Rebuttal to Brian Morris's "Medical Benefits from Circumcision"

This article was originally on the University of Sydney website. It grew into a paper, "Circumcision as a Biomedical Imperative for the 21st Century", and into his present webiste, "Benefits of Circumcision", www.circinfo.net.

The rebuttal in red below is a partial review. Morris produces a vast amount of data, much of it from obscure sources. The fact that a claim goes unanswered here does not mean it can not be answered.



The author of this page has also written a book that provides the most extensive, balanced [ ] and up-to-date coverage of the circumcision issue. To find out more about this recent publication click here.


This site last updated 03 March 1999
Number of times this site has been accessed: Counter is broken


Circumcision is the removal of a fold of loose skin [ ... and muscle, and nerves... ] (the foreskin) [For its structure, see Anatomy, for its action see How the Foreskin Works, for its size, see "Not just a flap".] that covers the head (glans) of the unerect penis. The amount of this skin varies from virtually none, to a considerable amount that droops down from the end of the flaccid penis. [Most men, of course, have a moderate amount, covering the glans and a little more, the acroposthion.] The practice is common amongst many divergent human cultures. A variety of methods are, moreover, used and the amount of foreskin removed also varies.

Historically circumcision has been a topic of emotive and often irrational debate. At least part of the reason is that a sex organ is involved. [Many passionate circumcisionists avoid that central fact.] (Compare, for example, ear piercing. [Healthy tissue is not removed by ear piercing.]) During the past two decades the medical profession in Australia have tended to advise parents not to circumcise their baby boys. In fact there have even been reports of harrassment by medical professionals of new mothers, especially those belonging to religious groups that practice circumcision, in an attempt to stop them having this procedure carried out. [This seems improbable: why did the doctors not just refuse to do it? One answer is that the parents then sometimes threaten to do it themselves.] Such attitudes are a far cry from the situation years ago when baby boys were circumcised routinely in Australia. [ ... and mothers who wanted to leave their babies intact were harassed...] But over the past 20 years the rate has declined to as low as 16-19% [81].

However, a reversal of this trend is starting to occur. In the light of an increasing volume of medical scientific evidence pointing to the benefits of neonatal circumcision a new policy statement was formulated by a working party of the Australian College of Paediatrics in August 1995 and adopted by the College in May 1996 [6]. In this document medical practitioners are now urged to fully inform parents of the benefits of having their male children circumcised.

[This is false. Certainly that was not how the Australian Medical Association saw the policy:

AUSTRALIAN MEDICINE, 6-20 January 1997, Page 5.


The AMA will discourage circumcision of baby boys in line with the Australian College of Paediatrics' Position Statement on Routine Circumcision of Normal Male Infants and Boys.

The statement, released in June and supported by the AMA's November Federal Council meeting, includes:

* The Australian College of Paediatrics should continue to discourage the practice of circumcision in newborns.

* Educational material should be available to parents before the birth of their baby and in maternity hospitals.

* Some parents after considering medical, social, religious and family factors will opt for circumcision. It is then the responsibility of the doctor to recommend this is performed at an age and under circumstances which reduce hazards to a minimum.

Australian Medicine is the national news publication of the Australian Medical Association Limited. (ACN 008626793) ]

Similar recommendations were made recently by the Canadian Paediatric Society who also conducted an evaluation of the literature, although concluded that the benefits and harms were very evenly balanced [37].

[False again:
Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed.

Validation: This recommendation is in keeping with previous statements on neonatal circumcision by the Canadian Paediatric Society and the American Academy of Pediatrics. The statement was reviewed by the Infectious Disease Committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society. The Board of Directors of the Canadian Paediatric Society has reviewed its content and approved it for publication.

The American College of Pediatrics has moved far closer to an advocacy position

[False again. The AAP's 1997 statement said circumcision "has potential medical benefits and advantages"

The 1999 statement begins:

"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision."

Even the "advantages" have gone.]

and many recognised authorities [...according to the author...] in the USA strongly advocate circumcision of all newborn boys. More details of their statements appear later.

In the present literature review I would like to focus principally on the protection afforded by circumcision against infection by micro-organisms, some of which can cause disease and even death, but will also touch on other aspects, including sexual benefits. I might add that I am a university academic who teaches medical and science students and who does medical research, including that involving genital cancer virology, as well as molecular biology and genetics of cardiovascular disease. I am not Jewish, nor a medical practitioner or lawyer, so have no religious bias or medico-legal concerns that might get in the way of a rational presentation of the information that has been published in reputable journals.

[Beware of the person who boasts of their lack of bias!]

Why the foreskin increases infection risk

It has been suggested [18] that the increased risk of infection in the uncircumcised [...begging the question that there is such an increased risk...] may be a consequence of the fact that the foreskin presents the penis with a larger surface area, the moist skin under it represents a thinner epidermal barrier than the drier, more cornified skin of the circumcised penis (the glans of which develops a thick stratum corneum layer [Which further reduces the sensitivity of the glans.]), and the presence of a prepuce is likely to result in greater microtrauma during sexual intercourse [This neglects the rolling, gliding action of the prepuce.], thereby permitting an entry point into the bloodstream for infectious agents. Also, as one might expect and as has been observed, the warm, moist mucosal environment under the foreskin favours growth of micro-organisms (discussed later). [The whole surface of the human body is a teeming mass of micro-organisms. Disinfectants and the like only reduce the number, and only for hours at most. The natural flora of the foreskin are similar to those of the sides of the lips. Everything that may be said about the natural history of the foreskin is very much more true of the labia.] The preputial sac has even been referred to by Dr Gerald Weiss, an American surgeon, as a ‘cesspool for infection’ [142], [- which says a great deal more about Dr Weiss than the prepuce. An analysis of the works of Dr Weiss is a high priority for these pages...] as its unfortunate anatomy wrapped around the end of the penis results in accumulation of secretions, excretions (urine), dead cells and growths of bacteria. Parents are told not to retract the foreskin of male infants which makes cleaning difficult. [No, because the infant foreskin is fused to the glans and cleaning is both impossible and unnecessary.] Even if optimal cleansing is performed there is no evidence that it confers protection [152][153].[ - except the mute testimony of the vast number of intact men worldwide who have never had any problems.]


Circumcision has been practiced widely in Western countries this century. In the USA it increased from 8% in 1870 to 56% in 1910 [98]. In Britain it rose from 19% for those born in 1914 to 22% for 1924 and 30% for 1930 [98]. From at least the mid-1940s to mid-1970s over 90% of boys in the USA and Australia were circumcised soon after birth. [It then went out of fashion in those countries, but no foreskin-related plagues followed.] The major benefits at that time were seen as improved lifetime genital hygeine [sic throughout], elimination of phimosis (inability to retract the foreskin) and prevention of penile cancer.

A trend not to circumcise started in the mid to late 1970s, after the American Academy of Paediatrics Committee for the Newborn stated, in 1971, that there are ‘no valid medical indications for circumcision’ [19]. However, in 1975 this was modified to ‘no absolute valid ... ’ [134], which remained in the 1983 statement, but in 1989 it changed significantly to ‘New evidence has suggested possible medical benefits ...’ [3]. A new statement is to appear in 1998.

[This statement, which did not appear until 1999, perhaps because of internal controversy within the committee, did not recommend circumcision, but left it once again to the parents. The AAP would be putting its members at legal risk if it condemned circumcision as harmful or unethical.]

Dr Edgar Schoen, Chairman of the Task Force on Circumcision of the American Academy of Pediatrics, [In 1987 and 1995, but not in 1999] has stated that the benefits of routine circumcision of newborns as a preventative health measure far exceed the risks of the procedure [115]. During the period 1985-92 there was an increase in the frequency of postnewborn circumcision and during that same time Schoen points out that the association of lack of circumcison and urinary tract infection (UTI) has moved from ‘suggestive’ to ‘conclusive’ [115]. [This claim is mainly due to the work of Wiswell on children born in military hosptials. The difference in the very small incidence of UTIs can be accounted for by the practice, encouraged by the medical profession, of pulling back intact boys' foreskins, and by the presence of urethral abnormalities: having such abnormalities was one reason to be spared circumcision. Another factor is that premature babies are more likely to be catheterised - encouraging UTIs - and less likely to be circumcised. UTIs were only proposed as a reason for circumcision in the 1980s, long after circumcision had become routine, only the most recent case of circumcision being a solution looking for a problem. UTIs can readily be treated non-surgically, as they always are in girls.] Moreover, it heralded the finding of associations with other infectious agents, including HIV. In fact he goes on to say that ‘Current newborn circumcision may be considered a preventative health measure analogous to immunization in that side effects and complications are immediate and usually minor, but benefits accrue for a lifetime’ [115].

[Drs Schoen, Wiswell and Weiss are notable enthusiasts for infant circumcision.

What Dr Schoen should have said is "Neonatal circumcision may be considered a hangover of a primitive rite, carried out for murky psychopathological reasons and maintained by cultural habit, whose benefits are marginal at best, but whose complications may be serious and even fatal, and is in any case a gross breach of the right of the infant person to his security, integrity and identity." For more of the wit and wisdom of Dr Schoen - and perhaps a clue as to his motivations - see his "poetry".

Benefits included: a decrease in physical problems involving a tight foreskin [92], lower incidence of inflammation of the head of the penis [32][33][36][138], reduced urinary tract infections, problems with erections, especially at puberty, decrease in certain sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) such as HIV, and, in older men, elimination of penile cancer [This is false. Circumcised men can contract penile cancer, and in fact the belief that they are immune has dangerously delayed diagnosis.] and a decrease in urological problems and infections [reviewed in 3,6,37,69,110,113]. Therefore the benefits are different at different ages.

Different specialists see different things

Neonatologists only see the problems of the operation itself. Moreover such problems occur in only a minor proportion of boys, and generally because of poor technique by an inexperienced operator. [Circumcision is frequently allocated to house-surgeons (interns) for training in "minor surgery".] However, urologists who see and have to treat the problems of uncircumcised men cannot understand why all newborns are not circumcised [113,115]. [This is of course a wild overstatement.] Other health care workers in hospitals and aged care homes also have adverse comments about the uncircumcised penises they see. The demand for circumcision later in childhood has increased, but, with age, there is an inevitable increase in worry to the boy or man in the lead up to having this done, and there may be a more visible scar left. This, coupled with the advantages of early circumcison, led Schoen to state ‘Current evidence concerning the life-time medical benefit of newborn circumcision favours an affirmative choice’ [115].

Anti-circumcision lobby groups

There are several of these. One of the largest is ‘NOCIRC’. In a letter written by Dr Schoen to Dr Terry Russell in Brisbane in 1994 Schoen derides ‘NOCIRC’ for their use of ‘distortions, anecdotes and testimonials to try to influence professional and legislative bodies and the public, stating that in the past few years they have become increasingly desperate and outrageous as the medical literature has documented the benefits. For example they have compared circumcision with female genital mutilation, which is equivalent to cutting off the penis. [At its worst, Male Genital Mutilation (circumcision) is worse than the least severe form of FGM. As a human rights issue, the right to bodily security, autonomy and freedom of choice, they are exactly the same.] In 1993 the rate of circumcision had risen to 80% in the USA and Schoen suggests that ‘Perhaps NOCIRC has decided to export their "message" to Australia since their efforts are proving increasingly futile in the USA’. [Or perhaps the circumcisionists are exporting their efforts to Africa... The rate is now low in Australia and falling.] One only has to do a search on the World Wide Web to read the statements from this group and others like it and any intelligent person can quickly make up their own mind about the quality of their material and the message they are trying to promulgate. [We certainly hope so!] Some of these people mean well and some are intelligent, but lack a broad perspective. Dr Schoen also noted that when Chairman of the Task Force his committee was bombarded with inaccurate and misleading communications from this group. A member of NOCIRC emailed me from the USA to say: "I've come to learn I can't trust [NOCIRC] when it comes to this subject. I think they are causing a tremendous degree of pyschological harm with their campaign and I've suffered a lot from their nonsense."

[Taken out of context as it is, it is hard to see what this message was really about. As to psychological harm, it can certainly be devastating to learn what one has lost through circumcision, but the Intactivist movement can hardly slacken its efforts in order to protect men from the truth about their loss.]

