Talk:Medical analysis of circumcision/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Continuous Reversions

I think people are forgetting that there is a talk page. Jakew, we've been working on that paragraph on O'Hara together; you've been helping edit it. How can you possibly delete it without discussion, without even mentioning it in the edit history?? Robert the Bruce, how can you possibly revert ([1]) without discussion or mention in the subject line my removal of the "Introduction" heading, which I did to make it conform to every other article on Wikipedia?? Clearly I'm not a vandal, and I think I deserve the courtesy of having my edits removed through discussion — at least a mention in the edit summary — rather than reverted like those of a common troll. What do you find offensive about having the introduction before the TOC?? Every other article is like that.

While your reversion of my minor edit was rude, both of your widespread reversions on everything that Robert Blair writes is utterly unproffesional and absurd. The O'Hara section has been discussed, and was moving towards a compromise that I (clearly mistakenly) believed had been reached. Then you deleted it. You "reverted to a previous less POV version" which didn't mention the section.

Then, while keeping any information regarding possibly errors introduced in the articles cited by Blair, you systematically delete any information or citations regarding problems in pro-circumcision research. Again you delete research published in respected peer-reviewed journals without comment. I'm sure there is anti-circumcision POV in those sections, so what one does is edit them and discuss them here. Deleting everything that questions the value of research, especially those published in respected forums, is absurd. I myself am not a troll or a vandal, and so would appreciate getting at least a mention in the subject line before you revert my edits again.

