Circumcision...why is it still legal?

[GhostWriter16]

Honestly, if the doctor does the circumcision right, there shouldn't be any complications. As Truronian said, it comes with some advantages. Not to mention that Judaism prescribes circumcision, and outlawing it would force Jewish parents to go against their conscience.

Female circumcision is wrong, and should be outlawed everywhere.

This... with the added stipulation that the act of circumsicion rarely causes harm to the child. Obviously if it were super-dangerous, that would trump religion, as is the case with female "Circumcision."

 

[CaptainF]

Well, various studies have indicated that male circumcision reduces the risk of UTIs, penile cancer, STDs (including HIV) and improves genital hygiene. On the other hand their is the ever present risk of complications and psychological damage. As with any other medical procedure which has such documented pros and cons, I say leave it up to the doctors.

No medical association in the entire world recommends infant circumcision to prevent disease. Any touted medical benefits are mere speculation.

UTIs occur far more often in girls than in boys, even when boys are circumcised. Yet no one suggests genital sculpting of girls to solve this issue.

Penile cancer is extremely rare even among intact men, and generally only happens to men in their 70's or 80's. It's best to cross that bridge when (and if) it is encountered.

Studies involving STDs and HIV are totally bogus. The studies that people are touting now that circumcision supposedly reduces HIV contraction risk by 60% are based on flawed methodology. There are many countries in Africa where circumcised men are more likely to have HIV than intact men.

Circumcision is not harmful to the long term health of men in the vast majority of cases.

If it is harmful to the long term health of even one man, it is an unethical procedure.

Given that circumcision is in fact harmful to many millions of men across the globe, such a statement is patently false.

There's also the fact that circumcision is by definition an injury to the penis, since it deprives the penis of normal tissue and function.

Attempting to liken male circumcision to female circumcision/genital removal/mutilation in it's commonly practiced forms is a gross over-exaggeration.

Not at all. Female genital mutilation takes many forms. While infibulation is more invasive than the average male circumcision, it only comprises 15% of FGM practiced world wide. Most female genital mutilation involves removal of the clitoral hood, or the clitoris and the labia. Both of which are very comparable to male circumcision which essentially removes the male "clitoris".

Yeah, I have to agree, you can't compare male and female circumcision. They're done for totally different reasons, and one has a legit medical purpose.

Circumcision doesn't have a legit medical purpose at all. No medical association in the entire world recommends infant circumcision to treat or prevent any illness or disease.

Are there risks associated with male circumcision? There sure are, just like with any medical operation. I had no idea anybody ever used their mouth for part of this process, but that sounds unhygienic as hell.

To say the least.

The procedure does have a medical purpose though. I don't know if you've ever had to clean an infant's penis before, but URIs are not very uncommon, and being cut makes that cleaning process a little easier. Given a competent doctor, the risk of complications in a modern hospital is still very low.

Not low enough.

There's also the issue that cleaning an intact baby's penis is far easier than cleaning a circumcised one. Circumcision is essentially an open wound on a newborn infant that is left to fester in diapers laden with feces and urine.

How is that cleaner at all?

Some studies have even shown a higher prevalence of UTI among circumcised boys.

The issue of consent is really a non-starter. Medical decisions of minors are left in the hands of parents, and it doesn't make a difference if the kid is 12 or 12 hours

Circumcision isn't a medical decision. It's a cosmetic, cultural, social or religious decision that is forced upon an infant without their consent.

Although it is interesting you mention that, because some studies have shown that female circumcision can reduce the risk of HIV. Fascinating. I wonder why, given this study, parents aren't rushing to denude their daughters' clitorises?

Matter of fact, if we're discussing medical benefits provided by premature amputations of healthy bodily organs, why not perform mastectomies on newborn baby girls? I'm sure it would decrease their incidence of breast cancer later in life.

Honestly, if the doctor does the circumcision right, there shouldn't be any complications. As Truronian said, it comes with some advantages. Not to mention that Judaism prescribes circumcision, and outlawing it would force Jewish parents to go against their conscience.

Female circumcision is wrong, and should be outlawed everywhere.

"If a doctor does it right". Interesting. That says it all right there.

And many Jews are beginning to realize that male circumcision is harmful as well. That's why the Brit Shalom is becoming more popular instead of the Brit Milah.

I really think that calling male circumcision "a horribly abusive, damaging form of torture" is an overstatement.

Have you ever seen a video of a circumcision?

Not that you should, because it's one of the most horrifying things anyone could ever see.

The real overstatement to me is believing that cutting into the most nerve-dense part of the male body without anaesthesia, causing the baby boy to scream until he turns purple or goes into withdrawal from shock, is somehow not abusive.

 

[CaptainF]

Link to video.

