I don't have access to the full paper yet, but studies like this never seem to include meatal stenosis (seen almost exclusively in males circumcised shortly after birth) as a complication, or possible sexual difficulties later in life.
Given the figures they're talking about it seems unlikely they included the chance of a revision or lysis of penile adhesions (both involving a second procedure) as "adverse events" either eg pubmed 23820002. Why not?

and they won't have included this:
Bauer, Kriebel, 2013, pubmed 23656698
"For studies including boys born after 1995, there was a strong correlation between country-level (n=9) autism/ASD prevalence in males and a country's circumcision rate (r=0.98). A very similar pattern was seen among U.S. states and when comparing the 3 main racial/ethnic groups in the U.S." (the authors postulate that this is due to paracetamol, though this doesn't seem clear)

It's also worth noting that only around 10% of the world's circumcised men were circumcised as infants, and that in countries where neonatal circumcision is rare, medically-required circumcision later in life is also very rare - less than 1% in some countries.

The glans is sensitive, and certainly far more sensitive than the middle of the shaft, but still nowhere near as sensitive as most people think. The nerve ending concentration is roughly the same as in the heel. Even on a circumcised man, the glans isn't the most sensitve part of the penis though, and the dorsal midline isn't even the most sensitive part of the glans, which is why that study doesn't realy make much sense. It's like trying to measure whether or clitoral surgery has an effect by measuring vaginal sensitivity. Most of the sexual sensation in men seems to take place in the sulcus (just under the ridge), the frenulum if it's still there, and around the scar line or inner foreskin (the outer foreskin isn't much different to the lower shaft).

I've looked at the studies and made an informed decision, but believe that the choice should be choice should be that of the person whose body it is. Many national medical organizations seem to agree.

Brian Morris isn't a pediatrician, urologist, or even a physician.
PZ Myers:
"But then, that’s Brian Morris all over the place. He actively tries to suppress work that doesn’t support his conclusions, he inflates any evidence that suggests circumcision might have a few benefits (there are some!), and dismisses any evidence to the contrary…or worse, twists it around to claim it supports the opposite of the author’s interpretations. All this in defiance of worldwide statements from pediatric organizations that say the evidence for health benefits from circumcision are weak, and that routine circumcision is not recommended."

Another doctor (unfortunately links aren't allowed): "Having reviewed Dr. Morris’s study, I find his statements about the benefits of circumcision as a routine procedure overblown, and the comparison with vaccination baseless."

Several national medical organizations continue to recommend against male circumcision.

"The patients were tested on the dorsal midline glans of the penis"

Huh? What was the point of that? The inner foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis - it's not just there to protect the glans. Even on a circumcised man, the glans isn't usually the most sensitive part - it's normally the scar line, or the frenulum if that wasn't removed.

Skeptical? Try stimulating only the glans and the shaft an inch below the glans, and see how much sensation is missing.

AAP - "Care of the Uncircumcised Penis"
"foreskin retraction should never be forced. Until separation occurs, do not try to pull the foreskin back — especially an infant's. Forcing the foreskin to retract before it is ready may severely harm the penis and cause pain, bleeding and tears in the skin."

Canadian Paediatric Society
"Keep your baby’s penis clean by gently washing the area during his bath. Do not try to pull back the foreskin. Usually, it is not fully retractable until a boy is 3 to 5 years old, or even until after puberty. Never force it."

RACP policy statement on male circumcision
"The foreskin requires no special care during infancy. It should be left alone. Attempts to forcibly retract it are painful, often injure the foreskin, and can lead to scarring and phimosis."

Both the AAP and CPS suggest that early retraction is a lot more common than seems to be the case. A Danish study (Øster) found that only 23% of boys could retract by the age of 6-7, and an average age of ten. Why would anyone know or care though? We don't go poking around in the genitals of small girls.

Having more sensitivity seems to mean more control. It's circumcised men that seem to have more of a problem with PE (Tang and Khoo 2011).

Not all Jewish people believe in infant circumcision. Brit Shalom is an alternative naming ceremony to celebrate the birth of baby boys to Jewish families. There are several sites run by Jewish people opposed to infant circumcision.

38 senior physicians (around half of them chairs or presidents of national medical organizations responded to the AAP's position statement as follows:

"The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recently released its new technical report and policy statement on male circumcision, concluding that current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks. The technical report is based on the scrutiny of a large number of complex scientific articles. Therefore, while striving for objectivity, the conclusions drawn by the eight task force members reflect what these individual doctors perceived as trustworthy evidence. Seen from the outside, cultural bias reflecting the normality of non-therapeutic male circumcision in the US seems obvious, and the report’s conclusions are different from those reached by doctors in other parts of the Western world, including Europe, Canada, and Australia. In this commentary, a quite different view is presented by non-US-based doctors and representatives of general medical associations and societies for pediatrics, pediatric surgery and pediatric urology in Northern Europe. To these authors, there is but one of the arguments put forward by the AAP that has some theoretical relevance in relation to infant male circumcision, namely the possible protection against urinary tract infections in infant boys, which can be easily treated with antibiotics without tissue loss. The other claimed health benefits, including protection against HIV/AIDS, genital herpes, genital warts and penile cancer, are questionable, weak and likely to have little public health relevance in a Western context, and do not represent compelling reasons for surgery before boys are old enough to decide for themselves."

Whose body is it? Why shouldn't they get to choose? Only about 10% of the world's circumcised men were circumcised as infants, so it's not like it can't wait.

The "other benefits as one gets older" are highly controversial. It's really esay to find circumcised doctors who are against routine circumcision, but surprisingly difficult to find male doctors in favor who weren't circumcised themselves as children.

There was nothing new in the recent study published by the Mayo Clinic. The lead author isn't a pediatrician, urologist or even a physician, and several national medical organizations continue to recommend against infant circumcision. Girls get 3-4 times as many UTI's as boys, but we wouldn't consider routine genital surgery as an option.