Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Viewpoint
  • Published:

Is neonatal circumcision clinically beneficial? Argument in favor

Nature Clinical Practice Urology volume 6, pages 16–17 (2009)Cite this article

The practice of circumcision has been recorded throughout history, and may be the oldest planned surgical procedure in civilization, dating back to 2200 BC. Despite the historical significance of circumcision, the procedure has been a perpetual source of controversy. Today there are many influences that shape people's decision to opt for circumcision. In the US, there is a desire to conform to what most of the population already do. Additionally, cultural influences and religious preferences can dictate the practice of circumcision. Physicians, however, may deny circumcision to people who seek this procedure. Given these divisive viewpoints, should circumcision be banned, or should the procedure be allowed when requested?

To answer these questions, we should assess the risk–benefit analysis of the procedure. An abundance of data and emerging evidence supports the public health benefits associated with circumcision. These benefits include reduced risks of genital cancer, urinary tract infection (UTI) and sexually transmitted infections in men and their female partners. Other issues, such as sexual function and adverse events, can also be considered.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Schoen EJ (1991) The relationship between circumcision and cancer of the penis. CA Cancer J Clin 41: 306–309

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Tsen HF et al. (2001) Risk factors for penile cancer: results of a population-based case–control study in Los Angeles County (United States). Cancer Causes Control 12: 267–677

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Castellsagué X et al. (2002) Male circumcision, penile human papillomavirus infection, and cervical cancer in female partners. N Engl J Med 346: 1105–1112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Fussell EN et al. (1988) Adherence of bacteria to human foreskins. J Urol 140: 997–1001

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Wiswell TE et al. (1988) Effect of circumcision status on periurethral bacterial flora during the first year of life. J Pediatr 113: 442–446

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Wiswell TE and Hachey WE (1993) Urinary tract infections and the uncircumcised state: an update. Clin Pediatr (Phila) 32: 130–134

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Zorc JJ et al. (2005) Clinical and demographic factors associated with urinary tract infection in young febrile infants. Pediatrics 116: 644–648

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Schoen EJ et al. (2000) Newborn circumcision decreases incidence and costs of urinary tract infections during the first year of life. Pediatrics 105: 789–793

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Weiss HA et al. (2006) Male circumcision and risk of syphilis, chancroid, and genital herpes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sex Transm Infect 82: 101–109

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Auvert B et al. (2005) Randomized, controlled intervention trial of male circumcision for reduction of HIV infection risk: the ANRS 1265 Trial. PLoS Med 2: e298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bailey RC et al. (2007) Male circumcision for HIV prevention in young men in Kisumu, Kenya: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 369: 643–656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gray RH et al. (2007) Male circumcision for HIV prevention in men in Rakai, Uganda: a randomised trial. Lancet 369: 657–666

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kigozi G et al. (2008) The effect of male circumcision on sexual satisfaction and function, results from a randomized trial of male circumcision for human immunodeficiency virus prevention, Rakai, Uganda. BJU Int 101: 65–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Brady-Fryer B et al. Pain relief for neonatal circumcision. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2004, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD004217. 10.1002/14651858.CD004217.pub2

    Google Scholar 

  15. American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) Circumcision policy statement. American Academy of Pediatrics. Task Force on Circumcision. Pediatrics 103: 686–693

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Pediatric Urology, 4990 Children's Place, Suite 1120, Campus Box 8242, St Louis, MO 63110, USA austinp@wustl.edu

Authors and Affiliations

  1. PF Austin is Associate Professor and Director of Pediatric Urology Research in the Division of Urology, Department of Surgery at St Louis Children's Hospital, and Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA.,

    Paul F Austin

Authors
  1. Paul F Austin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Austin, P. Is neonatal circumcision clinically beneficial? Argument in favor. Nat Rev Urol 6, 16–17 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpuro1275

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpuro1275

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing