“Unconscionable” San Francisco archbishop rejects circumcision ban

[Blacksword]

Frankly, the AMA is completely out of step with the rest of the Western World. Circumcision is too profitable. There is a clear conflict of interest. Here is an example of where non-biased medical professionals stand:
circinfo.org/Dutch_circumcision_policy.html

Completely correct, and I will add that the AAP still does not recommend the procedure, see below:

aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;103/3/686

There are only potential benefits they cite, i.e. unproven, and they do NOT recommend it be done routinely!

That’s all I have to say at this point because frankly I am personally more than a little hurt at this point. As one of only people in this thread who has spoken up for genital integrity, I feel the warning above by the mod makes it incredibly likely that someone has accused me of anti-semitism. This despite the fact that I am NOT in any way anti-semetic or racist, and have said absolutely nothing against the Jewish people or defended anyone who did. I think that making such an ugly charge against someone who has given NO indication that they are such a despicable person is essentially the last, desperate attempt when the person knows they’ve lost the substantive debate on the actual issue. I have in this very thread denounced the anti-semetic cartoon another posted, stated inwas not in favor of an outright ban on circumcision, and said that inwould favor a religious exemption for Jews and Muslims, and yet have apparently been accused of being a bigot anyway. That’s sad, but I do not want banned. I have asked the mod to read my posts, as I believe that it is clear from them that I am concerned about medical ethics of the issue and the wrongness of doctors participating in it, not about religious rites of Judaism. I think that my posts clearly show no hint of such vile racism, and thus I hope our mod reads them and knows this.

So, I will bow out of this thread, hoping that at least my posts will make some readers think a little more about the issue. But when someone begins making racism charges, clearly continued discussion is fruitless. To Meltzerboy, as a visiting Jewish person, I hope that you especially can understand my position and appreciate that nothing that I said was in any way denigrating to your faith, and I don’t think could fairly be construed as such.

For the final time, I will re-iterate that if doctors were not doing a medically unnecessary amputative surgery in hospitals on helpless infants, I and likely all the rest of us wouldn’t be even talking about this in the first place. Thank you to all and a good day to you.

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

Well I named one, Dr. Glick, then there’s a Dr. Goldman who wrote a book too. Your tone is personal, I suggest you calm down. And I havent a clue what you mean about women preists??? Relevance??

Your tone is sarcastic,I suggest YOU tone it down"Oh dear, I’m afraid you’re having trouble reading there".Don’t condescend to me.

As a Catholic I think you know exactly what I’m talking about when I referred to women priests.If anyone can gather enough signature to deny a Faith one of its precepts or ordinances then what is stopping anti-Catholic loons from collecting enough signatures for that ridiculous abomination of a city to force us to have female priests.Baloney is a much softer version of an expression I had in mind.

 

[antonivs]

From a retired British GP and Anaesthetist:

Are there benefits from circumcision?
There are several:

1 Many older men, who have bladder or prostate gland problems, also develop difficulties with their foreskins due to their surgeon’s handling, cleaning, and using instruments. Some of these patients will need circumcising. Afterwards it is often astonishing to find some who have never ever seen their glans (knob) exposed before!

2 Some older men develop cancer of the penis - about 1 in 1000 - fairly rare, but tragic if you or your son are in that small statistic. Infant circumcision gives almost 100% protection, and young adult circumcision also gives a large degree of protection.

3 Cancer of the cervix in women is due to the Human Papilloma Virus. It thrives under and on the foreskin from where it can be transmitted during intercourse. An article in the British Medical Journal in April 2002 suggested that at least 20% of cancer of the cervix would be avoided if all men were circumcised. Surely that alone makes it worth doing?

4 Protection against HIV and AIDS. Another British Medical Journal article in May 2000 suggested that circumcised men are 8 times less likely to contract the HIV virus. (It is very important here to say that the risk is still far too high and that condoms and safe sex must be used - this applies also to preventing cancer of the cervix in women who have several partners.)

A BBC television programme in November 2000 showed two Ugandan tribes across the valley from one another. One practised circumcision and had very little AIDS, whereas, it was common in the other tribe, who then also started circumcising. This programme showed how the infection thrived in the lining of the foreskin, making it much easier to pass on.

5 As with HIV, so some protection exists against other sexually transmitted infections. Accordingly, if a condom splits or comes off, there is some protection for the couple. However, the only safe sex is to stick to one partner or abstain.

