Call for circumcision gets a boost

In the United States the rate of circumcision in men has increased to 81% over the past decade. In an important new study just published in advance in Mayo Clinic Proceedings authors from Australia and the United States have shown that the benefits of infant male circumcision to health exceed the risks by over 100 to 1. Brian Morris, Professor Emeritus in the School of Medical Sciences at the University of Sydney and his colleagues in Florida and Minnesota found that over their lifetime half of uncircumcised males will contract an adverse medical condition caused by their foreskin.

The findings add considerable weight to the latest American Academy of Pediatrics policy that supports education and access for infant male .

Whereas circumcision rates have risen in white men to 91%, in black men to 76%, and in Hispanic men to 44%, the study authors found an alarming decrease in infants. To get the true figures they had to correct hospital discharge data for underreporting. This showed that circumcision had declined from a high of 83% in the 1960s to 77% today.

There seemed to be two major reasons for the fall.

  • One is a result of demographic changes, with the rise in the Hispanic population. Hispanic families tend to be less familiar with the custom, making them less likely to circumcise their baby boys.
  • The other is the current absence of Medicaid coverage for the poor in 18 US states. In those states circumcision is 24% lower.

Professor Morris stated, "The new findings now show that should be regarded as equivalent to childhood vaccination and that as such it would be unethical not to routinely offer parents circumcision for their baby boy. Delay puts the child's health at risk and will usually mean it will never happen."

In infancy the strongest immediate benefit is protection against urinary tract infections (UTIs) that can damage the kidney in half of babies who get a UTI. Morris and co-investigator Tom Wiswell, MD, Center for Neonatal Care, Orlando, showed last year that over the lifetime UTIs affect 1 in 3 uncircumcised males.

In a landmark systematic review, Morris, with John Krieger, MD, Department of Urology, University of Washington, Seattle, showed that there is no adverse effect of circumcision on sexual function, sensitivity, or pleasure. This helped dispel one myth perpetuated by opponents of the procedure.

Taken together, the new findings should send a strong message to medical practitioners, professional bodies, educators, policy makers, governments, and insurers to promote this safe, simple procedure, best done in infancy under local anesthesia and to increase access and third party coverage, especially for poor families, who tend to suffer most from foreskin-related diseases. Infant circumcision has, moreover, been shown to be cost saving.

More information: "Circumcision Rates in the United States: Rising or Falling? What Effect Might the New Affirmative Pediatric Policy Statement Have?" by Brian J. Morris, DSc, PhD; Stefan A. Bailis, PsyD; and Thomas E. Wiswell, MD (DOI: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2014.01.001). Mayo Clinic Proceedings, published online in advance of Volume 89, Issue 5 (May 2014)

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Medical researchers recommend male circumcision

Mar 02, 2012

Penile cancer, HIV, HPV, syphilis and kidney inflammation are among a number of medical conditions whose risk can be lowered by the practice of infant male circumcision, says a study led by the University of Sydney.

Neonatal and infant circumcision: Safe in the right hands

Feb 15, 2010

How safe is circumcision? A systematic review, published in the open access journal BMC Urology has found that neonatal and infant circumcision by trained staff rarely results in problems. Risks can be higher among older ...

Circumcision may help protect against prostate cancer

Mar 12, 2012

A new analysis led by researchers at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center has found that circumcision before a male's first sexual intercourse may help protect against prostate cancer. Published early online in Cancer, a peer ...

Recommended for you

HIV pills show more promise to prevent infection

Jul 22, 2014

There is more good news about HIV treatment pills used to prevent infection in people at high risk of getting the AIDS virus: Follow-up from a landmark study that proved the drug works now shows that it does ...

User comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Ratfish
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 02, 2014
Sure, and you can prevent testicular cancer by castrating yourself. Idiots.
denny_packard
4 / 5 (8) Apr 02, 2014
There are reasons why European countries do not practice circumcision (other than Muslims and Jews for religious reasons) and why European health care programs do not cover routine circumcision. It is because it is considered cosmetic surgery and unethical when performed on unconsenting infants.
Dr. Wiswell and Mr. Morris are strong advocates of this unnecessary cosmetic surgery, and their articles are not unbiased.
Dr_Smallzii
4 / 5 (8) Apr 02, 2014
Way to go Moderators and fake Dr.'s on continuing the illusion of this Unnecessary and pointless MUTILATION procedure. Circumcision in NOT necessary, NOT beneficial in any sort of way, and it is harmful and WRONG! this article should be removed immediately. What America NEEDS to teach people is the truth about this procedure, NOT all these lies that is somehow makes a Penis better or cleaner. Here's a fun tidbit for your website FEMALE Circumcision, AKA Genital Mutilation, Was still legal in The U.S. Until September 1997! Does that mean that before that it was Right? or Cleaner? or more aesthetically pleasing? NO, there is a reason it is illegal now. and MGM (Male Genital Mutilation) Should likewise be illegal as it is equally as wrong and not beneficial in any sort of way.
heididawn
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 02, 2014
This is a DOCTOR PROBLEM, NOT A FORESKIN PROBLEM. Leave the babies alone. Let them choose as adults. If you wouldnt do it to your daughter - dont do it to your son! Its really quite simple.
eric_in_chicago
2.3 / 5 (9) Apr 02, 2014
The difference...the clitoris is the center of female orgasm and it is completely removed. Sewing up a girls vagina prevents all sex.

I have no trouble having sex with my cut-cock and I have no complaints.

Too many of the same people (many of whom don't have penises themselves) who are against male circumcision are ALSO against kosher slaughter and ALSO have a unilateral opinion against the right of the state of Israel to exist, don't you?

But...you aren't anti-semites...noooo...

If you don't want a circumcision, don't have one. It's that simple.

Forget about facts...this article was written by Secret Elder Zionist Mohel Lobby!! ..not doctors and biologists...

eric_in_chicago
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 03, 2014
Ratface, actually some people do have pre-emmptive cancer surgery..

http://hollywoodl...tectomy/

One major difference between this and that which I will point out (because otherwise it is so obvious it would be lost on you), the foreskin is in no way critical for sex, reproduction, or anything else other than using the slimy goo that grows under it to masturbate.

Breasts, in the example link I posted are for feeding babes, not primarily (but perhaps primatively) for ogling and fondling!

You nuts are necessary for sperm production for reproduction. Please do take your own suggesting so that you do not infect the world with your misanthropy.
mosahlah
2 / 5 (8) Apr 03, 2014
Good information. There is an international campaign by anti-circumcision extremists that propagates misinformation concerning the issues mentioned in this article.
sidsy756
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 03, 2014
This article is complete fallacy, and both journalists and physicians responsible for this article should be held accountable. Hundreds of millions of men and male babies world over do NOT get circumcised, and they do not suffer from UTI or any other disease more than circumcised men/babies.

Even if you are not convinced by this fact, ask yourself this: If the risk is 100 to 1 that there's a negative outcome, which would you rather take? An easily curable infection, or having your baby's penis irreparably damaged for life?

Personally, I'd rather take the 100 UTI's.
jibbles
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2014
So basically the study recommends circumcising an infant's penis rather than educating parents on proper hygiene to prevent infections (especially in the poor, as the article points out)?!

Insurance companies must be loving this!
free1
3 / 5 (2) Apr 03, 2014
There is no level of scientific evidence that will ever convince some people that there is global warming or others that there is a benefit to circumcision. There is simply too much ideological, political and religious bias. Providing we do not restrict or force individuals to make a particular choice, there really isn't a problem.
billpress11
4.7 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2014
Circumcision is a barbaric practice which originated in pre-history. Probably as a form of punishment to keep the young buck from mating with the clan leaders harem.

