Changes

Generally, [[circumcision ]] of children met the criteria of bodily assault until December 2012. Practically, however, it was not legally pursued, since it was considered unclear whether parents had the right to consent to the operation on behalf of their children (see §228 StGB).

In 2004, the ''Landgericht'' (regional court) of Frankenthal ruled in a case of a [[circumcision ]] done by non-medical people, that parental consent was not legally valid.

In August 2007 the ''Oberlandesgericht'' (upper regional court) Frankfurt/Main found that the decision about a [[circumcision]], because of the "bodily modifications that cannot be reversed [...] belongs to the core of a person's rights to decide upon for themselves".

}}</ref>, that [[circumcision ]] is a bodily assault, which is not justified by the religious motivation and wishes of the parents and is not in the interest of a child's well-being.

The [[Cologne circumcision court judgment| ruling]] from May 2012 sparked fierce protests by representatives of religious groups, which were instantly answered by politicians with the assurance that religiously motivated [[circumcision ]] of underage Muslim and Jewish boys in Germany would remain legal.

The explicitly mentioned profound differences point out the difficulty of legally regulating the circumcision of underaged boys. The legislative procedure led to a broad public debate over the legitimacy and legality of [[circumcision ]] of minors in German society. Despite the fierce resistance of medical associations, jurists, constitution experts, child and [[human rights]] activists as well as 100 Members of Parliament, the following [[German Circumcision Act]] was adopted in December 2012:

''(1) Personal Care also includes the right to consent to the [[circumcision ]] of the male child who lacks competence and understanding, if it is to be performed according to proper medical standards. This does not apply when the circumcision, also considering the motivation, endangers the child's well-being.''

Therefore, a non-therapeutic [[circumcision ]] of a male child lacking competence and understanding for whatever reason is generally legal. A right of veto for the affected boys was turned down in parliament, as well as a proposed change destined to introduce an evaluation of the regulations after five years. Giving the Ministry of Heath the right to determine more specific guidance - — for example regarding pain management and the qualification and training of non-medical circumcisers - — by issuing additional regulations was also rejected. A call for mandatory documentation of non-therapeutic circumcisions was ignored. Merely stating the intent to have the operation performed according to proper medical standards was considered sufficient.