— Asbestos | Talk 23:02, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The problem seems to be with Robert Blair, who reverts on sight and refuses to discuss edits. Admittedly, few editors on these pages, including myself, are perfect in this respect, but this behaviour tends to result in editors losing patience and simply reverting (what's the point of carefully editing and trying to compromise if he just reverts again?). This is an ugly state of affairs, and does nothing for the article. DanP and I are currently trying to incorporate more of a focus on discussion and we are talking about ways in which the situation might be resolved. - Jakew 01:48, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Jakew, if you look at the history, Robert the Bruce deleted the O'Hara section that was exactly as it was when you and I stoped editing it. Indeed, he deleted everything right after your own edit. How can you claim that this widespread deletion was in response to something that Robert Blair did, since there are three other edits between RB's edit and RtB's reversion? Instead it looks to me like RtB just got bored with the whole idea that other viewpoints could be introduced and figured he'd just revert back to a time when everything was a lot simpler. You supported him by reverting other people's edits back to his.
Robert the Bruce could you explain what exactly it is that you find "POV" about the introduction being above the table of contents that led you to revert it? I realize that this may not have been your target in your reversion, but this is exactly what I'm worried about. You seem not to have bothered to think about what you were deleting, because it is a lot easier to revert an article than to actually try to make it NPOV. If you could explain which parts of the O'Hara study than JakeW and I worked on were POV; why the flaws found by The Cochrane review were POV; and why my removal of the Introduction heading was POV? If you label a sweeping round of deletions "POV" you need to be able to explain every single one of them.
I'm not going to revert though, as I think your placement of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians and he USAID office's statements makes the article sound better. Instead I'm simply replacing those three things I noted above. If you wish to revert yet again, do feel free to explain why. — Asbestos | Talk 10:28, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
(For some strange reason my edits are shown combined with RB's edits in the page history. Hopefully this is a temporary Wikiburp. For the record, my edits [2] are removing the Introduction heading, replacing the section "The Cochrane review, however, cites..." (in a slightly different place) and replacing the section under Partner Preference. RB's edits seem to be the addition of the book in References. I don't know why they are shown combined. — Asbestos | Talk 14:01, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)). Ahh - it seems to be back to normal. — Asbestos | Talk
I'm afraid I may be being dense, but I have yet to see any evidence from Robert the Bruce as to why the O'Hara study should not be included. Especially as I discovered that the citations originally in the article under the NPOV-friendly "Some have criticized this study [3][4]..." utterly fail to mention O'Hara & O'Hara. I'd really like a citation from some kind of respected publication that suggests that the O'Hara and the Bensley/Boyle studies are too bogus to be included in any form. I think that, if the results are disputed, NPOV policy would certainly require us putting up the disputes (so long as they come from some credible source, and especially so long as they are at least mentioned in the links we use as our own citations), but you need evidence that the peer-reviewed, respected journals were completely off base in publishing the authors before you can simply exclude their research. Like I said, this evidence may exist, but I can't seem to find it in this Talk page or in either of the archived talk pages.
Robert the Bruce, contrary to what you were implying at Talk:Medical_analysis_of_circumcision/Archive_2#Bensley.2FBoyle_survey, the burden of proof is on you to show that peer-reviewed published articles are unfit for inclusion in this article, not on others to show whether the authors succeeded creating a fair experiment. I've re-added the sections. Robert the Bruce, it's been four days that I've been posting here and four days that you've been reverting my edits without responding. It would be nice to discuss this on this Talk page. — Asbestos | Talk 01:03, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[5] does refer to the O'Hara study. The letter is in response to one by a Mr Mermer, which can be found directly above. Mermer cites O'Hara in support of his theory, which Schoen then rebuts. If you bother to read it, you'll understand. Brian Morris assures me that he is talking about the O'Hara junk. I've reincluded them. - Jakew 01:16, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In which journal or publication was that letter published? Was the letter peer-reviewed? Is that the only citation suggesting that the O'Hara study is bogus? I'm confused: is this single letter what we've been arguing about this whole time? — Asbestos | Talk 01:25, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Partner preference. NPOV gives equal weight to all views. The bottom line is that if one is going to have Williamson and Williamson, one also has to have O'Hara and O'Hara and Bensley and Boyle for NPOV. It is either nothing at all or all of them. Robert Blair 01:45, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Williamson & Williamson was a credible study. O'Hara's and Bensley's are not (unless of course you want to know what anti-circ activists think, in which case they're perfectly ok). - Jakew 01:48, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
To be fair, NPOV doesn't give equal weight to all views (e.g. flat Earth). It gives weight to views that are more credible than others. In scientific articles, this generally refers to peer-reviewed publications. For precisely this reason I believe that the O'Hare article and others ought to remain in the article. Also for this reason, I am beginning to be sceptical that criticism of the article should be included, since the only criticism that has been presented so far is a letter by an author in a post-publication review (i.e. not in a published article). — Asbestos | Talk 01:56, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC) (formatting fixed - Jakew)
Let me get this straight: you're suggesting censoring the fact that legitimate criticisms have been raised on the flimsy grounds that although the letter has been published, it hasn't been printed? - Jakew 02:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Here you suggested censoring a legitamate article on the flimsy grounds that someone wrote a letter about it. But no, I'm not talking about the difference between published and printed, a published article is very different from a post-publication forum, though (they are a space for opinion, not research). — Asbestos | Talk 02:19, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No, I suggest removing a piece of ludicrous unscientific propaganda that somehow or other managed to scrape through what little peer-review process the BJU used (which was minimal or non-existent in the case of that supplement, in which authors were solicited to write articles, rather than the more normal submission process). I suggested removing it on the grounds that it was atrocious. Many people have criticised it - I have simply offered some examples in the literature or in print (Brian Morris counts in this regard, as his site is a condensed version of his book). You insist, rather unreasonably in my view, that the article remains. I say this is tolerable, but must be accompanied by criticism. You then demanded sources for criticism. When I provided sources, you quibble about whether or not they are in the form of pixels or ink! If you read this (Wiki's) article, you'll find that many if not most cited articles are accompanied by criticism, often without sources. Perhaps you should remove these criticisms, too. - Jakew 02:28, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Of course I demand sources for criticism when the section keeps getting deleted by Robert the Bruce on the grounds of these apparent criticisms. The title of this article is "Medical analysis of circumcision", not people's opinions on it, so I think asking for legitamate sources is a pefectly reasonable thing to do. I've already stated that you're attacking a strawman when you start talking about pixels or ink — I've never said anything remotely like that — but surely a reasonable person like you recognizes post-publication forums as a place to express opinions, not to write respected research. You keep talking about this huge body of literature attacking O'Hara and attacking Bensley and Boyle. I'm sure this exists, and will cheerfully recant everything when you show me something respectable, but surely you see that a letter by someone, who may or may not have his own POV, hardly gets the same weight in the scientific community as a published article. — Asbestos | Talk 10:16, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, ok, you want "medical analysis", so why are you objecting to criticism from Edgar Schoen MD, Professor of Pediatrics and 1989 Chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics' Task Force on Circumcision? Is he somehow disqualified from giving a medical analysis? Secondly, the journal Pediatrics defines the P3Rs (which are the online letters we're talking about) as: "Post-publication Peer Review (P3R) is an online forum for ongoing peer review." So are you now saying that peer review is invalid? Should we perhaps demand copies of the draft versions of articles, to avoid the influence of those pesky reviewers? Finally, yes I agree that a letter may express an opinion, even a POV, but we're not making a bold claim about, say, circumcision preventing heart disease or world famine - we're just saying that a "study" has been criticised. Which is undeniably true. So why are you so determined to censor the fact? - Jakew 13:12, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The Post-publication Peer Review by Edgar Schoen [6] does not address the O'Hara article at all. Why is it cited as a reference? Furthermore if John Taylor can be labeled as an anti-circumcision activist, Edgar Schoen most definitely can be labeled as a pro-circumcision activist. -- DanBlackham 14:27, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've left the Schoen criticism in the article, though it doesn't carry as much weight as the original research article (an "an online forum for ongoing peer review" isn't itself peer-reviewed. I'm not sure if you've understood how this process works. No matter). It's probably reasonable criticism. You understand that I was taken aback, however, to discover that there was no published rebuttal to O'Hara, and the best you've come up with is a random aside in someone's letter. You and RtB were for deleting the study on almost no grounds at all. The second citation, btw, is absolutely irrelevant. It has one sentence which may or may not refer to O'Hara (she is never mentioned by name anywhere), doesn't back it up in any way, and really does not appear to be from a particularly neutral source. My guess is it is citing the same Schoen letter as you were. I don't think it adds to the article. — Asbestos | Talk 16:13, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Disputed paragraph

