Bias: Difference between revisions

(6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)

Line 28:

== Cultural bias ==

A scientist or researcher of [[circumcision]] may have a cultural bias in favor of [[circumcision]] if (s)he comes from a country, society, cultural background, or ethnic group where [[circumcision]] is common. A cultural bias is a conflict of interest because reporting accurate findings in studies regarding circumcision is at odds with what one has been conditioned to believe about the practice. A person may be circumcised himself, married to a circumcised spouse, and/or a parent to circumcised children.

A scientist or researcher of [[circumcision]] may have a cultural bias in favor of [[circumcision]] if (s)he comes from a country, society, cultural background, or ethnic group where [[circumcision]] is common. A cultural bias is a conflict of interest because reporting accurate findings in studies regarding circumcision is at odds with what one has been conditioned to believe about the practice. A person may be [[circumcised]] himself, married to a circumcised spouse, and/or a parent to circumcised children.

Circumcision has been near-universal in the [[United States]], Israel, the [[Tuli| Philippines]], and most Muslim nations. Circumcision is also considered a rite of passage in some African tribes. In these societies, a man who has not been circumcised is often considered to be inferior, and in some cases, a social outcast, so there is a strong incentive to circumcise one's self and/or one's children.

Circumcision has been near-universal in the [[United States]], [[Israel]], the [[Tuli|Philippines]], and most Muslim nations. Circumcision is also considered a rite of passage in some African tribes. In these societies, a man who has not been circumcised is often considered to be inferior, and in some cases, a social outcast, so there is a strong incentive to circumcise one's self and/or one's children.

LeBourdais (1995) reported "the likelihood of a baby being [[circumcised]] is influenced by an expanding array of usually non-medical factors: [[Adamant father syndrome| circumcision status of the father]], attitude of the mother, age of the attending physician, ~~sex~~ and circumcision status of the physician, geographic location and religion factors that have little to do with the baby himself."<ref name="lebourdais1995">{{REFjournal

LeBourdais (1995) reported "the likelihood of a baby being [[circumcised]] is influenced by an expanding array of usually non-medical factors: [[Adamant father syndrome| circumcision status of the father]], attitude of the mother, age of the attending physician, gender and circumcision status of the physician, geographic location and religion factors that have little to do with the baby himself."<ref name="lebourdais1995">{{REFjournal

|last=LeBourdais

|first=Eleanor

Line 108:

|accessdate=2020-08-08

|note=

}}</ref> As a result of the long history of doctors condemning the presence of the [[foreskin]] and expounding the alleged virtues of [[circumcision]], curriculum regarding the [[foreskin]] and its [[Foreskin#Physiological_functions| multiple functions]] remain largely absent from American medical literature. Information on the [[Retraction of the foreskin| proper development of the foreskin]] is largely absent, diagrams of male genitalia present the [[penis]] as circumcised, and if the foreskin is mentioned at all, it is in the context of circumcision. In short, most of what is taught in American medicine regarding the foreskin is how to cut it off. When circumcised doctors attempt to write a circumcision policy, the outcome is likely to heavily biased in favor of circumcision.<ref name="goldman2005">{{REFjournal

}}</ref> As a result of the long history of doctors condemning the presence of the [[foreskin]] and expounding the alleged virtues of [[circumcision]], curriculum regarding the [[foreskin]] and its [[Foreskin#Physiological_functions| multiple functions]] remain largely absent from American medical literature. Information on the [[Retraction of the foreskin| proper development of the foreskin]] is largely absent, diagrams of male genitalia present the [[penis]] as [[circumcised]], and if the foreskin is mentioned at all, it is in the context of circumcision. In short, most of what is taught in American medicine regarding the [[foreskin]] is how to cut it off. When [[circumcised]] doctors attempt to write a [[circumcision]] policy, the outcome is likely to heavily biased in favor of circumcision.<ref name="goldman2005">{{REFjournal

|last=Goldman

|first=Ronald

Line 127:

|DOI=10.1093/pch/9.9.630

|accessdate=2019-12-10

}}</ref> <ref name="hill2007">{{REFjournal

|last=Hill

|first=

|init=G

|author-link=George Hill

|title=The case against circumcision

|journal=Journal of Men's Health and Gender

|date=2007

|volume=4

|issue=3

|pages=318-23

|url=https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=04ace5046cc27f01b8fbe4aa359c059778983912

|quote=

|format=PDF

|accessdate=2023-10-02

}}</ref>

Line 182:

Line 197:

|volume=105

|pages=682-683

}}</ref> The voices of Jewish doctors — [[Abraham L. Wolbarst|Wolbarst]], [[Abraham Ravich|Ravich]], Weiss, [[Aaron J. Fink| Fink]], [[Edgar J. Schoen|Schoen]], and others — are disproportionately prominent in circumcision advocacy.