The anti-circ. groups have an array of literature and even publish their own ‘journal’, ‘Circumcision’, which appears only on the world-wide web, and includes articles that are not subjected to unbiased peer review. [This is false, it is subjected to peer review - unlike this one...] This propaganda vehicle should really be titled ‘Anti-circumcision’. The Editor of this ‘journal’ is an outspoken critic of circumcision. His writings appear superficailly convincing to the naive. However, various authorities have shown how he [Someone called "johnd" has deleted a reference [137] here:] <!-- commented out by johnd [137] " ---> distorts, misquotes, and misrepresents the bulk of the literature he claims support his opinions and even misconstrues his own published findings (on balanitis) [154]. ["Various authorities" prove to be Dr Thomas Wiswell, who has contributed 12 of the 161 references to this paper. The deleted reference is an article by Dr Robert Van Howe, which certainly does not attack the Journal of Circumcision.] The anti-circ. documents quote a Dr Paul Fleiss extensively. Fleiss was given a suspended sentence for laundering the business proceeds of his infamous daughter, Heidi Fleiss, the Hollywood madam who provided prostitutes to celebrities. This raises the question of credibility.

[This raises the question of relevance and personal attack.]

Another of these groups is ‘UNCIRC’, [Morris may mean RECAP, now NORM] which promotes procedures to reverse circumcision, by, for example, stretching [actually stimulating growth by tension] the loose skin on the shaft of the retracted penis or the use of surgery. This has led to genital mutilation [140]. [ "Led to"? !] Claimed benefits of ‘increased sensitivity’ in reality appear to be a result of the friction of the foreskin, whether intact or newly created, on the moist or sweaty glans and undersurface of the prepuce in the unaroused state and would obviously in the ‘re-uncircumcised’ penis have nothing to do with an increase in touch receptors. [This is the nearest Morris comes to admitting that touch receptors are removed by circumcision.] Indeed, nerves do not regenerate. Moreover, the sensitivity during sexual intercourse is in fact identical, according to [some] men circumcised as adults. [Others have compared the difference to going colourblind.] In the first detailed professional analysis of psychiatric aspects eight patients seeking prepuce restoration were studied and several psychological disorders were noted [82]. [This reference dates from 1981. If wanting an intact penis is a psychiatric disorder, it must be contagious, because now an epidemic of it is raging! As a psychiatric condition, it may be compared with that of a mastectomy patient who wants a breast implant, or an amputee who wants a prosthesis.] These included narcissistic and exhibitionistic body image, depressions, major defects in early mothering, and ego pathology. These men had a preoccupation with their absent foreskins and represented a subgroup within the homosexual community [82]. Subsequently some skin-stretchers can now be found amongst heterosexuals, representing 10% of the 1,200 members of one ‘uncirc’ organization (cf. 80% homosexual and 10% bisexual), with 65% uncircumcised, 30% circumcised, and 5% partially circumcised. [It is not clear what the intact men would be doing in a restoration group.] Although many were happy with the result (thus justifying to themselves [To whom else should they have to justify it?] the decision to undertake this ordeal), others disliked their new genital status, even choosing to undergo recircumcision [117].

[It is not clear how the men who underwent psychiatric examination were selected. If men restoring their foreskins are typically unhappy about being circumcised, should we be surprised? This is a most elaborate attempt to "blame the victim".

There is another subculture Dr Morris does not discuss, the circum-fetishists, people who take erotic pleasure in imagining circumcising or being (re)circumcised, or in actually doing it or having it done to each other. Their psychopathology seems more worthy of study than that of men who want whole bodies, and they overlap with the passionate advocates of circumcision.

Benefits outweigh the risks

Dr Tom Wiswell, a respected authority in the USA [in the opinion of Dr Morris; indeed any circumcision advocate seems in his opinion to be a "respected authority"] was a strong opponent, but then switched camps as a result of his own research findings and the findings of others. This is what he has to say: "As a pediatrician and neonatologist, I am a child advocate and try to do what is best for children. For many years I was an outspoken opponent of circumcision ... I have gradually changed my opinion" [149,150]. This ability to keep an open mind on the issue and to make a sound judgement on the balance of all available information is to his credit — he did change his mind!

[He may say this now, but evidence of his opposition is hard to find. If he was an opponent, he seems to have had a road-to-Damascus experience and now expresses the characteristically excessive zeal of the convert.]

Wiswell looked at the complication rates of having or not having it performed in a study of 136,000 boys [It is a fallacy that a huge sample size guarantees great accuracy] born in US army hospitals [which biasses the sample, compared to babies in general] between 1980 and 1985. 100,000 were circumcised and 193 (0.19%) had complications [depending on how complications are defined], with no deaths, but of the 36,000 who were not circumcised the complication rate was 0.24% [What is a complication of not circumcising?] and there were 2 deaths [156]. [Deaths from what? This is scare tactics.] A study by others found that of the 11,000 circumcisions performed at New York’s Sloane Hospital in 1989, only 6 led to complications [This is, literally, incredible.], none of which were fatal [110]. An early survey saw only one death amongst 566,483 baby boys circumcised in New York between 1939 and 1951 [125]. (There are no deaths today. [Absolutely false: tell that to Ryleigh McWillis's, Dustin Evans Jr's or Jerome Sweet's parents.])

[For more about complications, see Williams and Kapila, or the complications page on this site and its references, or the gallery of circumcisions.]

A retrospective study of boys aged 4 months to 12 years found significantly greater frequency of penile problems (14% vs 6%; P < 0.001) and medical visits for penile problems (10% vs 5%; P < 0.05) among those who were uncircumcised, compared with those who were circumcised [51]

[One reason for this would be greater parental anxiety and insecurity about intact sons.]

Pain and memory

[This site has a page devoted to the pain of circumcison.]

No adverse psychological aftermath has been demonstrated [if one defines "psychological" too strictly to include the work of Lander or the work on breastfeeding][112]. It must be recognised that there are many painful experiences encountered by the child before [?], during and after birth [79]. Circumcision, if performed [with or] without anaesthetic is one of these. [It is one of the few that can be simply avoided.] Cortisol levels have registered an increase during and shortly after the procedure [131,132], indicating that the baby is not unaware of having had something painful done in its unanaesthetized state. ["Not unaware"!! Morris's little joke conceals agony for millions.] Neverthless, some babies show no signs of distress at all. [Yes, some appear to sleep through the procedure, but in fact this is a shock reaction.] Most do, however, and this may be contributed by the restraining procedure, as well as the surgery itself. In the past doctors and parents had to weigh up the need to inflict this short term pain in the context of a lifetime of gain from prevention or reduction of subsequent problems. However, today, effective anaesthetic procedures are available that make circumcsion virtually pain-free. These will be discussed later.

[The Lander study found two out of 12 babies stopped breathing, vomited, etc. Taddio et. al showed that the trauma of circumcision manifests itself for months afterwards. More data on the pain continues to come in, since circumcision is commonly used as a benchmark for pain in neonates. The AAP has just produced a new report on pain. The trauma of circumcision may adversely affect the bonding required for breastfeeding.]

Penile hygeine

The proponents of not circumcising nevertheless stress that lifelong penile hygeine is required. [Yes, washing with water, like any other part of the body, nothing special.] This acknowledges that something harmful or unpleasant is happening under the prepuce. [Rubbish. No more than in the mouth or vulva.] Studies of middle class British [57,110] and Scandanavian [95] schoolboys concluded that penile hygeine, as such, is at best poor and at worst nonexistant. [Schoolboys are traditionally, "dirty". A preoccupation with "hygiene" is peculiarly American. The intact penis is no "dirtier" than the labia.] Furthermore, Dr Terry Russell, an Australian medical practitioner states ‘What man after a night of passion is going to perform penile hygeine before rolling over and snoring the night away (with pathogenic organisms multiplying in the warm moist environment under the prepuce)’[110]. The bacteria start multiplying again immediately after washing and contribute, along with skin secretions, to the whitish film, termed ‘smegma’, that is found under the foreskin. Bacteria give off an offensive odour. [This preoccupation with bacteria is beginning to seem obsessive. Do women get up to wash their genitals after sex?] Men differ in their sensitivity to this smell and some shower several times a day as a result. Some uncircumcised men, and/or their partners, find the stench so unpleasant that this smell has caused these men to seek a circumcision on this basis alone. For mothers and fathers, it is far easier to maintain cleanliness of their son’s penis if it is circumcised. If their son isn’t the messages are confusing: should they clean under the foreskin or leave it alone?

[They should leave it alone. The foreskin naturally adheres to the glans for months or years after birth, and trying to separate it prematurely is the cause of a lot of phimosis. The boy will roll it back by himself when he and it are ready.]

What motivates parents to get their baby boy circumcised and the rates

The reasons for circumcision, at least in a survey carried out as part of a study at Sydney Hospital, were: 3% for religious reasons, 1-2% for medical, with the remainder suggested by the researchers as ‘to be like dad’ or a preference of one or both parents for whatever reason [30]. [Williamson and WIlliamson found - in a survey with a low response rate - that women in one Iowa hospital tended to have their sons circumcised to suit their own sexual preference, and apparently see no ethical or moral problems in this practice.] The main reason may have more to do with hygeine and apearance, as will be discussed later in the section on socio-sexual aspects. The actual proportion of men who were circumcised when examined at this clinic was 62%. Of those studied, 95% were Caucasian, with younger men just as likely to be circumcised as older men. In Adelaide, South Australia, a similar proportion has been noted, with 55% of younger men being circumcised. In Britain, however, the rate is only 7-10%, much like Europe. Rates in Africa, Asia and India vary according to religion and cuture, with higher rates amongst Muslims and certain tribes and low rates amongst other groups and nations. In the USA, as indicated above, the rate of circumcision has always been high, although differs in different regions: the rates for 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994 in the northeast region were 62%, 68%, 65% and 70%, in each respective year; for the midwest they were 78%, 78%, 74% and 80%, respectively; for the southern region: 64%, 63%, 61% and 65%; and for the western region: 41%, 38%, 36% and 34% [88]. [More recent figures indicate a decline, especially in the western states. Morris's figures seem high, throughout - wishful thinking?] The actual rates are higher than indicated by this data, as they represent only the numbers reported, whereas not all are [44] Even when they are supposed to be, they are often not listed on the medical record face sheet used in NCHS surveys, so that when the oversights were corrected in one study, infant circumcision rate increased from 75% to 89% [91].

[Conversely, where parents refuse circumcision, they are sometimes charged for it, and it may be recorded as having been done in order to claim reimbursement, or from force of habit.]

In Canada the rate varies markedly between different regions. Even in the same province, Ontario, for example, the rate between different districts ranges from 2% to 70%, with a mean of around 50%. (Data from Ontario Ministry of Health and Statistics Canada, and Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences.)

Physical problems

Phimosis (inability to retract the foreskin) is normal in very young boys, but is gone by age 3 in 90%. If still present after age 6 it is regarded as a problem [by whom?] and affects 2-10% of uncircumcised males. The narrow foreskin opening causes urinary obstruction that can be partial or complete. Backward pressure to the kidney may impede its function and lead to high blood pressure, which is associated with increased risk of heart attack ot stroke.

[This is scare-tactics. "Ballooning" of the penis on urination is normal, though it is a frequent excuse for circumcision.]

Paraphimosis (where the retracted foreskin cannot be brought back again over the glans) is a very painful problem, relieved by circumcision or slitting the dorsal surface of the foreskin. [...or by lubricating the glans with, say olive oil, and applying gentle pressure to reduce its size. This has to be done before circumcision can be performed, anyway. It is yet another example of the "If in doubt, circumcise" attitude that Morris promotes.]

To paediatric surgeons, the most obvious medical reasons for circumcision are balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and posthitis (inflammation of the foreskin), which are very painful conditions virtually limited to uncircumcised males. In babies, balanitis is caused by soiled diapers, playing and sitting in dirty areas, antibiotic therapy, as well as yeast and other micro-organisms. The incidence of balanitis is twice as high in uncircumcised boys [40,52] and is greater than 5-fold higher in uncircumcised adults [36].

[What other inflammation is relieved by cutting off the affected area? Naturally, only intact boys can suffer from posthitis, just as only non-amputees can suffer from athlete's foot. As far as soiled diapers are concenred, the prepuce protects the urethra from faeces entering and causing meatal ulcers, which are almost entirely confined to circumcised boys.]

Balanitis caused by the group A haemolytic variety of streptococcus is present exclusively in uncircumcised boys [93].

[Dr Morris is trying to frighten you with big words.] Balanoposthitis (inflammation of the foreskin and glans) is common in uncircumcised diabetic men owing to a weakened, shrunken penis [36] and such men also have more intercourse problems. Diabetes is common [...not all that common...] and inherited, so a family history of this disease may add to considerations about whether to circumcise at birth.

