Current Circumcision Trends and Guidelines
Most consensus statements are made after clear consideration of the evidence at hand tempered by local politics. Routine circumcision was the norm in Great Britain, Canada, and the USA until after the Second World War. The early promoters of routine circumcision reflected the state of medicine in the late nineteenth century and were primarily influenced by anecdotal case reports, often of dubious nature. The reports of neonatal deaths from circumcision and the advent of the National Health Service before the end of the 1940s led Great Britain to abandon coverage for routine circumcision. It was more than 20 years later that Canada and Australia followed suit. The United States, for various reasons, took a different path, and following the First World War promoted routine circumcision, with an even stronger position following the Second World War. In 1999, to address the growing question as to the validity of routine circumcision, the AAP issued a policy statement that took the middle of the road, rather than polarized for or against. This policy has been revisited and revised based on new data as it accrues and last reaffirmed in 2005. That is, circumcision confers some medical benefit but not enough to call for its routine application.
KeywordsMale Circumcision Female Genital Mutilation Penile Cancer British Medical Association Male Minor
- 3.American Academy of Family Physicians. Circumcision: position paper on Neonatal Circumcision. 2007. http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/clinical/clinicalrecs/children/circumcision.html. Reaffirmed Aug 2007.
- 4.American Urological Associate. Policy statements: circumcision. 2007. http://www.auanet.org/content/guidelines-and-quality-care/policy-statements/c/circumcision.cfm. Revised May 2007.
- 5.Canadian Paediatric Society. Neonatal circumcision revisited. CMAJ. 1996;154(6):769–80.Google Scholar
- 6.The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia. Resource manual: circumcision (Infant Male). 2009. Updated Sept 2009.Google Scholar
- 7.The Australian College of Paediatrics. Position statement: routine circumcision of normal male infants and boys. Parkville: Australian College of Paediatrics; 1996.Google Scholar
- 8.The Royal Australasian College of Physicians. Circumcision of infant males. Sydney: Royal Australasian College of Physicians; 2010.Google Scholar
- 9.British Medical Association, Department of Medical Ethics. The law and ethics of male circumcision: guidance for doctors. London: British Medical Association; 2006.Google Scholar
- 10.Parliament of the United Kingdom, Human Rights Act. 1998. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents.
- 11.Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG). Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors. Utrecht: Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG); 2010.Google Scholar
- 12.World Health Organization. Global health sector strategy on HIV/AIDS 2011–2015. 2011.Google Scholar
- 13.Would Health Organization (WHO) and Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS). WHO and UNAIDS announce recommendations from expert consultation on male circumcision for HIV prevention. 2007.Google Scholar
- 14.World Health Organization and Jhpiego Corporation. Manual for early infant male circumcision under local anaesthesia. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010.Google Scholar
- 15.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Male circumcision and risk for HIV transmission and other health conditions: implications for the United States. 2008. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm. Feb 2008.
- 16.Public Health Agency of Canada. What mothers say: the Canadian maternity experiences survey. Ottawa: Public Health Agency of Canada; 2009.Google Scholar