Changes

 Male [[circumcision]] is the surgical removal of the [[foreskin]] (prepuce) from the human [[penis]].<ref name=sawyer_2011>{{REFbook

|firstinit=?S

|pages=555–556555-556

}}</ref> The foreskin has protective, immunological, sensory, and sexual functions. The '''ethics of non-therapeutic child circumcision''' being imposed on unconsenting minors (babies and children) has been a source of ongoing controversy.<ref>{{REFjournal |last=Boyle |first=G.J. |last2=Svoboda |first2=J.S. |last3=Price |first3=C.P. |last4=Turner |first4=J.N. |year=BoyleGJ SvobodaJS PriceCP TurnerJN 2000 |title=Circumcision of healthy boys: Criminal assault? |url=http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/boyle1/ |journal=Journal of Law and Medicine |volume=7 |issue= |pages=301–310}}</ref> <ref name="RACPSumm">{{REFweb

}}</ref> <ref name="bma2006">{{REFjournal |last=Committee on Medical Ethics |first= |author. [https://www.bma.org.uk/advice/employment/ethics/children-and-young-people/non-therapeutic-male-link= |last2= |first2= |author2circumcision-link= |etal=no |title=of-children-ethics-toolkit The law and ethics of male circumcision: Guidance for doctors |trans-title= |language= |journal=]. London: British Medical Association |location= |date=2006-06 |volume= |issue= |pages= |url=http://www.bma.org.uk/-/media/Files/PDFs/Practical advice at work/Ethics/Circumcision.pdf |quote= |pubmedID= |pubmedCID= |DOI= |accessdate=2019-11-03}}</ref>

Some [[Medical trade association| medical trade associations take ]] formerly took the position that the parents should determine what is in the best interest of the newborn, infant , or child.<ref name="AAP1999">{{REFjournal

|pages=686–93686-693

}},</ref> however the AAP has now abandoned all previous position statements on male [[circumcision]]. Others say that circumcision is an infringement of the child's autonomy and should be delayed until he is capable of making the decision himself.<ref>{{REFbook |url=https://books.google.com/?id=C1T6NrSPD_AC |title=Clinical Ethics in Pediatrics: A Case-Based Textbook |last=Diekema |first=Douglas S. |last2=Mercurio |first2=Mark R. |last3=Adam |first3=Mary B. |date=2011-09-08 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=9781139501835 |location= |pages=43–48 |language=en}}</ref><ref name="knmg.artsennet.nl2KNMG2010">[http://knmgcircumstitions.artsennet.nlcom/webDocs/file?uuid=579e836dKNMG-ea83-410f-9889-feb7eda87cd5&owner=a8a9ce0e-f42b-47a5-960e-be08025b7b04&contentid=77976&elementid=771754 policy.pdf Non-Therapeutic Circumcision of Male Minors]. Utrecht: Royal Dutch Medical Association, 2010.</ref>A circumcision operation may be performed at any age, so an [[intact]] boy may elect to have a [[circumcision]] whenever he wishes.

==Medical societies trade association views==

This statement also recognizes that waiting until the boy is of sufficient age to make his own decision would better respect his autonomy, but points out that this may interfere with a child's religious inclusion that [[circumcision ]] was meant to confer.<ref name="racp2010"/> With neonatal male circumcision, they acknowledge that the child may later on disagree with the parents' decision <ref name="racp2010"/> but using the same reasoning, an [[uncircumcised ]] child may also disagree with his parents' decision not to have him circumcised in infancy.,<ref name="racp2010"/>but he can have a circumcision at any age.

|firstinit=ST..

|first2init2=J.C.JC

|first3init3=A.L.AL

|pages=311–315311-315

}}</ref> Since children require a substituted decision maker acting in their best interests, they recommend to hold off deferring non-medically indicated procedures, such as [[circumcision]], until children can make their own decisions. Yet the CPS also self-servingly states that parents of male newborns must receive unbiased information about neonatal circumcision, so that they can weigh specific risks and benefits of circumcision in the context of their own familial, religious and cultural beliefs.!<ref name="CPS2015"/>