The foreskin of uncircumcised boys can become accidentally entrapped in zippers,

[And the glans of a circumcised boy can not ? One study found circumcision trauma to be 21 times as common as zipper injury:

M.S. El-Bahnasawy and M.T. El-Sherbiny, Paediatric penile trauma BJU International, vol 90 issue 1, July 2002, p 92

"The cause of trauma was circumcision in 43 (67%), human hair-tie strangulation injury in 10 (16%), an animal attack in four (6%), a bicycle accident in four (6%), a zipper injury in two (3%) and electrical injury in one (2%)."]

resulting in pain, trauma, swelling and scarring of this appendage. [Scarring! And circumcision does not cause scarring?? ]

In elderly men, infections and pain from balanoposthitis, phimosis and paraphimosis are seen and carers report problems in achieving optimal hygeine in uncircumcised men. The need for an appliance for urinary drainage in quadraplegics and in senile men is facilitated if they are circumcised. Boys and men who are not circumcised can be a source of irritation if they do not retract the foreskin when they urinate, as ‘splatter’ will occur. Although not a medical problem, it is a source of annoyance for other people (such as a parent or partner) if it is they that have the job of cleaning the bathroom. [We really are scraping the bottom of the barrel here, aren't we? Cutting off their penises would mean they wouldn't leave the seat up, either....] Foreskin problems also mean intercourse is painful. [So do lack-of-foreskin problems - especially for the woman.]

Another condition, Frenular chordee, results from an unusually thick and often tight frenulum and prevents the foreskin from fully retracting, being present in a quarter of all uncircumcised males [47].

[Here is the basis for that claim:
Basis of Morris's claim the 1/4 of ALL intact males have frenulum breve
70 children undergoing elective circumcision - hardly "all uncircumcised males"!
The frenulum then tears during intercourse or masturbation. Since scar tissue is generally more fragile and less elastic than normal tissue, the tear often reoccurs causing pain, bleeding and the inabilitiy to have sexual relations. [And what puts a ring of scar tissue right around the penis? Circumcision!] This problem can be solved by excising the frenulum during a circumcision. Frenoplasty (removing just the tight frenulum) is also possible. [This may well cause frenular chordee.]

Follow-up 5 years later of 117 boys circumcised for phimosis, balanitis scarring of the prepuce, or ballooning when urinating found that 95% expressed complete satisfaction and the only psychological effect was slight shyness in the school change-room in 9% of boys in this Swedish study [128,129]. The study showed that parents had nothing to fear for their son’s psychological well-being from circumcision.

Neonatal uninary tract infections

In 1982 it was reported that 95% of UTIs in boys aged 5 days to 8 months were in uncircumcised infants [45]. This was confirmed by Wiswell [157] and a few years later Wiswell and colleagues found that in 5,261 infants born at one US Army hospital, 4% of UTI cases were in uncircumcised males, but only 0.2% in those who were circumcised [158]. Wiswell then went on to examine the records for 427,698 infants (219,755 boys) born in US Armed Forces hospitals from 1975-79 and found that the uncircumcised had an 11-fold higher incidence of UTIs [155]. During this decade the frequency of circumcision in the USA decreased from 84% to 74% and this decrease was associated with an increase in rate of UTI [159]. Reviews by others in the mid-80s concluded there was a lower incidence in circumcised boys [74,107]. The rate in girls was stable during the period it was increasing in boys, in whom circumcision was in a decline. In a 1993 study by Wiswell of 209,399 infants born between 1985 and 1990 in US Army hospitals world-wide, 1046 (496 boys) got UTI in their first year of life [156]. The number was equal for boys and girls [Really? Every other study shows the incidence is several times higher for girls.], but was 10-times higher for uncircumcised boys. Among the uncircumcised boys younger than 3 months, 23% had bacteraemia, caused by the same organism responsible for the UTI. It should be noted that these studies gave figures for infants admitted to hospital for UTI, so that the actual rate would undoubtedly have been higher. The infection can travel up the urinary tract to affect the kidney and a higher rate of problems such as pyelonephritis and renal scarring (seen in 7.5% [148]) is reported in uncircumcised children [109,130]. These and other reports [e.g., 23,45,51,109,120,130] all point to the benefits of circumcision in reducing UTI.

[The 1989 AAP Taskforce on Circumcision report condemned Wiswell's work prior to that date as "methodologically flawed."]

Indeed, Wiswell performed a meta-analysis of all 9 studies that had been published up until 1992 and found that every one had found an increase in UTI in the uncircumcised [156]. The average was 12-fold higher and the range was 5 to 89-fold, with 95% confidence intervals of 11-14 [156]. Meta-analyses by others have reached similar conclusions.

In Australia, a relatively small study in Sydney involving boys under 5 years of age (mean 6 months) found that 6% of uncircumcised boys got a UTI, but only 1% of circumcised [22]. [The UTI rate among girls is greater than that of any boys - yet nobody has ever suggesting using surgery to protect girls.]

The benefit appears to extend beyond childhood and into adult life. In a study of men aged, on average, 30 years, and matched for race, age and sexual activity, the circumcised had a lower rate of UTI [124].

The fact that fimbriated strains of the bacterium Escherichia coli which are pathogenic to the urinary tract and pyelonephritogenic, have been shown to be capable of adhering to the foreskin, satisfies one of the criteria for causality [41,46,58,59,130,159,160]. Thus in infancy and childhood the prepuce becomes colonized with bacteria. Fimbriated strains of Proteus mirabilis, non-fimbriated Pseudomonas, as well as species of Klebsiella and Serratia also bind closely to the mucosal surface of the foreskin within the first few days of life [41,46,160]. Circumcision prevents such colonization and subsequent ascending infection of the urinary tract [107].

A recent report found that swabs were taken of the periurethral area (the region of the penis where urine is discharged) in 46 circumcised and 125 uncircumcised healthy males (mean age = 27; range = 2 to 54 years) showed a predominance of Gram positive cocci in both groups, facultative Gram negative rods in 17% of uncircumcised males, but in only 4% of circumcised (P = 0.01); streptococci, strict anaerobes (bacteria that can grow without oxygen) and genital mycoplasms (bacteria that lack a cell wall) were found almost exclusively in uncircumcised males over the age of 15 years (82% of the study group) [119]. Since these organisms are common inhabitants of the female genital tract, aquisition via sexual transmission was suggested. These latter categories of bacteria, unlike the Gram positive cocci, are potential pathogens capable of causing UTIs. It was speculated that when Gram negative organisms are the only colonizers of the preputial space they achieve higher concentrations and that the quantitative difference may contribute to the development of UTI. The findings of this study provide a microbiological basis for the observed higher risk of UTI in uncircumcised adult men. The authors also concluded that their results pointed to a role for the prepuce as a reservoir for sexually transmitted organisms [119].

Since the absolute risk of UTI in uncircumcised boys is approx. 1 in 25 (0.05) and in circumcised boys is 1 in 500 (0.002), the absolute risk reduction is 0.048. Thus 20 baby boys need to be circumcised to prevent one UTI. [To et al. give a figure of 195 circumcised to prevent one UTI. You can see that graphically demonstrated.] However, the potential seriousness and pain of UTI, which can in rare cases even lead to death, should weigh heavily on the minds of parents. The complications of UTI that can lead to death are: kidney failure, meningitis and infection of bone marrow. The data thus show that much suffering has resulted from leaving the foreskin intact. Lifelong genital hygeine in an attempt to reduce such infections is also part of the price that would have to be paid if the foreskin were to be retained. However, given the difficulty in keeping bacteria at bay in this part of the body [95,115], not performing circumcision would appear to be far less effective than having it done in the first instance [115].

Sexually-transmitted diseases

In 1947 a study of 1,300 consecutive patients in a Canadian Army unit showed that being uncircumcised was associated with a 9-fold higher risk of syphilis and 3-times more gonorrhea [147]. Work in the mid-70s showed higher chancroid, syphilis, papillomavirus and herpes in uncircumcised men [133]. At the University of Western Australia a 1983 study showed twice as much herpes and gonorrhea, 5-times more candidiasis and 5-fold greater incidence of syphilis [97]. Others have reported higher rates of nongonococcal urethritis in uncircumcised men [123]. In South Australia a study in 1992 showed that uncircumcised men had more chlamidia (odds ratio 1.3) and gonoccocal infections (odds ratio 2.1). Similarly in 1988 a study in Seattle of 2,800 heterosexual men reported higher syphilis and gonnorrhea in uncircumcised men, but no difference in herpes, chlamidia and non-specific urethritis (NSU). Like this report, a study in 1994 in the USA, found higher gonnorhea and syphilis, but no difference in other common STDs [20]. In the same year Dr Basil Donovan and associates reported the results of a study of 300 consecutive heterosexual male patients attending Sydney STD Centre at Sydney Hospital [30]. They found no difference in genital herpes, NSU, seropositivity for HSV-2 and genital warts (i.e., the benign, so-called ‘low-risk’ human papillomavirus types 6 and 11, which are visible on physical examination, unlike the ‘high-risk’ types 16 and 18, which are not). As mentioned above, 62% were circumcised and the two groups had a similar age, number of partners and education. Gonorrhea, syphilis and hepatitis B were too uncommon in this Sydney study for them to conclude anything about these other STDs. Similar findings were obtained in the National Health and Social Life Survey in the USA, which asked about gonnorrhea, syphilis, chlamidia, nongonoccocal urethritis, herpes and HIV (which is more often aquired intravenously) [72], although some under-reporting by uncircumcised men was likely as they tended to be less educated [This is just bigotry. The intact men's mothers were less likely to have finished high school - that hardly makes the men less likely to know if they've had the clap.]. Also, circumcision at birth was assumed, so that the number who sought circumcision later in life for problems, such as STDs [Circumcision is not a treatment for STDs.] and/or other infections, and therefore had switched group, was not taken into account. Design aspects of a number of the studies have in fact been criticised. As a result there is still no overwhelming agreement. Nevertheless, on the bulk of evidence it would seem that at least some STDs could be more common in the uncircumcised [The Laumann study found chlamydia only in the circumcised.], but this conclusion is by no means absolute in western settings, and the incidence may be influenced by factors such as the degree of genital hygeine, availability of running water and socioeconomic group being studied. In some more recent studies in developed nations, in which hygeine is good, no difference was apparent. [...nullifying this whole section.]

Cancer of the penis

The incidence of penile cancer in the USA is 1 per 100,000 men per year (i.e., 750-1000 cases annually) and mortality rate is 25-33% [66,76]. It represents approximately 1% of all malignancies in men in the USA. [This is false. The American Cancer Society's "Cancer Facts and Figures-1996" gives figures indicating penile cancer amounts to less than 0.18% of all malignancies of men in the USA - and not of all of that would be on or near the foreskin.] This data has to be viewed, moreover, in the context of the high proportion of circumcised men in the USA, especially in older age groups, and the age group affected, where older men represent only a portion of the total male population. Thus 1 in 100,000 per year of life translates to 75 in 100,000 during each man’s lifetime, but since it occurs almost entirely in uncircumcised men [This is false], if we assume that these represent 30% of males in the USA, the chance an uncircumcised man will get it would be 75 per 30,000 = 1 in 400. [A classic example of assuming what you want to prove.] In a study in Melbourne in 1990, although 60% of affected men were over 60 years of age, 40% were under 60 [111]. In 5 major series in the USA since 1932 [161], not one man with penile cancer had been circumcised neonatally [76], i.e., this disease is almost completely confined to uncircumcised men and, less commonly, in those circumcised after the newborn period. [The claim that neonatal circumcision protects against penile cancer, but later circumcision does not, while it suits those promoting neonatal circumcision, is magical rather than scientific. No mechanism for this supposed protective effect has ever been found. ] In fact penile cancer is so rare in a circumcised man, that when it does occur it can be the subject of a published case report [60]. [They are the subject of published case reports because the belief that "circumcised men never contract penile cancer" is so widespread. Maden found 41 cases in circumcised men.] The finite residual risk in those circumcised after the newborn period is the major contributing factor to estimates of lifetime risk in the total population of circumcised men of 1 in 50,000 to 1 in 12,000,000 [151,152]. Overall there have been 50,000 cases of penile cancer in the USA since the early 1930s and these resulted in 10,000 deaths. Only 10 of these cases were in circumcised men [114], and, as indicated, these had been circumcised later in life. The predicted life-time risk for an uncircumcised man has been estimated as 1 in 600 in the USA and 1 in 900 in Denmark [66]. In Denmark (circumcision rate = 2%), penile cancer has been decreasing steadily [39] in parallel with an increase in indoor b athrooms. Urban unmarried men were more likely to get it. Since the rate of penile cancer in Denmark is lower than in the USA other factors besides circumcision are also at work in these climatically, genetically and culturally different countries. [Climatically? How,one can only wonder, does climate make a difference? What are the genetic factors at work across the whole USA that make intact men more suxceptible to penile cancer than Danes? And what is the difference between US and Danish culture - apart from the US's love-affair with circumcision - that could account for this difference?] The statistics for Denmark have been used by anti-circs to draw a sweeping and fallacious conclusion about lack of circumcison [We prefer to call it a whole penis...] per se in penile cancer. The Danish themselves have concluded that although their uncircumcised men are at lower risk, this is only 1 in 900 as opposed to 1 in 600 in the USA, [Even that is a risk reduction of 50% through being intact - it certainly demands a better explanation than this] as stated above [66].

