That’s a quote from Wikipedia where the footnote references an abstract which does not include that statement.
Here’s what the abstract does say;
> Following the three randomized trials in Africa demonstrating the protective effects of male circumcision on HIV infection, studies have reported other benefits of circumcision including protection from certain STIs, including human papillomavirus and herpes simplex virus 2. With data accumulating on the public health benefits of circumcision and the endorsement of circumcision from WHO, investigators have begun to evaluate the feasibility, safety and cost of implementation of large-scale circumcision programs. Limitations of circumcision have also been explored.
Circumcision does nothing to protect against herpes, hepatitis, chancroid, HPV, Chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis etc.
So the child is being exposed to risk of death or disfigurement for a hypothetical benefit for one STI where there are existing better protections for that, and other STIs.
When you google for circumcision risk of death, on the one hand is CIRP claiming over 100 infant boys die each year from complications arising from circumcision, and in the other hand the CDC saying they looked at every single infant death in 2010 and could not find a single one related to circumcision.
It references an article, not just an abstract. The conclusion of said article reads:
The broader application of this procedure to other areas of the world with different population, infrastructure and disease characteristics warrants further investigation.
