Difference between revisions of "Circumcision study flaws"
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) (Add new section.) |
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) (→Statements from medical trade associations: Add text.) |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
==Statements from medical trade associations== | ==Statements from medical trade associations== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Medical trade associations exist to protect and advance the financial and business interests of their fellows (members). A few medical trade associations have issued statements regarding non-therapeutic circumcision of children. Such statements usually have an inherent conflict of interest between the best interests of the fellows' financial well-being and the well-being of male children. | ||
| + | |||
| + | One should draw a distinction between non-US statements and US statements. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Non-US statements=== | ||
{{REF}} | {{REF}} | ||
Revision as of 18:49, 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
Medical trade associations exist to protect and advance the financial and business interests of their fellows (members). A few medical trade associations have issued statements regarding non-therapeutic circumcision of children. Such statements usually have an inherent conflict of interest between the best interests of the fellows' financial well-being and the well-being of male children.
One should draw a distinction between non-US statements and US statements.
Non-US statements
References
- ↑ a b
Hill, G.. The case against circumcision. J Mens Health Gend. 20 August 2007; 4(3): 318-323.
