Circumcised doctors

From IntactiWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Circumcised doctors are male doctors who were circumcised as infants, so they lack any personal knowledge and experience of a normal male body part — the foreskin of a normal, complete, functional penis. Circumcised doctors, as compared with intact, foreskinned doctors tend to be highly biased in favor of non-therapeutic infant circumcision.

Circumcised doctors are more likely to give poor advice on the care of intact boys.


Circumcised doctors tend to be concentrated in such nations as Turkey and other Islamic nations, Israel, the United States of America and to a lesser extent, other English-speaking nations.

American medical trade associations, such as

are heavily populated with circumcised doctors, so their pronouncements on male circumcision, as compared with those of other nations, tend to be biased in favor of male circumcision.[1]


There are hundreds of thousands of circumcised doctors, many of them of Jewish heritage. Some notable examples of circumcised doctors are:

Scientific references

  • Goldman (1999)[2] & Boyle et al. (2002)[3] report that circumcision is traumatic, so one may expect that circumcised doctors experienced trauma and that their behavior is impacted.
  • Stein et al. (1982) sent out questionnaires regarding circumcision practice to medical doctors in San Diego, California. The questionnnaire included questions about personal circumcision status. The authors reported:

Older and circumcised physicians were more likely than either younger or uncircumcised physicians to maintain a positive attitude about routine neonatal circumcision. Although the number of female physicians in this study was limited, they were less likely than male physicians to favor circumcision.[4]

  • LeBourdais (1995) reported the circumcision status of the physician is a factor, among others, in determining if a baby is to be circumcised.[5]
  • Goldman (1999) reported circumcised doctors will write papers to support non-therapeutic circumcision:

One reason that flawed studies are published is that science is affected by cultural values. A principal method of preserving cultural values is to disguise them as truths that are based on scientific research. This 'research' can then be used to support questionable and harmful cultural values such as circumcision. This explains the claimed medical 'benefits' of circumcision.[2]

  • Goldman (2005) stated, "On the other hand, there are various factors that may contribute to or suggest a bias in favour of circumcision. A survey of randomly selected primary care physicians showed that circumcision was more often supported by doctors who were older, male and circumcised."[1]
  • Andries J. Muller (2010) conducted a survey of Saskatchewan medical doctors in specialties that perform non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision. He reported "the circumcision status of, especially, the male respondents played a huge role in whether they were in support of circumcision, or not." The circumcision status of their sons was a secondary factor.[6]
  • Boyle & Hill (2012) commented:

Tobian and Gray are products of circumcising cultures. Their article exhibits Freudian defences of denial and rationalisation. The authors seem blinded by their own circumcision-generated emotional needs. The readers of such articles must be aware of the culture-of-orgin and circumcision status of the authors, in order to properly evaluate assertions about MC.[7]

Medical doctors in Australia, Canada, and the United States practiced circumcision in the twentieth century, so these nations have a heavy proportion of circumcised men, some of whom become medical doctors. These circumcised male doctors share the same bias in favor of male circumcision as do other circumcised males. Male doctors who were circumcised as infants are more likely to recommend circumcision of infants to parents.[8]

See also

External links


  1. a b REFjournal Goldman R. Circumcision policy: a psychosocial perspective. Paediatrics & Child Health (Ottawa). November 2005; 9(9): 630-633. PMID. PMC. DOI. Retrieved 16 March 2020.
  2. a b REFjournal Goldman R. The psychological impact of circumcision. BJU Int. 1 January 1999; (83 Suppl 1): 93-103. DOI. Retrieved 15 March 2020.
  3. REFjournal Boyle GJ, Goldman R, Svoboda JS, Fernandez E. Male Circumcision: Pain, Trauma and Psychosexual Sequelae. Journal of Health Psychology. 2002; 7(3): 329-43. DOI. Retrieved 29 September 2019.
  4. REFjournal Stein MT, Marx M, Taggert SL, Bass RA. Routine neonatal circumcision: the gap between contemporary policy and practice. J Fam Pract. 1982; 15(1): 47-53. PMID. Retrieved 23 October 2021.
  5. REFjournal LeBourdais E. Circumcision no longer a "routine" surgical procedure. Can Med Assoc J. 1 June 1995; 152(11): 1873-1876. PMC. Retrieved 15 March 2020.
  6. REFjournal Muller AJ. To cut or not to cut? Personal factors influence primary care physicians’ position on elective newborn circumcision. Journal of Men's Health. October 2010; 7(3): 227-32. Retrieved 23 October 2021.
  7. REFjournal Boyle, Gregory J., Hill, George. Circumcision-generated emotions bias medical literature. BJU Int. 7 February 2012; 109(4): E11. PMID. DOI. Retrieved 25 October 2021.
  8. REFweb Hill, George (27 May 2012). Circumcision and Human Behavior: The emotional and behavioral effects of circumcision,, Peaceful Parenting. Retrieved 24 May 2020.