A review in [s]Mayo Clinic Proceedings[/s] claims the health benefits of circumcision exceed any risks by at least 100 to 1, reports [s]The Daily Beast[/s]. Outspoken lead author, Brian Morris, Professor Emeritus at [b]The University of Sydney, Australia[/b], hopes this new data will silence the debate 'once and for all'. It's Morris' provocative position that infant circumcision contributes to public health in the same way that vaccines do, and should be equivalent to childhood vaccinations. As such, he says, it's unethical for doctors not to routinely offer it to parents. However, while many doctors, along with the [b]American Academy of Paediatrics[/b] (AAP), agree that benefits outweigh risks, they believe the decision is ultimately the parents' to make. Morris likens the circumcision debate to the one raging over vaccines. 'The anti-circers and the anti-vaxers are very similar, and often the same people,' he said. But he acknowledges parental choice, and hopes that this risk benefit analysis along with the AAP's affirmative policy statement will have a positive effect on future rates.
[link url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/02/new-journal-argues-circumcisions-should-be-mandatory.html?utm_source=nextdraft&utm_medium=email]Full report in The Daily Beast[/link]
[link url=http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/webfiles/images/journals/jmcp/jmcp_ft89_4_1.pdf]MCP full article[/link]