22,208
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
Bias
,→"Anti-circumcision 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]], [[Thomas E. Wiswell| 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= | first= | publisher=Circumcision Resource Center | work= | date= | title=Cultural and Medical Bias | url=http://www.circumcision.org/bias.htm | accessdate=2011-05-10}}</ref> A recent debate in Denmark shows a good example of how biased [[Circumfetishist|circumcision advocates]] try to blame anti-circumcision advocates (who are no outspoken [[intactivist]]s) of having an "anti-circumcision bias". As circumcision on minors without medical indication is a genital mutilation by definition, those who advocate allowing this genital mutilation, are obliged to justify the reasonableness which seems impossible. Those who speak out for human rights of defenseless children and oppose genital mutilation on minors, do not have any obligation to justify a non-intervention.<ref>{{REFweb |url=https://uniavisen.dk/en/feud-over-circumcision-is-now-at-the-university-of-copenhagen/ |title=Feud over circumcision is now at the University of Copenhagen |first=Anders |last=Fjeldberg |publisher=University Post, University of Copenhagen |date=2020-04-16 |accessdate=2020-04-17
}}</ref>