To cut or not to cut: why has male circumcision become a dilemma?

Article here. Excerpt:

'Just as you begin to think that the dispute about including male circumcision as part of HIV/Aids prevention has ended, a sceptic “rocks the boat” and the debate appears to start all over again and; some people begin to wonder whether “to cut or not to cut”.

When the proponents of safe male circumcision for HIV/Aids prevention present their arguments, you actually begin to think that male circumcision is the way to go. Their arguments are based on scientific evidence from research studies known as randomised clinical trials. They say that such trials are the “gold standard” when it comes to issues of research evidence and, they go on to cite studies that show that inclusion of safe male circumcision in the array of HIV/Aids prevention strategies will result in a reduction of HIV/Aids infection.
...
Amidst this confusing situation, male citizens of this country whose foreskin and behaviour has been at the centre of the dispute, are expected to decide on whether “to cut or not to cut” despite the fact that they seem to have been left out of the debate. Neither the pro-male circumcision camp nor the sceptics are brandishing minutes of meetings or even research finding about post-male circumcision sexual behaviour (that cover the socio-economic diversity in this country) to support their arguments.

The dispute about surgical removal of the male prepuce and HIV/Aids is most likely to continue for a while. Whether there will ever be consensus about including male circumcision in HIV/Aids prevention, only time will tell. As to how much damage the sceptics have done to the male circumcision drive, no one can ascertain at the moment. One thing that you can be sure of is that some years to come, attributing any increase or decrease in HIV/Aids infection rates to safe male circumcision will be controversial.'