6 Lots of men, and their partners, prefer the appearance of their penis after circumcision, It is odour-free, it feels cleaner, and they enjoy better sex. Awareness of a good body image is a very important factor in building self confidence.

7 Balanitis is an unpleasant, often recurring, inflammation of the glans. It is quite common and can be prevented by circumcision.

8 Urinary tract infections sometimes occur in babies and can be quite serious. Circumcision in infancy makes it 10 times less likely.

source: circinfo.com/benefits/bmc.html

 

[Blacksword]

From a retired British GP and Anaesthetist:

source: circinfo.com/benefits/bmc.html

Sigh, ok, I can’t help myself here. Circinfo is NOT a legitimate information site. It’s run by Brian Morris, a known circumcision fetishist. Read the “reasons” that are listed on the site for cutting…things like that women like the appearance better, it being “more sensitive” and “better sex”. This is not a trustworthy site.

 

[antonivs]

Sigh, ok, I can’t help myself here. Circinfo is NOT a legitimate information site. It’s run by Brian Morris, a known circumcision fetishist. Read the “reasons” that are listed on the site for cutting…things like that women like the appearance better, it being “more sensitive” and “better sex”. This is not a trustworthy site.

“circumcision fetishist”?! Ad hominem? Can you back that up?

Professor Brian J. Morris is:

“a university professor who teaches medical and science students and who has 40 years of medical research experience, including that involving genital cancer virology, as well as molecular biology and genetics of cardiovascular disease. I have over 280 publications, many in high-ranking journals.”

source: circinfo.net/about_the_author_professor_brian_j_morris.html

 

[Blacksword]

“circumcision fetishist”?! Ad hominem? Can you back that up?

Professor Brian J. Morris is:

source: circinfo.net/about_the_author_professor_brian_j_morris.html

Sigh, sure. Altho his own site has linked to circ-fetishist sites. Read on, check the links to his own works, and be horrified:

circumcisionandhiv.com/2010/02/brian-morris-the-fred-phelps-of-the-procircumcision-lobby.html
circleaks.org/index.php?title=Brian_J._Morris
circleaks.org/index.php?title=Talk:Brian_J._Morris

That ought to get you started on a brief introduction to the esteemed Dr. Morris (NOT a medical doctor, mind you).

 

[Dale_M]

“Apart from the religious aspect, the citizens of San Francisco should be outraged at the prospect of city government dictating to parents in such a sensitive matter regarding the health and hygiene of their children,” wrote Archbishop Niederauer.

I think Archbishop Niederauer is saying that, if passed, the ban would be government intrusion in the lives of families, and in the practice of religion.

That this proposal is a ballot initiative from a private citizen, which qualified for the ballot only after a certain number of signatures were achieved has been widely reported. We’ve even had several threads in the World News forum here at CAF which have mentioned that. However, here is another link, from the same source as in the OP, which mentions this

Backers of a measure to outlaw male circumcision in San Francisco, spearheaded by a man who associates himself with a group called “Catholics Against Circumcision” on his Facebook page, say they have submitted more than enough signatures to qualify the local initiative for the November 2011 ballot.

“On 4/26 we submitted 12,265 signatures from concerned San Francisco Residents to the Department of Elections in our effort to restrict circumcision for male minors,” says the San Francisco MGM Bill website. (MGM stands for “Male Genital Mutilation.”) In order to qualify, 7200 of the signatures must be certified as valid by the San Francisco Board of Elections, which has 30 days to make its determination.

calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=cdb82675-9bb7-4e63-a152-d0f13d834ae6

I have not seen any news source which indicates that the City of San Francisco is backing this proposal.

 

[Corki]

Sigh, sure. Altho his own site has linked to circ-fetishist sites. Read on, check the links to his own works, and be horrified:

circumcisionandhiv.com/2010/02/brian-morris-the-fred-phelps-of-the-procircumcision-lobby.html
circleaks.org/index.php?title=Brian_J._Morris
circleaks.org/index.php?title=Talk:Brian_J._Morris

That ought to get you started on a brief introduction to the esteemed Dr. Morris (NOT a medical doctor, mind you).

Sorry, couldn’t get past the first one where they call Dr. Morris a “name-caller” and then superimposed his picture into a Fred Phelps demonstration. Not exactly a reliable or scholarly source.

