Those who advocate circumcision as a prophylaxis against U.T.I.'s usually cite research conducted by Wiswell et. al. (1986), in a United States Army Hospital on 400,000 infants. They reported a tenfold increase in the incidence of U.T.I.'s among uncircumcised boys. That sounds significant until you look carefully at the numbers and the methodology. The increase was from 0.11 percent to 1.12 percent. Therefore, the risk for uncircumcised boys is one in one hundred. The study also included female infants, who had a higher U.T.I. rate than the corresponding males. Furthermore, Wiswell had advised parents to gently retract the babies' foreskins in order to clean the glans, an action that is unnecessary, potentially irritating and a way to introduce bacteria to the site (Wallerstein, 1986). The study also did not control for those babies that were being breastfed. The protective bacteria ingested by a baby from its mother's milk may well have a significant prophylactic effect on the potentially pathological bacteria found in some of the infants. In European countries, in the rare instances when U.T.I.'s do develop, they are usually amenable to medical treatment and do not require surgery.

In regards to UTI's, did you know that studies about UTI's and circumcision are flawed, in favor of circumcising? Two recent studies show circumcision INCREASES UTI's.

http://www.circumstitions.com/Utis.html#cause

"Because long term outcome of UTI in uncircumcised males is unknown, it is inappropriate at this time to recommend circumcision as a routine medically indicated procedure."

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/UTI/mccracken/

If you have a daughter, what parts of her genitals would you have the doctor remove? Given that girls get UTI's at approximately five times the rate that boys do, this is a fair question to ask. Boys don't have disposable genital parts any more than girls do. All of the parts of the penis are highly sensitive and necessary to normal sexual functioning, just as in girls.