}}</ref> The voices of Jewish doctors — [[Abraham L. Wolbarst|Wolbarst]], [[Abraham Ravich|Ravich]], [[Gerald N. Weiss| Weiss]], [[Aaron J. Fink| Fink]], [[Edgar J. Schoen|Schoen]], and others — are disproportionately prominent in circumcision advocacy.

Although physicians may act with what they consider to be sound medical judgement, some Jewish physicians may be influenced also by non-medical consideration. Cultural background of many Jewish circumcision advocates predisposes them to view the practice in a positive light, to welcome evidence that the most particular and problematic religious custom of their people is medically beneficial, and to dismiss arguments to the contrary. The presence of a large and influential population of Jewish physicians in this country, their concentration in leading centers of research and publication, and their remarkably active participation in the century-long debate on circumcision seems too obvious and too significant to be rejected out of hand, or worse, to be avoided because it might be wrongly interpreted as gratuitous defamation.<ref>{{REFbook

Line 272:

Line 287:

* [[American Academy of Pediatrics]]

* [[Circumfetish]] -- A bias sicker than the rest.

* [[Issues with American urologists and the practice of male circumcision]]

* [[Psychological issues of male circumcision]]

* [[Circumcised doctors]]

* [[Circumcision study flaws]]

* [[Google bias on circumcision]]

* [[Wikipedia bias on circumcision]]

