17,140
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Bias
,→Medical literature bias: Add citation; Wikify.
|accessdate=2020-08-08
|note=
}}</ref> As a result of the long history of doctors condemning the presence of the [[foreskin]] and expounding the alleged virtues of [[circumcision]], curriculum regarding the [[foreskin]] and its [[Foreskin#Physiological_functions| multiple functions]] remain largely absent from American medical literature. Information on the [[Retraction of the foreskin| proper development of the foreskin]] is largely absent, diagrams of male genitalia present the [[penis]] as [[circumcised]], and if the foreskin is mentioned at all, it is in the context of circumcision. In short, most of what is taught in American medicine regarding the [[foreskin ]] is how to cut it off. When [[circumcised ]] doctors attempt to write a [[circumcision ]] policy, the outcome is likely to heavily biased in favor of circumcision.<ref name="goldman2005">{{REFjournal
|last=Goldman
|first=Ronald
|DOI=10.1093/pch/9.9.630
|accessdate=2019-12-10
}}</ref> <ref name="hill2007">{{REFjournal
|last=Hill
|first=
|init=G
|author-link=George Hill
|title=The case against circumcision
|journal=Journal of Men's Health and Gender
|date=2007
|volume=4
|issue=3
|pages=318-23
|url=https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=04ace5046cc27f01b8fbe4aa359c059778983912
|quote=
|format=PDF
|accessdate=2023-10-02
}}</ref>