16,679
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Add categories: Add SEEALSO section; Wikify.
[[Image:NEJM logo.jpg|right|thumb]]
The '''New England Journal of Medicine''' (NEJM) has shifted from a balanced approach, to a one-sided, pro-circumcision stance. They have a tendency to present the purported benefits of [[circumcision]], while failing to print any letters critical of these claims, and failing to confront the ethical problems and medical complications associated with [[circumcision]].
== Shift from neutrality to a pro-circumcision stance ==
In 1997, the ''NEJM'' printed a strongly pro-circumcision editorial by circumcision promoter Dr. [[Thomas E. Wiswell|Thomas Wiswell]],<ref>{{REFjournal
|last=Wiswell
|init=TE
}}</ref>
In a previous article in the ''NEJM'', Royce et al. insinuated that the [[prepuce ]] may be a risk factor for [[HIV]] infections.<ref>{{REFjournal
|last=Royce
|init=RA
== Research the NEJM has overlooked ==
Circumcision is losing popularity in the [[United States ]] and has been discredited by the [https://www.cps.ca/ Canadian Pediatric Society]<ref>{{REFjournal
|last=[[Fetus]] and Newborn Committee, Canadian Paediatric Society
|title=Neonatal circumcision revisited
}}</ref> Laumann has shown that circumcision causes sexual behavior changes and an apparent increased risk of many venereal diseases in adult men.<ref name="Laumann1997"/> Price has questioned whether parents can ethically change their child's genitalia.<ref>Price (Bull. Medical Ethics).</ref>
The research on [[EMLA]] and circumcision presented by [[Anna Taddio | Taddio]] et al. was proclaimed as a major advance.<ref>{{REFjournal
|last=Taddio
|init=A
|pages=291-292
}}</ref>
{{SEEALSO}}* [[Bias]]
{{REF}}
[[Category:Journal]]
[[Category:Bias]]
[[Category:USA]]
[[Category:From CircLeaks]]