Should Circumcision Be Offered Like Vaccines? That's What A New Study Is Saying!

Circumcision is a controversial subject these days.
Some argue it’s an outdated religious practice that poses no benefits, and causes an infant, who has no choice in the matter, some extreme pain.
However a new research study conducted by Professor Brian Morris claims that the benefits outnumber the risks 100 to 1, and has proposed that infant circumcision be “regarded as equivalent to childhood vaccination”, and offered to parents in the same manner that vaccinations are.
Circumcision rates for U.S. infants were once as high as 83% in the 60’s. Nowadays that number has fallen to 77%.
Here’s what Professor Brian Morris says is the reason for that drop. He said:

├óΓé¼┼ôThere seemed to be two major reasons for the fall. One is a result of demographic changes, with the rise in the Hispanic population. Hispanic families tend to be less familiar with the custom, making them less likely to circumcise their baby boys. The other is the current absence of Medicaid coverage for the poor in 18 U.S. states. In those states, circumcision is 24 per cent lower. The new findings now show that infant circumcision should be regarded as equivalent to childhood vaccination and that as such it would be unethical not to routinely offer parents circumcision for their baby boy. Delay puts the child’s health at risk and will usually mean it will never happen.├óΓé¼┬¥

The strongest case for a circumcision, according to Professor Morris, is the way it protects against urinary tract infections which affects one in three males with an uncircumcised penis. Professor Morris also claims that there isn’t an “adverse effect of circumcision on sexual function, sensitivity, or pleasure”.
Here’s what he said:

“Taken together, the new findings should send a strong message to medical practitioners, professional bodies, educators, policy makers, governments, and insurers to promote this safe, simple procedure, best done in infancy under local anaesthesia and to increase access and third party coverage, especially for poor families, who tend to suffer most from foreskin-related diseases. Infant circumcision has, moreover, been shown to be cost saving.”

We definitely are intrigued by this study, but we kind of wish there was even more research on this controversial topic, so we can compare more to their findings!
Although we do admit this study, published in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings, makes a pretty convincing case for its proposal!
[poll=60557]