In underdeveloped countries the incidence is higher: approx. 3-6 cases per 100,000 per year [66]. In those underdeveloped countries where circumcision is not routinely practiced it can be ten times more common than in developed countries, representing 11% to 12% of all male cancers [87]. In Uganda it is the most common malignancy in males, leading to calls for greater circumcision in that country [29].

In Australia, figures from the New South Wales Cancer Council (for 1993) show 28 cases per year (including one in a child), with 5 deaths, which is similar to the 1 in 100,000 figure above and applies to a population in which the majority of the older men are circumcised. The rate could be set to escalate, however, as more of the males who were not circumcised during the period after the mid 1970s reach the ages when this cancer generally begins to appear.

The so-called ‘high-risk’ human papillomavirus types 16 and 18 (HPV 16/18) are found in a large proportion of cases and there is good reason to suspect that they are involved in the causation of penile cancer [78], as is true for most, if not all, cases of cervical cancer (see below). HPV 16 and 18 are, moreover, more common in uncircumcised males [90]. These types of HPV produce flat warts that are normally only visible by application of dilute acetic acid (vinegar) to the penis and the data on high-risk HPVs should not be confused with the incidence figures for genital warts, which although large and readily visible, are caused by the relatively benign HPV types 6 and 11 [62]. 93% of men whose female partner was positive for early signs of cervical cancer (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, CIN) had the male equivalant, penile intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN) [8]. Oncogenic HPV was present in 75% of patients with PIN grade I, 93% with PIN grade II and 100% of PIN grade III, which is one step before penile cancer itself [8]. Moreover, the rate of PIN was 10% in uncircumcised men cf. only 6% in circumcised men [8]. Other factors, such as smoking, poor hygeine and other STDs have been suspected as contributing to penile cancer as well [14,76], but it would seem that lack of circumcision is the primary prerequisite, with such other factors adding to the risk in the uncircumcised man. Financial considerations are, moreover, not inconsiderable. In the USA it was estimated that the cost for treatment and lost earnings in a man of 50 with cancer, even in 1980, was $103,000 [49]. The amount today is very much higher.

In Australia between 1960 and 1966 there were 78 deaths from cancer of the penis and 2 from circumcision. (Circumcision fatalities today are virtually unknown [because the circumcision rate has fallen. Duh.].) At the Peter McCallum Cancer Institute 102 cases of penile cancer were seen between 1954 and 1984, with twice as many in the latter decade compared with the first. Moreover, several authors have linked the rising incidence of penile cancer to a decrease in the number of neonatal circumcisions [24,111]. It would thus seem that "prevention by circumcision in infancy is the best policy". Indeed it would be an unusual parent who did not want to ensure their child was completely protected by this simple procedure.

[Breast cancer in men is more common than penile cancer, yet no-one has ever suggested neonatal mastectomy to protect against this scourge, and a man's breasts are of far less use to hm than his foreskin. The American Cancer Society does not promote circumcision as a preventative of penile cancer.]

Prostate cancer

Prostate cancer accounts for 27% of new cancers in males and 7% of deaths [89]. Uncircumcised men have twice the incidence of prostate cancer compared with circumcised [5,35], and this cancer is rare amongst Jews [2]. No association has been seen between rate of prostate cancer and rate of cervical cancer in different geographic localities [108]. However, in a study of 20,243 men in Finland, infection with HPV18 was associated with a 2.6-fold increase in risk of prostate cancer (P < 0.005) [28]. For HPV16 the increased risk was 2.4-fold.

Cervical cancer in female partners of uncircumcised men

A number of studies have documented higher rates of cervical cancer in women who have had one or more male sexual partners who were uncircumcised. These studies have to be looked at critically, however, to see to what extent cultural and other influences might be contributing in groups with different circumcision practices. Premarital sex is uncommon in the various religious groups in India and surrounding countries. In a study of 5,000 cervical and 300 penile cancer cases in Madras between 1982 and 1990 the incidence was low amongst Muslim women, when compared with Hindu and Christian, and was not seen at all in Muslim men [42]. In a case-control study of 1,107 Indian women with cervical cancer, sex with uncircumcised men or those circumcised after the age of 1 year was reported in 1993 to be associated with a 4-fold higher risk of cervical cancer, after controlling for factors such as age, age of first intercourse and education [1]. Another study published in 1993 concerning various types of cancer in the Valley of Kashmir concluded that universal male circumcsion in the majority community was responsible for the low rate of cervical cancer compared with the rest of India [25]. In Israel, a 1994 report of 4 groups of women aged 17-60 found that Moshav residents with no gynaecological complaints had no HPV 16/18 and healthy Kibbutz residents had a 1.8% incidence [55]. Amongst those who had a gynaecological complaint HPV 16/18 was found in 9% of Jewish and 12% of non-Jewish women. Thus the causative agent (high-risk HPV) can be found in Jewish women. The source of this (circumcised vs. uncircumcised partners) was not explored.

So-called ‘high-risk’ HPV types 16, 18 and some rarer forms are responsible for virtually every case cervical of cervical cancer [139]. These same high-risk HPVs also cause penile intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN). In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1987 it was found that women with cervical cancer were more likely to have partners with PIN, the male equivalent of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) [11]. A study in 1994 found that in women with CIN, PIN was present in the male partner in 93% of cases [8]. CIN may lead to cancer or, more often, it goes away. Thus co-factors are suspected. Interestingly, smegma (the film of bacteria, secretions and other material under the foreskin), obtained from human and horse has been shown to be capable of producing cervical cancer in mice in one study [101], but not in another [106]. Thus the epidemic of cervical cancer in Australia, and indeed most countries in the world, would appear to be contributed, at least in part, [When some studies say one thing and others say another, the answer is not to say the truth is "at least in part" one thing, but to make more studies.] by the uncircumcised male and would therefore be expected [...by those who want to expect such a thing. Only time will tell.] to get even worse as the large proportion of men that were born in the past 10-20 years and not circumcised reach sexual maturity.

AIDS virus

[The claim that circumcison prevents HIV/AIDS is dealt with in more detail on another page of this site..]

In the USA the estimated risk of HIV per heterosexual exposure is 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 100,000. If one partner is HIV positive and otherwise healthy then a single act of unprotected vaginal sex carries a 1 in 300 risk for a woman and as low as a 1 in 1000 risk for a man [17]. (The rates are very much higher for unprotected anal sex and intravenous injection). In Africa, however, the rate of HIV infection is up to 10% in some cities. (A possible reason for this big difference will be discussed later.) In Nairobi it was first noticed that among 340 men being treated for STDs they were 3-times as likely to be HIV- positive if they had genital ulcers or were uncircumcised (11% of these men had HIV) [122]. Subsequently another report showed that amongst 409 African ethnic groups spread over 37 countries the geographical distribution of circumcision practices indicated a correlation of lack of circumcision and high incidence of AIDS [13]. [But correlation is not causation.] In 1990 Moses in the International Journal of Epidemiology reported that amongst 700 African societies involving 140 locations and 41 countries there was a considerably lower incidence of HIV in those localities where circumcision was practiced [85,86]. Truck drivers, who generally exhibit more frequent prostitute contact, have shown a higher rate of HIV if uncircumcised. Interestingly, in a West African setting, men who were circumcised but had residual foreskin were more likely to be HIV-2 positive than those in whom circumcision was complete [99].

[Neither circumcision nor HIV transmission takes place in a social vacuum. In any group, some other factor altogether - such as Islam - may strongly influence the incidence of both.]

Of 33 cross-sectional studies, 22 have reported statistically significant association [e.g., 26,27,54,56,102,136], by univariate and multivariate analysis, between the presence of the foreskin and HIV infection (4 of these were from the USA). 5 reported a trend (including 1 US study) [84,86]. [This "trend" seems to be circumcisionist jargon for a correlation that falls below the level of significance.] The 6 that saw no difference were 4 from Rwanda and 2 from Tanzania. In addition there have been 5 prospective studies and 2 from Kenya and 1 from Tanzania reported statistically significant association. The increased risk in the significant studies ranged from 1.5 to 9.6. One study, in 1998 from Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, where most men are circumcised, noted that married women, with one sex partner, had a 4-fold higher relative risk of HIV if their husband was uncircumcised [61].

The findings have, moreover, led various workers, Moses and Caldwell included, to propose that circumcision be used as an important intervention strategy in order to reduce AIDS [The form and content of the studies strongly suggests that the wish to circumcise came first. The Caldwell study used national borders - artifacts of the 19th century "carve-up of Africa" - as markers for circumcision status, rather than any check of the men's penises themselves.] [17,38,54,64,77,85,86]. Such advice has been taken up, with newspaper advertisements from clinics in Tanzania offering this service to protect against AIDS. [There have also been anecdotal accounts of intact men being attacked as "AIDS carriers" and forcibly circumcised.]

Perhaps the most interesting study of the risk of HIV infection imposed by having a foreskin is that by Cameron, Plummer and associates published as a large article in Lancet in 1989 [18]. It was conducted in Nairobi. Rather than look at the existing infection rate in each group, these workers followed HIV negative men until they became infected. The men were visiting prostitutes, numbering approx. 1,000, amongst whom there had been an explosive increase in the incidence of HIV from 4% in 1981 to 85% in 1986. These men were thus at high risk of exposure to HIV, as well as other STDs. From March to December 1987, 422 men were enrolled into the study. Of these, 51% had presented with genital ulcer disease (89% chancroid, 4% syphilis, 5% herpes) and the other 49% with urethritis (68% being gonorrhea). 12% were initially positive for HIV-1. Amongst the whole group, 27% [114 men, rather few to be drawing statistical conclusions from, to be applied across the whole of Africa] were not circumcised. They were followed up each 2 weeks for 3 months and then monthly until March 1988. During this time 8% of 293 men seroconverted (i.e., 24 men), the mean time being 8 weeks. These displayed greater prostitute contact per month (risk ratio = 3), more presented with genital ulcers (risk ratio = 8; P < 0.001) and more were uncircumcised (risk ratio = 10; P < 0.001). Logistic regression analysis indicated that the risk of seroconversion was independently associated with being uncircumcised (risk ratio = 8.2; P < 0.0001), genital ulcers (risk ratio = 4.7; P = 0.02) and regular prostitute contact (risk ratio = 3.2; P = 0.02).

[Applying this kind of high-powered analysis to such small numbers is bad statistics. This would be clearer if the actual number of intact men who seroconverted was shown.] The cumulative frequency of seroconversion was 18% and was only 2% for men with no risk factors, compared to 53% for men with both risk factors. Only one circumcised man with no ulcer seroconverted. Thus 98% of seroconversion was associated with either or both cofactors. [Notice how genital ulcer and intactness are lumped together, and then intactness is made to take all the blame.] In 65% there appeared to be additive synergy, the reason being that ulcers increase infectivity for HIV. This involves increased viral shedding in the female genital tract of women with ulcers, where HIV-1 has been isolated from surface ulcers in the genital tract of HIV-1 infected women. In this African study the rate of transmission of HIV following a single exposure was 13% (i.e., very much higher than in the USA). It was suggested that concommitant STDs, particularly chancroid [17], may be a big risk factor, but there could be other explanations as well.

[One is "dry sex", the custom of women drying their vaginas with astringent herbs, which may be more practical for intact men, but create microtears that help to transmit the virus.]

It was suggested that the foreskin could physically trap HIV-infected vaginal secretions and provide a more hospitable environment for the infectious innoculum. Also, the increased surface area, traumatic physical disruption during intercourse and inflammation of the glans penis (balanitis) could aid in recruitment of target cells for HIV-1. The port of entry could potentially be the glans, subprepuce and/or urethra. In a circumcised penis the drier, cornified skin may prevent entry and account for the findings. The inner lining of the foreskin is relatively ‘immune deficient’, with only 8 of the immune-protective Langerhan’s cells per square millimetre in the uncircumcised cf. 174 on the external surface of the foreskin, as for other exposed skin on the penis and body in general [141].

Studies in the USA have not been as conclusive. Some studies have shown a higher incidence in uncircumcised men [145]. But in one in New York City, for example, no significant correlation was found, but the patients were mainly intravenous drug users and homosexuals, so that any existing effect may have been obscured. A study in Miami, however, of heterosexual couples did find a higher incidence in men who were uncircumcised, and, in Seattle homosexual men were twice as likely to be HIV positive if they were uncircumcised [67].

In an editorial review in 1994 of 26 studies it was pointed out that more work was needed in order to reduce potential biases in some of the previous data [26]. At least one study since then has controlled for such potential confounding factors, confirming a significantly lower HIV prevalence among circumcised men [136].

