15,510
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The '''Circumcision study flaws''' are numerous. The medical literature relating to circumcision is influenced by the authors' religious and cultural views of many authors. <ref>{{REFweb |url=https://circumcision.org/cultural-and-medical-bias/ |title=Cultural and Medical Bias |last= |first= |accessdate=2020-08-02}}</ref> Moreover . the circumcision status of male authors impacts their views.<ref name="hill2007">{{REFjournal
==Polarity==
The medical literature regarding male circumcision is highly polarized. Foreskinned doctors tend to write papers hostile to circumcision, while circumcised doctors tend to write papers in favor of circumcision.<ref name="hill2007" />
Edit opening.
{{Construction Site}}
|last=Hill
|first=G.
|pages=318-323
|doi=
}}</ref> <refname="boyle2012>{{REFjournal
|last=Boyle
|first=Gregory J.
|accessdate=2020-08-02
}}</ref>
Foreskinned doctors tend to write papers hostile to circumcision, while circumcised doctors tend to write papers in favor of circumcision.<ref name="hill2007" /> Consequently, the medical literature regarding male circumcision is highly argumentative, polarized, and [[Bias| biased]].
==Review of the circumcision literature==
Bossio ''et al''. (2014) conducted a comprehensive review of the circumcision literature. They reported that most research was concentrated on finding a benefit for non-therapeutic circumcision and there were large gaps in the knowledge of the sexual health correlates of male circumcision, including:
|accessdate=2020-08-02
}}</ref>
==Statements from medical trade associations==