17,103
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Bias
,General editing
| Title=
| Text=Circumcision practices are largely culturally determined and as a result there are strong beliefs and opinions surrounding its practice. It is important to acknowledge that researchers' personal biases and the dominant circumcision practices of their respective countries may influence their interpretation of findings.
| Author=Siegfried ''et al''.
| Source=
| lang=
| Transcription=
| Translation=
| ref=<ref>Siegfried ''et al''. "Male circumcision for prevention of heterosexual acquisition of HIV in men." ''Cochrane Library'' 3 (2003)</ref>
}}
Like anyone else, a scientist or researcher of circumcision may have a bias in favor of circumcision if s/he adheres to a religion where circumcision is a religious requirement. A religious bias is a conflict of interest because reporting accurate findings in studies regarding circumcision is at odds with a conviction to defend what has been a historically controversial and ethically problematic religious practice.
Circumcision is viewed as a religious requirement in Judaism. It is also considered an important religious tenet in Islam by many, though it is not mentioned in the Koran; not all adherents of Islam are circumcised or consider circumcision to be a requirement. People in some sects of Christianity, such as Coptic Christians, consider circumcision to be a religious requirement, though it is expressly forbidden to gentiles (see [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians +5&version=NASB Galatians 5]).
Circumcision is an important, often indispensable religious custom for many religious people, and attempts to question its propriety are often seen as blasphemous. Yet, there is a recognition that medical validity is important to maintain justification for the surgery.
=== Jewish influence on circumcision literature ===
Though American circumcision practice is generally believed to be independent of Jewish circumcision practice, they are connected; some of the most outspoken advocates for circumcision tend to be Jewish. The [[American Academy of Pediatrics]] has consistently disproportionately stuffed its "circumcision task forces" with Jewish doctors. It is believed that not a single member of an AAP Task Force on Circumcision has ever had a foreskin. This suggests a religious or cultural bias on the part of these advocates. Of course, there are also Jewish doctors that oppose circumcision, but they are disproportionately outnumbered by those who advocate circumcision. For example, of all the letters to the editor in response to the 1999 American Academy of Pediatrics Circumcision Policy Statement, the most pro-circumcision responses were from Jewish doctors, including two whom also perform Jewish ritual circumcisions.<ref>Bailis S. Circumcision: the debate goes on. ''Pediatrics'' 2000;105:682.</ref><ref>Kunin S. Circumcision: the debate goes on. ''Pediatrics'' 2000;105:683.</ref><ref>Shechet J, Tanenbaum B. Circumcision: the debate goes on. ''Pediatrics'' 2000;105:682-683.</ref> The voices of Jewish doctors--[[Abraham L. Wolbarst| Wolbarst]], Ravich, Weiss, Fink, [[Edgar J. Schoen| Schoen]], and others--are disproportionately prominent in circumcision advocacy.
Although physicians may act with what they consider to be sound medical judgement, some Jewish physicians may be influenced also by non-medical consideration. Cultural background of many Jewish circumcision advocates predisposes them to view the practice in a positive light, to welcome evidence that the most particular and problematic religious custom of their people is medically beneficial, and to dismiss arguments to the contrary. The presence of a large and influential population of Jewish physicians in this country, their concentration in leading centers of research and publication, and their remarkably active participation in the century-long debate on circumcision seems too obvious and too significant to be rejected out of hand, or worse, to be avoided because it might be wrongly interpreted as gratuitous defamation.<ref>{{REFbook
|note=The presence of a large and influential population of Jewish physicians in this country...
|accessdate=2011-02-19
}}</ref> According to a MEDLINE search, [[Edgar J. Schoen| Edgar Schoen]], a strong Jewish advocate, has been published 20 times in the medical literature on the subject of circumcision.
==== Circumcision discourse and the Jewish presence ====
== "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=
* [[Circumfetish]] -- A bias sicker than the rest.
* [[Psychological issues of male circumcision]]
{{REF}}