If you will read that article very carefully, you will see that it is very clear that circumcision should not be considered. I suspect that your mother didn't read it very clearly and thought it was saying that circumcision is a preventative for UTIs. What it was saying is that to prevent UTIs, the mother should spend as much skin to skin contact time with the baby in the first few days as possible to "contaminate" the baby with her good, beneficial bacteria and to breast feed to also transfer her natural immunities. What the author is speculating about is that an artificial "inoculation" could be developed to replace this natural bonding time since most newborns are now placed in nurseries and don't get that normal and natural colonization of bacteria. Not what you thought, was it?
Now, to go a bit further. This article was written to refute a study done by Dr. Thomas Wiswell. Dr. Wiswell is a tireless self promoter and advocate of circumcision. He is so eager to have boys circumcised that he is willing to fabricate evidence to deceive parents into circumcising their sons and this study is evidence of that zeal.
It is a well known fact that premature babies both male and female, are at a much higher risk of UTIs than full term babies. Dr. Wiswell choose all premature babies for his intact study group and all full term babies for his circumcised group. See what I'm getting at here? Wiswell actually constructed his study to come up with his desired results. Yet, even at that, he only found that the rate was 2.5% higher. Not much difference, huh?
There have been 8 or 10 studies that have all found the difference in the UTI rate between circumcised and intact boys at less than 1%, or statistically insignificant and well within the range of confounding factors. You can find all of the available UTI studies at www.cirp.org
. Just search for "UTI" or "urinary tract infections." Read them very carefully and you will see that the argument for circumcision based on UTIs is beyond weak.
By the way, Wiswell's deceptive study came back to bite him in the butt. He was once a member of the AAP's Taskforce on Circumcision, a very prestigious position and an excellent place to argue for universal mandatory circumcision. However, he was found out for his trickery and falsifying of research and as a result, was removed from the taskforce in 1992. He's still stinging from that one!