As for cleaning in infants, why do you think infants get an erection? Hint, its not for mating purposes.

And the 100 to 1 is a pure joke, show us the evidence. I have never even heard of an uncircumcised male having problems with infections. I have heard about infants having their penis mutilated during circumcision.
loneislander
4 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2014
What an utter pile of shite! Let's remove the eyes from babies so no one ever goes blind as an adult -- 100% of sudden blindness in adult men is the result of surviving childhood sighted.
truthquest
5 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2014
Hispanic families are not "less familiar with the practice", they are proud of all of their son's body. New fathers are proud to show their son's long prepucio. They are every inch, a man.
Every reason the medical racket ever used to scare parents into doing this to their son was
a lie. Why do Wiswell, Morris, et al, persist in waging their Captain Ahab war against nature.
There is much evidence that refutes everything claimed in this shill article
The worst, lasting harm of circumcision is that it is forced on us. The most private, secret and sensitive part of my body was taken from me for my entire life.
I hate "doctors" who do this, they should burn in pervert hell.
loneislander
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2014

I have no trouble having sex with my cut-cock and I have no complaints.

Too many of the same people (many of whom don't have penises themselves) who are against male circumcision are ALSO against kosher slaughter and ALSO have a unilateral opinion against the right of the state of Israel to exist, don't you?

But...you aren't anti-semites...noooo...



Right, there cut-cock (as you call yourself).. we're all made in the "image and likeness", why then is it not only a sin to cut of someone's penis skin, but why isn't it a damnable sin to pierce or cut a body too? Mutilation of a body should only be legal when a person is of legal age and in sound mind consents. And, it is not anti-anything to want to save children from this grotesque abuse. You want to cut your dick that's fine, you want to hurt a child -- any child, any where -- that's everyone's holocaust.
shea613
4.5 / 5 (2) Apr 04, 2014
So much for truth in journalism. This article is a complete load of garbage and if the moron who wrote this really believes the nonsense he is spewing, he has more than a bit of homework to do. There are too many erroneous points to address in a little comments section but I would encourage anyone who is even tempted to believe anything he has said, to do his or own research and get TRUE facts. Shame on the author.
PhotonX
5 / 5 (2) Apr 04, 2014
This is a DOCTOR PROBLEM, NOT A FORESKIN PROBLEM. Leave the babies alone. Let them choose as adults. If you wouldnt do it to your daughter - dont do it to your son! Its really quite simple.
My thoughts exactly. Maybe circumcision is the best thing since sliced bread, but let the individual decide. Later down the comments, eric_in_chigago says "If you don't want a circumcision, don't have one. It's that simple." Simple if you actually have a foreskin with which to decide. Most children don't, though, and that's the point. Virtually the first thing my parents ever did to me was to cut the end of my penis off. A week old child doesn't get to choose. If I was given the choice as an adult, I don't know what I would decide, but at least the choice would be mine.
pcplodpc
5 / 5 (2) Apr 05, 2014
"over their lifetime half of uncircumcised males will contract an adverse medical condition caused by their foreskin"

I call "crap!" on that statement right there. It is so blatantly fallacious. Even if there was even an element of truth to it, most the conditions that occur will occur in any event or are preventable or treatable by other, less draconian measures. But no, the answer is, because it is a prejudiced view, cut off the end of their dicks.

I'll bet a penny to the pound that if similar "research" (LOL) was conducted elsewhere, ie not in Australia or the US, where circumcision is just perversely fashionable, for example, in Western Europe, these so-called results could not be either honestly or faithfully re-produced.

