New Study in Canada shows circumcised status of male doctors affects their opinion on circumcision‏

From Marc A.:

Interestingly, this new study in Canada found that, among male doctors, their opinion on infant male circumcision correlates strongly with whether they are circumcised themselves, with 68% of the uncut doctors opposing infant male circumcision, and 68% of the cut doctors supporting it. http://www.jmhjournal.org/article/S1875-6867(10)00050-3/abstract

No wonder pro-circumcision advocacy comes mostly from the U.S., with its high (but declining) circumcision rate, while national medical associations throughout the rest of the world find no medical justification for it and some are flat-out calling it harmful and unethical. Obviously, culture influences science.

The British Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons' 9/09 report declared:

"Infant male circumcision was once considered a preventive health measure and was therefore adopted extensively in Western countries. Current understanding of the benefits, risks and potential harm of this procedure, however, no longer supports this practice for prophylactic health benefit. Routine infant male circumcision performed on a healthy infant is now considered a non-therapeutic and medically unnecessary intervention. . . . Circumcision removes the prepuce that covers and protects the head or the glans of the penis. The prepuce is composed of an outer skin and an inner mucosa that is rich in specialized sensory nerve endings and erogenous tissue. Circumcision is painful, and puts the patient at risk for complications ranging from minor, as in mild local infections, to more serious such as injury to the penis, meatal stenosis, urinary retention, urinary tract infection and, rarely, even hemorrhages leading to death. The benefits of infant male circumcision that have been promoted over time include the prevention of urinary tract infections and sexually transmitted diseases, and the reduction in risk of penile and cervical cancer. Current consensus of medical opinion, including that of the Canadian and American Paediatric Societies and the American Urological Society, is that there is insufficient evidence that these benefits outweigh the potential risks. That is, routine infant male circumcision, i.e. routine removal of normal tissue in a healthy infant, is not recommended."

http://www.cpsbc.ca/files/u6/Circumcision-Infant-Male.pdf

The Dutch Medical Association's May 2010 report, backed by 7 other national medical associations, concluded:

"Contrary to what is often thought, circumcision entails the risk of medical or psychological complications."

"Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors conflicts with the child's right to autonomy and physical integrity."

"There are good reasons for a legal prohibition of non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors, as there is for female genital mutilation."

"There is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene."

http://www.norm-uk.org/news.html?action=showitem&item=1306

The South African Medical Association denounced infant male circumcision as unethical and illegal and expressed "serious concern that not enough scientifically-based evidence was available to confirm that circumcisions prevented HIV contraction and that the public at large was influenced by incorrect and misrepresented information. The committee reiterated its view that it did not support circumcision to prevent HIV transmission."

http://www.icgi.org/Downloads/SAMA-NOCIRC-2011-06-25.pdf