This edit, by User:Robert Blair, is non-neutral and non-factual.

To begin with, Blair begins by describing Williamson and Williamson as circumcision advocates. I could find no reason through web searches to believe that they are.

In contrast, Blair omits the fact that the O'Haras are circumcision opponents. I also take issue with the word "overwhelming" (99% is overwhelming. 85% is not). I also object to the loaded term 'natural' in place of the literal 'uncircumcised'. I object to the use of the non-dictionary term "circumcisionist", and for the fact that other critics (included in previous versions) have been omitted. I also object to the fact that criticism of Bensley and Boyle has been removed. For these reasons, while I think that the original version that doesn't include the anti-circ propaganda is better, I'm using Asbestos' version with minor changes (fixing a typo and two word alterations) until this issue can be resolved properly. - Jakew 12:41, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Willliamson and Williamson advocate doing circumcisions with anesthesia.[7] That makes them circumcision advocates. Robert Blair 01:48, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok, call them anaesthesia advocates. (additional) So does the AAP. Shall we say "rabid circumcision advocates, the American Academy of Pediatrics say..." - Jakew 02:07, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Jakew, Robert raises exactly the point I've been making about the pro-mutilation tactics of disclaimer. Somewhere there are Wikipedia guidelines on this, I'm sure. But clearly there are some (Morris, O'Hara) that can be described as advocates or opponents, whereas others who merely profess a viewpoint need not be classified as driven by single-issues if their disciplines are broader. As an example, to an outside observer, we all probably seem like single-issue nutcases. But then take into account that there is disagreement, not necessarily personal interest, that raises the bar. Get a bunch of nerds arguing about the phasers on Star Trek, same thing. So I propose that we preface a name as "opponent of cirucumcision X"," "circumcision advocate Y", etc. only when the person is actually described that way in some news or academic publication. Otherwise, if applicable, we should use their a professional title (author, professor, etc.) and not make our own value judgements. DanP 10:52, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. Since the terms "anti-circumcision activist so-and-so" and "pro-mutilation activist so-and-so" are clearly opinions (and the latter obviously slander), we should only give weight to such classifications if they are used in respected media. Using one pro/ant-circumcision website to prove that someone else is an "activist" doesn't count as respected media. We should stick with the obviosuly POV-neutral terms "professor", "psychologist" and so on. — Asbestos | Talk 11:30, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm happy with removing untrue or excessive labelling, but in my view if an author of a title has presented at an anti-circumcision activist conference, or is a prominent member of an anti-circ activist organisation, then we should note the fact. Journals require contributors to declare relevant interests, which they make available to readers. I think we should do the same, but should be more cautious about it. There's no reason to declare that every author of an 'anti-circ' paper is an anti-circ activist (though a worryingly large proportion do seem to be), and it dilutes the impact of revealing that some are. The same should obviously go for pro-circ, though here the organised nature of anti-circ activism counts against it. I don't object to labelling Prof Morris, since he is active. - Jakew 13:12, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Sexual fetishism

