Circumcision rates in the United States: rising or falling? What effect might the new affirmative pediatric policy statement have?
The objective of this review was to assess the trend in the US male circumcision rate and the impact that the affirmative 2012 American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement might have on neonatal circumcision practice. We searched PubMed for the term circumcision to retrieve relevant articles. This review was prompted by a recent report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that found a slight increase, from 79% to 81%, in the prevalence of circumcision in males aged 14 to 59 years during the past decade. There were racial and ethnic disparities, with prevalence rising to 91% in white, 76% in black, and 44% in Hispanic males. Because data on neonatal circumcision are equivocal, we undertook a critical analysis of hospital discharge data. After correction for underreporting, we found that the percentage had declined from 83% in the 1960s to 77% by 2010. A risk-benefit analysis of conditions that neonatal circumcision protects against revealed that benefits exceed risks by at least 100 to 1 and that over their lifetime, half of uncircumcised males will require treatment for a medical condition associated with retention of the foreskin. Other analyses show that neonatal male circumcision is cost-effective for disease prevention. The benefits of circumcision begin in the neonatal period by protection against infections that can damage the pediatric kidney. Given the substantial risk of adverse conditions and disease, some argue that failure to circumcise a baby boy may be unethical because it diminishes his right to good health. There is no long-term adverse effect of neonatal circumcision on sexual function or pleasure. The affirmative 2012 American Academy of Pediatrics policy supports parental education about, access to, and insurance and Medicaid coverage for elective infant circumcision. As with vaccination, circumcision of newborn boys should be part of public health policies. Campaigns should prioritize population subgroups with lower circumcision prevalence and a higher burden of diseases that can be ameliorated by circumcision.
School of Medical Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. Electronic address: brian.morris@sydney.edu.au.
Brian J
BJ
Morris
People Incorporated, St Paul, MN.
Stefan A
SA
Bailis
Center for Neonatal Care, Orlando, FL.
Thomas E
TE
Wiswell
D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D017677:Age Distribution; D001291:Attitude of Health Personnel; D002944:Circumcision, Male / Q000191:economics / Q000208:ethnology / Q000592:standards / Q000639:trends*; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D017408:Guidelines as Topic; D006291:Health Policy; D006801:Humans; D007231:Infant, Newborn; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009749:Nutrition Surveys / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D010351:Patient Discharge / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D010372:Pediatrics / Q000592:standards* / Q000639:trends; D011322:Primary Prevention / Q000191:economics / Q000379:methods; D039781:PubMed; D018570:Risk Assessment; D012955:Societies, Medical / Q000592:standards / Q000639:trends; D014481:United States; D055815:Young Adult