Notice bibliographique
Résumé
I shall respond to Wodak, Ziegler and Morris1 on two broad points. First, I correct their misinterpretation of the overall purpose of my paper;2 second, I critique the reasoning behind their claim that the circumcision debate is not ‘deadlocked’. In my paper, I neither suggest that those at either end of this polarised debate are ‘belligerents’, nor do I call for a compromise ‘down the middle’. In fact, I call for continued discussion and campaigning. I note that, despite polarised opinions on this issue, paediatric medical bodies in the Western world, including the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), make very similar practice recommendations. I then point out that, in Australia, we are currently failing dismally to provide this widely recommended standard of care. I note that there are robust human rights arguments against infant circumcision, but pragmatically call for an urgent harm minimisation approach, with legislative reform to mandate adequate pain management for infants and to regulate the training of practitioners who perform circumcision. I stress that the focus needs to remain firmly on the wellbeing of the infant, and decisions should not be made based on the financial and other interests of invested adults. Wodak, Ziegler and Morris disagree that the circumcision debate is ‘deadlocked’ on the basis that the position of the AAP and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention should be considered authoritative. This is essentially claiming that the debate would not be deadlocked if only everyone would concede that one extreme position is the correct one, and so we return to the familiar territory of a polarised debate. As I noted in my paper, the AAP is an outlier in its interpretation of the evidence for and against routine circumcision. To insist that the AAP position is authoritative is to insist that analogous organisations in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United Kingdom and Europe have all failed to identify relevant evidence, to interpret this evidence correctly and apply it reasonably to their populations. A thorough and systematic review and comparison of the processes of each of these organisations may help shed light on which position is the most robust. To ensure the process is ‘transparent and impressive’, an integral part of such a review would be to examine the conflicts of interest of each of these organisations. One possible explanation for the significantly different recommendations of the AAP compared with multiple other similar bodies is the profit-driven context in which many of its members practise, and the lucrative nature of ‘routine’ minor surgical procedures done in privately funded systems. This is also a possible explanation for the deafening silence on this issue from our own Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. Scrutiny of the scientific evidence and thoughtful debate on the ethical issues related to circumcision should continue. However, I call again for harm minimisation to be an urgent priority in Australia, and encourage all involved in this debate to make progress through this small piece of common ground.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,029 | 0,118 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,010 | 0,023 |
| Communication savante | 0,013 | 0,025 |
| Science ouverte | 0,008 | 0,009 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,075 | 0,176 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,005 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».