In reply--Bias and male circumcision

Comments by opponents on the British Medical Association's guidance on non-therapeutic male circumcision of children seem one-sided and may undermine public health

The British Medical Association (BMA) guidance on non-therapeutic circumcision (NTMC) of male children is limited to ethical, legal and religious issues. Here we evaluate criticisms of the BMA's guidance by Lempert et al. While their arguments promoting autonomy and consent might be superficially appealing, their claim of high procedural risks and negligible benefits seem one-sided and contrast with high quality evidence of low risk and lifelong benefits. Extensive literature reviews by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in developing evidence-based policies, as well as risk-benefit analyses, have found that the medical benefits of infant NTMC greatly exceed the risks, and there is no reduction in sexual function and pleasure. The BMA's failure to consider the medical benefits of early childhood NTMC may partly explain why this prophylactic intervention is discouraged in the United Kingdom. The consequence is higher prevalence of preventable infections, adverse medical conditions, suffering and net costs to the UK's National Health Service for treatment of these. Many of the issues and contradictions in the BMA guidance identified by Lempert et al stem from the BMA's guidance not being sufficiently evidence-based. Indeed, that document called for a review by others of the medical issues surrounding NTMC. While societal factors apply, ultimately, NTMC can only be justified rationally on scientific, evidence-based grounds. Parents are entitled to an accurate presentation of the medical evidence so that they can make an informed decision. Their decision either for or against NTMC should then be respected.

Critical evaluation of arguments opposing male circumcision: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically evaluate evidence against male circumcision (MC).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE and Cochrane databases.

RESULTS

Database searches retrieved 297 publications for inclusion. Bibliographies of these yielded 101 more. After evaluation we found: Claims that MC carries high risk were contradicted by low frequency of adverse events that were virtually all minor and easily treated with complete resolution. Claims that MC causes psychological harm were contradicted by studies finding no such harm. Claims that MC impairs sexual function and pleasure were contradicted by high-quality studies finding no adverse effect. Claims disputing the medical benefits of MC were contradicted by a large body of high-quality evidence indicating protection against a wide range of infections, dermatological conditions, and genital cancers in males and the female sexual partners of men. Risk-benefit analyses reported that benefits exceed risks by 100-200 to 1. To maximize benefits and minimize risks, the evidence supported early infant MC rather than arguments that the procedure should be delayed until males are old enough to decide for themselves. Claims that MC of minors is unethical were contradicted by balanced evaluations of ethical issues supporting the rights of children to be provided with low-risk, high-benefit interventions such as MC for better health. Expert evaluations of case-law supported the legality of MC of minors. Other data demonstrated that early infant MC is cost-saving to health systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Arguments opposing MC are supported mostly by low-quality evidence and opinion, and are contradicted by strong scientific evidence.

CDC's Male Circumcision Recommendations Represent a Key Public Health Measure

Frisch and Earp, opponents of male circumcision, have criticized draft recommendations from the CDC that advocate counseling men and parents of newborn boys in the United States about the benefits and risks of male circumcision. We provide a rebuttal to Frisch and Earp's criticisms and contend that the recommendations are entirely appropriate and merit consideration for policy development.