Warner E.  Strashin E.
  Benefits and risks of circumcision.
  Canadian Medical Association Journal.  125(9):967-76, 992, 1981 Nov 1.

  Circumcisions are performed either prophylactically in the neonatal period
  or therapeutically at a later age. About 10% of males not circumcised at
  birth will eventually require circumcision. The present neonatal
  circumcision rate is about 80% in the United States and 40% in Canada. The
  single most important determinant of whether a newborn male will be
  circumcised is the attitude of the attending physician. The literature was
  reviewed to determine the proven benefits of circumcision and to compare
  these with the known risks. Circumcising the newborn facilitates penile
  hygiene, prevents cancer of the penis and decreases the incidence of
  genital herpes in later life. Whether it decreases the incidence of cancer
  of the cervix is still uncertain. More important, neonatal circumcision is
  associated with much lower morbidity and mortality and with lower costs
  than therapeutic circumcision. Thus, prophylactic circumcision is
  recommended for the male population as a whole. [References: 83]

  Robson WL.  Leung AK.
  The circumcision question.
  Postgraduate Medicine.  91(6):237-42, 244, 1992 May 1.

  Neonatal circumcision continues to be a controversial subject. The
  American Academy of Pediatrics has revised its earlier policy, stating
  that newborn circumcision has potential benefits as well as risks and
  emphasizing the need to explain these issues to parents considering the
  procedure so that an informed decision can be made. Compared with
  circumcised males, uncircumcised males are at greater risk for urinary
  tract infection, sexually transmitted disease, phimosis, paraphimosis, and
  balanoposthitis. Complications of circumcision include infection,
  hemorrhage, and meatal stenosis. Analgesia should be prescribed for the
  substantial pain associated with the procedure. Alternatives to
  circumcision include retraction of the foreskin with use of local or
  general anesthesia. Regular foreskin hygiene is important for all males,
  whether circumcised or not.

[Comment. THE FORESKIN SHOULD NEVER BE RETRACTED BY FORCE. It will take
usually several years to free itself from the glans. To follow the advice
of this article is to invite acquired phimosis, paraphimosis, or other
injury to the penis. The ignorance of this fact by the writer of this
article casts doubt on his understanding of the issues surrounding
circumcision]

  Lawler FH.  Bisonni RS.  Holtgrave DR.
  Circumcision: a decision analysis of its medical value [see comments].
  Family Medicine.  23(8):587-93, 1991 Nov-Dec.

  Routine neonatal circumcision has long been controversial. Presented here
  is a cost-effectiveness analysis of the consequences of the treatment
  choices (circumcision versus no circumcision) using a decision tree model.
  For a simulated 85-year life expectancy, routine neonatal circumcision had
  an expected lifetime cost of $164.61 per patient circumcised and a
  quality-adjusted survival of 84.999 years. Conversely, for the
  noncircumcision approach, the expected average lifetime cost was $139.26
  per patient, and the quality-adjusted survival was 84.971 years. The net
  cost-effectiveness ($919.87 per quality-adjusted life year) is within the
  range usually considered worthwhile for public health policy. However,
  because of the minor differences in lifetime cost ($25) and benefit (10
  days of life) for an individual and the tenuous values available for
  disease incidence and surgical risk, we conclude that there is no medical
  indication for or against circumcision. Additional analyses suggested that
  reported benefits in preventing penile cancer and infant urinary tract
  infections are insignificant compared to the surgical risks of post
  neonatal circumcision. The decision regarding circumcision may most
  reasonably be made on nonmedical factors such as parent preference or
  religious convictions. [References: 22]

  Wiswell TE.
  Routine neonatal circumcision: a reappraisal.
  American Family Physician.  41(3):859-63, 1990 Mar.

  Routine neonatal circumcision has long been a controversial subject. The
  American Academy of Pediatrics has recently outlined a new position on
  circumcision that is a marked departure from its previous stance. Neonatal
  circumcision has many potential advantages: The procedure helps prevent
  urinary tract infections, penile cancer, sexually transmitted diseases
  and, perhaps, acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. The risk of
  complications from the procedure is low. Fewer penile problems occur in
  circumcised boys than in uncircumcised boys. It is more economical to
  perform the procedure early in life, rather than later. No evidence shows
  that penile hygiene alone is as beneficial as circumcision. [References:
  33]

  Anonymous.
  American Academy of Pediatrics: Report of the Task Force on Circumcision
  Pediatrics.  84(2):388-91, 1989 Aug.

  Properly performed newborn circumcision prevents phimosis, paraphimosis,
  and balanoposthitis and has been shown to decrease the incidence of cancer
  of the penis among US men. It may result in a decreased incidence of
  urinary tract infection. However, in the absence of well-designed
  prospective studies, conclusions regarding the relationship of urinary
  tract infection to circumcision are tentative. An increased incidence of
  cancer of the cervix has been found in sexual partners of uncircumcised
  men infected with human papillomavirus. Evidence concerning the
  association of sexually transmitted diseases and circumcision is
  conflicting. Newborn circumcision is a rapid and generally safe procedure
  when performed by an experienced operator. It is an elective procedure to
  be performed only if an infant is stable and healthy. Infants respond to
  the procedure with transient behavioral and physiologic changes. Local
  anesthesia (dorsal penile nerve block) may reduce the observed physiologic
  response to newborn circumcision. It also has its own inherent risks.
  However, reports of extensive experience or follow-up with the technique
  in newborns are lacking. Newborn circumcision has potential medical
  benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks. When
  circumcision is being considered, the benefits and risks should be
  explained to the parents and informed consent obtained. [References: 56]

  Grossman EA.  Posner NA.
  The circumcision controversy: an update.
  Obstetrics & Gynecology Annual.  13:181-95, 1984.

  One constructive feature has come out of all of the circumcision
  controversy. It has made us aware that neonatal circumcision is not a
  simple procedure and that it should not be regarded as "routine." It is a
  surgical procedure and it should be taught as one. The authors of this
  article wrote a review article on circumcision in 1981 and Dr. Grossman
  has recently published a book designed to teach proper circumcision
  technique, and to familiarize the operator with the common congenital
  anomalies as well as the prevention and treatment of the complications of
  circumcision. The advocacy of neonatal circumcision cannot be considered
  as a cut and dried issue. For some, it has an absolute religious
  indication, which transcends current medical logic. For others the
  available facts still allow for a decision based on one's perception of
  those facts. If one has the perception that there is value in improving
  local hygiene, or that the loss of the prepuce will allow for an earlier
  discovery of a penile lesion, or that circumcision actually does cause a
  decrease in the incidence of penile or cervical cancer, or group
  conformity is important, then one might well advocate neonatal
  circumcision. If, however, one sees the potential values as insignificant
  in light of the lack of hard data relating circumcision to penile or
  cervical cancer, and that if one is concerned with the "rape of the
  phallus," then one is against routine neonatal circumcision. But, this
  individual must be aware that a small percentage of males will need a
  circumcision at a later time in life, when technical and psychological
  problems may lead to an increased morbidity. The decision of the
  physician, and the advice given to the new parents, at present, appears to
  be more subjective than the advice concerning RhoGAM, or DPT immunization,
  although it occasionally is given with as much certainty. We are dealing
  with the art of medicine rather than science. On this basis, rather than
  deride each other for positions taken, and religious considerations aside,
  we would do much better to develop better scientific studies to answer the
  scientific questions. Today's tendency to make decisions on evaluation of
  the risk:benefit ratio is clearly difficult if both are not adequately
  quantitated. Until these are available the decision of whether or not to
  circumcise must result from an objective discussion between the doctor and
  the parents of newborn males.