 

[Blacksword]

Sorry, couldn’t get past the first one where they call Dr. Morris a “name-caller” and then superimposed his picture into a Fred Phelps demonstration. Not exactly a reliable or scholarly source.

Because you’re not trying very hard again, look at the actual LINKS to his own interviews, emails, statements, and Internet doings. Look at the links HE has on his OWN WEBSITE. But I warn all: be careful about the ones you click on. A number of them are sick and disturbing viewing. It’s not “scholarly”, it’s called “investigative journalism”. The man’s own affiliations and statements speak for themselves. He links to sexual fetish websites involving circumcision, he has advocated female genital cutting, and has advocated cutting every baby boy at birth. The guy is a certified wacko, by his own statements. Read HIS stuff, not just the beginning of the first summary page.

Even if you remain uncertain on the issue, trust me, looking into Brian Morris will quickly show you that he definitely is one you want to stay far away from.

 

[Blacksword]

And for more reliable resources on the HIV issue and circumcision not being effective against it, please see the following:

circinfo.org/Circumcision_HIV_doubts.html

Notice this is scholarly published journal articles being referenced.

As for cancers being prevented by circumcision, please see what the American Cancer Society, who should actually be the ones MOST interested in preventing cancers, have to say about it:

cirp.org/library/statements/letters/1996-02_ACS/

cancer.org/cancer/penilecancer/detailedguide/penile-cancer-risk-factors

Note that the ACS states that “decisions about circumcision are highly personal and depend more on social and religious factors than medical evidence”, and that “The ACS does not consider Routine circumcision to be a valid or effective measure to prevent these cancers” in referring to cervical and penile cancer.

So again I reiterate that the medical evidence of any benefit is HIGHLY dubious at best, and no real medical benefit has been established, as shown by these authoritative and scholarly sources.

 

[antonivs]

And for more reliable resources on the HIV issue and circumcision not being effective against it, please see the following:

circinfo.org/Circumcision_HIV_doubts.html

Notice this is scholarly published journal articles being referenced.

As for cancers being prevented by circumcision, please see what the American Cancer Society, who should actually be the ones MOST interested in preventing cancers, have to say about it:

cirp.org/library/statements/letters/1996-02_ACS/

cancer.org/cancer/penilecancer/detailedguide/penile-cancer-risk-factors

Note that the ACS states that “decisions about circumcision are highly personal and depend more on social and religious factors than medical evidence”, and that “The ACS does not consider Routine circumcision to be a valid or effective measure to prevent these cancers” in referring to cervical and penile cancer.

So again I reiterate that the medical evidence of any benefit is HIGHLY dubious at best, and no real medical benefit has been established, as shown by these authoritative and scholarly sources.

Blacksword,
You get to quote from circinfo but when I do the same you tell me that “Circinfo is NOT a legitimate information site.” Also, are you ignoring all the benefits reported by Dr. David Hawker at the same site that I quoted above?

Your second link is a letter from 1996!  Dated?  It doesn't say that circumcision does not help prevent penile cancer merely that they consider research to be inconclusive.  And it mentions other factors that can contribute to penile cancer (such as cigarette smoking) so comparing U.S. rates to Europe may be apples to oranges.  Those who compare U.S. rates to Europe seem to ignore higher rates in parts of Europe and higher rates still outside of Europe.  There are studies which show just such a benefit (see your third link):

From your third link:

Circumcision is the removal of all (or a part) of the foreskin. This procedure is most often done in infants but it can be done later in life. Circumcision seems to protect against penile cancer when it is done shortly after birth. Although men who were circumcised as babies have a lower chance of getting penile cancer than those who were not, studies looking at this issue have not found the same protective effect if the foreskin is removed later in life. The reasons for this are not entirely clear, but may be related to other known risk factors.

 For example, **men who are circumcised cannot develop the condition called phimosis, and cannot accumulate material known as smegma (see next section). Men with smegma or phimosis have an increased risk of penile cancer. The later a man is circumcised the more likely it is that one of these conditions will occur first. Also, circumcised men are less likely to get and stay infected with the human papilloma virus (HPV), even after accounting for differences in sexual behavior. Again, the later a circumcision is done, the more likely that a man will be infected with HPV before the procedure**.

You seem to believe any authority that doubts medical benefits from circumcision and ignore those who state there are benefits. Given the differences among authorities, I think it is only right that parents be allowed to make these important medical decisions for their sons after being informed of the potential risks and benefits.

