Bottom line (emphasis added):
“Patients who request circumcision in the belief that it bestows clinical benefits must be made aware of the lack of consensus and robust evidence, as well as the potential medical and psychosocial harms of the procedure. As the efficacy of prophylactic nontherapeutic male circumcision has not been comprehensively studied in neonates, it would be inappropriate to recommend widespread neonatal circumcision for this purpose.”
In other words – there’s NO strong medical evidence to support cutting off part of a male’s healthy genitalia and therefore the procedure is NOT recommended for adults OR infants. The risks outweigh any perceived benefit – risks such as medical and psychosocial harm, among numerous other issues (even death).
The only reason it’s still being done is rooted more in cosmetics and cultural tradition – neither of which are sufficient reasons to harm an infant in this manner.
http://www.annfammed.org/cgi/content/full/8/1/64
Tags: amputation, circumcision, damage, death, double standard, female genital mutilation, FGM, foreskin, functions of the foreskin, genital mutilation, history, human rights, hypocrisy, intact, Intactivism, Intactivist, Judaism, male genital mutilation, medical ethics, MGM, mutilation, risks, sensitivity, sexist