The sorts of health problems faced by the ‘third-world’, coupled with a lack of circumcision may account for the rapid spread of HIV through Asia [144]. The reason for the big difference in apparent rate of transmission of HIV in Africa and Asia, where heterosexual exposure has led to a rapid spread through these populations and is the main method of transmission, compared with the very slow rate of penetration into the heterosexual community in the USA and Australia, could be related at least in part to a difference in the type of HIV-1 itself [68]. In 1995 an article in Nature Medicine discussed findings concerning marked differences in the properties of different HIV-1 subtypes in different geographical locations [94]. A class of HIV-1 termed ‘clade E’ is prevalent in Asia and differs from the ‘clade B’ found in developed countries in being highly capable of infecting Langerhans cells found in the foreskin, so accounting for its ready transmission across mucosal membranes. The Langerhans cells are part of the immune system [Correct: Dr Morris is promoting removal of part of the immune system - perhaps its front line - in order to protect against HIV] and in turn carry the HIV to the T-cells, whose numbers are severely depleted as a key feature of AIDS. The arrival of the Asian strain in Australia was reported in Nov 1995 and has the potential to utilize the uncircumcised male as a vehicle for rapid spread through the heterosexual community of this country in a similar manner as it has done in Asia. It could thus be a time-bomb waiting to go off and should be a major concern for health officials.

Sexual transmission of HIV and other STDs would be reduced by use of barrier protection such as condoms. Despite the campaigns, passion will over-ride compliance on occasions in the most sexually promiscuous, at-risk group, who are at an age when risk-taking behaviour is prevalent (cf. smoking in young people vis-a-vis the anti-smoking campaign), with tragic consequences. Many young people do not use condoms and openly scoff at the idea, despite the health warnings. Indeed it may be a sign of machismo to the young adult. Thus education is only part of the answer and where an additional simple procedure is available to reduce the risk, then logic dictates that it should be used. [But when sexual behaviour is concerned, logic flies out the window. If circumcision is promoted as "reducing the risk of HIV/AIDS, it will inevitably taken as a complete preventitive and substitute for safe sex.] The result will be many lives saved. [Wrong, lost.]

Socio-sexual aspects

In the setting of Australia, perhaps the first, albiet small and restricted, but interesting survey of circumcised vs uncircumcised men and their partners was conducted by Sydney scientist ["]James Badger[" - the name is a pseudonym. ] [9,10] (who regards himself as neutral on the issue of circumcision [This claim is open to dispute. "James Badger" vehemently advocates circumcision on the "circlist" circumfetishist website.]). It involved responses to a questionaire published in Australian Forum magazine [a sex magazine] or placed in Sydney clinics of the Family Planning Association of New South Wales. [In other words, the sample was self-selected from people with a particular interest in sex. This invariably introduces unknown biases that make the sample quantitatively invalid.] There were 180 participants (79 male, 101 female) who were aged 15-60. The women were mainly (50%) in the 20-30 year-old age group cf. 25% of the men, more of whom (33%) were aged 30-40. It found that:

• 18% of uncircumcised males underwent circumcision later in life anyway. [That percentage is misleading without an actual number: few Australian men of that age would have been left intact, and such a small number is highly subject to random fluctuations.]

• 21% of uncircumcised men who didn't, nevertheless wished they were circumcised. (There were also almost as many men who wished they hadn’t been circumcised and it could be that at least some men of either category may have been seeking a scapegoat for their sexual or other problems. In addition, this would no doubt be yet another thing children could blame their parents for, whatever their decision was when the child was born.) [Men's unhappiness with their circumcision status arises solely from the existence of routine infant circumcision in both cases. However, men who are unhappy about being intact (and who want to conform with their peers) have a ready solution. Men who are unhappy about being circumcised have only the tedious and incomplete solution of foreskin restoration.]

• No difference in sexual performance (consistent with Masters & Johnson).

[Masters and Johnson found nothing about circumcision and sexual performance. Their pro-circumcision bias is evident. They performed a non-sexual test on the glans only and found no significant difference. Clearly, circumcised men would have failed any test of the sensitivity of the foreskin.]

• Slightly higher sexual activity in circumcised men.

• No difference in frequency of sexual intercourse for older uncircumcised vs. circumcised men.

• Men circumcised as adults were very pleased with the result. The local pain when they awoke from the anaesthetic was quickly relieved by pain killers (needed only for one day), and all had returned to normal sexual relations within 2 weeks, with no decrease in sensitivity of the penis and claims of 'better sex'. (Badger’s findings are, moreover, consistent with every discussion the author has ever had with men circumcised as adults, as well as email received from a number of such men. The only cases to the contrary were a testimonial in a letter I received from a member of UNCIRC and a very brief email message that didn’t say why.)

[Would a man unhappy about being circumcised want to discuss it with Dr Morris?]

• Women with circumcised lovers were more likely to reach a simultaneous climax (29% vs. 17% of the study population grouped across the orgasmic spectrum of boxes for ticking labelled ‘together’, ‘man first’, ‘man after’ and ‘never come’; some ticked more than one box).

• Women who failed to reach an orgasm were 3 times more likely to have an uncircumcised lover.

(These data could, however, possibly reflect behaviours of uncircumcised males that might belong to lower socio-economic classes and/or ethnic groups whose attitudes concerning sex and women may differ from the better educated groups in whom circumcision is more common.)

[More bigotry: intact men are just rough lower-class brutes, it seems.]

• Circumcision was favoured by women for appearance and hygiene. (Furthermore, some women were nauseated by the smell of the uncircumcised penis, where, as mentioned earlier bacteria and other micro-organisms proliferate under the foreskin.)

• The uncircumcised penis was found by women to be easier to elicit orgasm by hand.

• The circumcised penis was favoured by women for oral sex (fellatio).

These findings are consistent with later studies. In a survey of new mothers, hygeine and appearance were the two major reasons for choosing to have their newborn son circumcised [146]. There was a strong correlation between their son’s circumcision status and the woman’s ideal male partner’s cicumcision status for intercourse. Thus by being circumcised they thought that their sons would likewise be more attractive to a future sexual partner (with the implication that they would be at an advantage in passing on their, and therefore the mother’s, genes to the subsequent generation). [Evolutionary biology meets circumcision! If there has been any study showing that intact men have any problem finding a spouse, Dr Morris fails to produce it.] Their own preference thus affected their choice for their sons. 92% said the circumcised penis was cleaner, 90% said it looked ‘sexier’, 85% it felt nicer to touch and 55% smelled more pleasant. Even women who had only ever had uncircumcised partners preferred the look of the circumcised penis. Only 2% preferred an uncircumcised penis for fellatio, with 82% preferring the circumcised variety. Preference for intercourse for circ. vs uncirc. was 71% vs 6%, respectively; manual stimulation, 75% vs 5%; visual appeal, 76% vs 4%. What then is sexier about a circumcised penis? Quite likely it is that the glans is exposed in both the erect and unerect state. American producers of erotic films and publishers of photographic works choose circumcised men, or at least uncircumcised men whose foreskin is smooth and free from loose, wrinkled skin, as the latter lacks visual appeal, especially to those who are not used to seeing an uncircumcised penis. [I analyse the Williamson and Williamson study fully on another page.] For example, ‘Elaine’, in an episode of the TV sitcom ‘Seinfeld’ stated that "[the uncircumcised penis] looks like an alien!" [Seinfeld is among the TV sitcoms whose pro-circumcision bias is discussed on another page.]

As far as sex is concerned, the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS) in the USA found that uncircumcised men were more likley to experience sexual dysfunctions [72]. [...defined very loosely to include "anxiety about sexual performance" - which intact men might very well feel in a foreskin-hostile society]. This was slight at younger ages, but became quite significant later in life and included finding it twice as difficult to achieve or maintain an erection. [Laumann's analysis of the NHSLS figures has several problems, such as relying on self-reporting for circumcision status when this has been shown to be often wrong.] It was also discovered that circumcised men engaged in a more elaborate set of sexual practices. [This could equally be interpreted as "having more sex, enjoying it less"] Not surprisingly, in view of the findings above, circumcised men received more fellatio. [...and gave more cunnilingus - the study refers to "active" and "passive heterosexual oral sex" - suggesting that something else is at work.] However, they also masturbated more, a finding that, ironically, contradicts the apparent wisdom in Victorian times that circumcision would reduce the urge to masturbate. (Contrary to anti-circ. propaganda, circumcision was not used to reduce masturbation, but rather to prevent smegma and itching, so stopping males scratching their genitalia, which co-incidentally sometimes led to arousal [It was not coincidental at all; the literature is very specific that the ultimate aim was to prevent masturbation. The pain of circumcision was also invoked as part of the deterrent effect.]). As noted in other studies, circumcision rates were greatest among whites and those who were better-educated, reflecting their exposure to and ability to evaluate and respond to scientific information [...and unscientific misinformation...] about circumcision. [The difference probably reflects socio-economics more than anything else.] There was little difference between different religious groups. [Actually, conservative Protestants were less likely to be circumcised than other religions.]

In Britain a class distinction is associated with circumcision, with the Royal Family and the upper classes being circumcised and the lower classes generally not. [This has not been true since the 1940s or 1950s. Circumcision rates, except among Muslims and Jews, are now very low for all classes.] The NHSLS in the USA saw greatest rates among whites and the better educated. There was little difference between different [...Christian...] religious groups. Some ancient cultures and some even today practice infibulation (drawing a ring or similar device through the prepuce or otherwise occluding it for the principlal purpose of making coition impossible) [118]. This is the opposite of circumcision. [Nonsense. Like circumcision, it is a way to exert control over sexual behaviour through modification of the genitals. The nearest thing to an opposite of circumcision is foreskin restoration.] It was, moreover, espoused in Europe and Britain in previous centuries as a way of reducing population growth amongst the poor and to prevent masturbation [118]. [As indeed was circumcision at its beginnings among US genitles.]

Consistent with the accounts above of men circumcised as adults, clinical and neurological testing has not detected any difference in penile sensitivity between men of each category [159,160]. [Those references do not refer.] Sexual pleasure also appears to be the same. [Dr Morris is apparently referring to the sloppy "experiments" by Masters and Johnson, "designed to prove" that there was no difference in sensitivity between cut and intact men. Since the "experiments" were non-sexual in nature and confined to the glans, they proved nothing.]

The procedure itself

Circumcision of the neonate: There is no evidence of any long-term psychological harm arising from circumcision. [Morris himself later refers to the greater pain response months afterwards, clearly proving this claim false.] The risk of damage to the penis is extremely rare and avoidable by using a competent, experienced doctor. [who has to gain his/her experience somewhere...] Unfortunately, because it is such a simple, low-risk procedure, [Morris means, "In spite of circumcision being neither simple nor risk-free..."] it had been the practice to assign this job to junior medical staff and nurses, with occasional devastating results. Parents or patients need to have some re-assurance about the competence of the operator.

Also the teaching of circumcision to medical students and practitioners needs to be given greater attention because it is so commonly performed and needs to be done well. [...begging the question that it needs to be done at all, which no medical association in the world asserts.] Surgical methods often use a procedure that protects the penis during excision of the foreskin. The most commonly used devices are the GOMCO clamp, MOGEN clamp and PlastiBell. The latter clamps the foreskin, which then falls off after a few days, and so eliminates the need to actually cut the foreskin off [43]. However, some of these more elaborate methods take up to 15-30 min to perform and therefore expose the baby to a greater period of discomfort. Circumcision can be completed in 15-30 seconds by a competent practitioner using more traditional approaches. Rather than tightly strapping the baby down, swaddling and a pacifier has been suggested [50,151-153]. A special padded, ‘physiological’ restraint chair has moreover been devised and shown to reduce distress scores by more than 50% [126]. Dr Tom Wiswell strongly advocates the neonatal period as being the best time to perform circumcision, pointing out that the child will not need ligatures or general anaesthesia, nor additional hospitalization [151-153]. Without an anaesthetic the child experiences pain and pain is also present for from a few up to a maximum of 12-24 hours afterwards. The child does not, however, have any long term memory of having been circumcised. [Of course he does. He only has to look down. Morris means "of being circumcised."] A greater responsiveness to subsequent injection for routine immunization may, however, suggest the baby could remember for a short time [132]. [Months later. This suggests that there are permanent changes.] Anaesthesia is therefore advocated (see below). Complication rate is very low (0.2%), as is cost (discussed later).

Children: For children aged 4 months to 15 years a general anaesthetic is generally used and this carries a small risk. Also, ligatures are usually needed. Recently, excellent cosmetic results were reported for all of 346 patients aged 14 to 38 months using electrosurgery, which presents a bloodless operative field [100]. Metal of any kind (such as the Gomco clamp) have to of course be avoided in this procedure. Circumcision later obviously requires a separate (often overnight) visit to hospital. Rate of complications is also greater, but still low (1.7%). Pain lasts for days afterwards and those older than 1-2 years may remember. Cost is also much greater. In adults it may be even more expensive, but can be performed on an outpatient basis, sometimes with local anaesthetic, and pain can last for a week or so, during which time absence from work is required.