===[[Denmark]] ===

The [[Royal Dutch Medical Association]] (''Koninklijke Nederlandsche Maatschappij tot bevordering der Geneeskunst'') (KNMG) and several Dutch specialist medical societies published a statement of position regarding circumcision of male children on 27 May 2010. The KNMG argues against circumcising male minors due to lack of evidence the procedure is useful or necessary, its associated risks, and violate the child's autonomy.<ref name="knmg.artsennet.nl2KNMG2010"/> They recommend deferring circumcision until the child is old enough to decide for himself.<ref name="knmg.artsennet.nl2KNMG2010" /> The Royal Dutch Medical Association questions why the ethics regarding male genital alterations should be viewed any differently from female genital alterations, when there are mild forms of female genital alterations (like pricking the clitoral hood without removing any tissue or removing the clitoral hood altogether). They have expressed opposition to both male circumcision and all forms of female circumcision, however they do not advocate a prohibition of male circumcision and prefer that circumcisions be done by doctors instead of illegal, underground circumcisers .<ref name="knmg.artsennet.nl2KNMG2010"/>

In 2013 children's ombudsmen from Sweden, Norway, Finland, [[Denmark]], and Iceland, along with the Chair of the Danish Children's Council and the children's spokesperson for Greenland, passed a resolution that emphasized the decision to be circumcised should belong to the individual, who should be able to give [[informed consent]].<ref name="resolution2">{{REFweb

The Nordic Association of Clinical Sexologists supports the position of the Nordic Association of Ombudsmen who reason that circumcision violates the individual's [[human rights ]] by denying the male child his ability to make the decision for himself.<ref>[http://nacs.eu/data/press_release001.pdf Statement on Non-Therapeutic Circumcision of Boys.]. Nordic Association of Clinical Sexologists, Helsinki, 10 October 2013.</ref>

The medical ethics committee ====2019 revision of the [https://www.bma.org.uk/ British Medical Association] also reviewed the ethics behind circumcision. Since circumcision has associated medical and psychological risks with no unequivocally proven medical benefits, they advise physicians to keep up with clinical evidence and only perform this procedure if it's in the child best interest.<ref nameBMA guidance="bma2006" /> However, they acknowledge the procedure as a cultural and religious practice, which may be an important ritual for the child's incorporation into the group.<ref name="bma2006"/> They recognize that parents have the authority to make choices for their child, and they emphasize it is important for parents to act in their child's best interest.<ref name="bma2006"/> They ultimately report that views vary in their community about the benefits and risks of the procedure, and there is no clear policy for this situation.<ref name="bma2006"/>

The [[British Medical Association]], being cognizant of the [[Re B and G (children) (No 2) EWFC 3]] (2015) and [[Re L and B (CHILDREN)]] (2016) family court decisions, issued a new guidance to its member physicians in 2019. The new guidance urges its member physicians to take an extremely cautious approach to parental requests for the performance of non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] on minor boys and to ascertain that the requested non-therapeutic circumcision is in the boy's best interests.<ref name="bma2019">{{REFdocument |title===Adult Non-therapeutic male circumcision(NTMC) of children – practical guidance for doctors |url====In a paper published June 2006, the [https://www.bma.org.uk/ media/1847/bma-non-therapeutic-male-circumcision-of-children-guidance-2019.pdf |contribution= |last=Anonymous |first= |publisher=British Medical Association] Committee on Medical Ethics does not consider circumcision of an adult male to be controversial, provided that the adult is of sound mind and grants his personal consent after receiving all material information regarding the known risks, disadvantages, and potential benefits to be derived from the surgical operation. |format=PDF |date=2019 |accessdate=2021-06-29}}</ref name="bma2006" />

