I found this super interesting.
I thought the definite trend was going against male circumcision all the around, with some states even threatening to ban the procedure altogether. The American Association of Pediatrics used to say it wasn't beneficial enough to do, but now the AAP is saying the benefits outweigh the risks.
from a medical standpoint, circumcision?s benefits in reducing risk of disease outweigh its small risks, said Dr. Freedman, a pediatric urologist in Los Angeles.
Recent research bolstering evidence that circumcision reduces chances of infection with HIV and other sexually spread diseases, urinary tract infections and penis cancer influenced the academy to update its 13-year-old policy.
Its old stance said potential medical benefits were not sufficient to warrant recommending routinely circumcising newborn boys. The new one says, ?The benefits of newborn male circumcision justify access to this procedure for those families who choose it.? The academy also says pain relief stronger than a sugar-coated pacifier is essential, usually an injection to numb the area.
Read more: Pediatricians: Benefits of circumcision outweigh risks - Washington Times
Is there a debunking to this? Do we agree?