Thus when considering when is the best time, it would appear that circumcision in the newborn period is safe and technically easy. It is also cheap, as discussed in the next section. [Right, and we wouldn't want to waste any money when we're modifying a baby's genitals for life, would we?]


Anaesthesia for circumcision is recommended [103]. Dorsal penile nerve block [65] represents 85% of anaesthetic use in the USA [127]. Ring block, which had initially been used for postcircumcision analgesia [15], is simpler, and extremely effective [48,70]. In fact this method seems to be the best. Pain from the infiltration of a local anaesthetic is short-lived and significantly less than the pain from an unanaesthetized circumcision [71]. EMLA cream (5% lidocaine/prilocaine; Astra) [132,151-153] reduces pain during circumcision [131,132], and blood sampling in newborn babies [104], but is less effective than the others [16,70]. Total pain control can be achieved by a general anaesthetic. This can be given routinely for very young children, [Absolutely false!] and if done in a children’s hospital there is virtually no risk. [Ask Dustin Evans, Sr] However, because the operation is so trivial, local anaesthesia is all that is required. For a minority of people the way the circumcision is performed will obviously be dictated by their cultural or religious beliefs.

For some circumcisions, cultural or religious beliefs dictate the method. It is, moreover, acknowledged that the traditional bris might be less traumatic than common institutional approaches [71]. Jewish Mohelim take 10 seconds, with 1 second for excision, postoperative and 60 seconds on average for crying; since there is no crushing of tissue the pain is claimed to be not as severe as techniques used by doctors [121].

Despite the benefits of anaesthesia, many male newborn circumcisions in North America do not involve anaesthetics and this can be as much as 64-96% in some regions [135,143]. In the USA 84% of paediatric, 80% of family practice and 60% of obstetric programs teach anaethesia/analgaesia techniques [53]. "Given the overwhelming evidence that neonatal circumcision is painful and the evidence of safe and effective anaesthesia/analgesia methods, residency training in neonatal circumcision should include instruction of pain relief techniques" [53].


In Australia, circumcision is amongst the 40 most frequently performed surgical procedures, occurring more commonly than tooth extraction [7]. For example, in 1992-1993, 14,604 neonatal circumcisions were performed at a cost to Medicare of A$380,000. Interestingly, in 1985 the Federal Minister for Health removed the rebate for newborn circumcision from the Medical Benefits Schedule in response to the [now outmoded] 1983 recommendations of the National Health & Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia. It was then quickly restored after a public outcry. The scheduled fee is only A$34.10 [80]. Many doctors consider that the fee should be higher in Australia, as such a low fee has the potential to cause some doctors to discourage it based on nonmedical considerations. [A fairly clear admission that greed is the real motivation.]

In the USA, cost is US$89-204, being cheaper in the midwest and more expensive on the east coast. On average the amount per circumcision across all ages versus mean lifetime medical costs in those not circumcised works out about the same [73]. In this analysis it was stated that if the rate of surgical complications from circumcision was less than 0.6% or if risk of penile problems in uncircumcised males exceedeed 17% (cf. current baseline of 14%) then circumcision would be preferred on a cost and lifespan basis [73].

Whose responsibility?

It is argued by opponents of circumcision that the male himself should be allowed to make the decision about whether he does or does not want to be circumcised. [Yes, this is the central argument of the Intactivist movement: whose penis is it, anyway. This argument is increasingly being recognised by ethicists, and it is implicit in many of the clauses of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, etc.] However, there are problems with this argument, not the least of which is the fact that the greatest benefits accrue the earlier in life the procedure is performed. [Or at least they are said to do so by a variety of people who seem to have a vested interest in promoting circumcision: the analogy with "Buy now while stocks last! For a short time only!" is a close one.] If left till later ages the individual has already been exposed to the risk of urinary tract infections, [...and every girl is exposed to a much greater risk...] the physical problems and carries a residual risk of penile cancer. Moreover, it would take a very street-wise, outgoing, adolescent male to make this decision and undertake the process of ensuring that is was done. [Not only that, but he might actually decide he likes his foreskin and wants to keep it.] Most males in the late teens and 20s, not to mention many men of any age, are reticent to confront such issues, even if they hold private convictions and preferences about their penis. Moreover, despite having problems with this part of their anatomy, many will suffer in silence rather than seek medical advice or treatment. Really though parental responsibility must over-ride arguments based on ‘the rights of the child’. [Why the quotes? Are girl children not protected from FGM by just such "rights"?] Think what would happen if we allowed children to reach the age of legal consent in relation to, for example, immunization, whether they should or should not be educated, etc, etc. [Infant circumcision is more comparable to child abuse, brainwashing by some strange cult, etc.] A period of great benefit would have been lost, to the potential detriment of the person concerned. Parents have the legal right to authorize [necessary] surgical procedures in the best interests of their children [4,34]. For them to make this decision medical practitioners are obliged to disclose to them fully and objectively ALL information relating to circumcision. This includes benefits and risks, prognosis and alternative methods. [and to the many benefits of just leaving the baby's genitals alone.]


Having described the benefits, let’s look at the risks. As listed in [151-153], these are:

Excessive bleeding: Occurs in 1 in 1000 — treated with pressure or locally-acting agents, but 1 in 4000 may require a ligature and 1 in 20,000 need a blood transfusion [Dr Morris gives no source for these figures. They are probably much higher. A baby needs a blood transfusion if he loses so much as 30ml of blood, about the contents of a large serving spoon.] because they have a previously unrecognized bleeding disorder. [Or if the circumcising doctor accidentally severs one of the large arteries or veins of the tiny penis.] Haemophilia in the family is of course a contra-indication for circumcision.

Infection: Local infections occur in 1 in 100-1,000 and are easily treated with local antibiotics. [As can all the dreadful "infections" that the circumcision was supposed to protect against.] Systemic infections may appear in 1 in 4,000 and require intravenous or intramuscular injection of antibiotics.

Subsequent surgery: Needed for 1 in 1,000 because of skin bridges [Skin bridges are far more common than that. Many men seem to just live with them.] , or removal of too much or too little foreskin. Repair of injury to penis or glans required for 1 in 15,000. Loss of entire penis: 1 in 1,000,0000, and is avoidable by ensuring the practitioner performing the procedure is competent. Injuries (rare) can be repaired [12] and in the infinitely ["infinitely"? Not at all, here are some cases.] remote instance of loss of the penis it can be reattached surgically [96]. [Not if it is destroyed completely, like that of David Reimer ("John/Joan/John") All the above statistics seem gross underestimates.]

Local anaesthetic: The only risk is when the type of anaesthetic used is a dorsal penile nerve block, with 1 in 4 having a small bruise at the injection site. This will disappear.

Death: The records show that between 1954 and 1989, during which time 50,000,000 circumcisions were performed in the USA there were only 3 deaths. [Clearly there is something wrong with those records.] (But there were 11,000 from penile cancer, a disease essentially confined to the uncircumcised [152]. [This is false, as detailed above.])

Why are human males born with a foreskin?

One function of the foreskin was probably to protect the head of the penis from long grass, shrubbery, etc when humans wore no clothes, where evolutionarily our basic physiology and psychology are little different than our cave-dwelling ancestors. [The foreskin has many protective functions.] Also, the moist tip would facilitate quick penetration of a female, where lengthy fore-play and intercourse would be a survival disadvantage, since the risk to the copulators from predators and human enemies would be greater the longer they were engaged in sex. Dr Guy Cox from The University of Sydney [an electron microscopist whose specialty is plant skeletons] has recently suggested that the foreskin could in fact be the male equivalant of the hymen, and served as an impediment to sexual intercourse in adolescent privaeval humans before the advent in our species of civilization and cultures [21]. [It is hard to see how the foreskin can both facilitate intercourse and be an impediment to it. No way is the foreskin analogous to the hymen (women have a clitoral prepuce as well as a hymen). It may impede penetration in rare cases, but anyone who thinks it usually does is very unfamiliar with it. Nor is penetration the beginning and end of intercourse - unless the partners are unlucky! Dr Morris does not discusss any other possible functions of the foreskin. But then, he doesn't seem to like it very much.] Way back then the foreskin would have reduced ‘successful’ sexual acts in those too young to adequately care for any offspring that might arise. [Since the foreskin is usually retactable by the age of about three, this reduction seems to end somewhat prematurely.] With civilization control of the sexual behaviour of the young by society made the physical mechanism redundant and society introduced circumcision to be [sic] free the individual from the impediment of having a foreskin. [If one is concerned to "free the individual" the logical thing to do is let him decide what parts of his penis he wants to keep.] Interestingly, the physical difficulties experienced by the uncircumcised may explain why the word for uncircumcised in Hebrew means ‘obstruction’ or ‘to impede’, so explaining the Biblical term ‘uncircumcised heart’ when referring to obstructionism. [Dr Morris' biblical exegisis is fully up to the standard of his science. The "obstruction" referred to is spiritual.]

What caused many cultures to ritually remove it?

There are several theories and each may have elements of truth. As mentioned above, according to Cox, the ritual removal of the foreskin in diverse human traditional cultures, ranging from Muslims to Aboriginal Australians could be a sign of civilization in that human society aquired the ability to control, through education and religion, the age at which sexual intercourse could begin. [It seems odd to define "civilisation" to include Australian aboriginals and exclude classical Greeks.]

Another compelling explanation involves the ritualization of circumcision’s prophylactic effects, especially as many different human groups and cultures that live in desert or other hot environments have adopted it as part of their customs. Infections, initiated by the aggravation of dirt and sand, are not uncommon under such conditions and have even crippled whole armies, where it is difficult to achieve sanitation during prolonged battle. Historically it was not uncommon for soldiers to be circumcised in preparation for active service. [Sadistic medical officers also played their part.] The Judeo-Muslim practice of circumcision quite likely had its origin in Egyptian civilization, where there is evidence of a circumcised mummy at the time the Hebrews inhabited Egypt [105], as well as illustrations of the operation itself and of circumcised Pharoahs, dating back to 3000 BC [142]. One possible reason the Egyptians could have circumcised themselves and their slaves might have been to prevent schistosomal infection [142]. Urinary tract obstruction and haematuria are common in localities such as the Nile Valley that are inhabited by the blood fluke, Schistosoma haematobium, and the foreskin would undoubtedly possess the adverse ability of being able to hold water [...to hold water...?] infected with the cercaria stage of the life cycle of this parasite and so facilitate its entry into the body. The perpetuation of the procedure by the Jews may have subsequently been driven by a desire to maintain cleanliness in an arid, sandy desert environment. Such considerations could also explain why it is practiced in multiple other cultures that live in such conditions. [But not all, by any means.] In each instance, the original practical reason became lost as the ritual persisted as a religious rite in many of the various cultures of the world. In the Muslim religion circumcision occurs in childhood and the age can be variable.

I have some wonderful photographs of a group of Masai boys in their early teens that I met in Kenya in 1989 dressed in their dark circumcision robes, with white feathers as headwear, and white painted facial decoration that stood out against their very black skin. Each wore a pendant that was the razor blade used for their own circumcision. [One can't help wondering whether Dr Morris's enthusiasm is for the appearance of these youths or for the idea of their mass circumcision.] The ceremony that they had gone through is a special part of their tribal culture and was very important to these boys, who were proud to show that they were now ‘men’. In other cultures it is associated with preparation for marriage and as a sign of entry into manhood. [Yes, the association of having part of one's penis cut off and "manhood" is very strange and not confined to "primitive" people. Much the same superstition applies in the enlightened west.]

Interestingly, in Japan, which, like most of Asia, is traditionally a noncircumcising nation, circumcision has recently started to become a fashion amongst young men. The procedure is currently being promoted by way of articles and advertisements in the vast array of ‘girlie’, sex magazines read by young males. The message is that it improves hygeine and attractiveness to women.

To summarize:

Lack of circumcision:

• Is responsible for a 12-fold higher risk of urinary tract infections. Risk = 1 in 20.

• Carries a higher risk of death in the first year of life (from complications of urinary tract infections: viz. kidney failure, meningitis and infection of bone marrow).

• One in ~400-900 uncircumcised men will get cancer of the penis. A quarter of these will die from it and the rest will require at least partial penile amputation as a result. (In contrast, penile cancer never occurs or is infinitesimally rare in men circumcised at birth [Simply false.]). (Data from studies in the USA, Denmark and Australia, which are not to be confused with the often quoted, but misleading, annual incidence figures of 1 in 100,000).

