For example, Dr. Herschel Goldman claims medical benefits for this practice: specifically, the penis is cleaner, and there is a reduced risk of STDs and cervical cancer (for partners). I can't see how this benefits sexually-inactive infants, so why not wait until consent can be given? Because, even for adults, these benefits are not significant given basic hygiene, condoms and pap smear testing.
Dr. Goldman suggests that we "weigh all this up against the short-term pain of the infant". What about the risks of carrying out the procedure itself, such as bleeding, damage and infection? Reason dicates any fair assessment would have to consider those risks, as well as the loss of function and possible longer-term psychological effects of the trauma.
Little wonder the medical profession does not support this practice on medical grounds, and the circumcision rate is falling below 5% in Victoria. The Australasian College of Physicians, on its website, says "review of the literature in relation to risks and benefits shows there is no evidence of benefit outweighing harm for circumcision as a routine procedure."
If some people in our community want to mutilate their sons' genitals, let's not kid ourselves with spurious medical reasons. I suspect that these claims are promulgated by advocates to avoid comparisons with Female Genital Mutilation: it is, after all, a difference of degree, not principle.