 

[Lord Gay]

I think the risks and consequences of circumcision outweigh the benefits. While harm to a penis may be quite rare, can any male here say they would be comfortable with such damage happening to their penis? There have been cases of varying kinds of damage to the penis from botched circumcisions.

Some males have had part of their heads removed while others have had the entire head severed. In rare cases most of the shaft has been cut off, with the doctor sometimes coming clean about the accident and advising the parents to raise the child as a girl, or simply telling them it was a female all along.

In psychological quarters, there is the question of whether situations like these are behind at least some of the gender identity disorders out there, if this occurred and neither the child nor the parents were aware. There is also speculation as to psychosexual trauma from the operation regardless of permanent damage, since at birth the skin has not yet separated from the glans.

On a personal note, I dated a guy briefly who had received a (IMO) horrible situation as a result of his circumcision. The doctor had removed too much of the foreskin so that when he was erect, there was no slack; his skin was super-tight. As a result, he told me that he had spent his life unable to masturbate since it was too painful. He also did not enjoy oral, since it also hurt too much. I would certainly not agree that such a state is preferable to a slightly greater chance of infection.

The most common answer I've heard fathers give about having it done to their sons is so that their sons will look "normal" when in the locker room with other guys.

EDIT

Have you ever seen a video of a circumcision?

Not that you should, because it's one of the most horrifying things anyone could ever see.

The real overstatement to me is believing that cutting into the most nerve-dense part of the male body without anaesthesia, causing the baby boy to scream until he turns purple or goes into withdrawal from shock, is somehow not abusive.

This.

 

[CaptainF]

Similarly with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible. It has been thought that circumcision perfects what is defective congenitally. This gave the possibility to everyone to raise an objection and to say: How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for that member? In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally. The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision.

-Rabbi Moses Maimonides

People have known since the middle ages that circumcision is an attack on male sexuality.

 

[Kalalification]

Circumcision is a universally praised social practice, at least Stateside. It has legitimate benefits and only extremely rarely causes harm. The only people who'd want to outlaw it are butthurt uncircumsised weirdos.

Moderator Action: No need to be so snippy. Please don't attack people you disagree with.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[CaptainF]

Circumcision is a universally praised social practice, at least Stateside. It has legitimate benefits and only extremely rarely causes harm. The only people who'd want to outlaw it are butthurt uncircumsised weirdos.

Right. I'm sure the 80% of the world's men who have their foreskins are just dying to get it chopped off.

All I'm hearing from you is a whole bunch of denial. That is, after all, the only reason why circumcision is still around.

One of the biggest myths about circumcision is that the only ones who oppose it are intact men. There are legions of circumcised men who wish they were not cut as infants, but can unfortunately do nothing about it, save for partial foreskin restoration. You don't hear about these men because our pro-circ culture makes speaking out about such things taboo.

 

[_random_]

I love these threads. They serve as nice loud announcements about which members feel their genitals are inadequate.

I always look forward to the part where a Jewish member comes in and the HOOP folks have to explain why his ancient customs are actually terrible.

I'll admit that the medical benefits of circumcision are kind of dubious, but I have no problem with it as a cultural practice, and comparing it to FGM is offensive to pretty much everybody. Sure, there are some incredibly unfortunate circumstances that do cause the infants terrible harm, but that's no reason to outlaw the whole process any more than we should outlaw Baptism because of the drowning from a couple years back. It doesn't create enough risk in of itself to warrant illegalization and doing so would step on some serious toes. Prosecute those who can't do it right and be done with it.

 

[Synobun]

I always look forward to the part where a Jewish member comes in and the HOOP folks have to explain why his ancient customs are actually terrible.

I'll admit that the medical benefits of circumcision are kind of dubious, but I have no problem with it as a cultural practice, and comparing it to FGM is offensive to pretty much everybody. Sure, there are some incredibly unfortunate circumstances that do cause the infants terrible harm, but that's no reason to outlaw the whole process any more than we should outlaw Baptism because of the drowning from a couple years back. It doesn't create enough risk in of itself to warrant illegalization and doing so would step on some serious toes. Prosecute those who can't do it right and be done with it.

The toes of the Jews are worth stepping on if they advocate a pointless and damaging medical procedure.

 

[CaptainF]

I always look forward to the part where a Jewish member comes in and the HOOP folks have to explain why his ancient customs are actually terrible.

Genital cutting of babies without consent isn't terrible? Giving a baby herpes due to "ancient customs" isn't terrible?

I'll admit that the medical benefits of circumcision are kind of dubious, but I have no problem with it as a cultural practice,

So...culture trumps human rights.

Funny that in places where FGM is practiced it is also seen as a "cultural practice".

and comparing it to FGM is offensive to pretty much everybody.

It's only offensive if you don't know the realities of FGM, and how strikingly similar to male circumcision it really is.

