- It’s unethical
- It’s hypocritical
- It’s based on inconclusive evidence
- It ignores what’s happening in the real world
- It spreads dangerous myths about circumcision
- It puts women at greater risk
- It exposes men and boys to more risk
- It’s not as effective as other methods
- It's a waste of money
- It gives credibility to a dangerous practice that kills men and boys
It’s unethical because – as Green et al report “male circumcision constitutes the removal of healthy, functional and biologically unique tissue. For fully informed consent to occur, men must be educated about the risks and sensory losses from circumcision as well as made aware that circumcision does not offer full protection".
It spreads dangerous myths about circumcision – most notably that circumcision prevents HIV, which it does not. Reports from circumcision clinics have revealed that newly circumcised males are abandoning condoms or have a false sense of immunity from circumcision. Research in South Africa found that 15% of men and women now hold the mistaken belief that circumcision meant they did not need a condom. This belief has been further reinforced by public health officials recently distributing materials listing one advantage of circumcision as being “that men don’t have [to] use condoms”.