Frisch, Morten1; Aigrain, Yves3; Barauskas, Vidmantas3; Bjarnason, Ragnar3; Boddy, Su-Anna3; Czauderna, Piotr3; de Gier, Robert P E3; de Jong, Tom P V M3; Fasching, Günter3; Fetter, Willem3; Gahr, Manfred3; Graugaard, Christian2; Greisen, Gorm4; Gunnarsdottir, Anna3; Hartmann, Wolfram3; Havranek, Petr3; Hitchcock, Rowena3; Huddart, Simon3; Janson, Staffan3; Jaszczak, Poul P.5; Kupferschmid, Christoph3; Lahdes-Vasama, Tuija3; Lindahl, Harry3; MacDonald, Noni3; Markestad, Trond3; Märtson, Matis3; Nordhov, Solveig Marianne3; Pälve, Heikki3; Petersons, Aigars3; Quinn, Feargal3; Qvist, Niels6; Rosmundsson, Thrainn3; Saxen, Harri3; Söder, Olle3; Stehr, Maximilian3; von Loewenich, Volker C H3; Wallander, Johan3; Wijnen, Rene3
1 The Faculty of Medicine, Aalborg University, VBN2 Department of Clinical Medicine, The Faculty of Medicine, Aalborg University, VBN3 unknown4 Institut for Klinisk Medicin5 Gynækologi, Obstetrik og Pædiatri6 Kirugisk Gastroenterologi og Endokrinologi
The American Academy of Pediatrics recently released its new Technical Report and Policy Statement on male circumcision, concluding that current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks. The technical report is based on the scrutiny of a large number of complex scientific articles. Therefore, while striving for objectivity, the conclusions drawn by the 8 task force members reflect what these individual physicians perceived as trustworthy evidence. Seen from the outside, cultural bias reflecting the normality of nontherapeutic male circumcision in the United States seems obvious, and the report's conclusions are different from those reached by physicians in other parts of the Western world, including Europe, Canada, and Australia. In this commentary, a different view is presented by non-US-based physicians and representatives of general medical associations and societies for pediatrics, pediatric surgery, and pediatric urology in Northern Europe. To these authors, only 1 of the arguments put forward by the American Academy of Pediatrics has some theoretical relevance in relation to infant male circumcision; namely, the possible protection against urinary tract infections in infant boys, which can easily be treated with antibiotics without tissue loss. The other claimed health benefits, including protection against HIV/AIDS, genital herpes, genital warts, and penile cancer, are 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.
Pediatrics (english Edition), 2013, Vol 131, Issue 4, p. 796-800