Elective In 2007, the WHO and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) stated that they recommended adolescent and adult<unk>  as part of a comprehensive program for prevention of HIV transmission in areas with high endemic rates of HIV, as long as the program includes "informed consent, confidentiality, and absence of coercion". In 2020, the World Health Organization again concluded that male<unk>  is an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention and that the promotion of male<unk>  is an essential strategy, in addition to other preventive measures, for the prevention of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men. Eastern and southern Africa had a particularly low prevalence of<unk> umcised males. This region has a disproportionately high HIV infection rate, with a significant number of those infections stemming from heterosexual transmission. As a result, the promotion of prophylactic<unk>  has been a priority intervention in that region since the WHO's 2007 recommendations. The International Antiviral Society–USA also suggests<unk>  be discussed with men who have insertive anal sex with men, especially in regions where HIV is common. The finding that<unk>  significantly reduces female-to-male HIV transmission has prompted medical organizations serving communities affected by endemic HIV/AIDS to promote<unk>  as an additional method of controlling the spread of HIV. Public health advocates of<unk>  consider it to have a net benefit, and therefore feel that increasing the<unk>  rate is an "bioethical imperative". They recommend performing it during the neonatal period when it is less expensive and has a lower risk of complications. The American Academy of Pediatrics, along with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, state the benefits of<unk>  outweigh the risks, and the procedure should be covered by insurance. In 2014, the CDC recommended<unk>  in a policy statement. According to the World Health Organization, "there are significant benefits in performing male<unk>  in early infancy". Questions surrounding prophylactics, bioethics, group rights, and religious freedom have been brought up over these cases, leading to discussions over the procedure's ethics. The Royal Dutch Medical Association, which expresses some of the strongest opposition to routine neonatal<unk> , argues that while there are valid reasons for banning it, doing so could lead parents who insist on the procedure to turn to poorly trained practitioners instead of medical professionals. The argument to keep the procedure within the purview of medical professionals is found across all major medical organizations. In addition, the organizations advise medical professionals to yield to some degree to parental preferences, commonly based upon cultural or religious views, in their decision to agree to<unk> umcise. The Danish College of General Practitioners has stated that<unk>  should "only be done when medically needed, otherwise it is a case of mutilation." Literature on the matter is polarized, with the type of cost-benefit analysis being highly dependent on the kinds and frequencies of health problems in the population under discussion and how<unk>  affects those health problems. Neonatal<unk>  is usually elected by the parents for non-medical reasons, such as religious beliefs or personal preferences, possibly driven by societal norms. Pathologies<unk>  may be used to treat pathological phimosis, refractory balanoposthitis and chronic or recurrent urinary tract infections (UTIs).
Circumcision
Debulking
Soot tattoo
Moulage
Sexual intercourse
Cheesewiring
Casualty lifting
Amalgam tattoo