Sure, there are some incredibly unfortunate circumstances that do cause the infants terrible harm, but that's no reason to outlaw the whole process any more than we should outlaw Baptism because of the drowning from a couple years back.

So, we've established that circumcision is medically unnecessary, causes tremendous pain to the infant, and can result in sexual dysfunction, psychological trauma and even death.

Yet you still don't see why it should be outlawed?

It doesn't create enough risk in of itself to warrant illegalization and doing so would step on some serious toes. Prosecute those who can't do it right and be done with it.

Whose "serious toes" would we be stepping on?

 

[LucyDuke]

Not at all. Female genital mutilation takes many forms. While infibulation is more invasive than the average male circumcision, it only comprises 15% of FGM practiced world wide. Most female genital mutilation involves removal of the clitoral hood, or the clitoris and the labia. Both of which are very comparable to male circumcision which essentially removes the male "clitoris".

Stop perpetuating misinformation about the female genitalia. The foreskin is not comparable to the clitoris, and most FGM involves removal of the clitoris, not just the hood.

 

[classical_hero]

I have some cousins who are circumcised and they have had no issues with them, so generally it is safe to do. The Female variation is not even in the same class, since it removal of sexual organs, so a woman who has had "circumcision" will have a less sexually fulfilling life nad often has massive consequences as a result of what has happened to them.

 

[Lillefix]

People talk about how safe it is to do, but I think that is to a great degree irrelevant. On a general basis you shouldn't cosmetically alter people's bodies without their consent. And that includes removing their healthy body parts. We don't go around removing children's blind intestines either, even though it may be beneficial(which is questionable, but never mind that).

 

[Maniacal]

I don't really care what someone does in regards to modification of their bodies when they are old enough to make the decision for themselves (around 18) but children should never have it forced upon them especially since none of the benefits are more than minor at best and it isn't entirely risk free. Although as Lucy points out it is very different from female circumcision.

 

[CaptainF]

Stop perpetuating misinformation about the female genitalia. The foreskin is not comparable to the clitoris, and most FGM involves removal of the clitoris, not just the hood.

See the Cake thread in The Tavern.

I have some cousins who are circumcised and they have had no issues with them, so generally it is safe to do. The Female variation is not even in the same class, since it removal of sexual organs, so a woman who has had "circumcision" will have a less sexually fulfilling life nad often has massive consequences as a result of what has happened to them.

Literally everything you have said about female cutting in that paragraph can be said about male cutting.

Johns Hopkins University did a study a while back about men circumcised as adults, who . Many were quite angry and regretful of their condition. One man compared the difference in sensation as "night and day" and said he "would give his house" in exchange for getting his foreskin back.

People talk about how safe it is to do, but I think that is to a great degree irrelevant. On a general basis you shouldn't cosmetically alter people's bodies without their consent. And that includes removing their healthy body parts. We don't go around removing children's blind intestines either, even though it may be beneficial(which is questionable, but never mind that).

Exactly.

 

[ParkCungHee]

If circumcision is torture I think we have literally run out of problems in the world. Torture, evidently, is a largely forgettable experience. Humans, it turns out, are largely incapable of administering any real harm to humans. The rack, the pit of Calcutta, hanging by hooks and wires, burning alive it's apparently all not too bad. Turns out, those people were all a bunch of whiners. Most of them weren't even circumcised.

 

[metatron]

Well, various studies have indicated that male circumcision reduces the risk of UTIs, penile cancer, STDs (including HIV) and improves genital hygiene.

Yeah, except for the STDs all of this is pretty much a result of "improved hygiene" i.e. "improved hygiene while being a jackass and not properly washing oneself".
The difference regarding STDs is quite real though and a result of the higher permiability of the foreskin.
However i have significant trouble to see why that should be an argument. The STD problem could easily be solved by simply cutting of the entire penis and nobody wants to do that either.

And the whole argument "but it's done for medical reasons" is a bit strange anyway.
If that was the motivation it would be very curious that non-muslim nation do it on such different scales.

Infant circumcision was taken up in the United States, Australia and the English-speaking parts of Canada, South Africa, New Zealand and to a lesser extent in the United Kingdom. There are several hypotheses to explain why infant circumcision was accepted in the United States about the year 1900. The germ theory of disease elicited an image of the human body as a conveyance for many dangerous germs, making the public "germ phobic" and suspicious of dirt and bodily secretions. The penis became "dirty" by association with its function, and from this premise circumcision was seen as preventative medicine to be practised universally.[144] In the view of many practitioners at the time, circumcision was a method of treating and preventing masturbation.[144] Aggleton wrote that John Harvey Kellogg viewed male circumcision in this way, and further "advocated an unashamedly punitive approach."[145] Circumcision was also said to protect against syphilis,[146] phimosis, paraphimosis, balanitis, and "excessive venery" (which was believed to produceparalysis).[144] Gollaher states that physicians advocating circumcision in the late nineteenth century expected public scepticism, and refined their arguments to overcome it.

