22,264
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
adjusted REFjournal
In 1997, the ''NEJM'' printed a strongly pro-circumcision editorial by Dr. [[Thomas E. Wiswell|Thomas Wiswell]],<ref>{{REFjournal
|last=Wiswell
|firstinit=T.E.TE
|title=Circumcision circumspection
|journal=N Engl J Med
}}</ref> but did not print the alternative opinion in favor of normal anatomy (see Abstracts & Analysis). When misinformation in Wiswell's editorial was brought to the attention of the editor, there was no attempt to correct Wiswell's exaggerated benefit claims. In contrast, the ''NEJM'' had printed a Sounding Board discussion of circumcision examining the purported advantages and disadvantages of circumcision earlier in 1990.<ref>{{REFjournal
|last=Schoen
|firstinit=E.J.EJ
|title=The status of circumcision of newborns
|journal=N Engl J Med
}}</ref><ref>{{REFjournal
|last=Poland
|firstinit=R.L.RL
|title=The question of routine neonatal circumcision
|url=http://www.cirp.org/library/general/poland/
In a previous article in the ''NEJM'', Royce ''et al.'' insinuated that the prepuce may be a risk factor for HIV infections.<ref>{{REFjournal
|last=Royce
|firstinit=R.A.RA
|last2=Sena
|first2init2=A.
|last3=Cates Jr
|first3init3=W.
|last4=Cohen
|first4init4=M.S.MS
|title=Sexual transmission of HIV
|journal=N Engl J Med
}}</ref> This factually inaccurate article was referenced in a letter to the editor as proof that circumcision protects an individual from HIV infections.<ref name="Laumann1997">{{REFjournal
|last=Laumann
|firstinit=E.O.EO
|last2=Masi
|first2init2=C.M.CM
|last3=Zuckerman
|first3init3=E.W.EW
|title=Circumcision in the United States: prevalence, prophylactic effects, and sexual practices, and sexual practice
|url=http://www.cirp.org/library/general/laumann/
}}</ref> in 1996 position papers. Taylor described the unique innervation of the preputial mucosa in 1996, and its loss to circumcision.<ref>{{REFjournal
|last=Taylor
|firstinit=J.R.JR
|last2=Lockwood
|first2init2=A.P.AP
|last3=Taylor
|first3init3=A.J.AJ
|title=The prepuce: specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision
|url=http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/
}}</ref> Taddio ''et al''. showed that circumcision with and without local anesthesia (EMLA) resulted in negative behavioral changes in a child's response to [[pain]].<ref name=Taddio1997>{{REFjournal
|last=Taddio
|firstinit=A.
|last2=Katz
|first2init2=J.
|last3=Ilersich
|first3init3=A.L.AL
|last4=Koren
|first4init4=G.
|title=Effect of neonatal circumcision on pain response during subsequent routine vaccination
|url=http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/taddio2/
The research on EMLA and circumcision presented by Taddio ''et al.'' was proclaimed as a major advance.<ref>{{REFjournal
|last=Taddio
|firstinit=A.
|last2=Stevens
|first2init2=B.
|last3=Craig
|first3init3=K.
|last4=Rastogi
|first4init4=P.
|last5=Ben-David
|first5init5=S.
|last6=Shennan
|first6init6=A.
|last7=Mulligan
|first7init7=P.
|last8=Koren
|first8init8=G.
|title=Efficacy and safety of lidocaine-prilocaine cream for pain during circumcision
|journal=N Engl J Med
}}</ref> When the limitations of this form of local anesthesia was brought to the attention of the editors, they failed to print the criticism (see Abstracts & Analysis). They failed to point out that this form of local anesthesia (EMLA) did not prevent the long term negative behavioral response to [[pain]] previously reported in the ''Lancet''.<ref name=Taddio1997/> The lack of effects of EMLA on long term negative behavioral changes caused by circumcision was printed in British medical journals.<ref name=Taddio1997/><ref>{{REFjournal
|last=Taddio
|firstinit=A.
|last2=Goldbach
|first2init2=M.
|last3=Ipp
|first3init3=M.
|last4=Stevens
|first4init4=B.
|last5=Koren
|first5init5=G.
|title=Effect of neonatal circumcision on pain responses during vaccination in boys
|url=http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/taddio/