====Child circumcision====[[Antony Lempert| Lempert]] et al. (2022) criticized the 2019 BMA guidance for "serious weaknesses". They listed: In # the absence of an explicit stance on the same British Medical Association paperunderlying ethical status of NPC, coupled with an implicit permissive stance, circumcision of a child to treat a clear <br> # an incoherent and present medical indication after a trial impracticable analysis of conservative treatment also is not considered to be ethically questionablethe child’s best interests, provided that a suitable surrogate has granted surrogate consent after receiving all material information <br> # unbalanced guidance regarding the known riskscultural issues, disadvantages<br> # unbalanced guidance regarding scientific issues, and potential benefits to be derived from <br> # unjustified differential treatment of children of the surgical operation.same sex,<ref name="bma2006"/br># unjustified differential treatment of children of different sexes,<br> ====Criticism # problems with child safeguarding, and revision of BMA statement====# problems with regulation and training,<br>Commenting on the development # an unjustified presumption of lawfulness of NPC of the 2003 British Medical Association guidance on circumcision, Mussell (2004) reports that debate in society is highly polarizedminors, and he attributes it <br> # failure adequately to the different faiths and cultures that make up BMAaddress recent case law.<ref name="mussell2004lempert2022">{{REFjournal |last=MussellLempert |first=Antony |init=A |author-link=Antony Lempert |last2=Chegwidden |first2=James |init2=J |author2-link=James Chegwidden |last3=Steinfeld |first3=Rebecca |init3=R |author3-link=Rebecca Steinfeld |last4=Earp |first4=Brian D. |authorlinkinit4=BD |author4-link=Brian D. Earp |dateetal=2004-06no |title=The development Non-therapeutic penile circumcision of professional guidelines on the minors: Current controversies in UK law and medical ethics of male circumcision. |journal=Clinical Ethics |location= |urldate=http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/30/3/2542022-05 |journalseason=Journal of Medical Ethics |volume=30 |issue=3 |pagesarticle=254–258 |DOIpage=10.1136/jme.2004.008615 |pubmedCIDpages=1733857 |pubmedIDurl=15173358https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360642209_Non-therapeutic_Penile_Circumcision_of_Minors_Current_Controversies_in_UK_Law_and_Medical_Ethics |accessdatearchived=

}}</ref> He identifies this as a difficulty in achieving consensus within the medical ethics committee. Arguments put forward in discussions, according to Mussell, included the social and cultural benefits of circumcision, the violation of the child's rights, and the violation of the child's autonomy.<ref name="mussell2004"/> The BMA statement of 2003 took the position that non-therapeutic circumcision of children is lawful in the United Kingdom.<ref name="BMA2003"/> British law professors Fox & Thomson (2005), citing the House of Lords case of R v Brown, challenged this statement. They argued that consent cannot make an unlawful act lawful.<ref name="fox-thomson">{{REFjournal |lastpubmedID=Fox |first=M. |last2=Thomson |first2=M. |titlepubmedCID=A covenant with the status quo? Male circumcision and the new BMA guidance to doctors |journal=J Med Ethics |date=2005 |volume=31 |issue=8 |pages=463–469 |url=http://jme.bmj.com/content/31/8/463.full |DOI=10.1136/jme.2004.009340 |pubmedIDaccessdate=16076971 |pubmedCID=17341972022-05-20}}</ref> The BMA issued a revised statement in 2006 and now reports the controversy regarding the lawfulness of non-therapeutic child circumcision and recommends that doctors obtain the consent of ''both'' parents before performing non-therapeutic circumcision of a male minor. The revised statement now mentions that male circumcision is generally assumed to be lawful provided that it is performed competently, is believed to be in the child's best interests, and there is valid consent from both parent or the child if it is capable of expressing a view.<ref name="bma2006" />

The [[American Academy of Pediatrics ]] currently has ''no '' official stance on neonatal circumcision. The previous statement has expired in 2017 and has not been reaffirmed.<ref>{{REFjournal

|pages=585–586585-586

The expired American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) position statement on male circumcision (2012) has attracted significant critical commentduring its brief life, including from the AAP itself.

