The issue of neonatal male circumcision has long been controversial, with physicians continuing to debate the risks and benefits of the procedure.
The medical literature contains numerous studies purporting to show that circumcised males have a lower risk for urinary tract infections than uncircumcised males.
Recently, researchers published the findings of a study showing that, compared with circumcised boys, uncircumcised boys have a higher risk of UTI, regardless of urethral visibility (CMAJ; published online ahead of print).
However, some studies have failed to demonstrate a benefit associated with neonatal male circumcision.
Renal & Urology News would like to gauge urologists’ opinion on this topic, so please take a few moments to answer the following poll question.
Do you believe neonatal male circumcision is a medically justified procedure?
Leave a comment below to explain your choice.
Next post in Physician Polls
Log in to continue reading this article.
Don’t miss out on today’s top content on Renal & Urology News. Register for free and gain unlimited access to:
- Clinical News, with personalized daily picks for you
- Case Studies
- Conference Coverage
- Full-Length Features
- Drug Monographs
- And More
Want to read more?
Please login or register first to view this content.