Circumcised doctors

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 biased in favor of non-therapeutic infant circumcision.

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.

Contents

Location

Circumcised doctors tend to be concentrated in such nations as Turkey and other Islamic nations, Israel, the United States of America and to a lesser extent, other English-speaking nations.

American medical trade associations, such as

• the American Academy of Family Physicians
• the American Academy of Pediatrics
• the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
• 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.

Examples

There are hundreds of thousands of circumcised doctors, many of them of Jewish heritage. Some notable examples of circumcised doctors are:

• Robert C. Bailey
• Benjamin E. Dawson
• Aaron J. Fink
• Andrew Freedman
• David Golovsky
• Ronald H. Gray
• Alan F. Guttmacher
• James Heilman
• Murray Katz
• John N. Krieger
• M. J. Moses
• Stephen Moses
• Neil Pollock
• Abraham Ravich
• Terry Russell
• Edgar J. Schoen
• Aaron Tobian
• Peter Wein
• Gerald N. Weiss
• Thomas E. Wiswell
• Alex D. Wodak
• Abraham L. Wolbarst

Scientific references

• Goldman (1999) & Boyle et al. (2002) report that circumcision is traumatic, so one may expect that circumcised doctors experienced trauma and that their behavior is impacted.

• Stein et al. (1982) sent out questionnaires regarding circumcision practice to medical doctors in San Diego, California. The questionnnaire included questions about personal circumcision status. The authors reported:

Older and circumcised physicians were more likely than either younger or uncircumcised physicians to maintain a positive attitude about routine neonatal circumcision. Although the number of female physicians in this study was limited, they were less likely than male physicians to favor circumcision.

• LeBourdais (1995) reported the circumcision status of the physician is a factor, among others, in determining if a baby is to be circumcised.

• Goldman (1999) reported circumcised doctors will write papers to support non-therapeutic circumcision:

One reason that flawed studies are published is that science is affected by cultural values. A principal method of preserving cultural values is to disguise them as truths that are based on scientific research. This 'research' can then be used to support questionable and harmful cultural values such as circumcision. This explains the claimed medical 'benefits' of circumcision.

• Goldman (2005) stated, "On the other hand, there are various factors that may contribute to or suggest a bias in favour of circumcision. A survey of randomly selected primary care physicians showed that circumcision was more often supported by doctors who were older, male and circumcised."

• Andries J. Muller (2010) conducted a survey of Saskatchewan medical doctors in specialties that perform non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision. He reported "the circumcision status of, especially, the male respondents played a huge role in whether they were in support of circumcision, or not." The circumcision status of their sons was a secondary factor.

• Boyle & Hill (2012) commented:

Tobian and Gray are products of circumcising cultures. Their article exhibits Freudian defences of denial and rationalisation. The authors seem blinded by their own circumcision-generated emotional needs. The readers of such articles must be aware of the culture-of-orgin and circumcision status of the authors, in order to properly evaluate assertions about MC.

• Hill (2012) wrote:

Medical doctors in Australia, Canada, and the United States practiced circumcision in the twentieth century, so these nations have a heavy proportion of circumcised men, some of whom become medical doctors. These circumcised male doctors share the same bias in favor of male circumcision as do other circumcised males. Male doctors who were circumcised as infants are more likely to recommend circumcision of infants to parents.

Identifying a suitable doctor for an intact male

Your Whole Baby has long been aware of the issues with American circumcised doctors, so the organization has created a list of doctors who are reported to be "foreskin friendly" to which parents of intact boys may refer. The list is only for the United States.

Please see:

• Intact friendly doctors list

See also

• Adamant father syndrome
• Bias
• Forced foreskin retraction
• Care of intact, foreskinned boys
• Issues with American urologists and the practice of male circumcision
• Psychological issues of male circumcision
• Trauma

External links

• Friedman, Jonathan (16 October 2011). Doctors' Circumcision Recommendations Influenced By Personal Factors, Study Finds, IntactNews. Retrieved 19 March 2020.