Circumcision study flaws: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) Add new section. |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
The medical literature regarding male circumcision is highly polarized. Foreskinned doctors tend to write papers hostile to circumcision, while circumcised doctors tend to write papers in favor of circumcision.<ref name="hill2007" /> | The medical literature regarding male circumcision is highly polarized. Foreskinned doctors tend to write papers hostile to circumcision, while circumcised doctors tend to write papers in favor of circumcision.<ref name="hill2007" /> | ||
==Statements from medical trade associations== | |||
{{REF}} | {{REF}} | ||
Revision as of 01:40, 30 July 2020
Construction Site
This article is work in progress and not yet part of the free encyclopedia IntactiWiki.
The Circumcision study flaws are numerous. The medical literature relating to circumcision is influenced by religious and cultural views of many authors. Moreover the circumcision status of the author impacts his views.[1]
Polarity
The medical literature regarding male circumcision is highly polarized. Foreskinned doctors tend to write papers hostile to circumcision, while circumcised doctors tend to write papers in favor of circumcision.[1]
Statements from medical trade associations
References
- ↑ a b
Hill, G.. The case against circumcision. J Mens Health Gend. 20 August 2007; 4(3): 318-323.
