User:Iadao/sandbox

Evaluating content
All of the content is relevant, and its information is up-to-date. Its references include articles from 2018, and most recent statistics are from 2016. Perhaps there are more recent statistics from 2018. One portion of the article that could have more information is its history section. It begins with the first recorded instance of opioid misuse but skips all the way to 2003 with the use of Levacetylmethadol, with no information about the time in between. In addition, the information about Levacetylmethadol focuses more on a past treatment of opioid use disorder and may either better fit in a subsection of treatments entitled "discontinued treatments" or a subsection of history called "history of treatment."

Evaluating Tone
The article maintains neutral in the sections describing symptoms, diagnosis, and in giving statistics. One portion in which a viewpoint is overrepresented is in the cause section. It mentions there is controversy surrounding cause, but it only gives one way of developing the disorder. This leaves me to wonder what the controversy is, and what other people's perspectives might be.

Evaluating Sources
The links worked for all the sources I clicked. The ones I checked did support the claim they were citing - ex. [57]. Not all facts had references cited. There were some that still needed citations. Many citations were from reputable sources like peer-reviewed reviews from reputable journals and the diagnostic manual. One source I wasn't sure was acceptable was the source from CVS Health regarding Naloxone. CVS's website does not cite any reputable source that supports their claim that the laws allows their pharmacists to distribute Naloxone without a prescription. The source is also biased towards its own company, since it is part of its website. It speaks only favorable things about CVS's work with Naloxone, without mentioning any other entities involved. The bias isn't noted because the editor did not use the reference to talk about CVS; it used it to talk about the law. The editor could have probably found a more reliable source that said the same information.

Checking the talk page
There is a long list of topics in the talk page. One of the conversations revolved around what the article is about. They talked about how some information is not relevant to the topic, which differed from what I originally thought. However, there was a lengthy (and recent) discussion, in which the editors worked together to clarify the purpose of the contents. The article is part of 5 WiikiProjects, and it is rated C-class in all of them and either high- or mid-importance for each of them. I've noticed that conversations can range from the most specific detail to the whole purpose of the article. People are sure to back up their train of thought with evidence and can be critical (but not mean) about other people's feedback. In a class discussion, often we don't have time to have extremely well thought out ideas such as this due to time constraints and due to the fact we are talking face to face, instead of writing and researching.

Article Selection
I chose to improve the article: Ethics of Circumcision. It is a part of both WikiProject Medicine and WikiProject Philosophy, with C-class and stub-class ratings, respectively.

Article Evaluation
All the content within the article seems relevant, but the article has a banner at the top indicating that there are too many or too-lengthy quotes in Medical body's views. There is a lot of room for improvement here. Each portion of this section can be summarized, instead of having huge blocks of quotes. As for tone, European and Western medical bodies seem overrepresented in this section. At this moment, I'm not sure if this is because medical bodies from other parts of the world have not commented on this or the article has just left it out.

The article has had some recent edits within the past year, but none seem major. Additionally, the majority of sources are older than 5 years. Content may need to be updated. The talk page is not as active. There have only been 2 user discussions that focus on discussing improvements for the article.

Add a citation to Wikipedia
On the Ethics of Circumcision, I added a reference:


 * Clinical Ethics in Pediatrics: A Case-Based Textbook, which is reference #5 on the article

I paraphrased one of the quoted texts in the second paragraph of the introduction and inserted the aforementioned reference as an additional citation.

CopyEdit
On the Ethics of Circumcision, I made a few grammatical fixes, including simplifying a run-on sentence in the "Adult Circumcision" section. This is a sub-heading under "United Kingdom," which is under "Medical Body's Views."

Drafting my article edits
This article was flagged for containing too many/too-lengthy quotations, specifically with the medical body's statements so I plan on summarizing their viewpoints to avoid unnecessary quotations.

Revised:

'''Question: If I'm only talking about one source here, how many times should I cite it? (ie after every sentence, or once total) thanks!'''

