I do recall due to lack of hygiene facilities Australian soldiers during WW1 were being circumcised, generally recorded in a few historical books I've read.
The Jews and Muslims have a right to their own religious practice and have joined ranks on this one issue in Germany.

Lynne, you miss the point completely. The point is the enlightened ethics of the21st century are moving beyond religious doctrine of the 1st century.

Yairrrsss, let's do a little comparison:

Religious doctrine of the 1st century:
"But whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also"
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave[a] nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"

Enlightened ethics of the 21st century:
"States like these and their terrorist allies constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world."
Cher's daughter has the right to become a father via an impovershed Indian transexual surrogate.

Did you read the article?

This seems to be largely mythical. In the conditions of the trenches, giving the men a wound to the penis would be the last thing anyone would want to do. Circumcision was still being done for "moral hygiene" - preventing/punishing masturbation - and with the poor treatments available for STIs ("Venereal Disease" VD) it was easy to claim that circumcision prevented that too. There may also have been an element of punishment for contracting VD.

"The Jews" and "The Muslim" are not single entities, and are human beings like other human beings, each with their own rights to decide the fates of their own genitals.

Cherry picking. George W Bush is not the arbiter of 21st century ethics.

I couldn't agree with you more in relation to the Jews and Muslims.
You don't appear to be interested in the historical difficulties facing men in trenches during the early wars, particularly Palestine.
Your local library will be of assistance there if you want to take it up.
The first couple of lines in the first paragraph are frivolous to say the least and don't warrant a response.

Yes - this, and many others.

Hugh Young - you ask whether I read the article, and yet your comments are already encompassed in my summary.

The circumcision "debate" will never be "won" by science because its origins are in ancient cultural traditions that long pre-date the (retrospective) health justifications.

While some (rightfully) argue that circumcision reduces the rate of STDs - and notably HIV, others question the ethics of removing healthy tissue to mitigate future risk.

While some argue for the human right to remain intact, others argue for their human right to follow their cultural traditions.

Ultimately (although many here will disagree with this), the harm done from circumcision does not justify an urgent world-wide movement to ban it. (Contrast, for example, the cultural tradition of "honour killing".

While millions and millions of circumcised men continue their lives without thinking twice about it, the cultural arguments will always continue.

This stands in contrast to - say - vaccination, where the health benefit overwhelmingly exceeds the potential risks.

We are talking about this one here.

"your comments are already encompassed in my summary."
Of course. Your summary is of the debate being held elsewhere. This article raises specific issues you hardly touch on.

"The circumcision "debate" will never be "won" by science because its origins are in ancient cultural traditions that long pre-date the (retrospective) health justifications."
Personified "science" is not a particiapnt in this debate. If infant circumcision were found by watertight scientific methods to offer strong protection against deadly contagious diseases of children with no adverse effects on, say, sexual function then there might begin to be a case for doing it to newborns.

"While some (rightfully) argue that circumcision reduces the rate of STDs - and notably HIV,"
Except there are plenty of studies to show that it doesn't, and plenty of methodological problems with the studies that claim to show it does.
"others question the ethics of removing healthy tissue to mitigate future risk."
That is true.

"While some argue for the human right to remain intact, others argue for their human right to follow their cultural traditions."
No, the others argue for their collective right to impose their cultural traditions on individual chidren.

"Ultimately (although many here will disagree with this), the harm done from circumcision does not justify an urgent world-wide movement to ban it."
Nobody wants to ban it, we want to age-restrict it until the indivdual can informedly decide for himself. The movement to end non-therapeutic circumcision can be dated back to 1970 (to end religious circumcision, to the 1840s) That's hardly urgent. But if not now, then when? The harm done to the individual who hates it, or whose sexual function was diminished or destroyed by it, is incalculable - and certainly not by other people.

" (Contrast, for example, the cultural tradition of "honour killing"."
Sure there are plenty of things worse. That doesn't make it a whit better. There is hardly a soul in the Western world who will defend honour killing.

"While millions and millions of circumcised men continue their lives without thinking twice about it, the cultural arguments will always continue."
Their indifference is no justification. We have no way of knowing whether a particular individual will be indfferent or not. If another individual hates what has been done to him, then he was no less wronged, whatever the indifferent millions may (not) think.

"This stands in contrast to - say - vaccination, where the health benefit overwhelmingly exceeds the potential risks."

And the health benefits extend far beyond the individual.

http://www.circumstitions.com/sand.html and
http://journal.nzma.org.nz/journal/118-1218/1564/
You have no idea what is in my local library. Please give exact references.

Do a little research of your own Hugh, all libraries have references.

Hugh - I'm not here to debate you.

I was presenting both sides of the argument, as an illustration of how it is impossible to resolve by logic or evidence. It is a practice that is deeply culturally entrenched, and retro-justified with health outcome evidence, but where the harms appear to be exaggerated by the opponents (and perhaps the benefits also exaggerated by the proponents).

