Psychological injury of male circumcision: Difference between revisions
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) |
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 204: | Line 204: | ||
==Behavioral effects of unanesthetized infant circumcision== | ==Behavioral effects of unanesthetized infant circumcision== | ||
The focus then turned to investigation of the effects of unanesthetized infant circumcision. Doctors then falsely believed that newborn infants could not feel pain,<ref name="cope">{{REFjournal | The focus then turned to investigation of the effects of unanesthetized infant circumcision. Doctors then falsely believed that newborn infants could not feel [[pain]],<ref name="cope">{{REFjournal | ||
|last=Cope | |last=Cope | ||
|first= | |first= | ||
| Line 270: | Line 270: | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
Marshall et al. (1980) tested newborn boys before and after plastibel circumcision. They reported that boys have a greater capacity for memory than previously believed, that infants behave differently after circumcision, that future researchers must consider and record the circumcision status of their subjects, and that boys might actually be feeling pain. They suggested that anesthesia by dorsal penile nerve block might be appropriate.<ref>{{REFjournal | Marshall et al. (1980) tested newborn boys before and after plastibel circumcision. They reported that boys have a greater capacity for memory than previously believed, that infants behave differently after [[circumcision]], that future researchers must consider and record the circumcision status of their subjects, and that boys might actually be feeling pain. They suggested that anesthesia by dorsal penile nerve block might be appropriate.<ref>{{REFjournal | ||
|last=Marshall | |last=Marshall | ||
|init=RE | |init=RE | ||