Changes

Bioethicists As explained above, 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.<ref name="myers2020" />The present practice in the [[United States]] and elsewhere of parental surrogate consent for non-therapeutic circumcision is entirely unethical<ref name="myers2020" /> and may also be unlawful.<ref name="povenmire1998" /> <ref name="adler2013" /> The only person who can ethically grant consent for a non-therapeutic circumcision is the owner of the [[penis]] when he has reached the age for consent.