis, is the most common surgical procedure performed in the United States. More than a million newborn males are circumcised by doctors every year. You might think, given these numbers, that circumcision has sound scientific logic behind it. You would be wrong. In 1971, when the rate of neonatal circumcision in the U.S. was near its peak of around 80-90%, the American Academy of Pediatrics concluded that, “there are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period.”
Maw, de medische sector terzake toont aan dat er geen enkel medisch voordeel is, om de voorhuid weg te snijden.
Echter, de populariteit ervan in de VS is toe te schrijven aan een arts in de late 19-de eeuw, die daarmee dacht om bepaalde ziekten en aandoeningen uit de wereld te helpen:
“Dr. Sayre believed that by removing the foreskin he could eliminate one form of this “irritation” and thereby relieve the paralysis. (Interestingly, this was also the basis for removing a woman’s ovaries to combat hysteria and backache.) Sayre’s intervention, which he first performed on a 5-year-old boy suffering from leg paralysis, was the beginning of the American medical appropriation of what had been a primarily religious ritual.
What Sayre began, other physicians continued with gusto. Circumcision was used to treat conditions as varied as asthma, epilepsy, hernia, and indigestion. When reflex neurosis eventually fell out of medical fashion as an explanation for illness, other uses were found for the procedure. Increasingly, doctors said circumcision could prevent a number of conditions, including venereal diseases like syphilis and gonorrhea, masturbation, and cancer.”
https://matthewtontonoz.com/2015/01/...ar-in-america/
‘t Ja, als kwakzalvers het voor ‘t zeggen hebben…