It has long been held by the pro-mutilation side that preference for male foreskin is a fetish and continues to be described as such. This article contains a "partner preference" section (exactly why the surveys are "medical analyses", I have NO IDEA!), but I have changed it to reference fetishism which is not limited to gay males as the foreskin fetish and circumcision fetish article suggest. DanP 11:00, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Obviously you don't agree with the label "fetish", so I refer you to Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. The point, however, remains a good one, and calling either side fetishists clearly has no place in any of these articles. I hope you don't mind that I removed the reference since you seem to have proved your point, as I'm sure you'd remove "foreskin fetishist" if you saw it. — Asbestos | Talk 11:25, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Female Arousal

A disagreement is not automatically a disruption. But mainly there is a broad difference between illustrating a point, and making established points consistent on both sides. The vote was to preserve the fetish articles. I believe you have misconstrued the policy and the section here creates within Wikipedia a gender-selective definition of fetishism. And again, what does the whole "partner preference" have to do with medicine? I propose deleting the whole section, as this article has become willy-nilly and the section has little merit being called "medical analysis". DanP 15:48, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think you're probably right about removing the Partner Preference. I think that research about preference should get out of a Medical Analysis article (i.e. getting rid of both the Willliamsonand the O'Hara research), yet research about vaginal dryness should certainly be there. Bensley & Boyle should get their own section under Sexual Effects, probably simply Vaginal Dryness. — Asbestos | Talk 16:13, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, I've followed through and made the change. Partner preference clearly doesn't belong in the medical analysis of circumcision, you were right. I've renamed the section Female Arousal. To think of all that time I spent arguing that the O'Hara section should stay... — Asbestos | Talk 20:55, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've incorporated the Williamson's findings on female arousal. - Jakew 21:19, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You're right, I shouldn't have removed that (I was thinking it was only along the lines of preference). I added the fact that 88% of the women had never had experience with an uncircumcised penis, though, as I think it rather relevant to the study. I kind of just tacked it on to the end, though. It might sound better re-phrased. — Asbestos | Talk 21:32, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I've tacked a caveat onto the caveat. I'll rephrase shortly, as you're right it does need it. - Jakew 21:42, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. It's always better to have straight numbers than inferences. Your caveat made sense. — Asbestos | Talk 21:54, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


"potential"

The word "potential" is an adjective that means to exist in possibility but not in actuality. It is more or less properly applied to the alleged and claimed, but unproven, benefits of circumcision. The AAP uses it as a euphemisism for unproven.

It is not properly applied to the risks, complications, disadvantages, and drawbacks of circumcision which are recorded in abundance in the medical literature. See

http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/

"potential". adjective. Capable of being but not yet in existence; latent: a potential problem. - dictionary.com
A potential complication is one that could occur, but is not guaranteed to occur. An "actual" or "proven" complication is one that is guaranteed to occur. It is the correct terminology, as widely used in the medical literature. See any page found by this Google search. - Jakew 15:05, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have requested that this page is protected. I will withdraw the request if you indicate that you understand the terminology. - Jakew 15:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Acutally Jake, I agree. Potential means it's not guaranteed to occur. Since these medical benefits that are claimed are only projections, they are not guaranteed in every individual. I have made a change to reflect this. DanP 18:54, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Some benefits are guaranteed to occur, however. - Jakew 19:27, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There are no benefits that are guaranteeed to occur, but all of the listed risks and complications actually have occurred. Potential is correct for benefits (although it is widely misunderstood) but it is not correct for complications.

