D,

Sorry for the delay.

Reading your post, while I respect your time working in a hospital, but your experience over 12 years shows a handful of cases, the majority of which caused mild embarrassment, one that was significantly embarrassing but could be corrected with surgery, and one that significantly affected the man's life, compared to two cases of penile cancer (which may or may not be related).

The logical gaps in this argument against future circumcisions are:
1) Circumcision measurably reduces the transmission of most STDs with lives lost and changed far more significantly than penile cancer.
2) The worst botched circumcision example you gave are from nearly half a century ago when essentially unqualified religious instructors were responsible for many procedures. The statistics for qualified medical practitioners is far, far better.

As Robert Darby points out on his own web site: "The evidence in medical journals as to whether the presence or absence of the foreskin makes any difference to [STD's] is contradictory and inconclusive; every study which claims to find a correlation has been criticised as flawed or countered by other studies that find no connection at all. Some studies find that circumcised men are more vulnerable to some STIs."

If you have a strong stomach, Hugh Young also has a section on his web site regarding botched circumcisions.

Circumcised men are not immune from penile cancer, if that's what you are implying.

And the American Academy of Pediatrics policy on circumcision has been criticised by medical authorities in other countries.

Not quite Shadow Minister. 2 cases of botched circumcision done by Medical Practitioners - one over 60 yrs ago, the more recent in 1994 - both certainly resulted in severe - if not total sexual dysfunction due to penile mutilation and irreparable damage. Other cases involved infection and one severe bleeding requiring transfusion - near fatal but for an anxious mother. Do not trivialise the extent of damage done or current risk. If you believe Doctors nowadays don't occasionally make cock-ups (pardon my very bad pun) you probably think Santa and Tooth Fairy are real. As for 'mild embarrassment' - there are some men with circumcision related problems suffering psychological impotence - usually related to fear of how a sexual partner will react to their penis. "Mild" I guess if you are not one of them.

Penile cancer is rare. When it does occur it's usually, but not always, found in elderly men who usually, but not always, have intact foreskins. To liberate the world from the deadly scourge of penile cancer the best solution would be to amputate the organ once every male reached a certain age - say 50. That would do it!

Sexually transmitted infections aren't contracted or spread because a man has a foreskin. They are due to unwise sexual behaviour - period! So - circumcise every single male shortly after birth and wipe out STIs? I don't think so! Santa and Tooth Fairy are likewise sceptical ...

If a male old enough to give informed consent wishes to be circumcised - I'm fine by that. If a child requires the procedure - as some do, albeit rarely - parental consent is valid in such cases. Otherwise I stand by evidence of my eyes and experience when examining the arguments put forward by both pro and anti camps. Most research outcomes not obviously skewed one way or the other seem to suggest if there are benefits - they are insignificant.

That brings me to the logical conclusion as with all things medical - if it's not diseased or defective, it doesn't need treating

D,

With all due respect, in the hospital you see what goes wrong, in a hospital you are unlikely to see the benefits of circumcision. While some on this site try to rubbish the evidence that this procedure reduces (not prevents) the chance of catching STIs, I would prefer to take the considered opinion of the American medical association, who has reviewed many research articles and concluded that the benefits exist and at least outweigh the risks of the very occasional botched procedure in the modern world.

It's what I call the Mushroom-Turtleneck Law: for every study or statement on circumcision, a contradictory study or statement exists. I assume you're referring to the American Academy of Pediatrics policy on circumcision, which has been criticised by medical authorities in Europe, Australia, and Canada:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/12/peds.2012-2896

As PZ Myers said: "It’s certainly not that the benefits [of circumcision] are as solidly established as they are for vaccination; reading the literature, the most striking observation is the murkiness and insignificance of the evidence. If you’ve got lots of studies, and they vary up and down in their conclusions, and are constantly skirting the margins of likelihood, what’s the best explanation: that there is a strong effect that can only be detected by true believers, or that we’re dealing with no effect at all and people are cherry-picking peaks and troughs from statistical noise?"

Felix,

There are those that make up their minds based on the evidence, or those that have made up their minds already and cherry pick the evidence they want to support their pre conception. The moment I hear stupid comments such as "If a male old enough to give informed consent wishes to be circumcised - I'm fine by that." then I know that the fall into the latter category. (circumcision at 18 is far more painful and risky than at a few weeks, and follows the same logic of making women wait for an abortion.)

The reality is that the risk or a botched procedure by a medical professional is miniscule, and the benefits are also small but supported by reliable studies by independent organisations.

All in all while there is no medical justification to have the procedure, there is similarly no justification not to. The decision is that of the parents.