In a dissenting paper, Frisch ''et al''. (2013) point out "Circumcision fails to meet the criteria to serve as a preventive measure for UTI [...] As a preventive measure for penile cancer, circumcision also fails to meet the criteria for preventive medicine [...] circumcision for [[HIV ]] protection in Western countries fails to meet the criteria for preventive medicine [...] Circumcision fails to meet the commonly accepted criteria for the justification of preventive medical procedures in children."

Frisch ''et al''. conclude that "The AAP report lacks a serious discussion of the central ethical dilemma with, on one side, parents’ right to act in the best interest of the child on the basis of cultural, religious, and health-related beliefs and wishes and, on the other side, infant boys’ basic right to physical integrity in the absence of compelling reasons for surgery. Physical integrity is one of the most fundamental and inalienable rights a child has. Physicians and their professional organizations have a professional duty to protect this right, irrespective of the gender of the child."

[[Robert S. Van Howe |Van Howe]] & [[J. Steven Svoboda|Svoboda ]] (2013) criticize the AAP statement because it failed to include important points, in accurately analyzed and interpret current medical literature, and made unsupported conclusions.<ref>{{REFjournal

|pages=434–441434-441

Frisch ''et al''. (2013) pointed out the difference of the AAP's statements in comparison to other Western countries, such as Canada, Australia, and various European countries.<ref name="frisch2013">{{REFjournal

|firstinit=M.

|first2init2=Y.

|first3init3=V.

|first4init4=R.

|first5init5=S.-A.SA

|first6init6=P.

|first7init7=R.P.E.RPE

|first8init8=T.P.V.M.TPVM

|first9init9=G.

|pages=796–800796-800

}}</ref> They attribute this to cultural bias since non-therapeutic male circumcision is prevalent in the United States. They also criticized the strength of the health benefits the statement had claimed, such as protection from [[HIV ]] and other STIs.<ref name="frisch2013"/> The American Academy of Pediatrics responded that because about half of American males are [[circumcised ]] and half are not, there may be a more tolerant view concerning circumcision in the US, but that if there is any cultural “bias” among the AAP task force who wrote the Circumcision Policy statement, it is much less important than the bias Frisch ''et al''. may hold because of clear prejudices against the practice that can be found in Europe. The AAP elaborately explained why they reached conclusions regarding the health benefits of circumcision that are different from the ones reached by some of their European counterparts.<ref>{{REFjournal

|pages=801–804801-804

|pages=815–824815-824

|pages=825–833825-833

|journal=J Med Journal of Medical Ethics

|pages=237–263237-263

|firstinit=S.

|journal=J Med Journal of Medical Ethics

|pagespage=237

|firstinit=J.M.JM

|journal=J Med Journal of Medical Ethics

|pages=238–240238-240

|firstinit=R.V.RV

|journal=J Med Journal of Medical Ethics

|firstinit=A.M.AM

|journal=J Med Journal of Medical Ethics

|pages=241–247241-247

|firstinit=S.K.SK

|journal=J Med Journal of Medical Ethics

|pages=248–53248-253

|firstinit=R.

|journal=J Med Journal of Medical Ethics

|pages=254–258254-258

|journal=J Med Journal of Medical Ethics

|pages=259–263259-263

|journal=J Med Journal of Medical Ethics

|firstinit=B.

|journal=J Med Journal of Medical Ethics

|pagespage=415

|firstinit=B.BD |author-link=Brian D.Earp

|journal=J Med Journal of Medical Ethics

|pages=418–420418-420

Povenmire (1988) argues argued that parents should not have the power to consent to neonatal non-therapeutic circumcision.<ref name="povenmire"/>

Richards (1996) argues argued that parents only have power to consent to therapeutic procedures.<ref name="richards"/>

