This article sparked a lively controversy about the relationship between the foreskin and urinary tract infections in infant boys. The controversy must now be examined in the context of the long- running dispute about the benefits and risks of circumcision. This dispute has been characterized by significant discrepancies in the statistics to support various points of view. Finally, results of studies linking circumcision to sexual transmitted disease have varied widely. This welter of confusing statistics is not at all surprising.
Uncontrolled variables are a major stumbling block in determining infection rates.
In my study of urinary tract infection, the circumcised population was predominantly white, while the uncircumcised population was predominantly Asian and Latino. If the object of the study had been sexually transmitted disease, the cultural differences would have completely invalidated the data. The typical infantile foreskin is a long, narrow and unretractable nozzle of tissue. As a practical matter, the presence of the infantile prepuce precludes the diagnosis of meatitis - if you can't see the meatus, you can't diagnose meatitis. The rate of circumcision after the neonatal period depends on whether physicians and patients view the foreskin as dispensable.