You are clearly on the anti side. We hear that.

Er, he is actually a hell of a lot more representative than a bunch of university luvvies gas-bagging in a seminar or bloviating on a blog.

And the ethics of the Roman Empire, with its slaves, torture, public death-matches and highly stratified society (and their prevailing religious doctrine was anthropomorphic polytheism), were more representative of the first century than cherrypicked remarks attributed to an obscure heretical Jewish preacher who was put to death - if he ever actually lived.

But it was precisely those abominable conditions of the Roman empire that attracted people to Christ's ethical teaching and the Christian religion for over 2,000 years, not the those of the pagan Romans. The commented i responded against was that "The point is the enlightened ethics of the 21st century are moving beyond religious doctrine of the 1st century." It is patently rubbish.

The Christian religion never opposed slavery or torture or supported the equality of women until very recently, and then only when it was dragged kicking and screaming by Enlightenment humanists.

I suggest that the Universal Declaration of Human rights is more ethical than either.

Hugh Young says: "I suggest that the Universal Declaration of Human rights is more ethical than either."

But WHOSE human rights?

The human right to be intact, or the human right to exercise cultural traditions?

Hugh, you are one mixed up dude. Jesus of the 21st century made cheap KFC to feed the poor.

That's not quite true Hugh.

The early Christian churches and more informal groupings did oppose torture, slavery, and warfare. (The status of women in these groups remained a matter of debate in the first centuries.)

These practices - and an "ethics" in order to justify them - were later imposed from Constantine onwards when Christianity went from being an anti-establishment religion to a fully fledged statist and imperial ideology.

It was Protestantism and the Enlightenment that later put forward the separation of Church and State.

It can be observed that in many Catholic and Orthodox majority nations that this enlightenment notion has never been put in practice nor even codified into law and institutional identities and arrangements.

I disagree with this one :

"Pro: it helps a little boy to look like Dad
Anti: Would that justify female circumcision?"

The "anti" answer would be more like, "it's only a problem to the father, not to the son".
Show me a little boy who wants to get cut to look like dad, I'll show you 10000 fathers who cut their sons so they look like them.

Adrien - you're probably right.

I was just trying to show that there are reciprocal arguments on both sides.

The problem is, though, that both benefits and harms on both sides are exaggerated because this is not just a medical issue, but a cultural and ideological one.

If it were only based on medical outcomes, circumcision would have gone the way of tonsillectomy - no longer routine but done when medically indicated.

Pardon me, ma'am, but if it were YOU cut, or your daughter or granddaughter, you would not so cavalierly state that "harms on both sides are exaggerated." How dare you accuse Human Rights activists of exaggerating the harms of Male Genital Mutilation! Do you make a similar claim about Female Genital Mutilation & its harms? In the meantime, I've exhausted all the known synonyms for "wicked, malevolent, cruel, barbaric, sick, disgusting, inhumane, bestial, brutal, vicious" and the list goes on & on & on, the circumcision nightmare continues for our nation's sons, inflicting second-class citizenship upon them.
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=122106467946516&set=a.105147402975756.9541.100004414898074&type=1

You're half way to the answer, Sue, but you keep falling into the "on the one hand, on the other hand" trap.

"I was just trying to show that there are reciprocal arguments on both sides."

This is not "Pepsi vs Coke". This is cutting a normal, healthy, functional, non-rewing part of a baby's genitals, vs doing absolutely nothing, just leaving his body alone. They are not equivalent sides.

"The problem is, though, that both benefits and harms on both sides are exaggerated"

Circumcisionists exaggerate benefits (eg UTIs: 99+ circumcisions to prevent 1 UTI) and minimise harms: "bleeding" (haemorrhage, which may cause death) and "infection" (including MRSA, which may cause death).

There are no direct harms of having a whole body. (The harms claimed by circumcisions, like "looking like an anteater" are utterly trumped up.) There are self-evident benefits.

"because this is not just a medical issue, but a cultural and ideological one." It is also an ethical one. And the ethical case for cuttting off a ... part of a child's genitals, that "parents make many decisions for their children" does not withstand a moment's scrutiny.

"If it were only based on medical outcomes, circumcision would have gone the way of tonsillectomy - no longer routine but done when medically indicated."
That is what has happend in the English-speaking world. It is taking a little longer in Australia than NZ, the UK or Canada. One reason for this is that some very noisy circumcision advocates have the ear of the media and are wheeled up whenever the issue is raised.

"That is what has happend in the English-speaking world. "

Not so, Hugh Young. The English-speaking world contains millions of circumcised men who don't give it a second thought.

The reason I present both sides is that both sides (legitimately) exist.

Pardon me, Brother K, but if I were cut, I would most likely, like all of the circumcised men I know, take it in my stride, so to speak.

How dare I? Because I am not ideologically fixed on either side.

If FGM consists only of ritual nicking, and does no anatomical damage, then it remains an ideological/ethical discussion.

