Dr Tom Wiswell, a respected authority in the USA was a strong opponent, but then switched camps as a result of his own research findings and the findings of others. This is what he has to say: "As a pediatrician and neonatologist, I am a child advocate and try to do what is best for children. For many years I was an outspoken opponent of circumcision ... I have gradually changed my opinion" [632, 635]. This ability to keep an open mind on the issue and to make a sound judgement on the balance of all available information is to his credit ... he did change his mind!
Wiswell looked at the complication rates of having or not having circumcision performed in a study of 136,000 boys born in US army hospitals between 1980 and 1985. 100,000 were circumcised and 193 (0.19%) had complications, mostly minor, with no deaths, but of the 36,000 who were not circumcised the problems were more than ten-times higher and there were 2 deaths [636].
A study by others found that of the 11,000 circumcisions performed at New York's Sloane Hospital in 1989, only 6 led to complications, none of which were fatal [482]. An early survey saw only one death amongst 566,483 baby boys circumcised in New York between 1939 and 1951 [390].
There are no deaths today from medical circumcisions in developed countries.
Very similar to the study by Wiswell above, it was found that of 354,297 infants born in Washington State from 1987-96, only 0.20% had a complication arising from their circumcision, i.e., 1 in every 476 circumcisions [114]. Most of these ‘complications’ were minor and readily treated. It was concluded that 6 urinary tract infections could be prevented for every circumcision complication, and 2 complications can be expected for every penile cancer prevented [114].
Problems involving the penis are encountered relatively frequently in pediatric practice [324]. A retrospective study of boys aged 4 months to 12 years found uncircumcised boys exhibited significantly greater frequency of penile problems (14% vs 6%; P < 0.001) and medical visits for penile problems (10% vs 5%; P < 0.05) compared with those who were circumcised.

As a prelude to this, one needs to first understand the anatomy. The foreskin is composed of an outer layer that is keratinized (as is skin generally), and an inner lining that is a mucosal surface. The inner lining thus resembles other mucosal epithelia such as constitute the cervix, nasal passages and rectum. It had been suggested that the foreskin protected the glans from drying out and becoming keratinized. However, histological examination has shown the same amount of keratin in the skin of the head of the penis irrespective of circumcision status [556].
The inner layer of the foreskin lines a ‘preputial sac’, which becomes a repository for shed cells, secretions, and urinary residue that accumulates [122, 426]. It is also a hospitable environment for the growth of bacteria and other microorganisms.
During an erection the head and shaft of the penis extend so that the inner layer becomes exteriorized along the distal half of the shaft. This exposes it to infectious agents during sexual intercourse.
It has been speculated that the foreskin is a source of secretions, pheromones, etc, but given the dubious authorship of these reports and the absence of any research support, such suggestions should be regarded as fanciful. In fact, for references that cite evidence to the contrary see [603a].
It has been suggested [93] that the increased risk of infection in the uncircumcised may be a consequence of the following:
• The foreskin presents the penis with a larger surface area.
• The moist inner lining of the foreskin represents a thinner epidermal barrier than the more cornified outer surface of the foreskin and the rest of the penis, including the glans of both a circumcised and an uncircumcised penis, which have been found to have the same amount of keratin (i.e., similar skin thickness and protection from invasion of microorganisms) [556]. This means that the inner lining is a potential entry point into the body for viruses and bacteria. (A photograph of a histological section illustrates this later, in the section on the AIDS virus.)
• The presence of a prepuce is likely to result in greater microtrauma during sexual intercourse, thereby permitting an entry point into the bloodstream for infectious agents.
• The warm, moist mucosal environment under the foreskin favours growth of micro-organisms (discussed in detail later). The preputial sac has even been referred to by Dr Gerald Weiss, an American surgeon, as a 'cesspool for infection' [608], as its unfortunate anatomy wrapped around the end of the penis results in the accumulation of secretions, excretions (urine), dead cells and growths of bacteria as referred to above. Parents are told not to retract the foreskin of male infants, which makes cleaning difficult. Even if optimal cleansing is performed there is no evidence that it confers protection [639, 640]. Rather, the foreskin tends to trap and transmit micro-organisms, both to the man himself, and his sexual partners.