Difference between revisions of "Circumcised doctors"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) (Add text) |
m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | '''Circumcised doctors''' are | + | '''Circumcised doctors''' are male doctors who were circumcised as infants, so they lack any personal knowledge and experience of a normal male body part – the [[foreskin]] or a complete, functional [[penis]]. |
| − | LeBourdais (1995) reports the circumcision status of the physician is a factor among others in determining if a baby is to be circumcised.<ref name="lebourdais1995">{{REFjournal | + | LeBourdais (1995) reports the [[circumcision]] status of the physician is a factor among others in determining if a baby is to be circumcised.<ref name="lebourdais1995">{{REFjournal |
|last=LeBourdais | |last=LeBourdais | ||
|first=Eleanor | |first=Eleanor | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
|etal=no | |etal=no | ||
|title=Circumcision no longer a "routine" surgical procedure | |title=Circumcision no longer a "routine" surgical procedure | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
|journal=Can Med Assoc J | |journal=Can Med Assoc J | ||
|location= | |location= | ||
| Line 16: | Line 14: | ||
|pages=1873-6 | |pages=1873-6 | ||
|url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1337997/pdf/cmaj00071-0145.pdf | |url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1337997/pdf/cmaj00071-0145.pdf | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
|pubmedCID=1337997 | |pubmedCID=1337997 | ||
| − | |||
|accessdate=2020-03-15 | |accessdate=2020-03-15 | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
| − | Goldman (1999) reports circumcised doctors will write papers to support non-therapeutic circumcision: | + | [[Ronald Goldman|Goldman]] (1999) reports circumcised doctors will write papers to support non-therapeutic circumcision: |
| − | + | {{Citation | |
| − | One reason that flawed studies are published is that science is affected by cultural values. A principal method of preserving cultural values is to disguise them as truths that are based on scientific research. This 'research' can then be used to support questionable and harmful cultural values such as circumcision. This explains the claimed medical 'benefits' of circumcision.<ref>{{REFjournal | + | |Text=One reason that flawed studies are published is that science is affected by cultural values. A principal method of preserving cultural values is to disguise them as truths that are based on scientific research. This 'research' can then be used to support questionable and harmful cultural values such as circumcision. This explains the claimed medical 'benefits' of circumcision. |
| + | |Author=[[Ronald Goldman]] | ||
| + | |ref=<ref>{{REFjournal | ||
|last=Goldman | |last=Goldman | ||
|first=Ronald | |first=Ronald | ||
| Line 46: | Line 43: | ||
|accessdate=2020-03-15 | |accessdate=2020-03-15 | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
| − | + | }} | |
| + | |||
{{SEEALSO}} | {{SEEALSO}} | ||
| − | |||
*[[Adamant father syndrome]] | *[[Adamant father syndrome]] | ||
Revision as of 10:20, 16 March 2020
Circumcised doctors are male doctors who were circumcised as infants, so they lack any personal knowledge and experience of a normal male body part – the foreskin or a complete, functional penis.
LeBourdais (1995) reports the circumcision status of the physician is a factor among others in determining if a baby is to be circumcised.[1]
Goldman (1999) reports circumcised doctors will write papers to support non-therapeutic circumcision:
| “ | One reason that flawed studies are published is that science is affected by cultural values. A principal method of preserving cultural values is to disguise them as truths that are based on scientific research. This 'research' can then be used to support questionable and harmful cultural values such as circumcision. This explains the claimed medical 'benefits' of circumcision. – Ronald Goldman[2] |
See also
References
- ↑
LeBourdais, Eleanor. Circumcision no longer a "routine" surgical procedure. Can Med Assoc J. 1 June 1995; 152(11): 1873-6. PMC. Retrieved 15 March 2020.
- ↑ Goldman, Ronald. The psychological impact of circumcision. BJU Int. 1 January 1999; (83 Suppl 1): 93-103. DOI. Retrieved 15 March 2020.