IF it removes the clitoris and closes the introitus, causing recurrent UTIs and trauma during sex and childbirth, then it is a health issue as well as an ethical one.

While millions of circumcised men happily live normal lives, you go on exhausting all your synonyms, and I continue to call your exaggeration.

Ma'am, I admire a conscience that is colder than ice. Incidentally, you don't know squat about what "circumcised men" are experiencing in their inner lives, but smug & condescending job faking knowledge about it.

"If FGM consists only of ritual nicking, and does no anatomical damage, then it remains an ideological/ethical discussion. "

Yet in 2010, when the AAP's laughing-named "Bioethics Committee" proposed to allow just such a ritual nicking, all hell broke loose and the AAP Board "retired" the policy within a month. Please explain why it should be different when the child is male.

Sue Ieraci

I agree with Hugh's opinion here. While many circumcised men claim they have no problems does not excuse the removal of part of the genitalia of non-consenting children. These men have grown up not knowing any difference to the experience of uncircumcised men.

Would you use the same logic if many women claimed they were happy with the removal of the clitoral hood?

None of us know about anyone else's "inner lives" unless they honestly tell us.

Some men, like those who are over-represented here, argue in the strongest possible terms.

Here is another view (not mine) from another debate site (male discussant):

"The idea that circumcision constitutes a human rights violation is positively ridiculous. I take the same stance that the American Academy of Pediatricians does: there are benefits and there are disadvantages to circumcision and everyone should do their research and come to the decision they feel is best for their child. As for me, if I have a son, I plan on circumcising him. And I don’t think I should be put on trial at Nuremberg. Here’s why. (continues)"

From: http://artofmanliness.com/2009/02/22/clip-the-tip-pointcounterpoint-on-male-circumcision/

You may admire a "conscience that is colder than ice"

I admire a rational discussion.

Sue

I enjoy reading your point of view of the many topics here. On male circumcision we are going to have to agree to disagree.

One point I would like to make, finding all your comments thoughtful and courteous, Brother K's personal judging you as having a "conscience that is colder than ice" completely offensive. Also, it is possible for women to empathise with men and vice versa. It is a shame that so many discussions are turned into some kind of gender war when one is merely expressing an opinion.

Dianna - I'm not a proponent of male circumcision, I just want to remind people that the vehement opponents exaggerate the risks.

The problem in this discussion is that the many millions of people who don't give a toss are not posting here.

Would I use the same reasoning if a women were happy with losing her clitoral hood? If she retained sexual pleasure and did not feel that it restricted her activity in any way, then yes. (That's how the vast majority of circumcised men feel).

The practice of circumcision in the anglophone communities has only been popular for a relatively short time in history - largely the 20th century. The tables now appear to be turning, with those motivated by cultural/religious beliefs continuing as they have always done, and those without the cultural/religious motivation gradually dropping the practice.

That then leaves the ethical argument about what parents have the right to impose on their children - both physically and culturally. That is certainly a legitimate argument, but it won't be solved by pretending that the millions of boys and men who are currently circumcised have been horribly abused - that just is not so.

Thanks, Dianna.

As I said before, I am no proponent of circumcision. In Australia it has been largely a 20th century anglo practice, which is now in decline. I would be perfectly happy for it to disappear (except for medical indications) but I know that it won't because it is a very entrenched cultural/religious practice (shown in illustrations from ancient Egypt, and further).

The reason I have participated in this thread is to provide another point of view from the strong ideologues, who will be drawn to comment here. As I replied to Mr K, exaggerated ideology does not make for good public policy - on either side of the debate. Thanks for your comments.

There is dispute that the practice shown on a very weathered stone carving in Egypt (but commonly reproduced from a parchement reproduction made for tourists, and a common icon of the pro-circumcision movement) is even circumcision at all. Historian Frederick Hodges presented a paper on it at the recent Genital Integrity Symposium in Helsinki.

There is no doubt that circumcision is thousands of years old. (So was slavery.)

Many practices are thousands of years old.

Some, like slavery, ritual killing and infanticide, are easy to condemn.

Others, like bull fighting and child-marriage are still practised, but opposed by some.

Yet others, like familial love and community charity, provide benefits.

Genital cutting is like slavery not only because of its antiquity, but because it tells a person "your body does not belong to you, but to us." That is a powerful and noxious message. (Ritual killing and infanticide also carry that message, but to a wider community.)

Do you not think child-marriage is easy to condemn? I do, especially the marriage of a young girl to an old man, as is often the case.

The benefits of familial love and community charity are large and undisputed world wide. The downsides are universally agreed to be negligible. Of infant genital cutting, not so much.

Hugh - we all hear you clearly.

The reason I persist in this discussion is that many, many (probably the large majority, though I have not surveyed them) of circumcised men do not see circumcision as "like slavery", and they do not perceive the "noxious message" that you perceive.

I don't think it is deeply hidden in their inner psyche - they just don't agree with you.

I'm glad you hear me clearly. I try to speak clearly.

