Medical Association Position Statements

No national medical organization in the world recommends routine circumcision of male infants.

 

2004 College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, Infant Male Circumcision: “Current understanding of the benefits, risks and potential harm of this procedure no longer supports this practice for prophylactic health benefit.  Routine infant male circumcision performed on a healthy infant is now considered a non-therapeutic and medically unnecessary intervention.”

2003 British Medical Association, The Law and Ethics of Male Circumcision: Guidance for Doctors:  “The medical benefits previously claimed have not been convincingly proven…  The British Medical Association considers that the evidence concerning health benefits from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it.”

2002 Royal Australian College of Physicians, Policy Statement on Circumcision:

“There is no medical indication for routine male circumcision.”

2002 American Academy of Family Physicians, Position Paper on Neonatal Circumcision:  “Evidence from the literature is often conflicting or inconclusive… A physician performing a procedure for other than medical reasons on a nonconsenting patient raises ethical concerns.”

2000 American Medical Association (AMA), Report 10 of the Council on Scientific Affairs:  “Virtually all current policy statements from specialty societies and medical organizations do not recommend routine infant circumcision…The AMA supports the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics.”

1999 American Academy of Pediatrics, Circumcision Policy Statement: “Existing scientific evidence … [is] not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.”

1996 Canadian Paediatric Society, Neonatal Circumcision Revisited“Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed.”

 

1996 Australian Medical Association, Circumcision Deterred “The Australian College of Paediatrics should continue to discourage the practice of circumcision in newborns.”

 

1996 British Medical Association, Circumcision of Male Infants:  Guidance for Doctors:  “To circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate.”

 

1996 Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons, Guidelines for Circumcision:  “The Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons does not support the routine circumcision of male neonates, infants, or children in Australia.  It is considered to be inappropriate and unnecessary as a routine to remove the prepuce [foreskin], based on the current evidence available…  We do not support the removal of a normal part of the body, unless there are definite indications to justify the complications and risks which may arise.  In particular, we are opposed to male children being subjected to a procedure, which had they been old enough to consider the advantages and disadvantages, may well have opted to reject the operation and retain their prepuce.”