AAP's publication Pediatrics, issues statement against non-therapeutic circumcision
"Circumcision fails to meet the criteria to serve as a preventive measure for [urinary tract infection], even though this is the only 1 of the AAP report's 4 most favored arguments that has any relevance before the boy gets old enough to decide for himself."
"As a preventive measure for penile cancer, circumcision also fails to meet the criteria for preventive medicine: the evidence is not strong; the disease rate has a good survival rate; there are less intrusive ways of preventing the disease; and there is no compelling reason to deny boys their legitimate right to make their own informed decision when they are old enough to do so."
"The authors of the AAP report forget to stress that responsible use of condoms, regardless of circumcision status, will provide close to 100% reduction in risk for any STD. In addition, STDs occur only after sexual debut, which implies that the decision of whether to circumcise can be postponed to an age when boys are old enough to decide for themselves."
"As with the other possible benefits, circumcision for HIV protection in
Western countries fails to meet the criteria for preventive medicine: there
is no strong evidence for effectiveness and other, more effective, and less intrusive means are available. There is also no compelling reason why the
procedure should be performed long before sexual debut; sexually transmitted HIV infection is not a relevant threat to children."
“There is growing consensus among physicians, including those in the United States, that physicians discourage parents from circumcising their healthy infant boys because non-therapeutic circumcision of underage boys in Western societies has no compelling health benefits, causes post-operative pain, can have serious long-term consequences, constitutes a violation of the United Nations’ Declaration of the Rights of the Child, and conflicts with the Hippocratic Oath: primum non nocere: First Do No Harm.”
"The conclusions of the AAP
Technical Report and Policy Statement
are far from those reached by physicians in most other Western countries.
As mentioned, only 1 of the aforementioned arguments has some theoretical relevance in relation to infant male
circumcision; namely, the questionable
argument of UTI prevention in infant
boys. The other claimed health beneﬁts
are also questionable, weak, and likely
to have little public health relevance in
a Western context, and they do not
represent compelling reasons for surgery before boys are old enough to
decide for themselves."