This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1998;152:1038-1039.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

The publication of Schlesinger and Urbach's¹ endorsement of circumcision being excluded from the list of procedures for which bacterial endocarditis prophylaxis is indicated brings the rhetoric surrounding circumcision to a new level of absurdity. The authors depict antibiotic prophylaxis for a few children with congenital heart disease as dangerous and unnecessary, while missing the point that circumcision is far more dangerous and unnecessary. The potential of antibiotic resistance from short-term prophylactic usage in 0.8% of boys pales in comparison to the risks of penile amputation² and death from circumcision.

It is surprising that a specialist in infectious diseases (Dr Urbach) should be unaware that Staphylococcus aureus is more commonly found in the urethras of circumcised boys³ or that circumcised boys are more likely to develop pyoderma following the procedure.^4-5 It is also surprising that he cites a seriously flawed study⁶ in which the inclusion criteria discrepancies render its results meaningless. . . . [Full Text of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?