17,052
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Bias
,Add text
}}</ref> Thereafter American doctors began on a quest to medicalize the practice of circumcision as a preventor of a myriad of diseases, and that endeavor continues to this day.
As a result of the long history of doctors condemning the presence of the [[foreskin]] and expounding the virtues of circumcision, curriculum regarding the [[foreskin ]] and its function [[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.
Another factor that plays a role in instilling bias in favor of circumcision in America is the local media. American television and theater treats the presence of the [[foreskin]] with ridicule and disdain, and praises circumcision as "clean" and "healthy," and news outlets are always ready to publish the latest "study" (usually conducted by American "researchers") that shows circumcision might have some kind of "benefit." Editors may also believe that American audiences, who already believe circumcision is beneficial, will want to read stories reinforcing their cultural assumptions. By contrast, a study showing no benefit (or even negative findings), may not be considered "news" by editors if their audience is expected to have little interest. Tabloid-type media especially may not want anything other than simplistic stories. Discussions carefully evaluating the validity of conflicting findings may be off-puttingly complex and not especially interesting to the reader who already believes circumcision as healthy, and see no need for further debate. These stories therefore might be less likely to be published.
=== Jewish influence on circumcision literature ===
Though American circumcision practice is generally believed to be independent of Jewish circumcision practice, they are connected; some of the most outspoken advocates for circumcision tend to be Jewish. The [[American Academy of Pediatrics]] has consistently disproportionately stuffed its "circumcision task forces" with Jewish doctors. It is believed that not a single member of an AAP Task Force on Circumcision has ever had a foreskin. This suggests a religious or cultural bias on the part of these advocates. Of course, there are also Jewish doctors that oppose circumcision, but they are disproportionately outnumbered by those who advocate circumcision. For example, of all the letters to the editor in response to the 1999 American Academy of Pediatrics Circumcision Policy Statement, the most pro-circumcision responses were from Jewish doctors, including two whom also perform Jewish ritual circumcisions.<ref>Bailis S. Circumcision: the debate goes on. ''Pediatrics '' 2000;105:682.</ref><ref>Kunin S. Circumcision: the debate goes on. ''Pediatrics '' 2000;105:683.</ref><ref>Shechet J, Tanenbaum B. Circumcision: the debate goes on. ''Pediatrics '' 2000;105:682-683.</ref> The voices of Jewish doctors--Wolbarst, Ravich, Weiss, Fink, Schoen, and others--are disproportionately prominent in circumcision advocacy.
Although physicians may act with what they consider to be sound medical judgement, some Jewish physicians may be influenced also by non-medical consideration. Cultural background of many Jewish circumcision advocates predisposes them to view the practice in a positive light, to welcome evidence that the most particular and problematic religious custom of their people is medically beneficial, and to dismiss arguments to the contrary. The presence of a large and influential population of Jewish physicians in this country, their concentration in leading centers of research and publication, and their remarkably active participation in the century-long debate on circumcision seems too obvious and too significant to be rejected out of hand, or worse, to be avoided because it might be wrongly interpreted as gratuitous defamation.<ref>{{REFbook
==== Circumcision discourse and the Jewish presence ====
According to the AAP Circumcision Policy Statement of 1999, in regards to infant circumcision, "It is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to the medical factors." Furthermore, "parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision," and that they should "should not be coerced by medical professionals to make this choice."<refname="aap1999">AAP Task Force on Circumcision. Circumcision Policy Statement. Pediatrics 1999;103(3):686-693. [http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;103/3/686#B119 Circumcision Policy Statement]. ''Pediatrics'' 1999;103(3):686-693. - AAP Policy Statement 1999 Retreived Retrieved 2011-03-13</ref>
The AAP puts physicians in a difficult position; on the one hand, they should be giving accurate and unbiased information to parents, but on the other, providing any information discouraging circumcision would put doctors in a position of attacking religious belief. This suggests that religion may be a factor that inhibits the full disclosure of medical information and medical views on circumcision and that American discussion or questioning of the issue is affected by the Jewish presence. Therefore, the creators of this wiki believe that mentioning religious affiliation is relevant to assessing potential bias when it comes to the subject of circumcision.
=== Circumcision and Islam ===
Although circumcision is never mentioned in the Qur'an, male circumcision is deeply rooted in the [[Genital cutting in Islam| Muslim tradition]]. Muhammad is reported to have prescribed cutting the foreskin as a fitrah, a measure of personal cleanliness. Modern Muslims see circumcision as essential to their faith, although they have also come to lean on arguments of "medical benefits." A conference of Islamic scholars in 1987 stated that modern circumcision studies “[reflect] the wisdom of the Islamic statements”.<ref>Gollaher, David L. ''Circumcision: A History of the World's Most Controversial Surgery''. New York: Basic Books, 2000.</ref>
== Personal bias ==
== "Anti-circumcision bias" ==
Advocates of [[circumcision]] may claim there is an "anti-circumcision bias" in research and in public health policy. They support their claim only with their judgment that substantial medical evidence favors their view.<ref>[[Edgar J. Schoen| Schoen E]], Wiswell T, Moses S. New policy on circumcision: Cause for concern. ''Pediatrics '' 2000; 105: 620-623.</ref> It is significant that circumcision advocates never offer any rationale or research to explain why someone would have an anti-circumcision bias and why, for example, some circumcised men, Jews, and doctors who performed routine circumcisions (and stopped) would adopt a position opposing circumcision that is not evidence-based.<ref>{{REFweb
| quote=Circumcision was more often supported by doctors who were circumcised.
| last=
Circumcision "research" is unique in that no other "study" or "research" aims to vilify a particular, normally ocurring body part to necessitate, even require, its deliberate destruction. While most other research seeks to prevent or cure disease in order to avoid surgery, or the loss of a body part, circumcision "research" seeks to necessitate the amputation of normal, healthy tissue.
The creators of this wiki believe that wanting to prevent disease while preserving the integrity of the human body is a perfectly acceptable, even prefered preferred bias to have in medical research, if it could even be called that.
{{SEEALSO}}
* [[Circumfetish]] -- A bias sicker than the rest.