Changes

A [[circumcision ]] bias may cause one to view the practice of [[circumcision ]] in a positive light, to welcome evidence that it is medically beneficial, perhaps even necessary or required, and to dismiss arguments and evidence to the contrary. Positive findings may be exaggerated, and negative findings may be minimized, if they are reported at all.

A scientist or researcher of [[circumcision ]] may have a cultural bias in favor of [[circumcision ]] if (s)he comes from a country, society, cultural background, or ethnic group where [[circumcision ]] is common. A cultural bias is a conflict of interest because reporting accurate findings in studies regarding circumcision is at odds with what one has been conditioned to believe about the practice. A person may be circumcised himself, married to a circumcised spouse, and/or a parent to circumcised children.

Because the United States circumcises so many of its male infants, [[circumcision ]] is often said to be an American cultural value, and it is 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='CRC 2011-03-06'>{{REFweb

As a result of the long history of doctors condemning the presence of the [[foreskin ]] and expounding the virtues of circumcision, curriculum regarding the foreskin and its function 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.

Another factor that plays a role in instilling bias in favor of circumcision in America is the local media. American television and theater 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 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.

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. 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]].)

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>Schoen E, 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

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.