Australia
The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (2010) released a statement indicating that neonatal male circumcision is an ethical procedure, under the conditions that 1) the child's decision makers, typically the parents, are acting in best interest of child and have been given full knowledge and 2) the procedure is performed by a competent provider, with sufficient analgesia, and does not unnecessarily harm the child or have substantial risks. They argue that parents should be allowed to be the primary decision-makers because providers may not understand the full psychosocial benefits of circumcision. Additionally, this procedure does not present substantial harm compared to its potential benefits, so parents should be allowed full decision-making capacity as long as they are educated properly.

This statement also recognizes that waiting until the boy is of sufficient age to make his own decision will better respect his autonomy, but argues that waiting that long may void the potential benefits, such as religious inclusion, that circumcision was meant to confer. With neonatal male circumcision, they also acknowledge the possibility that the child may later on disagree with the parents' decision. However, this does not necessarily make the decision unethical because an uncircumcised child may disagree with their parents' refusal to circumcise him at a young age using that same reasoning.

Canada
The Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) issued a position statement on September 8, 2015, which highlighted the ethical issue surrounding the child's inability to give consent. Since children require a substituted decision maker acting in their best interests, they recommend to hold off non-medically indicated procedures, such as circumcision, until children can make their own decisions.

Denmark
The Danish Medical Association (Lægeforeningen) has released a statement (2016) regarding the circumcision of boys under the age of eighteen years. The organization says that the decision to circumcise should be "an informed personal choice" that men should make for themselves in adulthood. According to Dr. Lise Møller, the chairwoman of the doctors’ association’s ethics board, allowing the individual to make this decision himself when he is of age respects his right of self-determination.

Netherlands
The Royal Dutch Medical Association (Koninklijke Nederlandsche Maatschappij tot bevordering der Geneeskunst) (KNMG) and several Dutch specialist medical societies published a statement of position regarding circumcision of male children on 27 May 2010. The KNMG argues against circumcising male minors due to lack of evidence the procedure is useful or necessary, its associated risks, and violate the child's autonomy. They recommend deferring circumcision until the child is old enough to decide for himself. The Royal Dutch Medical Association questions why the ethics regarding male genital alterations should be viewed any differently from female genital alterations, when there are mild forms of female genital alterations (like pricking the clitoral hood without removing any tissue or removing the clitoral hood altogether). They have expressed opposition to both male circumcision and all forms of female circumcision.

Scandinavia
In 2013 children's ombudsmen from Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, and Iceland, along with the Chair of the Danish Children's Council and the children's spokesperson for Greenland, passed a resolution that emphasized the decision to be circumcised belongs to the individual, who must be able to give informed consent.

The Nordic Association of Clinical Sexologists supports the position of the Nordic Association of Ombudsmen who reason that circumcision violates the individual's human rights by denying the male child his ability to make the decision for himself.

The medical doctors at Sørland Hospital in Kristiansand, Southern Norway have all refused to perform circumcisions on boys, citing reasons of conscience.

United Kingdom
The medical ethics committee of the British Medical Association also reviewed the ethics behind circumcision. Since circumcision has associated medical and psychological risks with no proven medical benefits, they advise physicians to keep up with clinical evidence and only perform this procedure if it's in the child best interest. However, they acknowledge the procedure as a cultural and religious practice, which may be an important ritual for the child's incorporation into the group. They recognize that parents have the authority to make choices for their child, and they emphasize it is important for parents to act in their child's best interest. They ultimately report that views vary in their community about the benefits and risks of the procedure, and there is no clear policy for this situation.

Commenting on the development of the 2003 British Medical Association guidance on circumcision, Mussell (2004) reports that debate in society is highly polarized, and he attributes it to the different faiths and cultures that make up BMA. He identifies this as a difficulty in achieving consensus within the medical ethics committee. Arguments put forward in discussions, according to Mussell, included the social and cultural benefits of circumcision, the violation of the child's rights, and the violation of the child's autonomy.

