Our mission includes raising awareness about Jewish circumcision. Jews that visit this website are interested in knowing if Jews are represented in the organization. Generally, people are more likely to consider information from members of their group than from people outside their group.

In addition, though American circumcision practice is generally believed to be independent of Jewish circumcision practice, it is not. Jewish practice and the American practice are connected. For example, of all the letters to the editor in response to the 1999 American Academy of Pediatrics Circumcision Policy Statement, the most strongly pro-circumcision responses were from Jewish doctors, including two who also perform Jewish ritual circumcisions.(1-3)  Of course, there are also Jewish doctors that oppose circumcision, and Thomas Wiswell, a strong circumcision advocate, is not Jewish.(4)  However, some of the most outspoken advocates for circumcision tend to be Jewish. This suggests a religious or cultural bias on the part of these advocates. According to a MEDLINE search, Edgar Schoen, a strong Jewish advocate, has been published 20 times in the medical literature on the subject of circumcision.

Regarding the medical profession's attitude toward circumcision, a physician at a major hospital in Boston who wrote the hospital's circumcision information sheet for parents defended its pro-circumcision bias by stating that "the religious aspect of circumcision plays a significant role."(5)  According to this physician, discouraging circumcision would put doctors "in a position of attacking religious belief."(6) This stance suggests that religion may be a factor that inhibits the full disclosure of medical information and medical views on circumcision. In our experience, this example appears to represent a pattern suggesting that American discussion or questioning of the issue is affected by the Jewish presence. Therefore, we believe that when the subject is circumcision, mentioning religious affiliation is relevant to assessing potential bias.

NOTES

1. Bailis S. Circumcision: the debate goes on. Pediatrics 2000;105:682.
2. Kunin S. Circumcision: the debate goes on. Pediatrics 2000;105:683.
3. Shechet J, Tanenbaum B. Circumcision: the debate goes on. Pediatrics 2000;105:682-683.
4. Hodges F, Fleiss P. Circumcision: the debate goes on. Pediatrics 2000;105:683.
5. Communication with CRC office. 1992.
6. Communication with CRC office. 1992.