Circumcision study flaws: Difference between revisions

Add third-party payment.
Add citation.
Line 36: Line 36:
}}</ref>
}}</ref>


Foreskinned doctors tend to write papers hostile to circumcision, while [[circumcised doctors]] tend to write papers in favor of circumcision.<ref name="hill2007" /> Consequently, the medical literature regarding male circumcision is highly polarized, argumentative, and [[Bias| biased]].
Foreskinned doctors tend to write papers hostile to circumcision, while [[circumcised doctors]] tend to write papers in favor of circumcision.<ref name="hill2007" /> Consequently, the medical literature regarding male circumcision is highly polarized, argumentative, and [[Bias| biased]]. American doctors do research to find reasons to carry out non-therapeutic circumcision.<ref name="fleiss1999">{{REFbook
|last=Fleiss
|first=Paul
|author-link=
|last2=
|first2=
|author2-link=
|year=1999
|title=An Analysis of Bias Regarding Circumcision in American Medical Literature: Medical, Legal, and Ethical Considerations in Pediatric Practice.
|url=https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ljZZ9ZvD_kQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA379&ots=GA2KpzMECk&sig=jFqDYQhV0sqAWil6LDZWXnQdJO8#v=onepage&q&f=false
|work=Male and Female Circumcision:
|editor=Denniston, George C., Hodges, Frederick Mansfield, Milos, Marilyn
|edition=
|volume=
|chapter=
|pages=379-401
|location=New York
|publisher=Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers
|isbn=0-306-46131-5
|quote=
|accessdate=2020-08-07
|note=
}}</ref>


==Review of the circumcision literature==
==Review of the circumcision literature==