[[Margaret A. Somerville |Somerville]] (2000) argues that the nature of the medical benefits cited as a justification for infant circumcision are such that the potential medical problems can be avoided or, if they occur, treated in far less invasive ways than circumcision. She states that the removal of healthy genital tissue from a minor should not be subject to parental discretion, or that physicians who perform the procedure are not acting in accordance with their ethical duties to the patient, regardless of parental consent.<ref name="Somerville2000">{{REFbook

|first=MargaretA. |authorlinkinit=M |author-link=Margaret A. Somerville

|pages=202–219202-219

[[Margaret A. Somerville |Somerville]] argues that because of a lack of credible information about male circumcision in some societies, the ability for the caregiver to grant [[informed consent ]] on behalf of their child is compromised. This may be especially true of caregivers from a religious or cultural tradition that is particularly biased towards or against circumcising infants.<ref name="somerville2000Somerville2000">Somerville M. ''The Ethical Canary: Science, Society and the Human Spirit.'' Toronto: Penguin, 2000: pp. 202-19. (ISBN 0-670-89971-2)</ref>

|firstinit=D.A.DA

|pages=1650–16511650-1651

The Committee on Medical Ethics of the [[British Medical Association ]] (2003) published a paper to guide doctors on the law and ethics of circumcision. It advises medical doctors to proceed on a case by case basis to determine the best interests of the child before deciding to perform a circumcision. The doctor must consider the child's legal and [[human rights ]] in making his or her determination. It states that a physician has a right to refuse to perform a non-therapeutic circumcision.<ref name="bma2006"/> The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia took a similar position.<ref name="cpsbc">{{REFweb

Fox and Thomson (2005) state that in the absence of "unequivocal evidence of medical benefit", it is "ethically inappropriate to subject a child to the acknowledged risks of infant male circumcision." Thus, they believe, "the emerging consensus, whereby parental choice holds sway, appears ethically indefensible".<ref name="fox-thomson"/> <!--[[Brian J. Morris|Morris]] ''et al''. (2014) argued that "...failure to circumcise a baby boy may be unethical because it diminishes his right to good health."<ref>{{REFjournal |last=MorrisFox |firstinit=B.J. |authorlink=Brian J. MorrisM |last2=BailisThomson |first2init2=S.A. |last3=Wiswell |first3=T.E.M |title=Circumcision rates in A covenant with the United States: rising or fallingstatus quo? What effect might Male circumcision and the new affirmative pediatric policy statement have?BMA guidance to doctors |journal=Mayo Clinic ProceedingsJournal of Medical Ethics |date=2014-052005 |volume=8931 |issue=58 |pages=677–686463-469 |url=http://jme.bmj.com/content/31/8/463.full |DOI=10.10161136/j.mayocp.2014jme.012004.001009340 |pubmedID=2470273516076971 |pubmedCID=1734197}}</ref>-->

