17,103
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Bias
,Edit text; Add Goldman 2005
}}</ref>
American bias in favor of circumcision could be attributed to a number of different factors. The history of circumcision in America goes back at least more than a century, when it began as a way to curb [[masturbation]] in boys and men.<ref name='Stay Free!'>{{REFweb
| quote=The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic...
| last=McLaren
}}</ref> Thereafter American doctors began on a quest to medicalize the practice of circumcision as a preventor of a myriad of diseases, and that endeavor continues to this day.
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 [[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 |last=Goldman |first=Ronald |author-link=Ronald Goldman |etal=no |title=Circumcision policy: a psychosocial perspective |trans-title= |language= |journal=Paedatrics & Child Health (Ottawa) |location= |date=2005-11 |volume=9 |issue=9 |pages=630-3. |url=https://www.circumcision.org/wp-content/docs/CircumcisionPolicy_A_Psychosocial_Perspective.pdf |quote= |pubmedID=19675851 |pubmedCID=2724127 |DOI=10.1093/pch/9.9.630 |accessdate=2019-12-10}}</ref>
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.