What Doctors Actually Say About Circumcision

The short answer

There are some real medical benefits, and some real risks. No major US medical group says every boy should be circumcised. The AAP's 2012 statement, the one people usually quote, has expired. Doctors in much of Europe look at the same evidence and reach the opposite conclusion.

You'll hear two extremes online: "circumcision is medically necessary" and "circumcision has zero medical benefit." Neither is true. We'd rather give you the honest middle and let you decide.

The AAP has changed its mind a lot

The American Academy of Pediatrics is the group most US parents hear about. Its position has moved around:

1971 and 1975: no valid medical reason for routine newborn circumcision.
1989: there may be some medical benefits.
1999: the evidence isn't enough to recommend routine circumcision.
2012: benefits outweigh the risks, but not enough to recommend it for all boys. Parents should decide. (AAP, 2012)
Today: the 2012 statement has expired, and no replacement has been published. (JAMA Pediatrics, 2025)

Even at its most positive, the AAP never told parents they should circumcise. It said circumcision was fine to offer and for insurance to cover.

The CDC: it's elective

The CDC's 2018 counseling guidance talks about the potential benefits and risks and describes it as an elective procedure. Doctors are supposed to give you balanced information and let you choose. (CDC, 2018)

The benefits people talk about

Fewer urinary tract infections in babies. UTIs in baby boys aren't common to begin with, and they're treatable with antibiotics.
Lower HIV risk. This comes from studies of adult men in Africa, where HIV spreads mostly through straight sex and was very common. That's a very different situation from a US baby, and condoms, testing and PrEP protect far better.
Fewer foreskin problems and a lower risk of penile cancer, which is already rare.

Here's the thing to understand: a big percentage drop in something rare is still a small difference for one kid. And almost all of these benefits are things he could decide about himself when he's old enough.

The risks

It's surgery on a baby who can't consent, and it permanently removes healthy tissue.
It hurts if it's not properly numbed.
Bleeding, infection and surgical injury can happen. Serious problems are uncommon, but they're not zero.

What about sex?

Studies that compare circumcised and intact men using questionnaires usually don't find consistent differences in things like erections or orgasm. But questionnaires are a blunt tool. They don't measure what a foreskin actually feels like or does. A 2007 study that measured fine-touch sensitivity found the most sensitive parts of the intact penis are on the foreskin, and they're the parts circumcision removes. (Sorrells et al., 2007) You can see what each part does on our foreskin function page.

Doctors outside the US see it differently

After the AAP's 2012 statement, a group of doctors from across Northern Europe published a response saying the AAP's conclusions reflected American cultural bias. (Frisch et al., 2013) The Royal Dutch Medical Association and others say circumcising healthy boys conflicts with their right to decide about their own bodies. Same evidence, different conclusions. That tells you a big part of this decision isn't medicine. It's values.

Zac's take

I'll always be honest about the benefits. They exist. But "there are some benefits" isn't the same as "you should do this to your newborn." Almost nothing on that list is urgent, and all of it can wait until he can weigh it himself. When the experts can't agree, I think the tie goes to the kid.

Sources