}}</ref> The process is irreversible, has no medical justification in most cases, and is performed on minors unable to give their own permission, according to the committee. Paul Schotsmans of the {{UNI|University of Leuven|UCLouvain}}, on behalf of the committee, noted "the child’s right to physical integrity, which is protected by the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and in particular its protection from physical injury."<ref name="bulletin2017"/> The Belgian minister of health replied that the federal institute Federal Institute for health insurance Health Insurance cannot check and know whether in (individual cases) a circumcision is medically justified or not and that she will continue to reimburse circumcision of minors as the safety of the child is her primary concern and she wants to avoid botched circumcisions by non-medical circumcisers.<!--<ref>{{REFweb |url=https://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20170920_03084394 |title=De Block blijft besnijdenis terugbetalen |last=Vergauwen |first=Eveline |website=De Standaard |language=nl-BE |access-date=2019-06-14}}</ref>--><!--==HIV in southern and eastern Africa=={{Main|Circumcision and HIV}} Rennie ''et al''. (2007) remark that the results of three randomised controlled trials in sub-Saharan Africa, showing reduced risk of HIV among circumcised men, "alter the terms of the debate over the ethics of male circumcision."<ref name="rennie2007">{{REFjournal |last=Rennie |first=Stuart |authorlink= |first2=Adamson S. |last2=Muula |first3=Daniel |last3=Westreich |date=2007-06 |title=Male circumcision and HIV prevention: ethical, medical and public health tradeoffs in low-income countries |journal=Journal of Medical Ethics |volume=33 |issue=6 |pages=357–361 |pubmedID=17526688 |url=http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/33/6/357 |accessdate= |pubmedCID=2598273 |quote= |DOI=10.1136/jme.2006.019901}}</ref> However, the methodology of the African RCTs has been severely criticised, thereby invalidating claims that circumcision reduces the sexual transmission of HIV.<ref>{{REFbook |last=Boyle |first=G.J. |year=2013 |chapter=Critique of African RCTs into Male Circumcision and HIV Sexual Transmission. |editor=G.C. Denniston ''et al.'' |title=Genital Cutting: Protecting Children from Medical, Cultural, and Religious Infringements |location=Dordrecht, The Netherlands |publisher=Springer Science+Business Media |DOI=10.1007/978-94-007-6407-1_15 |isbn=978-94-007-6406-4}}</ref> Supporters of circumcision argue that using circumcision and other available means to halt the spread of HIV is in the common good (but overlook the fact that HIV is transmitted in the seminal fluid). Rennie et al. argue that "it would be unethical to not seriously consider one of the most promising—although also one of the most controversial—new approaches to HIV-prevention in the 25-year history of the epidemic."<ref name="rennie"/> However, there clearly remains a risk of transmitting or acquiring HIV while engaging in unprotected sex and other high risk behaviors (circumcised or not). The [[World Health Organization]] (2007) states that provision of circumcision should be consistent with "medical ethics and human rights principles." They state that "[i]nformed consent, confidentiality and absence of coercion should be assured. ... Parents who are responsible for providing consent, including for the circumcision of male infants, should be given sufficient information regarding the benefits and risks of the procedure in order to determine what is in the best interests of the child."<ref>WHO/UNAIDS Technical Consultation. [http://www.who.int/entity/hiv/mediacentre/MCrecommendations_en.pdf Male Circumcision and HIV Prevention: Research Implications for Policy and Programming]. Montreux, 6–8 March 2007</ref> However, since babies and children are not sexually active, sexually-transmitted HIV infection is not a relevant concern. Critics of non-therapeutic circumcision argue that advocating circumcision to prevent HIV infection may detract from other efforts to prevent the spread of the virus such as using condoms. If the adult chooses to remain celibate or if a couple remain monogamous, or if HIV is eliminated by the time the child is an adult, the sexual reduction surgery would not have been needed. Moreover, they argue that circumcising a child purportedly to partially protect him from HIV infection in adulthood may be seen as granting permission to engage in dangerous sexual practices. Obviously baby boys do not need such protection and can choose for themselves as consenting adults if they want a circumcision.<ref name="Somerville"/> This stance, however, does not take into account the fact that adult men may already have contracted HIV before getting circumcised.<ref>{{REFjournal |last=Harmon |first=Katherine |title=Can male circumcision stem the AIDS epidemic in Africa? |url=http://www.nature.com/news/can-male-circumcision-stem-the-aids-epidemic-in-africa-1.9520 |journal=Nature News |language=en |DOI=10.1038/nature.2011.9520 |date=2011}}</ref> The UK National Health Service ([[NHS]]) has stated that the African studies have "important implications for the control of sexually transmitted infections in Africa", but that in the United Kingdom practising safe sex including condom use is the best way to prevent sexually-transmitted disease when having sex.<ref>{{REFweb |url=https://www.nhs.uk/news/lifestyle-and-exercise/circumcision-and-stis/ |title=Circumcision and STIs |date=2009-03-26}}</ref>-->

|publisher=New York: {{UNI|Oxford University |Oxon}} Press

}}</ref> Some believe that consent Consent for a non-therapeutic operation offends the principle of autonomy, when granted by a surrogate.

|lastinit=JS |author-link=J. Steven Svoboda |last2=Van Howe

|last2init2=Van HoweRS |first3author2-link=James CRobert S.Van Howe

|pages=314–317314-317

}} Reaffirmed May 2011.</ref> A surrogate may only act in the best interests of the patient.<ref name="conundrum"/> A surrogate may not put a child at risk for religious reasons.<ref name="conundrum"/> A surrogate may grant consent for a medical procedure that has ''no'' [[medical indication ]] ''only'' if it is the child's best interests.<ref name="conundrum"/>