 

[Blacksword]

Blacksword,
You get to quote from circinfo but when I do the same you tell me that “Circinfo is NOT a legitimate information site.” Also, are you ignoring all the benefits reported by Dr. David Hawker at the same site that I quoted above?

Your second link is a letter from 1996!  Dated?  It doesn't say that circumcision does not help prevent penile cancer merely that they consider research to be inconclusive.  And it mentions other factors that can contribute to penile cancer (such as cigarette smoking) so comparing U.S. rates to Europe may be apples to oranges.  Those who compare U.S. rates to Europe seem to ignore higher rates in parts of Europe and higher rates still outside of Europe.  There are studies which show just such a benefit (see your third link):

From your third link:

 You seem to believe any authority that doubts medical benefits from circumcision and ignore those who state there are benefits.  Given the differences among authorities, I think it is only right that parents be allowed to make these important medical decisions for their sons after being informed of the potential risks and benefits.

CIRCINFrg, NOT the same site as CIRCINFO.net or CIRCINFO.com, those two are run by Brian Morris the wacko, the .org site is associated with the australian pediatrics academy, clearly you didnt look at the site or you would know the difference…

I trust research that reflects reality, and reality is that intact men and there wives are overall quite happy and healthy.

And I repeat that given the fact that the evidence on the matter is dubious at best, it is only right that the OWNER of the body in question make HIS own decision about modifying it surgically!

 

[antonivs]

CIRCINFrg, NOT the same site as CIRCINFO.net or CIRCINFO.com, those two are run by Brian Morris the wacko, the .org site is associated with the australian pediatrics academy, clearly you didnt look at the site or you would know the difference…

I trust research that reflects reality, and reality is that intact men and there wives are overall quite happy and healthy.

And I repeat that given the fact that the evidence on the matter is dubious at best, it is only right that the OWNER of the body in question make HIS own decision about modifying it surgically!

I did actually go to your link and it is easy to get confused with such similar names, so save your insults. And Brian Morris is not a “wacko” but a professor and a scholar with 40 years experience in medical science.

circinfo.net/about_the_author_professor_brian_j_morris.html

Hardly dubious as your third link showed. Also, it stated clearly that there are advantages to neonatal circumcision specifically, which would necessarily entail parents making this decision.

 

[Corki]

And I repeat that given the fact that the evidence on the matter is dubious at best, it is only right that the OWNER of the body in question make HIS own decision about modifying it surgically!

As a parent, I make MANY decisions about my children’s bodies - everything from what food they eat to whether they get braces to which vacinations they should get. They have had teeth pulled and been stuck with needles for blood testing - on my consent. I have consented to surgeries and stiches, to testing and treatment for a wide variety of medical issues. Some of those things had temporary effects, some were permanent.

Now when they are over 18, they are free to call into question any of those decisions that I made on their behalf. They are also free to decide to do things differently when they have children. I decide what is right for my kids based on the information I have at the time. I take my children’s physician’s recommendation into account.

But there is no way that my child’s physical care should be dictated by a voter referendum.

 

[Blacksword]

I did actually go to your link and it is easy to get confused with such similar names, so save your insults. And Brian Morris is not a “wacko” but a professor and a scholar with 40 years experience in medical science.

circinfo.net/about_the_author_professor_brian_j_morris.html

Hardly dubious as your third link showed. Also, it stated clearly that there are advantages to neonatal circumcision specifically, which would necessarily entail parents making this decision.

Sorry, but reading his own quotes, and watching him in interviews shows he is a wacko. He is…reading what his OWN site says about him is about as efficacious as reading Hitler propaganda to judge what Hitler was really like. I mean, joseph stalin would I’m sure tell you how swell a guy he really was!

Brian Morris’ site links to sexual circumcision fetishist sites, he gas advocated female genital cutting, and makes bizarre arguments fir cutting like “uncut men smell and are icky”…if you’re not going to admit these facts about him are very disturbing and do not attest to him being a reliable, impartial source of information on this topic, then you’re not being intellectually honest and further discussion is useless.

The medical evidence is clear: It is incredibly UNCLEAR that there is any real benefit to cutting a baby’s genitals. Clearly scientific studies are dubious at best, and all of the world’s medical associations hold that circumcision is NOT medically recommended in routine cases. In fact many medical associations outright state it violates the rights of the infant and should NOT be done. These are facts, and you have utterly lost this debate at this point.

