[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.161.157.73. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
October 1986

Circumcision and Genital Hygiene

Author Affiliations

Children's Medical Associates, PC 3957 Holcomb Bridge Rd, Suite 101 Norcross, GA 30092

Am J Dis Child. 1986;140(10):969. doi:10.1001/archpedi.1986.02140240015005
Abstract

Sir.—One of the functions of the foreskin is to protect the glans; thus, balanitis in a noncircumcised infant should not occur. Perhaps what Herzog and Alvarez1 describe as balanitis was actually posthitis, an inflammation and/or infection of the foreskin, but certainly it was no reason to resume advocating routine neonatal circumcision. Shortly after the American Academy of Pediatrics, Elk Grove Village, Ill, published the fifth edition of Hospital Care of Newborn Infants2 in 1971, which stated "There are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the newborn period," I chaired a pediatric specialty panel to advise the Georgia Department of Medical Assistance whether Medicaid should continue to pay for routine neonatal circumcision. Our panel unanimously but regretfully decided it should. The panel agreed it was easier to care for a circumcised penis than a noncircumcised one; thus, families on Medicaid who might not have soap and

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×