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 <BR CLEAR="all">
 == Cultural bias ==
-A scientist or researcher of [[circumcision]] may have a cultural bias in favor of [[circumcision]] if (s)he comes from a country, society, cultural background, or ethnic group where [[circumcision]] is common. A cultural bias is a conflict of interest because reporting accurate findings in studies regarding circumcision is at odds with what one has been conditioned to believe about the practice. A person may be circumcised himself, married to a circumcised spouse, and/or a parent to circumcised children.
+A scientist or researcher of [[circumcision]] may have a cultural bias in favor of [[circumcision]] if (s)he comes from a country, society, cultural background, or ethnic group where [[circumcision]] is common. A cultural bias is a conflict of interest because reporting accurate findings in studies regarding circumcision is at odds with what one has been conditioned to believe about the practice. A person may be [[circumcised]] himself, married to a circumcised spouse, and/or a parent to circumcised children.
-Circumcision has been near-universal in the [[United States]], Israel, the [[Tuli| Philippines]], and most Muslim nations. Circumcision is also considered a rite of passage in some African tribes. In these societies, a man who has not been circumcised is often considered to be inferior, and in some cases, a social outcast, so there is a strong incentive to circumcise one's self and/or one's children.
+Circumcision has been near-universal in the [[United States]], [[Israel]], the [[Tuli|Philippines]], and most Muslim nations. Circumcision is also considered a rite of passage in some African tribes. In these societies, a man who has not been circumcised is often considered to be inferior, and in some cases, a social outcast, so there is a strong incentive to circumcise one's self and/or one's children.
-LeBourdais (1995) reported "the likelihood of a baby being [[circumcised]] is influenced by an expanding array of usually non-medical factors: [[Adamant father syndrome| circumcision status of the father]], attitude of the mother, age of the attending physician, sex and circumcision status of the physician, geographic location and religion factors that have little to do with the baby himself."<ref name="lebourdais1995">{{REFjournal
+LeBourdais (1995) reported "the likelihood of a baby being [[circumcised]] is influenced by an expanding array of usually non-medical factors: [[Adamant father syndrome| circumcision status of the father]], attitude of the mother, age of the attending physician, gender and circumcision status of the physician, geographic location and religion factors that have little to do with the baby himself."<ref name="lebourdais1995">{{REFjournal
   |last=LeBourdais
   |first=Eleanor
@@ Line 108: / Line 108: @@
   |accessdate=2020-08-08
   |note=
-}}</ref> As a result of the long history of doctors condemning the presence of the [[foreskin]] and expounding the alleged virtues of [[circumcision]], curriculum regarding the [[foreskin]] and its [[Foreskin#Physiological_functions| multiple functions]] remain largely absent from American medical literature. Information on the [[Retraction of the foreskin| proper development of the foreskin]] is largely absent, diagrams of male genitalia present the [[penis]] as circumcised, and if the foreskin is mentioned at all, it is in the context of circumcision. In short, most of what is taught in American medicine regarding the foreskin is how to cut it off. When circumcised doctors attempt to write a circumcision policy, the outcome is likely to heavily biased in favor of circumcision.<ref name="goldman2005">{{REFjournal
+}}</ref> As a result of the long history of doctors condemning the presence of the [[foreskin]] and expounding the alleged virtues of [[circumcision]], curriculum regarding the [[foreskin]] and its [[Foreskin#Physiological_functions| multiple functions]] remain largely absent from American medical literature. Information on the [[Retraction of the foreskin| proper development of the foreskin]] is largely absent, diagrams of male genitalia present the [[penis]] as [[circumcised]], and if the foreskin is mentioned at all, it is in the context of circumcision. In short, most of what is taught in American medicine regarding the [[foreskin]] is how to cut it off. When [[circumcised]] doctors attempt to write a [[circumcision]] policy, the outcome is likely to heavily biased in favor of circumcision.<ref name="goldman2005">{{REFjournal
   |last=Goldman
   |first=Ronald
@@ Line 127: / Line 127: @@
   |DOI=10.1093/pch/9.9.630
   |accessdate=2019-12-10
+}}</ref> <ref name="hill2007">{{REFjournal
+ |last=Hill
+ |first=
+ |init=G
+ |author-link=George Hill
+ |title=The case against circumcision
+ |journal=Journal of Men's Health and Gender
+ |date=2007
+ |volume=4
+ |issue=3
+ |pages=318-23
+ |url=https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=04ace5046cc27f01b8fbe4aa359c059778983912
+ |quote=
+ |format=PDF
+ |accessdate=2023-10-02
 }}</ref>
@@ Line 182: / Line 197: @@
   |volume=105
   |pages=682-683
-}}</ref> The voices of Jewish doctors — [[Abraham L. Wolbarst|Wolbarst]], [[Abraham Ravich|Ravich]], Weiss, [[Aaron J. Fink| Fink]], [[Edgar J. Schoen|Schoen]], and others — are disproportionately prominent in circumcision advocacy.
+}}</ref> The voices of Jewish doctors — [[Abraham L. Wolbarst|Wolbarst]], [[Abraham Ravich|Ravich]], [[Gerald N. Weiss| Weiss]], [[Aaron J. Fink| Fink]], [[Edgar J. Schoen|Schoen]], and others — are disproportionately prominent in circumcision advocacy.
 Although physicians may act with what they consider to be sound medical judgement, some Jewish physicians may be influenced also by non-medical consideration. Cultural background of many Jewish circumcision advocates predisposes them to view the practice in a positive light, to welcome evidence that the most particular and problematic religious custom of their people is medically beneficial, and to dismiss arguments to the contrary. The presence of a large and influential population of Jewish physicians in this country, their concentration in leading centers of research and publication, and their remarkably active participation in the century-long debate on circumcision seems too obvious and too significant to be rejected out of hand, or worse, to be avoided because it might be wrongly interpreted as gratuitous defamation.<ref>{{REFbook
@@ Line 272: / Line 287: @@
 {{SEEALSO}}
+* [[American Academy of Pediatrics]]
 * [[Circumfetish]] -- A bias sicker than the rest.
+* [[Issues with American urologists and the practice of male circumcision]]
 * [[Psychological issues of male circumcision]]
 * [[Circumcised doctors]]
 * [[Circumcision study flaws]]
+* [[Google bias on circumcision]]
 * [[Wikipedia bias on circumcision]]