It does not bother me what the large majority may think. I take the side of the minority who perceive what was done to them as a wrong. However many others it may have been done to who don't mind it, it was done to them, it need not have been, it's irrevocable and they do mind it.

(There's a good reason you think the vast majority of men don't mind being circumcised. Often, the men who do mind are told to "get over it" "get a life" "find something more important to worry about" "don't blame your circumcision for your sexual problems" etc, etc. ad nauseam. They are browbeaten into keeping silent.)

Many children get over having been bullied. Some don't. Does the result for the majority justify what was done to the minority?

"It does not bother me what the large majority may think."

That's clear. Again.

'Trump the authority of medical scientists by mere ethicists, philosophers, and human rights types'

What a miserable world you would create. A sort of iatrogenic dictatorship.

The debate on circumscision and human rights is complex. Clearly this is not a medical issue but one one of identify and religious tradition. I don't see that doctors have anything particular to add to here. What next the terrifying microbiology of the baptismal font? The respiratory diseases that result from incense abuse?

I don't know the "pro-circumcision medical lobby" mentioned by the above poster - the RACP statement certainly is not pro, but is well-reasoned and not sensationalist.

It's worth reading:
http://www.racp.edu.au/page/paed-policy
(under c for circumcision)

There is a copy with rubrications (thank you again!) at http://www.circumstitions.com/RACP.html

Of course! Can you find me any such position paper on your "just a reference site" that is without rubrication?

Certainly: http://www.circumstitions.com/Itsaboy.html

NO, Hugh - that's not a position paper from an external body.

I'mnot sure what you're looking for but the Duth Medical Association has done the most thorugh recent analysis of all sides of the circmcision issue. They conclude that infant circumcision has "an absence of medical benefits and danger of complications." http://knmg.artsennet.nl/Publicaties/KNMGpublicatie/Nontherapeutic-circumcision-of-male-minors-2010.htm

You can also find that report linked at Circumstitions.com, but any copy literally hosted there would include scholarly critique. Otherwise the reader would be wise to read it from the original source.

That was my point (in response to Hugh Young), Ron - the papers "hosted" on "Circumstitions.com come with red comments all over them.

Thanks for the ref to the Dutch document. Interestingly, it includes this:
"The KNMG respects the deep religious, symbolic and cultural feelings that surround the practice of non-therapeutic circumcision. The KNMG calls for a dialogue between doctors’ organisations, experts and the religious groups concerned in order to put the issue of non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors on the agenda and ultimately restrict it as much as possible.

π There are good reasons for a legal prohibition of non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors, as exists for female genital mutilation. However, the KNMG fears that a legal prohibition would result in the intervention being performed by non-medically qualified individuals in circumstances in which the quality of the intervention could not be sufficiently guaranteed. This could lead to more serious complications than is currently the case."

Contrary to what others seem to think, I'm not a proponent of circumcision, have never done one, and have never asked for one. I essentially agree with the Dutch approach, and the ACP one. The practice of non-therapeutic circumcision in the anglophone world reached its peak in the 20th century and is now significantly receding. IN the emotive discussion, both the benefits and the harms have been exaggerated (in our community).

That leaves many millions of circumcised men who continue to live normal lives and who feel neither violated nor incomplete (I accept that some people here do). It also leaves many millions of semitic men who will continue the practice.

If our aim is to convince them that they are seriously abusing the human rights of their baby boys, we won't convince them by using exaggerations of harm or inflammatory language.

"This article is blatantly dishonest. Just about everything in it is fallacious."
From the man who, turned FIVE intact boys with recurrent UTIS in a population of 75,000 children into "19% of boys". Pot. Kettle. See http://www.circumstitions.com/Utis.html#conway

"Opponents of circumcision and vaccination are two of a kind."
Argument by (bad) analogy. Vaccination offers proved, strong protection against deadly, contagious diseases of children, now rare precisely because of vaccination. And where parents slacken off on vaccination, we are getting outbreaks of those diseases again. Circumcision offers debatable, slight reduction in in already-rare diseases of late onset that can be better prevented by other means, or treated as they occur.
.
"They are intent on doing enormous damage to public health."
Why would anyone be intent on that? This implies widespread, large scale malevolent intent - with no evidence. If ending circumcision (inadvertantly) causes "enormous damage to public health" why is the public health of New Zealand, Europe (including Scandinavia) and Japan, to name but a few, so good (compared to that of the Middle East and the USA)?

"Many ethicists"
Douglas Diekema the Benetars, basically.
Diekema chaired the AAP Bioethics committee that proposed to allow a token ritual nick to girls, before public outcry (and the AAP board being shown the recommendation, tucked away inside the policy - did the ethics committee try to put one across the board?) caused that policy to be "retired". He has said he shapes his ethics to fit his Christian beliefs, and he chaired the bioethics committee that decided to sterilize and stunt the growth of a seriously disabled girl for the convenience of her family.
David Benetar has written a book arguing that it is better never to be born. I don't know about Michael.
"...and even a high Court Judge find in favor of infant male circumcision."
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority - as if no High Court Judge has ever been mistaken on a point of fact (or law).

