15,635
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This article will focus on the fundamental flaws of all or most [[circumcision]] research.
Add text.
{{Construction Site}}
The '''Circumcision study flaws''' are numerous. The medical literature relating to circumcision is impacted by religious and cultural views of many authors. Moreover the circumcision status of the author impacts his views.<ref name="hill2007">{{REFjournal
|last=Hill
|first=G.
|author-link=George Hill
|url=http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.738.3612&rep=rep1&type=pd
|title=The case against circumcision
|journal=J Mens Health Gend
|date=2007-08-20
|volume=4
|issue=3
|pages=318-323
}}</ref>
==Polarity==
The medical literature regarding male circumcision is highly polarized. Foreskinned doctors tend to write papers hostile to circumcision, while circumcised doctors tend to write papers in favor of circumcision.<ref name="hill2007" />
{{REF}}