If you’re really going to hitch your wagon to an obvious nutter like Morris, then there’s no hope for convincing you, but anyone who just looks at the links Morris gives on his OWN website will be forewarned about him and what he has to say. I mean seriously, his site features a banana with the end cut off at the TOP of the page! LOL! Does that sort of crude, unprofessional imagery seem like something you would be likely to see on a legitimate medical site? Would you find a breast cancer site featuring a picture of two melons at the top of the page?! Is anyone even thinking at this point, or is this purely an exercise in emotionalism and protection of one’s own self-esteem?

Whatever you think about circumcision, at least don’t rely on Morris for your information!

 

[meltzerboy]

As a parent, I make MANY decisions about my children’s bodies - everything from what food they eat to whether they get braces to which vacinations they should get. They have had teeth pulled and been stuck with needles for blood testing - on my consent. I have consented to surgeries and stiches, to testing and treatment for a wide variety of medical issues. Some of those things had temporary effects, some were permanent.

Now when they are over 18, they are free to call into question any of those decisions that I made on their behalf. They are also free to decide to do things differently when they have children. I decide what is right for my kids based on the information I have at the time. I take my children’s physician’s recommendation into account.

But there is no way that my child’s physical care should be dictated by a voter referendum.

Very good comment! We, as parents, have the responsibility of caring for and protecting our children with the advice of our physicians. Your specific remark about vaccinations is another timely issue which parents must decide upon based on some dubious scientific evidence and popular opinion which have recently pointed against their health benefits. In theory, children’s bodies may be their own, but it is their parents and caregivers, not strangers, who must rightfully make most of the decisions regarding their children’s health and welfare. To fail to do so would be construed as child neglect or abuse.

 

[meltzerboy]

Blacksword,
You get to quote from circinfo but when I do the same you tell me that “Circinfo is NOT a legitimate information site.” Also, are you ignoring all the benefits reported by Dr. David Hawker at the same site that I quoted above?

Your second link is a letter from 1996!  Dated?  It doesn't say that circumcision does not help prevent penile cancer merely that they consider research to be inconclusive.  And it mentions other factors that can contribute to penile cancer (such as cigarette smoking) so comparing U.S. rates to Europe may be apples to oranges.  Those who compare U.S. rates to Europe seem to ignore higher rates in parts of Europe and higher rates still outside of Europe.  There are studies which show just such a benefit (see your third link):

From your third link:

 You seem to believe any authority that doubts medical benefits from circumcision and ignore those who state there are benefits.  Given the differences among authorities, I think it is only right that parents be allowed to make these important medical decisions for their sons after being informed of the potential risks and benefits.

I totally agree! There is evidence on both sides of the issue; therefore it is up to parents as caregivers, together with their physicians, to make an informed decision. That right should NOT be taken away from them on the basis of preliminary research findings combined with popular opinion. A similar situation involving mixed research outcomes exists for women of varying age groups concerning the value of mammograms, as well as for post-menopausal women with regard to the benefits and risks of estrogen replacement therapy.

 

[Blacksword]

As a parent, I make MANY decisions about my children’s bodies - everything from what food they eat to whether they get braces to which vacinations they should get. They have had teeth pulled and been stuck with needles for blood testing - on my consent. I have consented to surgeries and stiches, to testing and treatment for a wide variety of medical issues. Some of those things had temporary effects, some were permanent.

Now when they are over 18, they are free to call into question any of those decisions that I made on their behalf. They are also free to decide to do things differently when they have children. I decide what is right for my kids based on the information I have at the time. I take my children’s physician’s recommendation into account.

But there is no way that my child’s physical care should be dictated by a voter referendum.

Sigh…none of those things are similar in any way. Let me ask you: did you have healthy, normal, non-problem-causing teeth pulled? Would a dentist agree to yank out say, half your child’s teeth even thogh they were perfectly fine, because you asked him to? What if you told the dentist “well, teeth usually go bad eventually, so why not”? Did you have cosmetic surgery done on your child? Could I, for instance, have breast implants put in my two year old daughter? What surgeon would agree to such an operation? How about I asked to have her breast buds removed now, since she MIGHT get breast cancer later in life? And yet that’s FAR more likely than penile cancer or ANY other possible issue stemming from a normal foreskin!

Vaccines are thoroughly, overwhelmingly supported by medical evidence as being efficacious, likely life-saving for many, and essentially harmless.

