Changes

Circumcision has been near-universal in the [[United States]], [[Israel]], the [[Tuli|Philippines]], and most Muslim nations. Circumcision is also considered a rite of passage in some African tribes. In these societies, a man who has not been circumcised is often considered to be inferior, and in some cases, a social outcast, so there is a strong incentive to circumcise one's self and/or one's children.

LeBourdais (1995) reported "the likelihood of a baby being [[circumcised ]] is influenced by an expanding array of usually non-medical factors: [[Adamant father syndrome| circumcision status of the father]], attitude of the mother, age of the attending physician, sex and circumcision status of the physician, geographic location and religion factors that have little to do with the baby himself."<ref name="lebourdais1995">{{REFjournal

Because the [[United States ]] circumcises so many of its male infants, [[circumcision]] is often said to be an American cultural value, and it is has been accepted as “normal.” Cultural bias on this issue may be most obvious when considering the practice of female circumcision in Africa. Americans regard the practice with horror, the way Europeans, who do not cut the genitals of male or females, regard American circumcision.<ref name="CRC2011-03-06">{{REFweb

American bias in favor of circumcision could be attributed to a number of different factors. The history of [[circumcision ]] in [[United States| America ]] goes back to the Nineteenth Century, when it began as a way to curb [[masturbation]] in boys and men.<ref name='Stay Free!'>{{REFweb

}}</ref> Thereafter American doctors began on a quest to medicalize the formerly religious practice of circumcision as a claimed preventer of a myriad of diseases, and that endeavor continues to this day.

Another factor that plays a role in instilling bias in favor of circumcision in [[United States| America ]] is the local media. American television and theater usually 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 typically treat the [[American Academy of Pediatrics]] as a neutral authority, when in fact it is a [[Financial incentive| financially biased]] trade association seeking to advance the incomes of its fellows. 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.

|first=Paul M. |author-linkinit=PM |last2= |first2= |author2author-link=Paul M. Fleiss

}}</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

* Bias in studies associating [[HIV ]] infection with circumcision status.

}}</ref> The voices of Jewish doctors — [[Abraham L. Wolbarst|Wolbarst]], [[Abraham Ravich|Ravich]], [[Gerald N. Weiss| Weiss]], [[Aaron J. Fink| Fink]], [[Edgar J. Schoen|Schoen]], and others — are disproportionately prominent in circumcision advocacy.

|first=Leonard B. |init=LB

|location=New York, NY |publisher={{UNI|Oxford University |Oxon}} Press

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>{{REFbook |last=Gollaher |first=David L. |title=Circumcision: A History of the World's Most Controversial Surgery |location=New York |publisher=Basic Books |year=GollaherDL 2000}}</ref>

Like anyone else, a scientist or researcher of [[circumcision]] may have a personal bias in favor of circumcision if he is [[circumcised]], a father of [[circumcised ]] children, or if she is married to a [[circumcised ]] partner and/or is a mother of [[circumcised ]] children.<ref name="lebourdais1995" /> A personal bias is a conflict of interest, because reporting accurate findings in studies regarding circumcision is at odds with a personal interest in defending the irrevocable procedure of circumcision for one's self, a [[circumcised ]] spouse, or one's [[circumcised ]] children. The interests of a circumcision "researcher" may also lie in a personal sexual fixation with the [[circumcised ]] penis and/or the act of [[circumcision ]] itself. (See [[circumfetish]].)

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

|publisher=University Post, {{UNI|University of Copenhagen|KU}}

It is very easy to make the claim that opponents of [[circumcision]] have an "anti-circumcision bias." When determining bias, it is important to do so considering the greater scope of medicine. Usually, medicine aims to cure or prevent disease placing primacy in the preservation of the integrity of the human body; surgery and/or the [[amputation ]] or extraction of body parts is usually reserved as a very last resort, when there is a medical condition present that necessitates it, and when all other methods of treatment have failed.

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.

[[Category:MotivesMotive]]

[[de:BefangenheitVoreingenommenheit]]