As these two articles from 1898 show, there was not much difference between the Orificial History Society and more orthodox medicine when it came to the  dangers of preputual irritation and the benefits of an early circumcision.

Far-reaching benefits of circumcision

The operation of circumcision is so far-reaching in its beneficial results that performance of this operation cannot be confined to any one class of specialists, but is the common property of all, including even the general practitioner, as all can agree on one point at least – that is, that removal of the prepuce is followed by a cleanlier and more aseptic condition of the glans penis. But the class who are most greatly interested in this surgical procedure are the genito-urinary surgeon and neurologist, either of whom may be frequently called upon  to perform circumcision as a remedy for a venereal trouble or some obscure nervous affection.

I have performed the operation of circumcision many times; but the youngest child which I have ever operated on was one forty-five hours of age. The mother of the child noticed that it was very fretful, and feared that spasms might supervene. I was called in, and both mother and father told me that they had sought diligently to find an orifice to the foreskin, but their efforts had been made in vain. I then began the search myself; but neither with the aid of my eyes or probe could I find any preputial orifice. I told the parents there was but one thing to do, and that was to circumcise the child, which I did, cutting off the foreskin when the child was but forty-five hours of age.

After cutting off the foreskin and splitting up its mucous membrane on the dorsum as far as the corona glandis, I proceeded to strip the mucous membrane from the surface of the glans, which I found to be a very difficult thing to accomplish, as the adhesions had become so firm that it seemed to have become almost a portion of the glans itself, and was stripped off from it with a great deal of difficulty.

Some hours after the operation (which was about six o'clock in he evening) a few drops of water passed from the orifice of the urethra, and by morning the infant began to urinate and, according to the mother's statement, must have passed a quart of water, which seems almost incredible, and probably only appeared to be that much; but the quantity must have been something enormous for the mother to have thought that such a large amount had been passed. The wound healed nicely in about the usual length of time, and the child is now well.

This case is extremely interesting, for although one frequently meets with cases of nearly complete occlusion of the orifice of the prepuce, yet the occurrence of complete obstruction is rare; and I do not recollect, in looking over the literature on the subject of preputial troubles (to which I have given considerable attention), to have found any cases reported of this character.

In the foregoing case there was a positive necessity for the operation; but before dwelling upon the subject in the treatment of certain neurological and genito-urinary affections, why not look at the matter in a broader light, and see if it be not a direct prophylactic procedure in the limitation of diseases of the genito-urinary and nervous systems. First of all, one of the objects most desired in other portions of the body are obtained in this region by the removal of the skin which covers the head of the penis, namely, cleanliness; which is reason enough of itself why the operation should be made general.

[Various references to cleanliness, Jonathan Hutchinson's figures on syphilis, the dangers of phimosis and preputial adhesions etc]

A western physician reports a case of asthma in an adult cured by circumcision – but space will not permit the insertion of the many interesting cases which I might glean from the literature on the subject.  Phimosis may simulate [sic: stimulate?] stone in the bladder. The cutting off of the foreskin is probably of benefit in all cases of neurasthenia, whether associated with phimosis or not. It is not surprising that phimosis may be the cause in many instances of epilepsy and some other nervous disorders, when we take into consideration the nervous distribution of the glans penis, Pacinian nerve endings being found there; and according to a well known writer, the nerve distribution to the head of the penis is not excelled in richness by any portion of the economy, even including the organs of sense. [1] This being the case, would it be any wonder that irritation produced by hardened smegma should cause, by its reflex, a convulsion of an epileptoid nature, or any other manifestations of a reflex kind. Nocturnal enuresis (or wetting the bed) may be of this character, as it seems to have been relieved by circumcision.

After examining into the operation of circumcision thoroughly, as we have done, one is surprised to find that there are some opponents to the performance of it. One says that the foreskin by its friction over the sensitive corona during coition enhances the ejaculatory act. In reply would say [sic], is not the friction from the folds of the vaginal walls more to be desired? About the only objection that have been urged against cutting off the foreskin are that it leaves the sensitive head of the penis constantly exposed to friction against the clothing and other rough articles; and another objection is made that this exposure to friction decreases to a certain extent the sensibility of this very sensitive head.

It does come into contact with the clothing after circumcision has been performed, but after some time the mucous membrane of the glans penis becomes toughened and thicker, and so far as the decrease in sensibility is concerned, it is an advantage, as the act of coitus is prolonged. [2] The glands of Tyson dry up, [3] so that the head of the penis of a circumcised individual remains dry and clean. Should the sensibility of the glans be too greatly reduced (some time after the operation by exposure) to suit its possessor, its sensibility may be increased considerably by wearing a condom well smeared with Vaseline over the head of the penis for a few days.

[A lengthy description of his surgical technique follows.]

Alex L. Hodgon MD, "A case of threatened convulsions with complete congenital occlusion of the orifice of the prepuce – Followed by a few remarks on phimosis and circumcision, American Journal of Dermatology and Genito-Urinary Diseases, Vol. 2, October 1898, pp. 122-27

NOTES

1. The author was Georg Ludwig Kobelt, who had written in Die Mannlichen and Weiblichen Wollusts-Organe des Menschen und verschiedene Saugetiere (The male and female organs of sexual arousal in man and some other mammals), first published in 1844:  "The glans penis is the principal point of reunion of the sensitive nerves of the virile organ, no other part which it regulates can be compared with it in this respect. In respect of richness in nerves, the glans penis yields to no other part, not even the organ of sense." Hodgon is more likely remembering the passage as quoted by William Acton, in The functions and disorders of the reproductive organs in childhood, youth, adult age and advanced life, (3rd edition [London 1862], Philadelphia: Lindsay and Blakiston, 1865), p. 153, n.1

2.  As late as 1967 another American urologist fell into the same bizarre contradiction – simultaneously arguing that circumcision made no difference to penile sensation, yet also that the diminished sensitivity was a good thing, since it delayed the orgasm, thus enhancing marital happiness. See the contribution of Ira M. Fielding MD, instructor in urology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, to the symposium, "Should circumcision be done routinely?", Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, December 1967, p. 33

3.  This is another instance of the myth of Tyson's glands, though Dr Hogdon can be excused, writing as he was before their existence had been disproved.

