THE benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks by 100 to 1 and it should be seen in the same way as childhood vaccination, argues a university academic hailing from Adelaide.

The controversial claim by Sydney University Emeritus Professor Brian Morris — to be published in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings — argues circumcision lowers the risk of urinary tract infections in infants and the transmission of a variety of sexually transmitted infections in adulthood.

The paper also states that studies show circumcision has no adverse effect on sexual function, sensitivity, or pleasure.

Prof Morris — born in Adelaide and a University of Adelaide graduate — states in the paper: “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.”

The research is based on a study of US data and was done in conjunction with researchers in Florida and Minnesota.

They concluded that over their lifetime, half of uncircumcised males will contract an adverse medical condition caused by their foreskin.

Circumcision rates for babies in the United States have fallen from a high of 83 per cent in the 1960s to 77 per cent today.

In recent years the rate of circumcision in Australia has plummeted and it is now estimated that only around 32 per cent of Australian men under 30 are circumcised.

Many Australian doctors now refuse to conduct the procedure even if it is requested by a baby’s parents.

DO YOU AGREE WITH CIRCUMCISION FOR BABY BOYS? VOTE IN OUR POLL HERE AND LEAVE A COMMENT BELOW

The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) issued an updated policy statement on male circumcision in September 2010.

“After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand,” it states.

“However it is reasonable for parents to weigh the benefits and risks of circumcision and to make the decision whether or not to circumcise their sons.”

Prof Morris runs a website devoted to promoting circumcision, www.circinfo.net.

“I am not Jewish, nor a medical practitioner or lawyer, so have no religious bias or medico-legal concerns that might get in the way of a rational presentation of the information that has been published in reputable journals,” he says on the site.

“I don’t care what a person’s circumcision status is. What I do care about is that professionals and the public alike be provided with reliable, well-researched information.

“I see this as part of my academic duty in the interests of education. It is then up to each person to apply this knowledge when making decisions in their own best interest or in the best interests of their children or patients.”

The call for a return to routine circumcision of infant boys prompted criticism from paediatricians.

Professor Kevin Pringle, Professor of Paediatrics and Head of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at the University of Otago in Wellington, New Zealand, called the paper “extremely worrying”.

“The most worrisome aspect is the emphasis on possible diseases that are reported to be significantly more common in the uncircumcised population and the complete lack of any attempt to accurately document the risk of the complications of circumcision,” he said.

“The incidence of penile cancer in Israel (almost 100 per cent of males circumcised) is about the same as that in Scandinavia (where circumcision is uncommon) suggesting that it is cleanliness, rather than godliness, that is important.”

Prof Pringle said other conditions referred to in the paper “are nowhere near as common as is suggested in this paper”.

“To compare the risks of circumcision with the risks associated with vaccination is just not true,” he said.

“Vaccination is a low-risk intervention to prevent a problem with significant adverse outcomes.

“Circumcision is an intervention with significant risks — ignored or minimised by the authors of this paper — to prevent problems that will not develop in the vast majority of males; most of which can be simply addressed if and when the need arises.”