United States
The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) states that both parents and physicians have an ethical duty to secure the child's best interest and well-being. They state that in the case of circumcision, where there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, the parents ought to determine what is in the child's best interests, and that it is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, as well as medical factors. For neonatal circumcision, parents act as the surrogate and must be able to provide informed consent since the infant is unable to make such a decision. They state that physicians should not coerce parents, but should assist parents in their decision by educating and facilitating understanding of potential benefits and risks. The Academy's Committee on Bioethics approved this policy statement.

In 2012, the Academy further emphasized the importance of parents acting in their child's best interest in ethically ambiguous situations such as neonatal circumcision. They advised physicians to go over all potential risks and benefits, including the ones associated with having the procedure done in a non-medical environment for cultural/religious reasons.

Criticism
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) position statement on male circumcision (2012) has attracted significant critical comment.

Van Howe & Svoboda (2013) criticize their statement because it failed to include important points, in accurately analyzed and interpret current medical literature, and made unsupported conclusions.

Frisch et al. (2013) pointed out the difference of the AAP's statements in comparison to other Western countries, such as Canada, Australia, and various European countries. They attribute this to cultural bias since non-therapeutic male circumcision is prevalent in the United States. They also criticized the strength of the health benefits the statement had claimed, such as protection from HIV and other STIs.

Medical Association Journal of Ethics
In August 2017, the American Medical Association Journal of Ethics featured two separate articles challenging the morality of performing non-therapeutic infant circumcision.

Svoboda argues against non-therapeutic circumcision. He states that this decision should be considered in the context of benefit vs risk of harm, rather than simply risk-benefit due to the non-therapeutic nature of the procedure. He states that benefits do not outweigh the risks, and also claims that foreskin removal should be considered a sexual harm. He also goes on to conclude that non-therapeutic circumcision largely violates the physician's duty to respect a patient's autonomy since many procedures take place before a patient is able to freely give consent himself.

Reis and Reis's article explore the role physicians play in neonatal circumcision. They state that if physicians outline all the currently known risks and benefits of the procedure to the parents and believes the procedure is indeed medically indicated, they cannot be held accountable for any harm from the procedure. However, they still advise against physicians recommending unnecessary, irreversible surgeries, which is a category circumcision falls in frequently.

"Ethics of Circumcision" Peer Edits by Arleah
Comments


 * The paragraphs that you already revised are a lot more precise and clear compared to the paragraphs you plan to revise. Well done on paraphrasing as it seems like the un-revised paragraphs have a lot of paraphrasing needed to be done, but I'm sure you already know that
 * In regards to your question about citations, I believe wikipedia recommends we cite resources every few sentences to avoid accidental plagiarism even if it's the same source throughout the paragraph
 * It might be useful to create a table to quickly summarize the main points of each country's policies of your topic in a few sentences if people just want a quick overview of the policies per country- I provided an example below for reference

Peer Edit #1: Brian
(Brian's peer edit is in my talk page). Thanks for the feedback, Brian! I was able to find a recent statement from Australia (2010, rather than 2004). I replaced the current statement with a summary of the newer one to reflect updates in their position. I've been finding it a bit more difficult to reflect neutrality within statements that do pose a specific stance, but hopefully I am able to reflect their views in an objective way.

Peer Edit #2: Arleah

Thanks for the suggestions, Arleah!


 * The un-revised paragraphs still do have a lot of work to be done, but I'm glad the ones I revised are clearer and more precise.
 * Thanks for the clarification on citing sources. I wasn't sure because it felt very repetitive to do, but that's a good point in avoiding accidental plagiarism.
 * I like the idea of using a table to summarize the main points of each country's policy to compare and contrast them. It's a good general overview before going in-depth.

Final article
The original entry contained too many or too-lengthy quotations for a Wikipedia article. S for my edits, I focused largely on revising the "Medical Body's views" portion. I removed all the block quotes by paraphrasing and summarizing their positions. I also revised the intro, which had some quotations, by paraphrasing and summarizing the main idea.