"Parents have the right to protect their children's health and make decisions in their best interest."
There is no decision quite like this - to cut off a normal, healthy, functional non-renewing body part before the owner even gets a chance to learn how it functions. Every other such body part (and especially the most nearly corresponding part of a female baby) is legally protected.

"Germany is about to legislate in favour."
Don't count your chickens. If it does, it will be breaching its own Basic Law, which the Cologne court interpreted correctly.

"The Tasmanian Law Reform report is effectively 'garbage in --- garbage out'. It dismissed the massive medical evidence in favor, but accepts the discredited anti-circ garbage in arriving at an illogical conclusion. It has not been presented to parliament."
Argument by assertion.
"It was instigated by a lawyer with an anti-circ agenda."
So what? http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

"The RACP's policy says infant circumcision should be facilitated for parents who want it for their sons."
Then why, one wonders did Prof. Morris so bitterly attack the policy? 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.

"The world is moving forward as parents learn of the considerable health benefits. Rates are going up."
Outside Africa, where intensive campaigns to circumcision are being held, with varying degrees of success, evidence?

"The American Academy's new policy is very conservative,"
It assigns no value or function to the foreskin (in fact the first reference to it follows the word "remove") or the owner's right to decide its fate. It is highly selective - for example, citing Sorrells, et al on the effect of circumcision on sensitivity, but not their key finding "Circumcision ablates [removes] the most sensitive part of the penis." (It also quotes an irrelevant critique of that study co-authored by Prof. Morris, but without attribution.)

"yet finds benefits exceed risks."
It never actually measures benefits against risks, just throw cherrypicked studies at the page and then asserts that the benefits are greater. Here is an annotated version of the policy: http://tinyurl.com/aapanno

"It is not prescriptive, since it recognizes some cultures, such as Hindus, are opposed."
The word "Hindu" does not appear in the AAP policy. It comes as near to recommending it as it possibly can without actually doing so (and risking billions in legal costs in a couple of decades from angry men who at last would have someone legally liable).

"The anti-circs make ridiculous claims about this risks of this very safe, simple procedure which has no long-term adverse consequences for virtually every male circumcised in infancy."
At one circumcision every 26 seconds in the USA, even one serious complication in 1000 is three a day. Here are more than 200 men who consider it had long-term adverse consequences for them: http://www.circumstitions.com/Resent.html
The scandal is that the true death rate of circumcision is unknown. With no statistics, the AAP simply ignored it.
At least three lawyers in the USA are occupied almost full time acting for parents of boys whose circumcisions were botched. (The AAP discusses the Mogen clamp but fails to mention that the cost of such cases has driven the Mogen company out of business.)

"Infancy is the best time"
Only because he can't resist. There is no evidence it is safer or less painful.

"and arguments to delay it are designed to ensure it does not happen, given the barriers faced later: see free article in BMC Pediatrics, A 'snip' in time: what is the best age to circumcise? Experts at Johns Hopkins University showed billions of dollars in cost savings for infant male circumcision. The Circumcision Foundation of Australia's peer-reviewed policy statement in Open J Prevent Med found benefits exceed risks by over 100 to 1. This was written by very prominent Fellows of the RACP and other major medical bodies."

Prof Morris is too modest. He is a co-author of most of those studies and a founder of the Circumcision Foundation of Australia.

"It is not prescriptive, since it recognizes some cultures, such as Hindus, are opposed."
The word "Hindu" does not appear in the AAP policy.
The word "opposed" occurs only the phrase "as opposed to". Opposition to circumcision - and the good reasons for it - go unmentioned in the AAP policy.

Interesting - I had assumed that the AAP would oppose elective circumcision, but the new taskforce recommendations (Published 2012) actually say this:

"Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks; furthermore, the benefits of newborn male circumcision justify access to this procedure for families who choose it. Specific benefits from male circumcision were identified for the prevention of urinary tract infections, acquisition of HIV, transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, and penile cancer. Male circumcision does not appear to adversely affect penile sexual function/sensitivity or sexual satisfaction. It is imperative that those providing circumcision are adequately trained and that both sterile techniques and effective pain management are used. Significant acute complications are rare. In general, untrained providers who perform circumcisions have more complications than well-trained providers who perform the procedure, regardless of whether the former are physicians, nurses, or traditional religious providers."

Clearly this will not influence every independent researcher. As I said, this "debate" will never be solved by clinical evidence.

I was going to say that this is more difficult to resolve than the Arab-Israeli conflict - they do agree on circumcision, don't they?

"Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks;"
But they don't actually weigh up the benefits or the risks. They just cherrypick studies and throw the results at the page. They admit that they have no statistics for major complications or death, so they just ignore both.