It is this sort of errant, dangerous, nonsense that gets science and scientists a bad name.
russell_russell
4.5 / 5 (2) Apr 05, 2014
Die Erfolgsrate bei der konservativen Behandlung von Phimosen mit Salbenpräparaten liegt laut der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Urologie zwischen 50 % bis 75 %, gemäß neuerer medizinischer Studien sogar noch höher.[10][11] Aufgrund ihrer Kosten-Nutzen-Bilanz werden konservative Verfahren heutzutage als Methode der Wahl zur Behandlung von Phimosen vorgeschlagen.

http://de.wikiped.../Phimose]http://de.wikiped.../Phimose[/url]

If only you were bilingual, then the advocates here in this thread commentary for noninvasive treatment (here only phimosis is considered in this readers' comment) will find the company, support and alternative treatment to a questionable 'traditional'(?) approach reported here from the United States.

http://de.wikiped.../Phimose]http://de.wikiped.../Phimose[/url]

The omissions in the English version are not a conspiracy.
epicureous
3 / 5 (3) Apr 05, 2014
Wow, there is soo much anger in relation to this topic.

First off it's not the same as female genital mutilation, not even remotely the same thing.

Second does it somehow directly effect you whether someone chooses to have their child circumcised or not? Probably not...

There are a prodigious amount of studies in Europe and the US that suggest circumcision is both medically helpful and medically unnecessary. Depending on how you read them and depending on your personal feelings towards the procedure you could make a good case either way. Case in point -do what you feel is correct and stop bitching about what other people or cultures do. Most guy's I've discussed this with couldn't care less (I've actually only met one guy who seemed to care and he couldn't give me any reason other than 'He wished he had a choice' -which seems more like a control issue to me...)
grahamgarrucha
3 / 5 (2) Apr 07, 2014
There's nothing quite like religion to convert what should be a rational discussion into a barrage of of personal opinion and predujuce.
My contribution: I was born with a foreskin, grew up with it, lost my virginity with it and then made a decision to remove it (in the U.K.on the national health service after discussing it with my G.P and later with the specialist).
Now I can only recommend it to any man. I now live in Spain and when my son was born and I talked to doctors here the reaction was firstly to ask me if I was Jewish and then just to ignore me. I don't know how much a cultural history of anti-semitism actively promoted by the Catholic church has to do with that.
All I really want to say is I've tried both ways and circumsised wins hands down for me.
rondloper
1 / 5 (1) Apr 07, 2014

My contribution: I was born with a foreskin, grew up with it, lost my virginity with it and then made a decision to remove it (in the U.K.on the national health service after discussing it with my G.P and later with the specialist).
Now I can only recommend it to any man. ....... All I really want to say is I've tried both ways and circumsised wins hands down for me.

I too have been on both sides of this discussion. Most of these pro foreskinners or intactivists will never experience first hand what you and I have experienced. They can only go on hearsay and because its something they dont want. They certainly dont want anyone else to have it either. Medical and scientific evidence only apply or is recognized when it meets the criteria of an intactivist. Yet I am sure many will still believe they have more knowledge and experience in circumcision than you or myself.

I guess they will never know just how good sex is without a foreskin!!!
ms_saleem
5 / 5 (2) Apr 07, 2014
Religious dick cutters can also get rid of ovarian and cervical cancer by performing hysterectomy and hysterectomy. It must be performed in infancy free of cost because it is no different from immunization.

Same way a testicular and Prostate cancer can also 100% eliminated by removing prostate gland and both testicles. And it must be done in infancy free of cost by considering just like immunization.

Unethical bastards can't spare babies from chopping off their genitals.
Robert Huang
5 / 5 (2) Apr 07, 2014
The fundamental is that people should be taught about hygiene instead of this culture based nonsense. Shame on the promotion of this unnecessary and useless procedure!
ml66uk
5 / 5 (1) Apr 08, 2014
The national medical organizations of at least 12 countries recommend AGAINST male circumcision.
eg
Canadian Paediatric Society
"Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed."

RACP
"After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand."

BMA (UK)
"to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate."

The RDMA (Holland)
"The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organisations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children's rights to autonomy and physical integrity."

Add Germany, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, and Greenland.