As a follow-up on our recent thread on this topic, a letter was just published in the October 1 issue of the British Medical Journal (get it while it's still free at http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/331/7519/781).
The authors, Hill and Geisheker of the organization _Doctors Opposing Circumcision_, and therefore not exactly neutral on the issue, make a number of claims. One is that the still-unpublished study by Auvert et al showing a benefit of circumcision was not random because individuals who were not willing to be circumcised were eliminated from the study. I don't find this a credible criticism because surely the appropriate study population would be those who would agree to be circumcised were it offered. Incidentally, this confirms that the group assignment was indeed random, a concern raised in our earlier discussion. Second, because they study was terminated early due to the effectiveness of the intervention, they speculate that had it continued to its planned end, it might have shown (they say "probably") that infection was merely delayed. They also claim that participants were prevented from using condoms during the study, and invoke comparison with Tuskegee (about which we also had some recent discussion). I hope that this study soon finds a home in print so these issues can be explored in detail. Stephen -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. tel: (819) 822-9600 ext 2470 Department of Psychology fax:(819) 822-9661 Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lennoxville, QC J1M 1Z7 Canada Dept web page at http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy TIPS discussion list for psychology teachers at http://faculty.frostburg.edu/psyc/southerly/tips/index.htm ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
