We critically evaluate an online “Global survey of circumcision harm” that gauged beliefs of men who thought that their neonatal circumcision had harmed them. Sequential evaluation of the survey data and claims reve...We critically evaluate an online “Global survey of circumcision harm” that gauged beliefs of men who thought that their neonatal circumcision had harmed them. Sequential evaluation of the survey data and claims reveal numerous serious flaws that are at odds with strong scientific evidence. Moreover, the one-sided study design and “loaded” survey title meant the findings were not representative of the general population of circumcised males. None of the participants’ claimed physical problems were confirmed by a health practitioner. Belief in this seriously flawed survey has potential to cause psychological harm to vulnerable men influenced by anti-circumcision claims, and as such has serious detrimental implications for male sexual health. The survey appears driven less by empiricism and more by psychological forces, as we show in de-tail. The overwhelming body of high quality medical scientific evidence finds no adverse effect of male circumcision on sexual function and pleasure, but strong evidence for a wide array of lifetime benefits in protection against infections, dermatological problems, and genital cancers. Consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, children are entitled to low risk procedures that are beneficial to their health. In conclusion, the survey and its uncritical presentation do a disservice to evidence-based medicine, sexual health, mental health, public health, human rights, and pediatric policy development. It should therefore be dismissed as unreliable.展开更多
Tye and Sardi recently reviewed the evidence purporting to implicate male circumcision, especially when performed early in infancy, in psychological problems in men. Here we provide a critical evaluation to determine ...Tye and Sardi recently reviewed the evidence purporting to implicate male circumcision, especially when performed early in infancy, in psychological problems in men. Here we provide a critical evaluation to determine the veracity of their evidence and claims. Missing from their review were critiques pointing out fundamental flaws in key studies. We argue that psychological stress in some men may be caused by anti-circumcision propaganda telling them that they are victims of “genital mutilation”, a term adopted from dissimilar female practices in particular ethnic groups. Sexual dissatisfaction results. We critically discuss claims about foreskin “gliding”, the eccentric foreskin-related sexual practice of “docking”, and the use of lubricant in masturbation. We further find that a study claiming to show numerous differences in socio-affective processing in men circumcised as neonates stem from statistically flawed and one-sided data that has been misinterpreted, and in fact shows the opposite of the hypothesis that psychological problems in some men can be attributed to the pain of their circumcision as newborns. Importantly, since the brain regions responsible for empathy, namely subcortical gray matter and white matter in frontal and parietal regions, were similar in neonatally circumcised and uncircumcised men, the null hypothesis remains null. In conclusion, we find no compelling evidence to support newborn circumcision pain being responsible for psychological problems in neonatally circumcised men. Men who come to believe that they are victims of their infant circumcision are in actual fact likely victims of false claims perpetrated by activist community groups with trenchant opposition to circumcision.展开更多
文摘We critically evaluate an online “Global survey of circumcision harm” that gauged beliefs of men who thought that their neonatal circumcision had harmed them. Sequential evaluation of the survey data and claims reveal numerous serious flaws that are at odds with strong scientific evidence. Moreover, the one-sided study design and “loaded” survey title meant the findings were not representative of the general population of circumcised males. None of the participants’ claimed physical problems were confirmed by a health practitioner. Belief in this seriously flawed survey has potential to cause psychological harm to vulnerable men influenced by anti-circumcision claims, and as such has serious detrimental implications for male sexual health. The survey appears driven less by empiricism and more by psychological forces, as we show in de-tail. The overwhelming body of high quality medical scientific evidence finds no adverse effect of male circumcision on sexual function and pleasure, but strong evidence for a wide array of lifetime benefits in protection against infections, dermatological problems, and genital cancers. Consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, children are entitled to low risk procedures that are beneficial to their health. In conclusion, the survey and its uncritical presentation do a disservice to evidence-based medicine, sexual health, mental health, public health, human rights, and pediatric policy development. It should therefore be dismissed as unreliable.
文摘Tye and Sardi recently reviewed the evidence purporting to implicate male circumcision, especially when performed early in infancy, in psychological problems in men. Here we provide a critical evaluation to determine the veracity of their evidence and claims. Missing from their review were critiques pointing out fundamental flaws in key studies. We argue that psychological stress in some men may be caused by anti-circumcision propaganda telling them that they are victims of “genital mutilation”, a term adopted from dissimilar female practices in particular ethnic groups. Sexual dissatisfaction results. We critically discuss claims about foreskin “gliding”, the eccentric foreskin-related sexual practice of “docking”, and the use of lubricant in masturbation. We further find that a study claiming to show numerous differences in socio-affective processing in men circumcised as neonates stem from statistically flawed and one-sided data that has been misinterpreted, and in fact shows the opposite of the hypothesis that psychological problems in some men can be attributed to the pain of their circumcision as newborns. Importantly, since the brain regions responsible for empathy, namely subcortical gray matter and white matter in frontal and parietal regions, were similar in neonatally circumcised and uncircumcised men, the null hypothesis remains null. In conclusion, we find no compelling evidence to support newborn circumcision pain being responsible for psychological problems in neonatally circumcised men. Men who come to believe that they are victims of their infant circumcision are in actual fact likely victims of false claims perpetrated by activist community groups with trenchant opposition to circumcision.
