Well played. :D
Some may claim to show medical benefits, and in many cases they can be disproved (sometimes not so easily), but that is generally irrelevant. To be considered a valid benefit (even if true) something like HIV risk reduction would have to benefit the infant (who is not having unprotected sex of course) and something would also have to be unobtainable by less-destructive means (but of course sex with a condom is equally safe with and without foreskin). Proxy consent for any medical intervention is ethical only if waiting for the patient's own rational informed consent would lead to harm, and when less-destructive options are exhausted. Infant circumcision fails this test decidedly due to lack of benefits, risks of unintended harm, and 100% certain losses of normal sexual functions.
I'm so sad today. A friend just had a baby boy, and after one of the hardest pregnancies I've ever heard of, and an insane delivery, her tiny sweet baby boy (who is low birth weight and though full term, closer to "preterm" in size/development) was whisked off for his circumcision today. After all she's been through, I know saying anything now is a day late, a dollar short and won't be received well (and we're not close enough friends anyway). But I'm just so sad thinking about it I had to say something, somewhere. I've always felt strongly about this, but having a son of my own has made me feel so fiercely protective of all babies for some reason, and I just wish I could reverse time and stop the whole thing from happening. le sigh.
One of the reasons that the myth of benefits to RIC developed is that so many physicians have felt entitled to say anything they darned well please! I just came upon a 22 year old article I had in my file, published by a newspaper in Vancouver, BC. A Dr. TRevor Watson claims many benefits to RIC, including preventing every sexually transmitted disease there is (all more common in circumcised North Americans,than intact Europeans), reducing the number of UTIs 15-fold and, the craziest of all, that"uncircumcised" men are FIVE THOUSAND times as likely to get cancer of the penis, as circumcised men! What, in Heaven's name, makes these people feel entitled to say such outlandish things?!I haven't looked at the article in 20 years and can't find it,now, but there was one that was considered to be the definitive study on the effects of circumcision on cancer of the penis for much of the late 20th century. It claimed that the rate was 1 in 400 in intact men, and virtually nil in circumcised men. I always read what methods were used in any study and could barely believe my eyes, when I realized that the thousands of medical records they used, which went back several decades, did not include information about circumcision status. They just ASSUMED that every penile cancer patient was intact,and called that scientific! We have liars, deceivers, and publicity hounds going around convincing people to do something to their babies that would be considered cruel, inhuman, and criminal, if done to anyone else. Add to that many other docs who are like sheep, doing it because the others do, not because they have spent a single minute considering it, intelligently. It's beyond shameful.