Circumcised doctors: Difference between revisions

Line 1:

'''Circumcised doctors''' are male doctors who were [[circumcised]] as infants, so they lack any personal knowledge and experience of a normal male body part — the [[foreskin]] of a normal, complete, functional [[penis]]. Circumcised doctors, as compared with [[intact]], [[foreskinned]] doctors, tend to be highly [[Bias| biased]] in favor of non-therapeutic infant [[circumcision]].

[[Circumcised]] doctors are more likely to give poor advice on the care of [[intact]] boys.

[[Circumcised]] doctors are more likely to give poor advice on the care of [[intact]] boys. According to Bigelow (1995)

America is not a generally a safe place for a foreskin regardless of the intact male's age. Most American doctors are neither trained or skilled in the less radical treatment procedures used in other countries. Av a result, they often recommend circumcision in situations that could be treated by less severe measures.<ref>{{REFbook

|last=Bigelow, Ph.D

|first=Jim

|init=

|author-link=Jim Bigelow

|year=1995

|title=The Joy of Uncircumcising

|url=

|work=

|editor=

|edition=Second Edition

|volume=

|chapter=The circumcised American penis

|scope=

|page=27

|pages=

|location=Aptos

|publisher=Hourglass

|ISBN=0-934061-22-X

|quote=

|accessdate=2023-08-15

|note=

}}</ref>

</blockquote>

Line 14:

Line 39:

* the [[American Urological Association]]

are heavily populated with [[circumcised]] doctors, so their pronouncements on male [[circumcision]], as compared with those of other nations, tend to be biased in favor of male circumcision.<ref name="goldman2005">{{REFjournal

are heavily populated with [[circumcised]] doctors, so their pronouncements on male [[circumcision]], as compared with those of other nations, tend to be [[Bias| biased]] in favor of male [[circumcision]].<ref name="goldman2005">{{REFjournal

|last=Goldman

|first=Ronald

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 '''Circumcised doctors''' are male doctors who were [[circumcised]] as infants, so they lack any personal knowledge and experience of a normal male body part — the [[foreskin]] of a normal, complete, functional [[penis]]. Circumcised doctors, as compared with [[intact]], [[foreskinned]] doctors, tend to be highly [[Bias| biased]] in favor of non-therapeutic infant [[circumcision]].
-[[Circumcised]] doctors are more likely to give poor advice on the care of [[intact]] boys.
+[[Circumcised]] doctors are more likely to give poor advice on the care of [[intact]] boys. According to Bigelow (1995)
+<blockquote>
+America is not a generally a safe place for a foreskin regardless of the intact male's age. Most American doctors are neither trained or skilled in the less radical treatment procedures used in other countries. Av a result, they often recommend circumcision in situations that could be treated by less severe measures.<ref>{{REFbook
+ |last=Bigelow, Ph.D
+ |first=Jim
+ |init=
+ |author-link=Jim Bigelow
+ |year=1995
+ |title=The Joy of Uncircumcising
+ |url=
+ |work=
+ |editor=
+ |edition=Second Edition
+ |volume=
+ |chapter=The circumcised American penis
+ |scope=
+ |page=27
+ |pages=
+ |location=Aptos
+ |publisher=Hourglass
+ |ISBN=0-934061-22-X
+ |quote=
+ |accessdate=2023-08-15
+ |note=
+}}</ref>
+</blockquote>
@@ Line 14: / Line 39: @@
 * the [[American Urological Association]]
-are heavily populated with [[circumcised]] doctors, so their pronouncements on male [[circumcision]], as compared with those of other nations, tend to be biased in favor of male circumcision.<ref name="goldman2005">{{REFjournal
+are heavily populated with [[circumcised]] doctors, so their pronouncements on male [[circumcision]], as compared with those of other nations, tend to be [[Bias| biased]] in favor of male [[circumcision]].<ref name="goldman2005">{{REFjournal
   |last=Goldman
   |first=Ronald