"furthermore, the benefits of newborn male circumcision justify access to this procedure for families who choose it."
Again, they don't break the benefits down in terms of overall Numbers Needed to Treat/Numbers Needed to Harm (nor weigh up the value of treating vs preventing or curable vs incurable harm). It is very hard to see how something they do not recommend must be funded at public expense.

"Specific benefits from male circumcision were identified for the prevention of urinary tract infections,"
They miscalculated the NNT for UTIs, but it's something over 100. >100 surgical operations to prevent one infection in a boy that is always treated medically in girls (who are at about three times the risk) does not make sense.

"acquisition of HIV,"
They admit that studies in Africa are inapplicable to the USA, but go ahead and apply them anyway. And only by men from women, one of the rarest directions in the USA.

"transmission of some sexually transmitted infections,"
Even their cherrypicked data are highly ambiguous.
EG: "The balance of evidence suggests that male circumcision is protective against syphilis. ... Good evidence from a large R[andomised ]C[ontrolled ]T[rial] reported no reduction or trend toward reduction for male circumcision
and the incidence of syphilis"

"and penile cancer."
They admit something I hadn't known before, that the real risk factor is not a foreskin, but phimosis.
"In fact, in men with an intact prepuce and no phimosis, there is a decreased risk of invasive penile cancer."

"Significant acute complications are rare."
They say that without evidence or numbers.

http://tinyurl.com/aapanno

"As I said, this "debate" will never be solved by clinical evidence. "
And neither should it. The fundamental issue is ethical.

'Clearly this will not influence every independent researcher. As I said, this "debate" will never be solved by clinical evidence.'

QED.

Ah Mr. Morris, are still trying to profit by convincing men and now the parents of children that it is their civic duty to protect the human race by allowing the amputation of a functional part of their genitals? Your scientific claims are one sided and based on incomplete, inaccurate and inconclusive studies performed in Africa. Why don't you do a study and figure out why: Europe has less STD and HIV cases than the US in spite of the fact that Europeans do not mutilate the male genitals, why the US has the highest mutilation rate and the highest use of erectile dysfunction medications, why 6 countries in Africa now report they have higher HIV rates in circumcised men vs INTACT men and why you feel it is okay to chop normal healthy body parts from other infant human beings without their consent. All body parts have a function and all body parts are subject to some health issue at some point in ones life. Who are you to say that parents should decide the value of a functional body part vs a potential problem later in life? You lack ethics.

Let's see, "Brother K"...

As a medical practitioner who posts under my own name (unlike some), and who has worked in Canada and Australia, could you possibly be referring to me?

If that is the case, then you are grossly mistaken. I have never, ever, in thirty years of medical practice, circumcised anyone. I don't have any sons, so I have never consented to the circumcision of a baby. So your assessment of "guilty conscience" is way off. Limited readings in the Humanities? Also way off.

When I come across people with very strong ideological views - be it about circumcision, vaccination, miracle cures, fringe politics - I'm fascinated to look at how they developed these extreme views. Some post under their names, so one can trace their other writing. Others prefer anonymity.

Good public policy rarely resides in extreme views.

It is not extreme to want to protect an individual's right to decide the fate of her or his own body parts.

No, Hugh, but it is extreme to say the following, as the above poster said:

"I've exhausted all the known synonyms for "wicked, malevolent, cruel, barbaric, sick, disgusting, inhumane, bestial, brutal, vicious" and the list goes on & on & on, the circumcision nightmare continues for our nation's sons, inflicting second-class citizenship upon them."

Don't you think?

Sue, why are you so staunchly defending the forced circumcision of (male) children as a legitimate debate, when just a little critical thinking shows it is anything but this?

When it comes to perfectly healthy children, and in the absence of need, which of the following do you believe are acceptable practices within a civilised society:-

i) Adults tampering with sexual organs of children? ii) People in positions of power taking knives and cutting into forcibly restrained, vulnerable individuals? iii) Parents deciding which body parts a child gets to keep and enjoy (for life) and which can be removed and discarded or sold?

Most people -- rightly -- view these these acts as abhorrent, but some fail to make the connection that circumcision without consent is ALL of these things, probably due to cultural blindness or wilful ignorance.

If all body parts of all children were considered equal under the law and in terms of ethical medical practice, male circumcision would represent a serious crime and profoundly unethical conduct. Intactivists simply want the still-developing sexual organs of male children to be treated exactly the same as every other body part of a young boy or girl. Nothing more and nothing less. Basic equality and human rights.

I bitterly resent the circumcision that was forced upon my voiceless and defenceless infant self. I find it grossly insensitive and callous to hear people defending the forced circumcision of little boys. I never wanted a scarred, diminished penis that doesn't look, feel or function as nature intended, but this most basic right was forever stolen from me.

I do hope you take the time to properly reflect on your intransigent stance from a position of basic morality rather than an emotionally-detached argument for argument's sake. If you cannot do that, perhaps simply consider -- in your own mind -- how much healthy living tissue can you sever from a child's body before it becomes wrong...?

