Noam Shpancer Ph.D:
Painful Cuts: The Case for Infant Circumcision is Weakening
A popular US tradition is becoming harder to justify
However, most of that literature is written by US researchers, who tend to be circumcised males and culturally biased in favor of circumcision. Thus, studies are often undertaken with the explicit goal of verifying the supposed benefits of male circumcision (US researchers possess the opposite bias about female genital cutting, a topic for another day)
Man kann es nicht oft genug und laut genug sagen.
In sum, the best evidence suggests that in most cases in the US, the
potential health benefits gained from neonatal circumcision can be
achieved through non-surgical means or through performing the procedure,
consensually, later. Neonatal circumcision involves the permanent
removal of a healthy, functional bodily tissue without consent or
medical necessity, which leaves the procedure standing on thin and
slippery (and rapidly melting) ethical ice. No wonder that,
increasingly, parents of boys are thinking twice before they choose to
cut once.
Noam Shpancer, Ph.D., is the author of the novel The Good Psychologist. He was born and raised on an Israeli kibbutz
https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/experts/noam-shpancer-phd