title: Circumcision policy: A psychosocial perspective.
abstract: The debate about the advisability of circumcision in English-speaking countries has typically focused on the potential health factors. The position statements of committees from national medical organizations are expected to be evidence-based; however, the contentiousness of the ongoing debate suggests that other factors are involved. Various potential factors related to psychology, sociology, religion and culture may also underlie policy decisions. These factors could affect the values and attitudes of medical committee members, the process of evaluating the medical literature and the medical literature itself. Although medical professionals highly value rationality, it can be difficult to conduct a rational and objective evaluation of an emotional and controversial topic such as circumcision. A negotiated compromise between polarized committee factions could introduce additional psychosocial factors. These possibilities are speculative, not conclusive. It is recommended that an open discussion of psychosocial factors take place and that the potential biases of committee members be recognized.
authors.affiliation: Circumcision Resource Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
authors.forename: Ronald
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Goldman
references.citation: Iowa Law Rev. 2000 May;85(4):1507-68
references.pmid: 12627558
references.citation: BJU Int. 1999 Sep;84(4):543
references.pmid: 10576951
references.citation: J Urol. 2002 May;167(5):2113-6
references.pmid: 11956453
references.citation: BMJ. 1997 May 31;314(7094):1573
references.pmid: 9186166
references.citation: BJU Int. 1999 Jan;83 Suppl 1:28-33
references.pmid: 10349412
references.citation: Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 1999 Jun;20(2):145-9
references.pmid: 10414654
references.citation: Pediatrics. 1999 Mar;103(3):686-93
references.pmid: 10049981
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 1990 May 3;322(18):1312-5
references.pmid: 2183058
references.citation: CMAJ. 1996 Mar 15;154(6):769-80
references.pmid: 8634956
references.citation: Am Univ J Gend Soc Policy Law. 1998-1999;7(1):87-123
references.pmid: 16526136
references.citation: J Natl Med Assoc. 1973 Mar;65(2):161 passim
references.pmid: 4691678
references.citation: J Abnorm Psychol. 1959 Mar;58(2):203-10
references.pmid: 13640824
references.citation: Arch Dis Child. 1997 Sep;77(3):258-60
references.pmid: 9370910
references.citation: J Health Psychol. 2002 May;7(3):329-43
references.pmid: 22114254
references.citation: J Contemp Health Law Policy. 2000 Winter;17(1):61-133
references.pmid: 11216345
references.citation: Pediatrics. 2000 Mar;105(3 Pt 1):620-3
references.pmid: 10699119
references.citation: Pediatrics. 1989 Aug;84(2):388-91
references.pmid: 2664697
references.citation: BJU Int. 1999 Jan;83 Suppl 1:85-92
references.pmid: 10349419
references.citation: BMJ. 1996 Feb 10;312(7027):377
references.pmid: 8611846
references.citation: Am J Dis Child. 1983 Oct;137(10):939-40
references.pmid: 6688499
references.citation: BJU Int. 1999 Jan;83 Suppl 1:79-84
references.pmid: 10349418
references.citation: J Med Ethics. 2004 Jun;30(3):259-63
references.pmid: 15173359
references.citation: J Fam Pract. 1982 Jul;15(1):47-53
references.pmid: 7086383
references.citation: Ann Intern Med. 1997 Jan 1;126(1):36-47
references.pmid: 8992922
references.citation: J Urol. 2001 Dec;166(6):2273-6
references.pmid: 11696750
references.citation: BJU Int. 1999 Jan;83 Suppl 1:34-44
references.pmid: 10349413
references.citation: Pediatrics. 2000 Mar;105(3 Pt 1):681; author reply 685
references.pmid: 10733389
references.citation: BJU Int. 1999 Jan;83 Suppl 1:93-102
references.pmid: 10349420