The 2010 Royal Australasian College of Physicians' policy statement Circumcision of infant males' is not evidence based

School of Medical Sciences and Bosch Institute, The University of Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Internal Medicine Journal (Impact Factor: 1.7). 07/2012; 42(7):822-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1445-5994.2012.02823.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Infant male circumcision (MC) is an important issue guided by Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) policy. Here we analytically review the RACP's 2010 policy statement 'Circumcision of infant males'. Comprehensive evaluation in the context of published research was used. We find that the Statement is not a fair and balanced representation of the literature on MC. It ignores, downplays, obfuscates or misrepresents the considerable evidence attesting to the strong protection MC affords against childhood urinary tract infections, sexually transmitted infections (human immunodeficiency virus, human papilloma virus, herpes simplex virus type 2, trichomonas and genital ulcer disease), thrush, inferior penile hygiene, phimosis, balanoposthitis and penile cancer, and in women protection against human papilloma virus, herpes simplex virus type 2, bacterial vaginosis and cervical cancer. The Statement exaggerates the complication rate. Assertions that 'the foreskin has a functional role' and 'is a primary sensory part of the penis' are not supported by research, including randomised controlled trials. Instead of citing these and meta-analyses, the Statement selectively cites poor quality studies. Its claim, without support from a literature-based risk-benefit analysis, that the currently available evidence does 'not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand' is misleading. The Statement fails to explain that performing MC in the neonatal period using local anaesthesia maximises benefits, safety, convenience and cost savings. Because the RACP's policy statement is not a fair and balanced representation of the current literature, it should not be used to guide policy. In the interests of public health and individual well-being, an extensive, comprehensive, balanced review of the scientific literature and a risk-benefit analysis should be conducted to formulate policy.

  • Source
    11/2014; 8(11-12):396-7. DOI:10.5489/cuaj.2490
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The claim that circumcision reduces the risk of sexually transmitted infections has been repeated so frequently that many believe it is true. A systematic review and meta-analyses were performed on studies of genital discharge syndrome versus genital ulcerative disease, genital discharge syndrome, nonspecific urethritis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, genital ulcerative disease, chancroid, syphilis, herpes simplex virus, human papillomavirus, and contracting a sexually transmitted infection of any type. Chlamydia, gonorrhea, genital herpes, and human papillomavirus are not significantly impacted by circumcision. Syphilis showed mixed results with studies of prevalence suggesting intact men were at great risk and studies of incidence suggesting the opposite. Intact men appear to be of greater risk for genital ulcerative disease while at lower risk for genital discharge syndrome, nonspecific urethritis, genital warts, and the overall risk of any sexually transmitted infection. In studies of general populations, there is no clear or consistent positive impact of circumcision on the risk of individual sexually transmitted infections. Consequently, the prevention of sexually transmitted infections cannot rationally be interpreted as a benefit of circumcision, and any policy of circumcision for the general population to prevent sexually transmitted infections is not supported by the evidence in the medical literature.
    01/2013; 2013:109846. DOI:10.1155/2013/109846
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recent attempts in the USA and Europe to ban the circumcision of male children have been unsuccessful. Of current concern is a report by the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute (TLRI) recommending that non-therapeutic circumcision be prohibited, with parents and doctors risking criminal sanctions except where the parents have strong religious and ethnic ties to circumcision. The acceptance of this recommendation would create a precedent for legislation elsewhere in the world, thereby posing a threat to pediatric practice, parental responsibilities and freedoms, and public health. The TLRI report ignores the scientific consensus within medical literature about circumcision. It contains legal and ethical arguments that are seriously flawed. Dispassionate ethical arguments and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child are consistent with parents being permitted to authorize circumcision for their male child. Uncritical acceptance of the TLRI report's recommendations would strengthen and legitimize efforts to ban childhood male circumcision not just in Australia, but in other countries as well. The medical profession should be concerned about any attempt to criminalize a well-accepted and evidence-based medical procedure. The recommendations are illogical, pose potential dangers and seem unworkable in practice. There is no explanation of how the State could impose criminal charges against doctors and parents, nor of how such a punitive apparatus could be structured, nor how strength of ethnic or religious ties could be determined. The proposal could easily be used inappropriately, and discriminates against parents not tied to the religions specified. With time, religious exemptions could subsequently be overturned. The law, governments and the medical profession should reject the TLRI recommendations, especially since the recent affirmative infant male circumcision policy statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics attests to the significant individual and public health benefits and low risk of infant male circumcision. Doctors should be allowed to perform medical procedures based on sound evidence of effectiveness and safety with guaranteed protection. Parents should be free to act in the best interests of the health of their infant son by having him circumcised should they choose.
    BMC Pediatrics 09/2013; 13(1):136. DOI:10.1186/1471-2431-13-136 · 1.92 Impact Factor


Available from
May 29, 2014