James - you appear not to have read my posts.

As I've already explained, I am not "staunchly defending" anything but rational debate.

Have you read the reasoned position of Australian Paediatricians? How likely is it that specialist paediatricians, collectively, hold disdain for the health and rights of children?

I am not "arguing for argument's sake" - I'm arguing for rationality.

I've noticed that the pro-circ crowd has recently made a subtle shift in their talking points. They understand that blatant support for circumcision exposes a cold conscience -- according to enlightened ethical judgments of the 21st century -- so their new tactic is to claim they merely want to see "both sides" of the "debate." Genital cutting of minors does not have two sides, nor is there a debate. Even more devious, they hide their religious motivation behind loud protestations that they are "atheist." Infant genital cutting is really the perfect crime because the victims must learn to live with it before they even know that it happened to them, and often become its chief proponents to avoid an uncomfortable introspection & self-analysis. Of course, a person with a cold conscience will argue that adult life doesn't require self-analysis by men with maimed genitals -- they are perfectly happy with the modification and embrace it without further thought. That's the diabolical genius of infant genital mutilation, and those who surreptitiously support it with a bulldog arrogance have camped on the wrong side of history.

"Have you read the reasoned position of Australian Paediatricians? How likely is it that specialist paediatricians, collectively, hold disdain for the health and rights of children?"

Have you read the reasoned position of the Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG)? (Another position statement with no rubrication, nor need of any.)
http://www.circumstitions.com/news/news37.html#dutch-policy

Conclusion

There is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene. Partly in the light of the complications which can arise during or after circumcision, circumcision is not justifiable except on medical/therapeutic grounds. Insofar as there are medical benefits, such as a possibly reduced risk of HIV infection, it is reasonable to put off circumcision until the age at which such a risk is relevant and the boy himself can decide about the intervention, or can opt for any available alternatives.
Contrary to what is often thought, circumcision entails the risk of medical and psychological complications. The most common complications are bleeding, infections, meatus stenosis (narrowing of the urethra) and panic attacks. Partial or complete penis amputations as a result of complications following circumcisions have also been reported, as have psychological problems as a result of the circumcision.
Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is contrary to the rule that minors may only be exposed to medical treatments if illness or abnormalities are present, or if it can be convincingly demonstrated that the medical intervention is in the interest of the child, as in the case of vaccinations.
Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors conflicts with the child's right to autonomy and physical integrity.
The KNMG calls on (referring) doctors to explicitly inform parents/carers who are considering non-therapeutic circumcision for male minors of the risk of complications and the lack of convincing medical benefits. The fact that this is a medically non-essential intervention with a real risk of complications makes the quality of this advice particularly important. The doctor must then record the informed consent in the medical file.
The KNMG respects the deep religious, symbolic and cultural feelings that surround the practice of nontherapeutic circumcision. The KNMG calls for a dialogue between doctors' organisations, experts and the religious groups concerned in order to put the issue of non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors on the agenda and ultimately restrict it as much as possible.
There are good reasons for a legal prohibition of non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors, as exists for female genital mutilation. However, the KNMG fears that a legal prohibition would result in the intervention being performed by non-medically qualified individuals in circumstances in which the quality of the intervention could not be sufficiently guaranteed. This could lead to more serious complications than is currently the case.

This viewpoint by the KNMG is jointly endorsed by the following scientific associations:

The Netherlands Society of General Practitioners
The Netherlands Society of Youth Healthcare Physicians
The Netherlands Association of Paediatric Surgeons
The Netherlands Association of Plastic Surgeons
The Netherlands Association for Paediatric Medicine
The Netherlands Urology Association
The Netherlands Surgeons’ Association

Brother K appears to be obsessed with cold and ice.

It might be useful to go across to this Conversation article:

"Good reasoning needn’t make you an unfeeling robot"
https://theconversation.edu.au/good-reasoning-neednt-make-you-an-unfeeling-robot-10524

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

Silence is an acknowledgment that this comment hit the mark:

This comments page requires an explicit avowal, by those stoking the "debate" with purported objectivity, that they have NO CONNECTION, FRIENDSHIP, AFFILIATION, SYMPATHY OR OTHERWISE with an organization (or its individual members) calling itself the ‘Circumcision Foundation of Australia’, established with its sole aim being to reverse the dramatic decline in the number of circumcisions that are performed in Australia. http://intactivistsofaustralasia.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/meet-the-circumcision-foundation-of-australia/

Silence? From whom?

"Brother K" - it is you who accused me of guilty motivation, "cold conscience", "conscience that is colder than ice".... So, did Hugh's posting about ad hominem attacks hit the mark for you?

Friends, we have a tacit acknowledgment here that Morris has been hiding behind a troll's skirts for a few days.

Really ROFLing now!

An anonymous poster accuses an open poster of being a stooge? Too much.

"Brother K" - you were wrong in all your other assumptions, and you're wrong on this one too. LOL.

