Changes

}}</ref>

Bossio et al. (2014) conducted a comprehensive review of the circumcision literature. They reported that most research was concentrated on finding a benefit for non-therapeutic circumcision and there were large gaps in the knowledge of the sexual health correlates of male circumcision, including:

To carry out the recommendations of the authors it would be necessary to violate the [[human rights]] of more boys who would be permanently injured by non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] and the loss of the multi-functional [[foreskin]].

Medical trade associations exist to protect and advance the financial and business interests of their fellows (members). A few medical trade associations, whose members perform non-therapeutic circumcision, have issued statements regarding non-therapeutic circumcision of children. Circumcision policy statements frequently exclude discussions of sexual, psychological, human rights, ethical, and legal issues, and the anatomy and functions of the foreskin.<ref name="goldman2004">{{REFjournal

|last=Goldman

=== Australasia ===

The [https://www.racp.edu.au Royal Australasian College of Physicians] (2010) released a 28-page updated position statement on non-therapeutic circumcision of boys in September 2010. This statement is deeply flawed and outmoded in 2020. It seems to be designed to protect the physicians' income from performing non-therapeutic circumcision. The statement accepts at face value the false, now disproved,<ref name="boyle-hill2011">{{BoyleGJ HillG 2011}}</ref> claims that circumcision reduces the risk of [[HIV]] by 60 percent. The statement shows only limited understanding of the functions of the foreskin. While it recognizes the protective function, it does not recognize the immunological function or sexual function, and shows only limited understanding of the erogenous function. The RACP places parental preference above child human rights. Nevertheless, public hospitals in [[Australia]] have banned performance of non-therapeutic circumcisions<ref>{{REFnews

|title=Cosmetic circumcision banned

=== Canada ===

The [[Canadian Paediatric Society]] (2015) issued a new statement regarding non-therapeutic circumcision of boys. This statement was prompted by the three seriously flawed [[HIV]] studies of adult males in Africa, that have now been disproved,<ref name="boyle-hill2011"/> and caused the retirement of the excellent previous 1996 statement.<ref name="cps1996">{{REFjournal

|last=Outerbridge

|pubmedCID=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc5937400/

|DOI=/10.5489/cuaj.5033

}}

=== Netherlands ===

The [https://www.knmg.nl Royal Dutch Medical Association] {KNMG) published a statement regarding the non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] of male minors in 2010. The Netherlands is a nation where [[human rights]] are respected,<ref name="smith1998">{{REFweb

|url=http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/smith/

=== UK ===

The [https://www.bma.org.uk/ British Medical Association] 28-page statement (2019) focuses on legal and ethical advice to its fellows to help keep them out of trouble in a legal and regulatory environment that is increasingly unfriendly to practitioners of non-therapeutic male circumcision. It has little to say about the medical aspects of non-therapeutic circumcision. To its credit it cites the [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents#aofs Human Rights Act 1998] and calls for practitioners to respect the child's rights under that act.

=== USA ===

The United States are unique because the American medical industry has been promoting the practice of non-therapeutic circumcision since the late 19th Century.<ref>{{GollaherDL 1994}}</ref> As a result of the centuries-old promotion almost all American males were circumcised soon after birth from the 1930s through the 1980s.<ref name="laumann1996">{{REFjournal

|last=Laumann