Further benefits of circumcision

According to Dr Bergman, "He needed the rightful punishment of
cutting pains after his illicit pleasures."

It is as interesting from a surgical standpoint, as it is gratifying from a humane point of view, to note the rapid changes made possible by the orificial method of handling our cases. The stimulating effect of the treatment makes the whole sympathetic nerve reverberate under its force, reaching the finest little twigs of this nervous tree, and institutes changes in the nutrition that cause the pathological conditions to yield gradually before the onslaught of healthy blood and tissue. Thus rejuvenating the entire system, it opens up a new chapter of life, new hopes are held out, and the sufferer is able to begin anew.

In children, I believe, we will notice the most rapid recoveries, no doubt due to the circumstances that the vital forces of a growing system are more numerous or employed more actively than in one where are engaged forces to maintain life only, and consequently such a system is more readily impressed than one at later periods of life.

Circumcision has an extraordinarily wide range of action, not as a surgical procedure to remove objectionable local conditions only, but employed as a curative means in diseases of the sympathetic nerve, in which there is to the common physician apparently no connection between the lesion and the male organ. But the orificial surgeon has learned to recognise these cases, and is able to effect a cure where ordinary medication has been tried and found a failure. In the few cases here submitted orificial treatment wrought  a speedy cure, after internal medicines had failed to produce any impression for the better.

Cases

Case 1. – Baby Andrew H., aet. 10 months, had for some time suffered from difficult urination. He was irritable and fretful to the highest degree, and was continually disturbed in his sleep. Before micturition the parts would swell up, assume a bluish colour, and with great straining and pain a small stream of urine would be expelled. I prescribed for the boy, but with very little relief, and as the condition of the boy was growing worse, I concluded to circumcise him. The prepuce was found adherent to the glans and abnormally contracted, leaving only the smallest opening for the urine. The rectal sphincter was also too tight. In a few days the boy recovered from the effects of the operation, and was well after that. The dysuria disappeared entirely, and the boy, improved in every respect, is at present at 4 years or age perfectly well and hearty.

Case 2. – Baby Russell R., aet. 18 months, had been treated or convulsions during dentition, but without any improvement. When he was brought to me the seizures were of such a serious nature that fear had been expressed by his former physician that the boy might not live through another attack. Although the irritation from the teeth had a great deal to do with these attacks, it was clear to me that they had a deeper source. On examination of the boy I fond this, so common condition, viz.: elongated, tight prepuce; inflamed, narrow meatus. I advised circumcision, which was immediately performed.  The adherent foreskin had to be peeled off the glans, and several hard lumps of smegma were removed. The continuous catgut stitch was used to unite the mucous membrane with the skin. The little patent made a rapid recovery; the convulsions ceased at once; the boy grew and thrived and was in fact entirely changed. He became sweet and happy, his parents joy and pleasure from having been a constant care and worry.

Case 3. – Ernest G., 8 years old, was brought to my office by his mother, who told me the boy had always been sickly, never well. He had had all the children's diseases; would take cold with every change of he weather; would never eat much at mealtimes, but always between; could not sleep well, perhaps because he was so disturbed by his bladder in the night, and had been for nearly three years deaf in his right ear. The boy certainly looked very sickly and puny. he had taken "barrels of medicines", until his stomach had revolted, and had now come to try the new school. I suspected orificial irritation, and after having examined the boy and informed Mrs G. of a few facts, I recommended an operation, to which she  consented. I found about the same condition as in the previous case and an extremely flabby and "tired" sphincter.

I am pleased to report that the treatment did wonders for this boy. His appetite became more natural; the functions of the bladder normal; his hearing was restored, and during the first three months following he operation he gained nearly six pounds in weight. The principal accessories I used were baryta jod 3x for the general condition, and fer. phos. 6x for his ear.

Case 4 – Clarence B., aet. 16 years, had been under my care for several months for various complaints, and with varied success. He was undersized in stature, and so dull mentally that he forgot half the time to take his medicines, and could give such a poor account of himself that I made only slow progress with him. I was about to give up he case when his older married sister told me, one day, that she had wrung out of the boy a confession that he was addicted to the secret vice practised among boys.

This information, of course, changed my medication, but though the boy, as I had reason to believe, stopped this injurious practice, his actual recovery did not take place until I had performed an orificial operation, consisting of circumcision and removal of pockets and papillae.

It may have been that this patient could have been cured without this treatment, but I hardly believe so, for he arose from his sickbed clean. He needed the rightful punishment of cutting pains after his illicit pleasures, and realising his error he turned into another path and became rapidly restored to full vitality of body and soul. His eye grew bright, his brow clear, his gait became elastic, and he grew more in height in the following one year than he had in the previous three.  His intellect widened, as his memory returned, and he last reports from school showed that he had acquitted himself as a good scholar.

N. Bergman, "Report of a few cases of circumcision", Journal of Orificial Surgery, Vol. 7, December 1898, pp. 249-51