Robert Blair 01:55, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's true that no medical benefit is guaranteed to affect a given individual, but no complication is guaranteed to affect a given individual, either. You can only talk about probabilities in both cases, and thus potential is the correct term. - Jakew 02:20, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

STD Infection Rates in the USA

An article on Medicine.net says:

Rates of early death and disability that can be attributed to sexual behavior are three times higher in the United States than other so-called developed nations, a new study finds.[8]

I therefore feel that it more accurate to say that STD rates are higher in the US than other advanced countries rather than saying that the rates are higher in the US than many advanced countries.Michael Glass 00:42, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Protected

Protected as per request on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Note: I have never edited this page except for adding the Protection tag. Please resolve your differences on the talk page -- Chris 73 Talk 04:41, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

What? It looks like this one's settling down now... —Ashley Y 05:13, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
Agreed. I think that we shouldn't be too hasty in jumping to protection — the particular edit war in question had only been active for a day. I think that so long as people try to keep with the spirit of the 3RR, there really isn't need to page protections. I personally think that the word "potential" applies to this article and makes sense, both "potential complications" and "potential benefits." It is a neutral word that states that such complications or benefits may occur some of the time and not always. I suggest throwing a straw poll to find out what people think, and unportecting if a consensus is found. If people are fine with the idea, vote below, or if there is a better suggestion include it. — Asbestos | Talk 11:06, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The problem lies in certain users continuing with certain edits without responding to objections raised to the content of those edits on the talk page. That's usually an indicator that there is a problem, and an edit war is imminent. The merit of protection is that it forces editors to discuss the issue. - Jakew 13:02, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Poll

Label both benefits and complications as "potential benefits" and "potential complications" (but avoid repetitions)

  1. Asbestos | Talk 11:06, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Do not include the word "potential" anywhere

Other

  1. Decide on each individual case on the merits (preferably on this page). Try to avoid too much repetition (eg once we've described a complication as potential once, it's probably excessive to do so a second time). Include an explanation of the use of the term potential. - Jakew 13:02, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment

  • To me, "potential" is a neutral term implying that the complications or benefits occur some of the time but not necessarily always. — Asbestos | Talk 11:06, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Since Robert Blair appears to believe that the term "potential" means "unproven", I have emailed Carole Lannon, Chair of the 1999 AAP Task Force on Circumcision, for clarification. I'll post here once I have a reply. - Jakew 13:02, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I've noted "but avoid repetitions" above. — Asbestos | Talk 13:17, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Herpes risk of circumcision

Found on CNN: [9]. Perhaps this should be mentioned. —Ashley Y 05:11, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)

Only applies to ritual Jewish circumcisions (and even then only the ones still using metsizah). - Jakew 05:20, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
While I think the case in question is a one-off, it might be worth mentioning the inherent disease-related risks of this practice. I don't think the medical analysis of Jewish circumcision should be excluded from the article. — Asbestos | Talk 09:25, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The risks inherent in traditional circumcision practices do warrant some discussion. However, it is not just the problem of herpes infection. It also includes the infections and mutilations that have been documented in Turkey and South Africa as well as the infections that have been passed on from metsizah. Of course, there are also risks of infection in hospital circumcisions from golden staph and other pathogens as well as surgical error. No circumcision is entirely risk-free.Michael Glass 20:22, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I like how the pro-mutilation side is permitted to qualify (risk and injury are "only" here and only there), but when AIDS rates are sometimes lower, or when penile cancer is sometimes lower, then careful geographic and cultural qualifiers are out-the-window! The benefits are across the board (no matter conflicts with global statistical data) -- but to them, risks and complications are only here and there, qualifying at their choice. One must realize death, injury, and disease have been caused by circumcision, and always will be. Wikipedia should not "mindread" the circumcisers intent, but only reference all of these factors, instead of pandering to the pro-mutilation viewpoint in every instance. DanP 20:54, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The practics of Metziza, where the ritual circumciser draws blood from the newly circumcised penis by mouth, has long been associated with the spread of diseases such as TB or herpes.

