Difference between revisions of "Resource:20755beb-0432-483f-b1a7-2c28f4a84964"
From The Embassy of Good Science
(Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=The AAP report on circumcision: Bad science + bad ethics = bad medicine |Is About=This blog describes some of the arguments against the...") |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|Resource Type=Cases | |Resource Type=Cases | ||
|Title=The AAP report on circumcision: Bad science + bad ethics = bad medicine | |Title=The AAP report on circumcision: Bad science + bad ethics = bad medicine | ||
| − | |Is About=This blog describes some of the arguments against the case of the AAP's (American Academy of | + | |Is About=This blog describes some of the arguments against the case of the AAP's (American Academy of Paediatrics) change of policy's position in relation to infant male circumcision. The author of the blog suggests that whilst the evidence remains the same, institutions can 'cherry pick' findings to support their own conclusions. |
|Important For=Human rights defenders; Clinical ethics consultants; lecturers; research students | |Important For=Human rights defenders; Clinical ethics consultants; lecturers; research students | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 12:56, 6 July 2021
ResourcesCases
The AAP report on circumcision: Bad science + bad ethics = bad medicine
What is this about?
This blog describes some of the arguments against the case of the AAP's (American Academy of Paediatrics) change of policy's position in relation to infant male circumcision. The author of the blog suggests that whilst the evidence remains the same, institutions can 'cherry pick' findings to support their own conclusions.
