I agree that proper hygiene will deal with most of these situations, but repeated infection usually signals a larger problem. It appears the child is prone to infection and his doctor agrees circumcision is medically necessary. I fail to understand why a father seek to overrule medical advice, without seeking any of his own.
My brother in law (my sister married a Methodist) went through a very similar process with a father who was uncircumcised and felt strongly that his son's issue was one of cleanliness. When he was in the military in his mid-twenties he underwent a circumcision. It was extremely painful, took a week to heal, but he has had no recurrance of infection since. All of their sons were circumcised at birth.
If it worked in that case, good then.
About the study on HIV transmission and AIDS, my earlier cited example of the rates of transmission being nearly the same in Europe and the US, kind of debunks it. And that particular study had a lot of critics too.
Besides, trying to prevent HIV transmission by circumcision is a lot more ineffective than being faithful to one partner, and using a barrier method of protection.
This argument of getting sons to have a circumcision, just for the sake of "ensuring their chances of getting HIV reduced" is the same as getting daughters to take that pappiloma virus vacccination, so that she may not contract the disease, when she goes about whoring her body in adulthood. In fact, the latter makes for a stronger case.
And all this without keeping cultural aspects in mind.