There is was an unresolved question whether surrogates may grant effective consent for non-therapeutic child circumcision.<ref name="povenmire">{{REFjournal

|firstinit=R.

|pages=87–12387-123

}}</ref> <ref name="conundrum"/><ref name="Adler">Peter W. Adler. [http://rjolpi.richmond.edu/archive/Adler_Formatted.pdf Is Circumcision Legal?] 16(3) Richmond J. L. & Pub. Int. 439 (2013).</ref> Richards (1996) argues that parents may only consent to medical care, so are not empowered to grant consent for non-therapeutic circumcision of a child because it is not medical care.<ref name="richards">{{REFjournal

|firstinit=D.

|pages=371–376371-376

}}</ref> <!--The Canadian Paediatric Society (2015) recommends that circumcisions done in the absence of a [[medical indication ]] or for personal reasons "should be deferred until the individual concerned is able to make their own choices."<ref name="CPS2015" /> Regardless of these issues, the unethical general practice of the medical community in the United States is to receive surrogate informed consent or permission from parents or legal guardians for non-therapeutic circumcision of children.<ref name="povenmire"/><ref name="conundrum" /> == The emerging consensus on surrogate consent for non-therapeutic newborn, infant, and child circumcision ==The power of parents and other surrogates to grant consent is dependent upon the existence of a physical or medical condition in a minor child that requires diagnostic and/or treatment.<ref name="richards"/> <ref name="aap1995">{{REFjournal |last=SorakanCommittee on Bioethics |etal=no |title=Informed consent, parental permission, and assent in pediatric practice |trans-title= |language= |journal=Pediatrics |location= |date=1995-02 |volume=95 |issue=2 |article= |page= |pages=314-7 |url=http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/AAP/ |archived= |quote= |pubmedID=7838658 |firstpubmedCID= |DOI= |accessdate=S2023-05-26}}</ref> The right to grant surrogate consent cannot exist in the absence of such a condition. The AAP Committee on Bioethics (2016) now states: "A parent’s authority is not absolute but constrained by respect for the child.T"<ref name="aviva2016">{{REFjournal |last=Committee on Bioethics |etal-no |title=Informed Consent in Decision-Making in Pediatric Practice |trans-title= |language= |journal=Pediatrics |location= |date=2016-08 |volume=138 |issue=2 |article= |page=e20161484. |last2pages=Finlay |first2url=Jhttps://publications.Caap.org/pediatrics/article/138/2/e20161484/52512/Informed-Consent-in-Decision-Making-in-Pediatric?autologincheck=redirected |archived= |quote= |pubmedID=27456514 |pubmedCID= |DOI= |last3doi=Jefferies10.1542/peds.2016-1484 |first3accessdate=A2023-05-27}}</ref> This may mean that the AAP now recognizes the child as a person with legal rights of his/her own. Boys are born with a healthy [[foreskin]] that is free of disease. There are no medical indications for a neonatal [[circumcision]]. The [[medical trade association| medical trade associations]] and other promoters have put forward various alleged benefits from neonatal circumcision for decades to develop business for their physican-members.L The validity of surrogate consent for non-therapeutic circumcision of boys has been questioned for decades.<ref name="povenmire"/> <ref name="richards" /> <ref name="hill2003">{{REFjournal |last=Hill |first= |init=G |author-link=George Hill |title=Newborn Can anyone authorize the nontherapeutic permanent alteration of a child's body? |journal=The American Journal of Bioethics |date=2003 |volume=3 |issue=2 |pages=16-8 |url=https://www.researchgate.net/profile/George-Hill-3/publication/371599857_Can_Anyone_Authorize_the_Nontherapeutic_Permanent_Alteration_of_a_Child's_Body/links/648b8819c41fb852dd0949be/Can-Anyone-Authorize-the-Nontherapeutic-Permanent-Alteration-of-a-Childs-Body.pdf |quote= |pubmedID=14635628 |pubmedCID= |DOI=10.1162/152651603766436342 |format=PDF |accessdate=2023-07-11}}</ref> Bioethicists Myers & Earp (2020) exhaustively reviewed the evidence for and against the alleged health benefits to a healthy person claimed for non-therapeutic circumcision of a neonate, infant or child. They balanced this against the [[pain]], [[trauma]], and loss of body tissue and function. They concluded the claimed health benefits are insufficient to support surrogate consent for non-therapeutic circumcision. Given this, only the subject can grant consent for a non-therapeutic circumcision, after he reaches the right age for circumcision, which does not occurs until a male reaches the age of consent in his jurisdiction which may vary from 16 to 18 years of age. The present practice in the [[United States]] and elsewhere of parental consent for non-therapeutic circumcisionis entirely unethical.<ref name="myers2020">{{REFjournal |last=Myers |first= |init=A |author-link=Alex Myers |last2=Earp |first2= |init2=BD |author2-link=Brian D. Earp |etal=no |title=What is the best age to circumcise? A medical and ethical analysis |trans-title= |language= |journal=Paediatr Child HealthBioethics |location= |date=20152020 |volume=2034 |issue=67 |pages=311–315645-63 |url=httphttps://www.cpsresearchgate.canet/profile/Brian-Earp-2/publication/en337720859_What_Is_the_Best_Age_to_Circumcise_A_Medical_and_Ethical_Analysis/documentslinks/position5f815f61a6fdccfd7b555395/What-Is-the-Best-Age-to-Circumcise-A-Medical-and-Ethical-Analysis.pdf |archived= |quote=Based on a careful consideration of the relevant evidence, arguments and counterarguments, we conclude that medically unnecessary penile circumcision-like other medically unnecessary genital procedures, such as 'cosmetic' labiaplasty-should not be performed on individuals who are too young (or otherwise unable) to provide meaningful consent to the procedure. |pubmedID=2643567232068898 |pubmedCID=4578472 |DOI= |doi=10.1111/bioe.12714 |format=PDF |accessdate=2020-05-27}}</ref> Moreover, non-therapeutic circumcision of boys may also be unlawful,<ref name="Adler">{{REFjournal |last=Adler |first=Peter W. |init=PW |author-link=Peter W. Adler |url=http://rjolpi.richmond.edu/archive/Adler_Formatted.pdf |title=Is Circumcision Legal? |volume=16 |issue=3 |journal=Richmond J. L. & Pub. Int. |page=439 |date=2013}}</ref>if a court should accept Adler's arguments. == Observations ==

