Edgar J. Schoen: Difference between revisions

Line 57:

}}</ref> Schoen associates with the [[Gilgal Society]].<ref>http://www.circinfo.net/pdfs/GFW-EN%200712-1.pdf</ref>

Schoen was the chair of the 1989 AAP taskforce on circumcision, which studied available data to consider ~~recommendeding~~ circumcision to parents. The taskforce concluded that "Newborn circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks".<ref>{{REFweb

Schoen was the chair of the 1989 AAP taskforce on circumcision, which studied available data to consider recommending [[circumcision]] to parents. Schoen seized on very poor articles with methodological flaws by fellow circumfetisher [[Thomas E. Wiswell]] to advocate circumcision. The taskforce concluded that "Newborn circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks".<ref>{{REFweb

|quote=

|url=http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/aap/#a1989

Line 67:

|date=1989

|accessdate=2020-03-18

}}</ref> This was despite their own admission that evidence linking circumcision to prevention of any diseases was inconclusive, with the sole exception of penile cancer (which they noted was mainly caused by unhealthy lifestyles). Given Schoen's history of circumcision advocacy and his position as taskforce chair, he may have influenced the committee significantly.

}}</ref> (''Potential'' means to exist in possibility but not in actuality, so a ''potential benefit'' is not a real benefit.) This was despite their own admission that evidence linking circumcision to prevention of any diseases was inconclusive, with the sole exception of penile cancer (which they noted was mainly caused by unhealthy lifestyles). Given Schoen's history of circumcision advocacy and his position as taskforce chair, he may have influenced the committee significantly. While the statement spoke glowingly of circumcision, it made no formal recommendation for circumcision, perhaps on advice of counsel.

The 1989 AAP circumcision statement was not well received. Professor Ronald Poland, M. D., another member of the AAP task force rejected Schoen's advocacy of non-therapeutic circumcision and published his own paper in which he argued against circumcision.<ref>{{REFjournal

Line 146:

|Author=

|Source=

|ref=<ref>[http://youtube.com?watch=jI3oa4Mx9hs?t=50s kunavu. (2001, May 25). Penn & ~~teller~~ on circumcision part 2.]</ref>

|ref=<ref>[http://youtube.com?watch=jI3oa4Mx9hs?t=50s kunavu. (2001, May 25). Penn & Teller on circumcision part 2.]</ref>

}}

<small>'''NOTE:''' The ''"hat"'' presumably referring to the visible glans.</small>

@@ Line 57: / Line 57: @@
 }}</ref> Schoen associates with the [[Gilgal Society]].<ref>http://www.circinfo.net/pdfs/GFW-EN%200712-1.pdf</ref>
-Schoen was the chair of the 1989 AAP taskforce on circumcision, which studied available data to consider recommendeding circumcision to parents. The taskforce concluded that "Newborn circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks".<ref>{{REFweb
+Schoen was the chair of the 1989 AAP taskforce on circumcision, which studied available data to consider recommending [[circumcision]] to parents. Schoen seized on very poor articles with methodological flaws by fellow circumfetisher [[Thomas E. Wiswell]] to advocate circumcision. The taskforce concluded that "Newborn circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks".<ref>{{REFweb
   |quote=
   |url=http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/aap/#a1989
@@ Line 67: / Line 67: @@
   |date=1989
   |accessdate=2020-03-18
-}}</ref> This was despite their own admission that evidence linking circumcision to prevention of any diseases was inconclusive, with the sole exception of penile cancer (which they noted was mainly caused by unhealthy lifestyles). Given Schoen's history of circumcision advocacy and his position as taskforce chair, he may have influenced the committee significantly.
+}}</ref> (''Potential'' means to exist in possibility but not in actuality, so a ''potential benefit'' is not a real benefit.) This was despite their own admission that evidence linking circumcision to prevention of any diseases was inconclusive, with the sole exception of penile cancer (which they noted was mainly caused by unhealthy lifestyles). Given Schoen's history of circumcision advocacy and his position as taskforce chair, he may have influenced the committee significantly. While the statement spoke glowingly of circumcision, it made no formal recommendation for circumcision, perhaps on advice of counsel.
 The 1989 AAP circumcision statement was not well received. Professor Ronald Poland, M. D., another member of the AAP task force rejected Schoen's advocacy of non-therapeutic circumcision and published his own paper in which he argued against circumcision.<ref>{{REFjournal
@@ Line 146: / Line 146: @@
   |Author=
   |Source=
-  |ref=<ref>[http://youtube.com?watch=jI3oa4Mx9hs?t=50s kunavu. (2001, May 25). Penn & teller on circumcision part 2.]</ref>
+  |ref=<ref>[http://youtube.com?watch=jI3oa4Mx9hs?t=50s kunavu. (2001, May 25). Penn & Teller on circumcision part 2.]</ref>
 }}
 <small>'''NOTE:''' The ''"hat"'' presumably referring to the visible glans.</small>