"Healthcare is all about risk versus benefit decisions. Typically, no choice is totally satisfactory but it is determined to be the best decision based on the data we know."
This seems like backwards healthcare - cutting off a healthy section of male genitalia, then frantically searching for "benefits" to rationalize it.
As a medical professional, would you usually recommend removing normal, healthy body parts? For instance, would you recommend double mastectomies for all infant females to help prevent breast cancer?
The only reason we are even discussing this is because it has become traditional. Consider this: if similar benefits were expected from removing some of the skin surrounding the labia or clitoris, would you advocate it as good healthcare, requiring risk versus benefit decisions?