Regardless The non-therapeutic circumcision industry in the United States produces more than $2 billion annually.<ref name="bollinger2012">{{REFweb |url=https://www.academia.edu/6442587/High_Cost_of_Circumcision_3.6_Billion_Annually |title=High Cost of these issuesCircumcision: $3.6 Billion Annually |last=Bollinger |first=Dan |author-link=Dan Bollinger |publisher=Academia |website=https://www.academia.edu |date=2012 |accessdate=2021-11-12 |format= |quote=As the saying goes, follow the general practice money. Now you know why neither the [[American Academy of Pediatrics]], American Medical Association, [[American Academy of Family Physicians]], or the medical community in [[American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists| American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists]] haven’t condemned this unnecessary surgery, and why their physician members are quick to recommend the United States procedure to expectant parents.}}</ref> [[Third-party payment]] is a major support to receive surrogate informed the performance of this medically-unnecessary surgery. If parents could not grant consent for non-therapeutic circumcision, then no one could grant consent or permission from parents or legal guardians for the non-therapeutic circumcision of childrena child, so the $2 billion annual business would collapse. The American [[Medical trade association| medical trade associations]], more than those of other nations, have been unwilling to recognize the child's right to [[physical integrity]], to security of the person, and the right to personal autonomy.<ref name="bma2006"/><ref name="povenmire"/>

|firstinit=J. |titleauthor-link=Jenny Goodman |url=[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1022.x |title=Jewish circumcision: an alternative perspective]

|pages=22–2722-27

|accessdate=2023-05-27}}</ref></ref>