<http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=38237> <http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/114/2/e259> <http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/holt1/> <http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/reuben2/> <http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/mahlberg1/>

The above links should help to document this concern.Michael Glass 13:53, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

An Opinion and Some Commentary

This probably won't help one way or the other, but I'll insert my $0.02 anyway:

I really think everyone involved in this article should take a deep breath and look at what's been written and what the absolute facts are. Then you should look at other considerations such as cultural and political points of view. I think there is a balance that can be found here if people are really interested in producing a high quality article. I don't normally introduce myself this way but since it's very a propos in this case: I am an adult uncircumcised male resident in Canada. There, nobody can accuse me of not admitting my bias, now back to the topic at hand. Here is my brief interpretation of the current academic and medical view of circumcision:

Essentially as numerous people have noted there is no medical evidence that circumcision has any statistically significant benefits to the individual in question, nor is there any solid evidence that it does any great harm when performed during the neonatal period. In essence what most doctors, who don't have an axe to grind, will tell you is that all things being equal there is no need for circumcision any more than there is to pierce a baby girl's (or boy's for that matter) ears. On the flipside there is probably not much more risk unless you start to tread into more subjective interpretations of the facts. That said, there is a fairly solid consensus that if the parents wish for their son to be circumcised then there is little reason to refuse this procedure either. Ultimately this is a sensitive issue that, in the vast majority of cases, is based in a family's cultural and social traditions. I have yet to read a single reputable source suggesting that Muslim or Jewish parents should be denied the "right" to have their son's circumcised, in fact many doctors and psychologists have suggested that there are non-medical factors that would support circumcision in these cases as it is primarily practiced in these cultures as a form of initiation into the community, a common practice in all cultures even though the means differs.

In my opinion this is where 99% of the conversation breaks down. Most people feel threatened when they discuss this issue since as men they will already fall into one of the two categories (in all but a few rare circumstances) as somebody has already pointed out. Women will also have a bias though in my opinion, by definition it will be somewhat more detached than the male point of view tends to be for obvious reasons, though often just as strongly held. The simple fact of the matter is that circumcision was not routinely practiced in Western Europe or North America as a prophylactic procedure until the last 100 years or so and it was begun based on the best medical undertanding at the time which suggested that it would prevent various "conditions" such as masturbation, infection and certain sexual dysfunction and illness. None of these "medical" rationales have been borne out by modern medical practice, research or consensus, however we now live in a culture where circumcision is consdered traditional. The question of whether to circumcise or not is rarely a question of reasoned interpretation of the medical evidence or consultation with a medical professional qualified to advise on the topic and I really wish that people would get off their high horses and just admit this fact.

"Medical analysis of circumcision" is fairly straightforward, there is no strong view one way or the other, the decision to circumcise is ultimately a family decision barring new research to the contrary. Even the official statements of the various medical associations are couched in very neutral terms, while refuting the medical necessity of circumcision they also are careful not to suggest that circumcision should be banned and IMO they likely never will. You will likely find a majority of doctors who would lean away from circumcision simply because most doctors are loathe to perform any procedure that is not necessary in a clincal sense, but I doubt that you're gonna find many doctors who will refuse to perform (or arrange for, if they are not experienced or ethically comfortable with) circumcisions if it's the preference of the parents. The bulk of this debate should be dumped into an article called "cultural, religious and ethical implications of circumcision" or something of the sort. That is assuming that people actually want to make this encyclopaedia a strong resource. Feel free to completely disregard me if you want, I have an axe to grind here because I get so pissed when I see people refusing to debate this topic honestly, admitting their biases and seperating them from the facts. There's nothing wrong with biases, just admit them and don't force people to share them. Gabe 02:01, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gabe's summary, which I read with interest, says that circumcision essentially makes no difference, so it's no problem for parents to make such a choice for their boys. While this sounds fair enough, people on both sides of the debate would beg to differ on such questions as whether or not circumcision reduces the incidence of certain diseases or if it affects sexual sansitivity. Therefore, when parents or religious communities have or claim the right to circumcise infants and children it throws up some thorny ethical dilemmas.
For instance, all genital surgery on girls is prohibited but genital surgery on boys is permitted. How can this discrepancy be justified in an era of equal rights under the law?
If parents decide to have a child circumcised and the boy disagrees with their choice, can he sue the parents and the doctor?
If parents disagree on circumcision, whose opinion shall prevail, the one who wants to circumcise or the one who does not?
If parents agree on circumcision, does a medical practitioner have the right to refuse to do it?
I have the feeling that this whole area is likely to be very contentious for many years to come.Michael Glass 11:43, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Temp

I copied the article to Medical analysis of circumcision/temp. —Ashley Y 00:26, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)

The the

At some point, can someone fix the "the the" typo in the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) and Cervical cancer section. -- John Fader 02:24, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Medical_analysis_of_circumcision/Archive_5&oldid=63040239"