Title |
Veracity and rhetoric in paediatric medicine: a critique of Svoboda and Van Howe's response to the AAP policy on infant male circumcision
|
---|---|
Published in |
Journal of Medical Ethics, August 2013
|
DOI | 10.1136/medethics-2013-101614 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Brian J Morris, Aaron A R Tobian, Catherine A Hankins, Jeffrey D Klausner, Joya Banerjee, Stefan A Bailis, Stephen Moses, Thomas E Wiswell |
Abstract |
In a recent issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics, Svoboda and Van Howe commented on the 2012 change in the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) policy on newborn male circumcision, in which the AAP stated that benefits of the procedure outweigh the risks. Svoboda and Van Howe disagree with the AAP conclusions. We show here that their arguments against male circumcision are based on a poor understanding of epidemiology, erroneous interpretation of the evidence, selective citation of the literature, statistical manipulation of data, and circular reasoning. In reality, the scientific evidence indicates that male circumcision, especially when performed in the newborn period, is an ethically and medically sound low-risk preventive health procedure conferring a lifetime of benefits to health and well-being. Policies in support of parent-approved elective newborn circumcision should be embraced by the medical, scientific and wider communities. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 3 | 21% |
United Kingdom | 3 | 21% |
Norway | 1 | 7% |
Unknown | 7 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 10 | 71% |
Scientists | 3 | 21% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 1 | 3% |
Unknown | 33 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 11 | 32% |
Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 12% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 12% |
Other | 3 | 9% |
Researcher | 2 | 6% |
Other | 5 | 15% |
Unknown | 5 | 15% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 32% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 15% |
Social Sciences | 5 | 15% |
Psychology | 3 | 9% |
Environmental Science | 1 | 3% |
Other | 3 | 9% |
Unknown | 6 | 18% |