Dr. Mercola April 09 2000 1,391 views
Renewing the debate over whether routine circumcision of male infants is warranted, doctors reported that the procedure appears to protect against urinary tract infections during the first year of life. A study of thousands of males born in 1996 and 1997 found a nine-fold decrease in urinary tract infections among those who had been circumcised compared to those who were not.
In addition they said the circumcised group had a markedly lower rate of admission to hospitals for treatment of the disorder. Urinary tract infections in infancy can lead to high blood pressure and other problems such as kidney damage or chronic kidney failure.
Pediatrics April 2000
The report was published Pediatrics, the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, a group which went on record a year ago as saying that there was no compelling medical reason to recommend circumcision. The practice has been the subject of disagreement in the medical community.
Proponents say there is evidence that circumcision helps prevent penile cancer and perhaps even transmission of the virus that causes AIDS. My personal impression is based on the Old Testament and I suspect that there it is highly likely there is some benefit from this procedure. I met a doctor once who wrote an entire book on the subject of the biblical and medical evidence supporting this procedure. I read the book and was quite impressed with the evidence supporting circumcision. Unfortunately, the book is unavailable to me now.
Additional information can be reviewed at www.circumcision.org.
This article is from the year 2000. The link on the page goes to a site that makes it sound like circumcision is not a good thing for males. Hopefully the Mercola site will have an updated article going into more details from both sides of the issue sometime in this year of 2009.
A minor catch: the foreskin contains virtually the entire erogenous flesh of the penis.
www.math.missouri.edu/.../primer.html