Changes

A surrogate's powers to grant consent are more circumscribed than the powers granted to a competent individual acting on his own behalf.<ref name="svoboda2000" /> A surrogate's power to grant consent for treatment is dependent upon the existence of a medical condition in need of treatment. In the absence of such a condition, the surrogate lacks the power to consent.  A circumcision for religious reasons is not medical treatment, so a surrogate may not consent to a religious circumcision. Furthermore, consent for a religious circumcision would violate the boy's religious right to chose his religion when he is of age.

A non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] exposes the patient to the surgical risks of [[infection]], [[bleeding]], and [[Documented severe complications of circumcision| surgical mishap ]] without any health treatment or benefit, so it is not in the best interests of the patient.

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 circumcision is entirely unethical.<ref name="myers2020">{{REFjournal

}}</ref> The present practice in the [[United States]] and elsewhere of parental consent for non-therapeutic circumcision is entirely unethical<ref name="myers2020"> and may also be unlawful.