In 1949, Douglas Gairdner, a pediatrician in Cambridge, England, published “Fate of the Foreskin: A Study of Circumcision,” hereafter, “Fate of the Foreskin,” in the British Medical Journal. In the article, Gairdner highlights what he saw as a seriously understudied topic, the natural development of the foreskin in males. Although physicians were then circumcising tens of thousands of male infants annually in England, data on the normal anatomy and function of the foreskin were scarce. In “Fate of the Foreskin,” Gairdner assembles those data and uses them to argue against performing circumcision to treat conditions like phimosis. Phimosis is when the foreskin tightly encases the glans, or head, of the penis and cannot retract. Gairdner finds that an unretractable foreskin is actually the normal state for newborn males, and that the foreskin will become retractable on its own over a period of months to years. By showing that phimosis is not a pathological condition, “Fate of the Foreskin” questioned the legitimacy of routine circumcision, and ultimately led to a steep decline of the practice in England.

Non-therapeutic infant circumcision is the surgical removal of healthy foreskin from a male infant, often shortly after birth, for the purpose of achieving potential future medical benefits. Today, in 2025, the practice is common the United States but not as common in other Western industrialized countries. Though circumcision itself is an ancient cultural practice, doctors began performing circumcision for medical purposes only in the nineteenth century, and primarily in English-speaking countries. Orthopedic surgeon Lewis Sayre, who practiced medicine in New York City, New York, in the late nineteenth century popularized circumcision as a treatment for conditions such as muscle paralysis. Sayre’s ideas eventually fell out of favor, but doctors increasingly identified other reasons to perform the procedure, including the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, urinary tract infections, and cancer. As of 2025, doctors, parents, ethicists, and others continue to debate the medical value of circumcision as well as the ethics of operating on the healthy genitals of people who cannot consent.