• Is associated with balanitis (inflammation of the glans), posthitis (inflammation of the foreskin) [Yes, having a foreskin, or any other organ, means it can become inflamed. The foreskin is the only one that gets cut off for it, though.], phimosis (inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (constriction of the penis by a tight foreskin). [Again, having a working part means it may not always work properly.]Up to 18% [This is like the advertisements offering "up to" 50% price reductions....] of uncircumcised boys will develop one of these by 8 years of age, whereas all are unknown in the circumcised. Risk of balanoposthitis = 1 in 6. Obstruction to urine flow = 1 in 10-50.

• Means problems that may result in a need for circumcision later in life. [Keeping any organ of the body carries the risk that you may lose it some day.] Also, the cost can be 10 times higher for an adult.

• Is the biggest risk factor for heterosexually-acquired AIDS virus infection in men. [No, the biggest risk factor is unprotected sex with an infected person.] 8-times higher risk by itself, and even higher when lesions from STDs are added in. Risk per exposure = 1 in 300.

• Is associated with higher incidence of cervical cancer in the female partners of uncircumcised men.


Getting circumcised will result in:

• Having to go through a very minor surgical procedure that carries with it small risks.

• Improved hygeine.

• Lower risk of urinary tract infections.

• Less chance of aquiring AIDS heterosexually. [through unsafe sex, if the studies Dr Morris chooses were correct.]

• Almost complete elimination of the [already tiny...] risk of penile cancer. [ ...and even less than Dr Morris said]

• More favourable hygeine for the man and his sexual partner.

• Better sexual function on average.

• A penis that is regarded by most as being more attractive. [Only where circumcision is customary, and that is changing.]


The information that appears in this review should prove informative to medical practitioners and health workers and thereby enhance the quality of information that is conveyed to parents of male children and to adult men. It should also prove to have educational value to others, especially the parents of boys, but also adult men, whether circumcised or not. It is hoped that as a result of reading the information presented here the choice that has to be made concerning circumcision, especially of male infants, is much more informed. [And even more so after reading these rebuttals.] Although there are benefits to be had at any age, they are greater the younger the child. [...and the harder it is for him to resist...] Issues of ‘informed consent’ may be analogous to those parents have to consider for other medical procedures, such as whether or not to immunize their child. [No, more like the issues around footbinding or Female Genital Mutilation.] The question to be answered is ‘do the benefits outweigh the risks’. [No, the first question to be asked is, "Whose penis is it?"] When considering each factor in isolation there could be some difficulty in choosing. However, when viewed as a whole, in my opinion the answer to whether to circumcise a male baby is [Wait for it... Can you guess... It's coming...] ‘YES. [Surprise!] Nevertheless, everybody needs to weigh up all of the pros and cons for themselves and make their own best decision. [Exactly what we say, which is why "their own best decision" shouldn't be preempted in babyhood.] I trust that the information I have provided in this article will help in the decision-making process.

Brian J. Morris, PhD DSc Fax: +61 2 9351-2227 University Academic (in medical sciences)

[University Academics - especially those with two doctorates - do not usually refer to themselves as such. Dr Dr Morris seems to be insecure about his status. NB: at the beginning he claimed to be unbiased because he was not a doctor.] Email:   brianm@physiol.usyd.edu.au

The author freely grants permission for others to copy and distribute this review.

[Permission accepted!]



1. Agarwal SS, Sehgal A, Sardana S, Kumar A, Luthra UK. Role of male behaviour in cervical carcinogenesis among women with one lifetime sexual partner. Cancer 1993; 72: 1666-9

2. Alderson M. Occupational Cancer. Butterworths, London 1986.

3. American Academy of Pediatrics. Task Force on Circumcision. Report of the Task Force on Circumcision. Pediatrics 1989; 84: 388-91

4. American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Bioethics. Informed consent, parental permission, and assent in pediatric practice. Pediatrics 1995; 95 (5 pt 1): 314-7

5. Apt A. Circumcision and prostatic cancer. Acta Med Scand 1965; 178: 493-504

6. Australian College of Paediatrics. Policy Statement on Neonatal Male Circumcision. 1995

7. Australia's Health 1992: The Third Biennial Report of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australian Government Printing Service, Canberra, p 330

8. Aynaud O, Ionesco M, Barrasso R. Penile intraepithelial neoplasia - specific clinical features correlate with histologic and virologic findings. Cancer 1994; 74: 1762-7

9. Badger J. Circumcision. What you think. Australian Forum 1989; 2 (11): 10-29

10. Badger J. The great circumcision report part 2. Australian Forum 1989; 2 (12): 4-13

11. Barrasso R, De Brux J, Croissant O, Orth G. High prevalence of papillomavirus associated penile intraepithelial neoplasia in sexual partners of women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. N Engl J Med 1987; 317: 916-23

12. Baskin LS, Canning DA, Snyder HM III, Duckett JW. Surgical repair of urethral circumcision injuries. J Urol 1997; 158: 2269-71

13. Bongaarts J, Peining P, Way P, Conont F. The relationship between male circumcision and HIV infection in African populations. AIDS 1989; 3: 373-7

14. Brinton LA, Li JY, Rung SD, Huang S, Xiao BS, Shi BG, Zhu ZJ, Schiffman MH, Dawsay S. Risk factors for penile cancer: results from a case-control study in China. Int J Cancer 1991; 47: 504-9

15. Broadman L, Hannallah R, Belman B, Elder P, Ruttiman U, Epstein B. Post-circumcision analgesia; a prospective evaluation of subcutaneous ring block of the penis. Anesthesiology 1987; 67: 399-402

16. Butler-O’Hara M, LeMoine C, Guillet R. Analgesia for neonatal circumcision: A randomized controlled trial of EMLA cream versus dorsal penile nerve block. Pediatrics 1998; 101: URL: http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/101/ 4/e5

17. Caldwell JC, Caldwell P. The African AIDS epidemic. Sci Am 1996; 274: 40-46

18. Cameron BE, Simonsen JN, D’Costa LJ, Ronald AR, Maitha GM, Gakinya MN, Cheang M, Ndinya-Achola JO, Piot P, Brunham RC, Plummer FA. Female to male transmission of human immunodeficiency virus type 1: risk factors for seroconversion in men. Lancet 1989; ii: 403-7

19. Committee On the Fetus and Newborn, American Academy of Pediatrics. Standards and Recommendations for Hospital Care of Newborn Infants, 5th ed, American Academy of Pediatrics, Evanston, Illinois, 1971: 110

20. Cook LS, Koutsky LA, Holmes KK. Circumcision and sexually transmitted diseases. Am J Publ Health 1994; 84: 197-201

21. Cox G. De virginibus Puerisque: The function of the human foreskin considered from an evolutionary perspective. Med Hypoth 1995; 45: 617-621

22. Craig JC, Knight JF, Sureshkumar P, Mantz E, Roy LP. Effect of circumcision on incidence of urinary tract infection in preschool boys. J Pediatr 1996; 128: 23-7

23. Crain EF, Gershel JC. Urinary tract infections in febrile infants younger than 8 weeks of age. Pediatrics 1990; 86: 363-7

24. Dagher R, Selzer ML, Lapides J. Carcinoma of the penis and the anti-circumcision crusade. J Urol 1973; 110: 79-80

25. Dahr GM, Sah GN, Nahees B, Hafiza. Epidemiological trend in the distribution of cancer in Kashmir Valley. J Epidemiol Comm Hlth 1993; 47: 290-2

26. De Vincenzi I, Mertens T. Male circumcision a role in HIV prevention? (editorial) AIDS 1994; 8: 153-60

27. Diallo MO, Ackah AN, Lafontaine MF, Doorly R, Roux R, Kanga JM, Heroin P, De Cock KM. HIV-1 and HIV-2 infections in men attending sexually transmitted disease clinics in Abidjan, Cote d’Ivoire. AIDS 1992; 6: 581-5

28. Dillner J, Knekt P, Boman J, Lehtinen M, Afgeijersstam V, Sapp M, Schiller J, Maatela J, Aromaa A. Sero-epidemiological association between human-papillomavirus infection and risk of prostate cancer. Int J Cancer 1998; 75: 564-567

29. Dodge OG, Linsell CA. Carcinoma of the penis in Uganda and Kenya Africans. Cancer 1963; 18: 1255-63

30. Donovan B, Basset I, Bodsworth NJ. Male circumcision and common sexually transmissible diseases in a developed nation setting. Genitourin Med 1994; 70: 317-20

31. Ducket JW. A temporate approach to neonatal circumcision. Urology 1995; 46: 771-2

32. Edwards S. Balanitis and balanoposthitis: A review. Genitourin Med 1996; 72: 155-9

33. Escala JM, Rickwood AMK. Balanitis. Br J Urol 1989; 63: 196-7

34. Etchells E, Sharpe G, Walsh P. Consent for circumcision. Can Med Assoc J 1997; 156: 18

35. Ewings P, Bowie C. A case-control study of cancer of the prostate in Somerset and east Devon. Br J Cancer 1996; 74: 661-6

36. Fakjian N, Hunter S, Cole GW, Miller J. An argument for circumcision. Prevention of balanitis in the adult. Arch Dermatol 1990; 126: 1046-7

37. Fetus and Newborn Committee, Canadian Paediatric Society. Neonatal circumcision revisited. Can Med Ass J 1996; 154: 769-780

38. Fink AJ. Newborn circumcision: a long-term strategy for AIDS prevention. J Roy Soc Med 1990; 83: 673

39. Frisch M, Friis S, Kjaer SK, Melbye M. Falling incidence of penis cancer in an uncircumcised population (Denmark 1943—90). Br Med J 1995; 311: 1471.

40. Furgusson DM, Lawton JM, Shannon FT. Neonatal circumcision and penile problems: An 8-year longnitudinal study. Pediatrics 1988; 81: 537-41

41. Fussell EN, Kaak BM, Cherry R, Roberts JA. Adherence of bacteria to human foreskin. J Urol 1988; 140: 997-1001

42. Galalakshmi CK, Shanta V. Association between cervical and penile cancers in Madras, India. Acta Oncol 1993; 32: 617-20

43. Gee WF, Ansell JS. Neonatal circumcision: A ten-year overview, with comparison of the Gomco clamp and the Plastibell device. Pediatrics 1976; 58: 824-7

44. Gelbaum I. Circumcision: to educate, not indoctrinate — a mandate for certified nurse-midwives. J Nurse-Midwif 1992; 2 (Suppl): 97S-113S

45. Ginsburg CM, McCracken GH. Urinary tract infections in young children. Pediatrics 1982; 69: 409-12

46. Glennon J, Ryan PI, Keane CT, Rees JPR. Circumcision and periurethral carriage of Proteus mirabilis in boys. Arch Dis Child 1988; 63: 556-7

47. Griffin AS, Kroovand RL. Frenular chordee: implications and treatment. Urology 1990; 35: 133-4

48. Hardwick-Smith S, Mastrobattista JM, Wallace PA, Ritchey ML. Ring block for neonatal circumcision. Obstet Gynecol 1998; 91: 930-4

49. Harturian NS, Smart CN, Thompson MS. The incidence and economic costs of cancer, motor vehicle injuries, coronary heart disease and stroke: a comparative analysis. Am J Public Health 1980; 70: 1249-60

50. Herschel M, Khoshnood B, Ellman C, Maydew N, Mittendorf R. Neonatal circumcision. Randomized trial of a sucrose pacifier for pain control. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1998; 152: 279-84

51. Herzog LW. Urinary tract infections and circumcision: a case-control study. Am J Dis Child 1989; 143: 348-50

52. Herzog LW, Alvarez SR. The frequency of foreskin problems in uncircumcised children. Am J Dis Child 1986; 140: 254-6

53. Howard CR, Howard FM, Garfunkel LC, de Blieck, Weitzman M. Neonatal circumcision and pain relief: Current tranining practices. Pediatrics 1998; 101: 423-8

54. Hunter DJ. AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa: the epidemiology of heterosexual transmission and the prospects of prevention (Review). Epidemiology 1993; 4: 63-72

55. Isacsohn M, Dolberg L, Sabag SL, Mitrani-Rosenbaum S, Nubani N, Diamant YZ, Goldsmidt R. The inter-relationship of herpes virus, papilloma 16/18 virus infection and Pap smear pathology in Israeli women. Israel J Med Sci 1994; 30: 383-7

56. Jessamine PG, Plummer FA, Ndinya Achola JO, Wainberg MA, Wamolo I, D’Costa JL, Cameron DW, Simonsen JN, Plouroe P, Ronald AR. Human immunodeficiency virus, genital ulcers and the male forskin: synergism in HIV-1 transmission. Scand J Infect Dis 1990 (suppl 69): 181-6

