Note: The following information is contained in the website http://www.circinfo.net/ , and it has been copied with permission. This is not an exact copy of all the information found on the website http://www.circinfo.net/ . For an exact text of the information contained in that site, please go onto the above mentioned site.
Through the 1990s and into the new millenium a reversal of the downtrend began. In the light of an increasing volume of medical scientific evidence pointing to the benefits of neonatal circumcision, the pediatric professional bodies of various countries have been forced to review the evidence and formulate more up-to-date policy statements. These documents MUST be read in their entirety to be fully comprehended. (Isolated quotes have been taken from these by anti-circ groups to fuel their propaganda.) What is stated in the details of the various Statements is much like what is presented in the present review of the medical literature. However, it is important to note that vital facts have been distorted, watered down or omitted from the various Statements of pediatric bodies, whereas the present review is very much more comprehensive and balanced. Moreover, no medical body has advocated prohibition of circumcision and arguments by opponents are weak and specious . The latest Statements of the American Association of Pediatrics in 1999 , the Canadian Paediatric Society in 1996  and the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, Division of Paediatrics and Child Health in 2004  provide information on the benefits and possibility of rare or minor risks. These suffer, however, from falling short of drawing the obvious conclusion from the evidence they present, i.e., that circumcision is the best choice for lifetime health and sexual well-being. The hesitancy is undoubtedly a consequence of the sensitivity of this issue, as well as medico-legal caution and the recognition of the hysteria that this subject can provoke because of the diversity of opinion in the community, where anti-circ groups tend to bombard such professional bodies in an attempt to "win" their political cause. More on this can be found in the section "Anti-circumcision lobby groups". The British Medical Association has not even attempted to review the medical literature, producing instead a pompous paternalistic and legalistic statement in 2003 [46, 47].
By and large, the statements of most of these professional bodies tend to recommend that medical practitioners fully inform parents of the benefits and minor, rare risks of having their male children circumcised. Thus publicly most give the impression that the benefits and harms are very evenly balanced . Indeed, professional bodies have carefully avoided taking sides in the polarized debate, by making noncommittal guidelines and leaving it to the medical practitioner to discuss the matter with the parents . While such bland tolerance has accommodated a broad range of strong and conflicting opinions, the medical profession is now faced with a growing knowledge-base that indicates a wide range of health benefits of circumcision, meaning that the time is fast approaching when affirmative statements cannot be avoided . Indeed, Prof Roger Short states "If we believe in evidence based medicine, then there can be no debate about male circumcision; it has become a desirable option for the whole world" . Of course, well-informed medical practitioners only have to read the present Statements of pediatric bodies in full to be able to draw their own conclusion. In a deplorable ploy, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians' (RACP) 2002 and 2004 Policy Statement sidestepped making a conclusion by instead substituting the words there `is no medical indication for routine infant male circumcision', i.e., that the foreskin as it presents at birth lacks any medical condition that would mandate its removal. This tactic is to be condemned as inexcusably irresponsible, especially in the current era of preventative medicine and medical knowledge of the benefits of circumcision. You can download a pdf of a detailed critique published in the Feb 2006 issue of the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health that points out the many serious errors in the RACP's 2004 Policy Statement. [CircPolicyANZJPH.pdf]. Recognized authoritative figures in the USA in particular strongly advocate circumcision of all newborn boys. More details of what they have said in the medical literature appear later