What you need to do for me is tell me ANY single other scenario in which a parent has the authority to give proxy consent to a physician to perform a medically unnecessary, non-therapeutic surgery on a healthy, normal child, as I’ve asked before and yet NOONE can answer! Where else can a parent have a body part amputated from their child that is not abnormal, diseased, or in any way unhealthy?

The fact that this is the one exception to our normative medical ethics standards should alert us to a problem! It ought to be a big red flag to us.

 

[Blacksword]

I totally agree! There is evidence on both sides of the issue; therefore it is up to parents as caregivers, together with their physicians, to make an informed decision. That right should NOT be taken away from them on the basis of preliminary research findings combined with popular opinion. A similar situation involving mixed research outcomes exists for women of varying age groups concerning the value of mammograms, as well as for post-menopausal women with regard to the benefits and risks of estrogen replacement therapy.

Yeah, except those women are making a health decision for THEMSELVES…if a guy wants to be cut, sure, let him get it. Just like ANY other cosmetic modification.

 

[antonivs]

Sorry, but reading his own quotes, and watching him in interviews shows he is a wacko. He is…reading what his OWN site says about him is about as efficacious as reading Hitler propaganda to judge what Hitler was really like. I mean, joseph stalin would I’m sure tell you how swell a guy he really was!

Brian Morris’ site links to sexual circumcision fetishist sites, he gas advocated female genital cutting, and makes bizarre arguments fir cutting like “uncut men smell and are icky”…if you’re not going to admit these facts about him are very disturbing and do not attest to him being a reliable, impartial source of information on this topic, then you’re not being intellectually honest and further discussion is useless.

So, because there is one link to a circumcision fetish discussion group on yahoo, that makes all the other scientific studies and information posted on his site worthless?  Prove that Dr. Morris advocates female genital cutting.  And concerning smell and ickiness, circumcision does make cleaning easier.  Your calling me intellectually dishonest is not appreciated.

The medical evidence is clear: It is incredibly UNCLEAR that there is any real benefit to cutting a baby’s genitals. Clearly scientific studies are dubious at best, and all of the world’s medical associations hold that circumcision is NOT medically recommended in routine cases. In fact many medical associations outright state it violates the rights of the infant and should NOT be done. These are facts, and you have utterly lost this debate at this point.

Don't declare victory so soon.  One of the links you cited stated clearly several medical benefits to neonatal circumcision.  And you have yet to comment on the benefits mentioned by Dr. David Hawker above.  

Groups like the AMA and AAP don't recommend it, but neither do they call for neonatal circumcision to be banned.  Both groups call for parents to make an informed decision based on the potential risks and benefits.

If you’re really going to hitch your wagon to an obvious nutter like Morris, then there’s no hope for convincing you, but anyone who just looks at the links Morris gives on his OWN website will be forewarned about him and what he has to say. I mean seriously, his site features a banana with the end cut off at the TOP of the page! LOL! Does that sort of crude, unprofessional imagery seem like something you would be likely to see on a legitimate medical site? Would you find a breast cancer site featuring a picture of two melons at the top of the page?! Is anyone even thinking at this point, or is this purely an exercise in emotionalism and protection of one’s own self-esteem?

Whatever you think about circumcision, at least don’t rely on Morris for your information!

Morris is hardly my only source of information.  I am still waiting for you to discuss the benefits of neonatal circumcision mentioned at your third link:

Circumcision is the removal of all (or a part) of the foreskin. This procedure is most often done in infants but it can be done later in life. Circumcision seems to protect against penile cancer when it is done shortly after birth. Although men who were circumcised as babies have a lower chance of getting penile cancer than those who were not, studies looking at this issue have not found the same protective effect if the foreskin is removed later in life. The reasons for this are not entirely clear, but may be related to other known risk factors.

For example, men who are circumcised cannot develop the condition called phimosis, and cannot accumulate material known as smegma (see next section). Men with smegma or phimosis have an increased risk of penile cancer. The later a man is circumcised the more likely it is that one of these conditions will occur first. Also, circumcised men are less likely to get and stay infected with the human papilloma virus (HPV), even after accounting for differences in sexual behavior. Again, the later a circumcision is done, the more likely that a man will be infected with HPV before the procedure.

source: cancer.org/cancer/penilecancer/detailedguide/penile-cancer-risk-factors