My link was taken from the whole network but the link to the original article is also Included.
I did not in anyway write this, only copy/paste
“Below is a recent study, published on October 4, 2011, by the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health. You can find the original paper here.
Objective: To conduct a critical review of recent proposals that widespread circumcision of male infants be introduced in Australia as a means of combating heterosexually transmitted HIV infection.
Approach: These arguments are evaluated in terms of their logic, coherence and fidelity to the principles of evidence-based medicine; the extent to which they take account of the evidence for circumcision having a protective effect against HIV and the practicality of circumcision as an HIV control strategy; the extent of its applicability to the specifics of Australia’s HIV epidemic; the benefits, harms and risks of circumcision; and the associated human rights, bioethical and legal issues.
Conclusion: Our conclusion is that such proposals ignore doubts about the robustness of the evidence from the African random-controlled trials as to the protective effect of circumcision and the practical value of circumcision as a means of HIV control; misrepresent the nature of Australia’s HIV epidemic and exaggerate the relevance of the African random-controlled trials findings to it; underestimate the risks and harm of circumcision; and ignore questions of medical ethics and human rights. The notion of circumcision as a ‘surgical vaccine’ is criticised as polemical and unscientific.
Implications: Circumcision of infants or other minors has no place among HIV control measures in the Australian and New Zealand context; proposals such as these should be rejected.”
“Medical ethics and human rights
Even if the circumcision proposal were relevant to the Australian situation, to be ethically acceptable a medical intervention must pass the five tests proposed by Beauchamp and Childress:
Beneficence – does the proposed procedure provide a net therapeutic benefit to the patient, considering the risk, pain, and loss of normal function?
Non-maleficence – does the procedure avoid permanently diminishing the patient in any way that could be avoided?
Proportionality – will the final result provide a significant net benefit to the patient in proportion to the risk undertaken and the losses sustained?
Justice – will the patient be treated as fairly as we would all wish to be treated?
Autonomy – lacking life-threatening urgency, will the procedure honour the patient’s right to his or her own likely choice? Could it wait for the patient’s assent?77
Cooper et al. ignore ethical and human rights issues, but their proposal would not be acceptable unless it was established that non-therapeutic circumcision of non-consenting minors was permissible within the above guidelines. It has been argued that in the absence of a life-threatening disorder, surrogate consent for non-therapeutic surgery of this type is ethically problematic and may not be legally valid.78–80 When there is no urgency to intervene, it is best to wait until the child can provide his own informed consent.”