How ironic that an anonymous poster seeks to "out" those who post openly.

As I keep pointing out, ideology and vested interests exist on both sides of this discussion.

References from "intactivists of australia", "circumstitions" and such like are about as rational as using the AVN as a vaccination reference.

While proponents exaggerate the benefits and opposers exaggerate the risks, there will never be a rational discussion.

Brother K is not anonymous. That is his official name.

http://www.circumstitions.com is largely a node to scientific and other references.

This is not a discussion with two sides. One "side" is for cutting a normal healthy functional non-renewable part of a baby's genitals off (male only). The other "side" is for doing nothing, leaving the baby's genitals alone. They are not equivalent. And "benefits" vs "risks" are only one aspect. The ethics of human autonomy are overarching. We have no such discussion about any other such part of the human body, and this one only for strange, magical, historical, reasons. This discussion is not even being held in most of the developed world. Male babies, like female babies, are left alone and there's an end to it. :)

Hugh Young, you say "http://www.circumstitions.com is largely a node to scientific and other references."

Not so.

The link opens onto:
"The Intactivism Pages

The struggle for genital integrity
and against the involuntary genital modification
of children of any sex"

The only references to statements from health organisations on that site are "annotated rebuttals" with lots of rubrication.

For a self-described "independent researcher", you sure don't use independent sources.

Oh, and this
"We have no such discussion about any other such part of the human body, and this one only for strange, magical, historical, reasons."

You may have missed the other very ideological discussion in the area of reproductive rights - notably contraception, abortion and childbirth.

Some women argue so strongly for bodily autonomy that they call internal examinations during labour "birth rape". Others find them a sometimes unpleasant but useful assessment of progess.

Some women argue the right to abort a foetus as an issue of bodily autonomy, others argue for the human rights of the child, or the other parent.

Some women consider a cesarean delivery as having saved the life of their baby - others object to being "slashed open" and refuse any sort of intervention as an invasion, even at the cost of their child's life.

Do parents have the right to risk the death of their baby in childbirth to follow their own ideological path, against safety advice?

"rubrication"! I love learning new words. Thank you.

I would beware of saying "the only references" about a site with some 200+ pages. It also says, in prime position,

"This site does not pretend to be "balanced". The case for circumcision has been made daily for decades in public media such as TV sitcoms, magazine articles, by medical "authorities" and by word of mouth. Now, thanks to the Internet, the opposition has a chance to be heard uninterrupted. This site does attempt to tell the truth about circumcision, and not overstate the case against it."

There is a good reason I often refer to that site. I'll leave it to you to work it out.

When I said "no such discussion" I was talking about cutting body parts off normal healthy people. And it's no coincidence that these strange magical historical reasons apply to sexual organs.

If women don't like internal examinations, they have the right to refuse them, or find another doctor if this one insists. Likewise caesarians.

Risky childbirths and abortions are poor analogies since they involve different parties and every one has its own issues so no one answer would fit all cases. I don't think my opinion about them would contribute anything.

Sure, Hugh, the site doesn't claim to be balanced - I was responding to your comment that it was "largely a node to scientific and other references." Not so.

Claiming that one-sided sites like that are about "providing balance" is as much nonsense as the AVN (Australian (anti) Vaccination Network) claiming that their exclusively anti-vax site is providing "balance" against the overwhelming mainstream. Except, it's not.

There are many, many "pro and con" circumcision discussion sites, much as vaccination information presents both benefits and risks. I know you don't recognise any pro arguments, but many others do.

Hugh - risky childbirths and abortions are apt analogies precisely because they DO involve parents making decisions that affect their children. Just like circumcision, except that circumcision very very rarely threatens the life of the child.

Yes, women can (and do) refuse interventions during childbirth, sometimes motivated by their own "bodily autonomy", with the result of significant harm to the child. (I know you don't want me to down-play circumcision, but the risks in childbirth include death and severe disability as a result of hypoxia).

As a self-proclaimed "independent researcher", it might be advisable to read outside your anti-circ websites and explore the wider world, where these dilemmas are played out. Then you might not say "we have no such discussion". No, the rest of us do.

Selective quotation: I said "We have no such discussion about any other such part of the human body."
The whole abortion debate hinges on WHETHER or WHEN the foetus is a part of the mother's body.

Again, those are special cases with varying answers depending on individual circumstances, and there is no point my trying to give you a one-size-fits-all answer. You seem determined not to talk about non-therapeutic genital cutting of healthy babies. For example you ignored my earlier question:

Cutting part of a non-consenting healthy person's earlobe off is a human rights violation, whatever their age or sex. Leaving a healthy person's earlobe alone requires no justification.

Do you agree?

I hope so. Now try this.

Cutting part of a non-consenting healthy person's genitals off is a human rights violation, whatever their age or sex. Leaving a healthy person's genitals alone requires no justification.

Do you agree?

If not, please explain why "genitals" makes it different from "earlobe"?