Here is another link
Male circumcision: a scientific perspective
http://jme.bmj.com/content/medethics/30/3/241.1.full.pdf
Interesting that you did not chose to post the balancing ant-circumcision article quoted in the first paragraph.
Note too this article is from 2004 - things have moved on significantly.
Nothing in this persuades me of any health benefit that outweigh medical risks. And that is the elephant in the room - although people often glibly refer to neonatal circumcision as simple and safe the risks aren't zero.
http://www.academia.edu/6394940/Lost_Boys_An_Estimate_of_U.S._Circumcision-Related_Infant_DeathsThis article should pull people up short. For every 100,000 circumcisions there are about 250 incidences of complications and about 9 deaths - yes that's right 9 baby boys dead due to complications from circumcision. And this study is in the USA so a first world developed country with high quality medical care. Every one of those deaths is entirely preventable.
So you need to be convinced of stunning health benefits to justify those 9 deaths. So let's look at those - there tend to be three areas typically cited. HIV transmission, penile cancer and cervical cancer in women partners. Remember we are talking about circumcision here in the UK not in sub-Saharan Africa where there may be some value.
So let's assume all baby boys born this year (about 350,000) are circumcised - what would be the effect.
1. HIV transmission - the only effect reported in observational studies is on infection of men in heterosexual relationships - there is no effect on homosexual sex or on women becoming infected in heterosexual relationships. And even then most recent studies imply this effect to be largely due to cultural effect other than circumcision.
But let's work with a 50% reduction - annually in the UK across the whole population about 1500-2000 men become infected with HIV due to heterosexual sex. So that might equate to 8 less people contracting HIV - note that HIV is now readily manageable with just 600 people dying of AIDS-related illness last year. Also HIV transmission rates are falling in the heterosexual population and have been for years. Finally about 95% of the new infections were from unprotected sex - wearing a condom almost totally eradicates transmission - so much, much more effective than circumcision.
2. Penile cancer - issue is that penile cancer is ver rare - so the balancing article indicates that 300,000 cicumcisions would be required to reduce penile cancer incidence by just 1 - that's one diagnosis not one death.
3. Cervical cancer due to human papilloma virus infection - sounds compelling (bar the medical ethics issue or elective surgery on a non consenting patient that does not benefit them but does benefit others). Ah but there is a problem - all girls aged 12 and 13 in the UK are now routinely immunised against human papilloma virus. So there is unlikely to be any benefit due to improvement in medical treatment.
So to summarise - were we to circumcise all baby boys in the UK born this year the health effects would be:
300 cases of circumcision rated complications this year
30 deaths of baby boys due to circumcision rated complications this year
Possibly 8 fewer HIV infections in perhaps 20-40 years time (but medical treatment may have moved on so perhaps much less)
Possibly one less case of penile cancer in perhaps 40-70 years time (but medical treatment may have moved on so perhaps much less)
Likely no change in cervical cancer in perhaps 40-70 years time as immunisation is now routine
And that's without bringing in the loss of penile function and detrimental effect on sexual health.
So no there aren't compelling health arguments - and those that make them need to recognise that if they argue for universal infant circumcision in the UK then they are arguing for about 30 dead baby boys a year that died needlessly.
