New England Journal of Medicine: Difference between revisions
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) Consolidate footnotes. |
m reformatted REFs |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
== Shift from neutrality to a pro-circumcision stance == | == Shift from neutrality to a pro-circumcision stance == | ||
In 1997, the ''NEJM'' printed a strongly pro-circumcision editorial by Dr. [[Thomas E. Wiswell| Thomas Wiswell]],<ref | In 1997, the ''NEJM'' printed a strongly pro-circumcision editorial by Dr. [[Thomas E. Wiswell|Thomas Wiswell]],<ref>{{REFjournal | ||
|last=Wiswell | |||
|first=T.E. | |||
|title=Circumcision circumspection | |||
|journal=N Engl J Med | |||
|date=1997 | |||
|volume=336 | |||
|pages=1244-1245 | |||
}}</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 | |||
|first=E.J. | |||
|title=The status of circumcision of newborns | |||
|journal=N Engl J Med | |||
|date=1990 | |||
|volume=322 | |||
|pages=1308-1312 | |||
}}</ref><ref>{{REFjournal | |||
|last=Poland | |||
|first=R.L. | |||
|title=The question of routine neonatal circumcision | |||
|url=http://www.cirp.org/library/general/poland/ | |||
|journal=N Engl J Med | |||
|date=1990 | |||
|volume=322 | |||
|pages=1312-1315 | |||
}}</ref> | |||
In a previous article in the ''NEJM'', Royce ''et al'' | 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 | |||
|first=R.A. | |||
|last2=Sena | |||
|first2=A. | |||
|last3=Cates Jr | |||
|first3=W. | |||
|last4=Cohen | |||
|first4=M.S. | |||
|title=Sexual transmission of HIV | |||
|journal=N Engl J Med | |||
|date=1997 | |||
|volume=336 | |||
|pages=1072-1078 | |||
}}</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 | |||
|first=E.O. | |||
|last2=Masi | |||
|first2=C.M. | |||
|last3=Zuckerman | |||
|first3=E.W. | |||
|title=Circumcision in the United States: prevalence, prophylactic effects, and sexual practices, and sexual practice | |||
|url=http://www.cirp.org/library/general/laumann/ | |||
|journal=JAMA | |||
|date=1997 | |||
|volume=277 | |||
|pages=1052-1057 | |||
}}</ref> The ''NEJM'' failed to mention, however, that Laumann pointed out the fallacy of this logic. "The lack of rigorous, systematic controls for co-factors relevant to the particularities of the African context, the prophylactic status of the presence or absence of the foreskin remains an open question."<ref name="Laumann1997"/> | |||
== Research the NEJM has overlooked == | == Research the NEJM has overlooked == | ||
Circumcision is losing popularity in the United States and has been discredited by the Canadian Pediatric Society<ref>Fetus and Newborn Committee, Canadian Paediatric Society | Circumcision is losing popularity in the United States and has been discredited by the Canadian Pediatric Society<ref>{{REFjournal | ||
|last=Fetus and Newborn Committee, Canadian Paediatric Society | |||
|title=Neonatal circumcision revisited | |||
|url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1487803/ | |||
|journal=Can Med Assoc J | |||
|date=1996 | |||
|volume=154 | |||
|pages=769-780 | |||
}}</ref> and the Australasian Pediatric Surgeons<ref>{{REFweb | |||
|publisher=Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons | |||
|title=Guidelines for circumcision | |||
|url=http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/aaps/ | |||
|date=1996-04 | |||
}}</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 | |||
|first=J.R. | |||
|last2=Lockwood | |||
|first2=A.P. | |||
|last3=Taylor | |||
|first3=A.J. | |||
|title=The prepuce: specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision | |||
|url=http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/ | |||
|journal=Br J Urol | |||
|date=1996 | |||
|volume=77 | |||
|pages=291-295 | |||
}}</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 | |||
|first=A. | |||
|last2=Katz | |||
|first2=J. | |||
|last3=Ilersich | |||
|first3=A.L. | |||
|last4=Koren | |||
|first4=G. | |||
|title=Effect of neonatal circumcision on pain response during subsequent routine vaccination | |||
|url=http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/taddio2/ | |||
|journal=Lancet | |||
|date=1997 | |||
|volume=349 | |||
|pages=599-603 | |||
}}</ref> Laumann has shown that circumcision causes sexual behavior changes and an apparent increased risk of many venereal diseases in adult men.<ref name="Laumann1997"/> Price has questioned whether parents can ethically change their child's genitalia.<ref>Price (Bull. Medical Ethics).</ref> | |||
The research on EMLA and circumcision presented by Taddio ''et al'' | The research on EMLA and circumcision presented by Taddio ''et al.'' was proclaimed as a major advance.<ref>{{REFjournal | ||
|last=Taddio | |||
|first=A. | |||
|last2=Stevens | |||
|first2=B. | |||
|last3=Craig | |||
|first3=K. | |||
|last4=Rastogi | |||
|first4=P. | |||
|last5=Ben-David | |||
|first5=S. | |||
|last6=Shennan | |||
|first6=A. | |||
|last7=Mulligan | |||
|first7=P. | |||
|last8=Koren | |||
|first8=G. | |||
|title=Efficacy and safety of lidocaine-prilocaine cream for pain during circumcision | |||
|journal=N Engl J Med | |||
|date=1997 | |||
|volume=336 | |||
|pages=1197-1201 | |||
}}</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 | |||
|first=A. | |||
|last2=Goldbach | |||
|first2=M. | |||
|last3=Ipp | |||
|first3=M. | |||
|last4=Stevens | |||
|first4=B. | |||
|last5=Koren | |||
|first5=G. | |||
|title=Effect of neonatal circumcision on pain responses during vaccination in boys | |||
|url=http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/taddio/ | |||
|journal=Lancet | |||
|date=1995 | |||
|volume=345 | |||
|pages=291-292 | |||
}}</ref> | |||
{{REF}} | {{REF}} | ||