Parent-elective circumcision of offspring is ethically unacceptable

Benefits:Due to space I’ll focus on 2: HIV:About 50,000 Americans are newly infected with HIV each year http://www.cdc.gov...The AAP technical report on circumcision cites 14 studies which found evidence that circumcision is protective against HIV.Circumcision Reduces Risk of AIDS Virus Infection http://report.nih.gov...http://www.cdc.gov...The World Health Organization/Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS - The specialized agency of the United Nations (UN) that is concerned with international public health - describes the efficacy of circumcision as "proved beyond reasonable doubt".http://www.who.int...Male circumcision significantly reduced the incidence of HIV in three clinical trials.http://www.nejm.org...3 randomized trials have evaluated male circumcision for prevention of sexually transmitted infections. The trials found that circumcision decreases HIV acquisition by 53% to 60%.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...http://www.jhsph.edu...Cancer:The risk of cancer of the penis in an uncircumcised man is one in 600 in the U.S. http://www.medicinenet.com...http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...The most recent American Cancer Society estimates for penile cancer in the United States are for 2012:About 1,570 new cases of penile cancer will be diagnosedAbout 310 men will die of penile cancerhttp://www.cancer.org...Note regarding the following statistics, that a large majority of Americans are circumcised. (About 80% - http://en.wikipedia.org...)"In five major studies in the USA, starting in 1932 [13], not one man with invasive penile cancer had been circumcised neonatal [3]. Another report noted 50,000 cases of penile cancer in the USA from 1930 to 1990, resulting in 10,000 deaths [14]. Only 10 of the cases occurred in circumcised men, but all of these men had been circumcised later in life. Penile cancer is in fact so rare in a man circumcised in infancy, that when it does occur it can be the subject of a published case report [15]. The finite residual risk is greater in those circumcised after the newborn period but is still less than for men who are not circumcised [16]."http://www.hindawi.com...The Point Is - CIRCUMCISION CAN & DOES SAVE LIVES. Risk:"The generally accepted rate of complications is between 0.2% and 0.6% of operations.[1,65- 66] The most common complications are bleeding and local infection.[65- 66] The bleeding, which is usually a slight oozing, is most often controlled with pressure, and the infection is treated with wound care or antibiotics.[67] While other complications such as phimosis and concealed penis, adhesion's, fistula, meatitis, metal stenosis, and injury to the glans may occur,[68] they are extremely rare.[1,65- 67]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...-"Complication rates depend on a # of factors such as competency, equipment, & age of patient. (In non-infants the rates are greater).In large studies of infant circumcision in the United States, reported inpatient complication rates are approximately 0.2% [1, 40, 41]. The most common complications are bleeding and infection, which are usually minor and easily managed [1, 40-43]. A recent meta-analysis of 16 prospective studies from diverse settings worldwide that evaluated complications following neonatal, infant, and child male circumcision found that median frequency of severe adverse events was 0% (range, 0%-2%). The median frequency of any complication was 1.5% (range, 0%-16%). Male circumcision by medical providers on children tended to be associated with more complications (median frequency, 6%; range, 2%-14%) than for neonates and infants [44].In the three African trials of adult circumcision, complication rates for adult male circumcision ranged from 2% to 8%. The most commonly reported complications were pain, bleeding, infection, and unsatisfactory appearance. There were no reported deaths or long-term sequelae documented [16, 17, 18, 45, 46]."http://www.cdc.gov...http://www.circinfo.net...;- see chart pg. 1148Pain:Local Anastasia - No Pain, No Risk.Pleasure:"In addition, particularly in the past 3 to 4 years, objective studies comparing sensitivity and sexual pleasure in circumcised versus uncircumcised men and evaluating measures of sexual pleasure before and after adult circumcision [35–38] have concluded that no clinically significant difference exists between the circumcised and uncircumcised states. This result should come as no surprise in view of the complex psychological, neurologic, chemical, hormonal, and circulatory cascade involved in sexual activity." http://www.pediatricsdigest.mobi..."Several studies conducted among men after adult circumcision suggest that few men report their sexual functioning is worse after circumcision; most report either improvement or no change [49-52]. The three African trials found high levels of satisfaction among the men after circumcision [16,17, 18, 46]." http://www.cdc.gov..."A recent controlled study published in the January issue of BJU International, the British Journal of Urology, looked at nearly 4,500 Ugandan men, ages 15 to 49, who were all sexually experienced. Researchers randomly selected half to undergo circumcision, and half to have a circumcision in 24 months. They compared the two groups at six, 12 and 24 months to measure sexual satisfaction and performance.The circumcised group's rate of sexual satisfaction remained constant, with 98.5% reporting sexual satisfaction before circumcision, and 98.4% reporting so two years after the procedure."http://articles.latimes.com...This link lists over 10 supporting quotations:http://dbp.idebate.org...-----------------------------------------------The take away - The potential benefits out way potential risks. - As the APA concluded.These Potential benefits include life.Parents should have a right to reduce the risk of their child dieing.It is certainly not unethical to do something where the benefits out way the risk, & those benefits include life.--------------------------------------------------Medical professionals, especially those engaged in setting policy such as bioethicists, must take as their starting point the fact that reasonable people will disagree about what is valuable and what is harmful. They have an obligation to construct institutional norms and policies that do not presuppose or enforce a particular moral or political doctrine. There is a need to differentiate between rituals and practices that are in fact grievously harmful and those which relate to the enhancement of a child’s religious and cultural identity.In summary, the case against allowing parents to choose whether circumcision is or is not in their son’s interest has not been conclusively made. In our pluralistic society, there will be marked diversity between reasonable conceptions of the good concerning what interventions are valuable or promote a child’s welfare. Even in contexts when such interventions are medical in nature, the potential benefits or risks associated with the child’s welfare concerns will often involve medical, social, and cultural factors. As it presently stands, there is an absence of sufficient evidence or persuasive argumentation to warrant changing the current policy—that parents should have the freedom to make an informed and well deliberated choice as to what's best for their child. http://jme.bmj.com...