This seems like an incredibly biased article. AFAIK there are no real medical benefits to circumcision and there is a difficulty in separating societal factors from the practice (short on time atm so can't grab papers).
Definitely news to me that it could be beneficial to your health.
The article seems to be saying "There are less circumcisions, and there are people spending more money on medical care". They say nothing that indicates a causal relationship whatsoever.
The article actually tries to suggest that circumcision prevents HIV.
...
Looked at the comments as well and I think the whole discussion is a bit loopey. There are some countries that have less circumcision and more health problems and some countries that have more circumcision and more health problems.
They pointed out in the comments that in Europe fewer men are circumcised and there are fewer supposedly related health problems. But there's also free health care in a lot of countries in Europe as well as probably hundreds of things that are impossible to control for. Until someone can actually prove a causal relationship I will consider the discussion silly and think that parents should make the decision they feel comfortable with.
Aside from this I'm unaware of any strongly correlated benefits. Personally I find circumcision (or any non-consensual genital mutilation for that matter) utterly abhorrent.
I tried to search for key words that might mention it like "background" and such. It said at one stage that one study focused on factory workers and volunteers.
Aside from this I'm unaware of any strongly correlated benefits. Personally I find circumcision (or any non-consensual genital mutilation for that matter) utterly abhorrent.
Thanks for the links. I was kind of shocked at the way they draw conclusion without any strong evidence backing their study.