57. Kalcev B. Circumcision and personal hygeine in school boys. Medical Officer 1964; 112: 171-3

58. Kallenius G, Moillby R, Svenson SB, Helin I, Hultberg H, Cedergren B, Winberg J. Occurrence of P-fimbriated Escherichia coli in urinary tract infections. Lancet 1981; ii: 1369-72

59. Kallenius G, Svenson S, Mollby R, Cedergren B, Hultberg H, Winberg J. et al. Structure of carbohydrate part of receptor on human uroepithelial cells for pyelonephritogenic Escherichia coli. Lancet 1981; ii: 604-6

60. Kanik AB, Lee J, Wax F, Bhawan J. Penile verrucous carcinoma in a 37-year-old circumcised man. J Am Acad Dermatol 1997; 37: 329-31

61. Kapiga SH, Lyamuya EF, Lwihula GK, Hunter DJ. The incidence of HIV infection among women using family planning methods in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. AIDS 1998; 12: 75-84

62. Katelaris PM, Cossart YE, Rose BR, Thompson CH, Sorich E, Nightingale B, Dallas PB, Morris BJ. Human papillomavirus: the untreated male reservoir. J Urol 1988; 140: 300-5

63. Katz MS. (Untitled) N Engl J Med 1997; 337: 569

64. Kirby PK, Munyao T, Kreiss J, Holmes KK. The challenge of limiting the spread of human immunodeficiency virus by controlling other STDs. Arch Dermatol 1991; 127: 237-42

65. Kirya C, Werthmann M. Neonatal circumcision and penile dorsal nerve block: a painless procedure. J Pediatr 1978; 92: 998-1000

66. Kochen M, McCurdy S. Circumcision and risk of cancer of the penis. A life-table analysis. Am J Dis Child 1980; 134: 484-6

67. Kreiss JK, Hopkins SG. The association between circumcision status and human immunodeficiency virus infection among homosexual men. J Infect Dis 1993; 168: 1404-8

68. Kunanusont C, Foy HM, Kreiss JK, Rerky-Ngaram S, Phanuphak P, Raktham S, Pau CP, Young NL. HIV-1 subtypes and male-to-female transmission in Thailand. Lancet 1995; 345: 1078-83

69. Lafferty PM, MacGregor FB, Scobie WG. Management of foreskin problems. Arch Dis Childhood 1991; 66: 696-7

70. Lander J, Brady-Fryer B, Metcalfe JB, Nazarali S, Muttitt S. Comparison of ring block, dorsal penile nerve block, and topical anesthesia for neonatal circumcsion. A randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Assoc 1997; 278: 2157-62

71. Lander J, Metcalfe JB, Muttitt S, Brady-Fryer B. Local anaesthesia for infants undergoing circumcision. J Am Med Assoc 1998; 279: 1171

72. Laumann EO, Maal CM, Zuckerman EW. Circumcision in the United States. Prevalence, prophyactic effects, and sexual practice. J Am Med Assoc 1997; 277: 1052-7

73. Lawler FH, Bisonni RS, Holtgrave DR. Circumcision: a cost decision analysis of its medical value. Fam Med 1991; 23: 587-93

74. Lohr JA. The foreskin and urinary tract infections. J Pediatr 1989; 114: 502-4

75. Lyon J. Neonatal circumcision in Anchorage 1985-1990. Alaska Med 1992; 34: 94-5.

76. Maden C, Sherman KJ, Beckmann AM, Huslop TK, Heh OZ, Ashley RL, Daling JR. History of circumcision, medical conditions, and sexual activity and risk of penile cancer. J Nat Canc Inst 1993; 85: 19-24

77. Marx JL. Circumcision may protect against the AIDS virus. Science 1989; 245: 470-1

78. McCance DJ, Kalache A, Ashdown K, Andrade L, Menezes F, Smith P, Doll R. Human papillomavirus types 16 and 18 in carcinoma of the penis from Brazil. J Cancer 1986; 37: 55-9

79. McIntosh N. Pain in the newborn, a possible new starting point. Eur J Pediatr 1997; 156: 173-7

80. Medicare Benefits Schedule, Australia, Nov 1995.

81. Medicare Estimates and Statistics Section, Australia, Feb 1994

82. Mohl PC, Adams R, Grier DM, Sheley KA. Prepuce restoration seekers: Psychiatric aspects. Arch Sexual Behav 1981; 10: 383-93

83. Moreno CA, Realini JP. Infant circumcision in an outpatient setting. Texas Med 1989; 85: 37-40

84. Moses S. Association between lack of male circumcsion and risk for HIV infection: Review of the epidemiological evidence. XI International Conference on AIDS, July 1996, Vancouver; http://sis.nlm.nih.gov/aidsabs.html

85. Moses S, Bradley JE, Nagelkerke NJ, Ronald AR, Ndinya Achola JO, Plummer FA. Geographical patterns of male circumcision practices in Africa: association with HIV seroprevalance. Int J Epidemiol 1990; 19: 693-7

86. Moses S, Plummer FA, Bradley JF, Ndinya-Achola JO, Nagelkerke NJ, Ronald AR. The association between lack of male circumcision and risk for HIV infection: a review of the epidemiological data. Sexually Transm Dis 1994; 21: 201-9

87. Narayana AS, Olney LE, Loening SA. Carcinoma of the penis: analysis of 219 cases. Cancer 1982; 49: 2185-91

88. National Center for Health Statistics of the Department of Health and Human Services. 1991-1994

89. New South Wales Cancer Council. Cancer in New South Wales. Incidence and Mortality 1993.

90. Niku SD, Stock JA, Kaplan GW. Neonatal circumcision (review). Urol Clin N Am 1995; 22: 57-65

91. O'Brien TR, Calle EE, Poole WK. Incidence of neonatal circumcision in Atlanta, 1985-1986. Southern Med J 1995; 88: 411-5

92. Ohjimi H, Ogata K, Ohjimi T. A new method for the relief of adult phimosis. J Urol 1995; 153: 1607-9

93. Orden B, Martin R, Franco A, Iba~nez G, Mendez E. Balanitis caused by group A beta-hemolytic streptococci. Pediatr Infect Dis 1996; 15: 920-1

94. Osborne JE: HIV. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Nature Med 1995; 1: 991-3

95. Oster J. Further fate of the foreskin: incidence of preputial adhesions, phimosis and smegma among Danish schoolboys. Arch Dis Child 1968; 43: 200-3

96. Özkan S, Gürpinar T. A serious circumcision complication: Penile shaft amputation and a new reattachment technique with a successful outcome. J Urol 1997; 158: 1946-7

97. Parker SW, Stewart AJ, Wren MN, Gollow MM, Straton JA. Circumcision and sexually transmissible diseases. Med J Aust 1983; 2: 288-90

98. Patel H. The problem of routine infant circumcision. Can Med Assoc J 1966; 95: 576-81

99. Pepin J, Quigby M, Todd J, Gage I, Jenneh M, Van Dyck E, Rot P, Whittle H. Association between HIV-2 infection and genital ulcer disease among male sexually transmitted disease patients in The Gambia. AIDS 1992; 6: 489-93

100. Peters KM, Kass EJ. Electrosurgery for routine pediatric penile procedures. J Urol 1997; 157: 1453-5.

101. Plaut A, Kohn-Speyer AC. The carcinogenic action of smegma. Science 1947; 105: 391-2.

102. Prual A, Chacko S, Koch-Weser D. Sexual behaviour, AIDS and poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa. Int J STD AIDS 1991; 2: 1-9

103. Rabinowitz R, Hullbert W. Newborn circumcision should not be performed without anesthesia. Birth 1995; 22: 45-6

104. Ramet J, Benatar A, Diltoer M, Spapen H, Huyghens L. Neonatal circumcision. Lancet 1997; 349: 1257

105. Read HL. Postectomy. Int J Surg 1915; 28: 168-72

106. Reddy DG, Baruah IK. Carcinogenic action of human smegma. Arch Pathol 1963; 75: 414

107. Roberts JA. Does circumcision prevent urinary tract infections? J Urol 1986; 135: 991-2

108. Ross RK, Paganini-Hill A, Henderson BE. The etiology of prostate cancer: What does the epidemiology suggest? Prostate 1983; 4: 333-44

109. Rushton HG, Majd M. Pyelonephritis in male infants: how important is the foreskin? J Urol 1992; 148: 733-6

110. Russell T. The case for circumcision. Med Observer 1993 (1 Oct issue)

111. Sandeman TF. Carcinoma of the penis. Australasian Radiol 1990; 34: 12-6

112. Schlosberger NM, Turner RA, Irwin CE Jr. Early adolescent knowledge and attitudes about circumcision: methods and implications for research. J Adolescent Hlth 1992; 13: 293-7

113. Schoen EJ. The status of circumcision of newborns. N Engl J Med 1990; 332: 1308-12

114. Schoen EJ. The relationship between circumcision and cancer of the penis. CA Cancer J Clin 1991; 41: 306-9

115. Schoen EJ. Circumcision updated—implicated? Pediatrics 1993; 92: 860-1

116. Schoen EJ. Benefits of newborn circumcision: is Europe ignoring medical evidence? Arch Dis Child 1997; 77: 258-60

117. Schultheiss D, Truss MC, Stief CG, Jonas U. Uncircumcision: a historical review of preputial restoration. Plast Reconst Surg 1998; 101: 1990-8

118. Schwarz GS. Infibulation, population control, and the medical profession. Bull NY Acad Med 1970; 46: 964-80

119. Serour F, Samra Z, Kushel Z, Gorenstein A, Dan M. Comparative periurethral bacteriology of uncircumcised and circumcised males. Genitourin Med 1997; 73: 288-90

120. Shaw KN, Gorelick M, McGowan KL, Yakscoe NM, Schwartz JS. Prevalence of urinary tract infection in febrile young children in the emergency department. Pediatrics 1998; 102: e16

121. Shechet J, Fried SM, Tanenbaum B. Local anesthesia for infants undergoing circumcision. J Am Med Assoc 1998; 279: 1170

122. Simonsen JNM, Cameron DW, Gakinya MN, Ndinya-Achola JO, D'Costa LJ, Karasira P. HIV infection among men with STDs. N Engl J Med 1988; 319: 274-8

123. Smith GL, Greenup R, Takafuji ET. Circumcision as a risk factor for urethritis in racial groups. Am J Publ Health 1987; 77: 452-4

124. Spach DH, Stapleton AE, Stamm WE. Lack of circumcision increases the risk of urinary tract infections in young men. J Am Med Assoc 1992; 267: 679-81

125. Speert H. Obstet Gynecol 1953; 2: 104-

126. Stang HJ, Snellman LW, Condon LM, Conroy MM, Liebo R, Brodersen L, Gunnar MR. Beyond dorsal penile nerve block: A more humane circumcision. Pediatrics 1997; 100: http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/100/2/e3

127. Stang HJ, Snellman LW. Circumcision practice patterns in the United States. Pediatrics 1998; 101: E51-E56

128. Stenram A, Malmfors G, Okmian L. Circumcision for phimosis: a follow-up study. Scand J Urol Nephrol 1986; 20: 89-92

129. Stenram A, Malmfors G, Okmian L. Circumcision for phimosis — indications and results. Acta Paediat Scand 1986; 75: 321-3

130. Stull TL, LiPuma JJ. Epidemiology and natural history of urinary tract infections in children (Review). Med Clin N Am 1991; 75: 287-97

131. Taddio A, Katz J, Herisch AL, Koren G. Effect of neonatal circumcision on pain response during subsequent routine vaccination. Lancet 1997; 349: 599-603

132. Taddio A, Stevens B, Craig K, Rastogi P, Bendavid S, Shennan A, Mulligan P, Koren G. Efficacy and safety of lidocaine-prilocaine cream for pain during circumcision. N Engl J Med 1997; 336: 1197-1201

133. Taylor PK, Rodin P. Herpes genitalis and circumcision. Br J Ven Dis 1975; 51: 274-7

134. Thompson HC, King LR, Knox E. Report of the ad hoc Task Force of Circumcision. Pediatrics 1975; 56: 610-1

135. Toffler W, Sinclair A, White K. Dorsal penile nerve block during newborn circumcision: under-utilization of a proven technique? J Am Board Fam Pract 1990; 3: 171-4

136. Urassa M, Todd J, Boerma JT, Hayes R, Islingo R. Male circumcision and susceptibility to HIV infection among men in Tanzania. AIDS 1997; 11: 73-80

<!--137. Van Howe RS. Circumcision and infectious diseases revisited. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1998; 17: 1-6 -->

137. Deleted.

138. Vohra S, Badlani G. Balanitis and balanoposthitis. Urol Clin North Am 1992; 19: 143-7

139. Walboomers JMM, Meijer CJL. Do HPV-negative cervical carcinomas exist?

Back to the Intactivism index page.