That may or may not be true. A recent review of studies in BMC Pediatrics concludes:
"An immediate medical benefit is the greatly reduced risk of a urinary tract infection (UTI), which is higher in infancy than any other year of life, and 10 times greater if the infant male is uncircumcised [21-26]. UTIs are common in uncircumcised infant boys [22-26] and cause severe pain. UTI as a cause of a fever at this age is often undiagnosed [27,28]. Bacteriuria in febrile boys presenting at hospital emergency departments occurs in 36% of uncircumcised boys, pointing to a UTI as the likely cause of fever, compared with only 1.6% of boys who are circumcised [29]. Antibiotic resistance in pathogenic bacteria under the foreskin is a growing problem [30]. The younger the infant, the more likely and severe the UTI will be, and the greater the risk of sepsis and death [31]. In the still-growing pediatric kidney [26,32] a UTI can result in permanent kidney damage in 34-86% of cases [33,34], thus exposing the boy to serious, life-threatening conditions later in life [26], including end-stage renal disease in 10% of cases [35]. In men, risk of UTI is over 5-fold higher if they are uncircumcised [36]. Thus infant MC offers protection against UTI over the lifetime."
When coupled with the higher complication rate of adult circumcision (even if much of it can be explained as minor) and the ever present risk associated with general anesthesia used in the procedure, there is indeed sufficient medical support for infant circumcision.
However, I agree with Little that one can overuse or over-critique studies. In the final analysis, as the AAP concludes: the final decision should still be left to parents to make in the context of their religious, ethical and cultural beliefs.
"An immediate medical benefit is the greatly reduced risk of a urinary tract infection (UTI), which is higher in infancy than any other year of life, and 10 times greater if the infant male is uncircumcised [21-26]. UTIs are common in uncircumcised infant boys [22-26] and cause severe pain. UTI as a cause of a fever at this age is often undiagnosed [27,28]. Bacteriuria in febrile boys presenting at hospital emergency departments occurs in 36% of uncircumcised boys, pointing to a UTI as the likely cause of fever, compared with only 1.6% of boys who are circumcised [29]. Antibiotic resistance in pathogenic bacteria under the foreskin is a growing problem [30]. The younger the infant, the more likely and severe the UTI will be, and the greater the risk of sepsis and death [31]. In the still-growing pediatric kidney [26,32] a UTI can result in permanent kidney damage in 34-86% of cases [33,34], thus exposing the boy to serious, life-threatening conditions later in life [26], including end-stage renal disease in 10% of cases [35]. In men, risk of UTI is over 5-fold higher if they are uncircumcised [36]. Thus infant MC offers protection against UTI over the lifetime."
When coupled with the higher complication rate of adult circumcision (even if much of it can be explained as minor) and the ever present risk associated with general anesthesia used in the procedure, there is indeed sufficient medical support for infant circumcision.
However, I agree with Little that one can overuse or over-critique studies. In the final analysis, as the AAP concludes: the final decision should still be left to parents to make in the context of their religious, ethical and cultural beliefs.
Thanks Effy
Get The Newsletter
Comment