What do you think?
What is - in your mind - the reason for the vastly varying success of circumcision as a means of public health?

Maybe pretty much the entire non-anglosphere non-muslim world is filled with reckless anti-semites who don't care about the health of their offspring.
Or maybe circumcision is just an arcaic ritual that got an awesome run as a percieved impediment to mastubation and an overcompensation of lacking American hygiene at the brink of the 20th century, subsequently being exported to the Phillipines, Korea and some Christian nations in sub-saharan Afrika, meeting acceptance there for similar reasons.

I'm just spitballing here. As i said: What do you think?

Cutting off the head of the penis at the very minimum. More like cutting off the whole penis and that's still just the beginning.

Are you sure that's the proper comparison?
To have an equivalent of penile amputation you'd have to pretty much rip out the entirety of a girls corpora cavernosa and vistibular bulbs or something roughly in that ballpark...
You are very right about being insulted by the false equivalencies proposed in this thread by others. No reason to add new ones though.

(Edit: Ah...ok. I see, you guys debated this in a rather rough and imprecise fashion in the cake thread before. Now i can see where you are coming from.
NJone the less...)

Can we vaccinate children? I mean, 3 year olds can't consent to getting a shot. Should we give a kid a shot if he cries and says no no no?

Was an argument supposed to be in there somewhere? If so it probably takes the first price as most false equivalency in this thread so far.
Which is quite an accomplishment.

I love these threads. They serve as nice loud announcements about which members feel their genitals are inadequate.

I didn't care about the last ... like... seven... of these threads. But one side coming up with "arguments" like this every single time serves as an idicator that their other arguments might not necessarily be as strong as they think...

 

[innonimatu]

In the view of many practitioners at the time, circumcision was a method of treating and preventing masturbation.

This. It was part of the general 19th/early 20th century bout of fear and insanity over all things sexual. When, following the decline of religion on the minds of the well-think members of society, the social taboos regarding sex were brought from the religious realm to the medical realm and false medical excuses were made up to keep them. It was part of the same movement that imprisoned in hospices thousands upon thousands of women with the disease of "female hysterics", that had parents being given the power to have their children arrested by police if they "failed to behave properly and to respect them" (that one went on in parts of Europe right until the 60s), etc. It's why homossexuality was called a "mental disease" and such a long battle had to be fought to put an end to that. That's well known, but many other "sexual deviances" were called mental diseases. People now take this freedom we have for granted, but in the 50s and 60s there was indeed a real "sexual revolution" putting an end to much of that false medicine. For which we should all be very grateful.

It's too bad that there are few works about the subject, the whole thing is fascinating. It explains, for example, the high regard with which psychoanalysis was held back during the first decades of the 20th century by many people, something we have a hard time understanding now. Charlatans they may look now, but they had a big virtue back then: they were not advocating arresting and torturing people as a treatment for "failing to behave properly" as happened with all those young man woman women declared insane and committed to hospices by their own parents. This sad phenomenon of the medical class providing cover for sexual repression affected mostly the higher classes, but I believe that the initial widespread adoption male circumcision in some western countries is one of its byproducts, which simply has not yet been recognized as such and reverted because it isn't obvious, the harmful act itself is done on powerless babies who cannot fight back, and both those who do it (in the medical class, but also parents who consent) and those who suffered it don't what to have to admit even to themselves that it was wrong.

 

[Traitorfish]

Literally everything you have said about female cutting in that paragraph can be said about male cutting.

Johns Hopkins University did a study a while back about men circumcised as adults, who . Many were quite angry and regretful of their condition. One man compared the difference in sensation as "night and day" and said he "would give his house" in exchange for getting his foreskin back.

Well, I underwent a voluntary adult circumcision and have no regrets at all, so: anecdote, meet anecdote.

 

[Camikaze]

I think this is a really interesting issue. I have no particular opinion either way, but it's intriguing to think about just how far we let parental consent go, because that's what this is about, and it's kinda tricky.

The issue of consent is really a non-starter. Medical decisions of minors are left in the hands of parents, and it doesn't make a difference if the kid is 12 or 12 hours.

Can we vaccinate children? I mean, 3 year olds can't consent to getting a shot. Should we give a kid a shot if he cries and says no no no?

So these points are, I think, wrong. Firstly, any sort of medical procedure is prima facie unlawful, unless there is some lawful justification provided (i.e. consent). If you are to say that decisions on medical procedures are entirely in the hands of parents, then not only are you talking about vaccinations, but also about the decision to lop off a limb. Clearly one is acceptable and the other isn't, and circumcision would lie somewhere in between on the spectrum. So this is very much an issue of consent, and whether parental consent is effective to make this medical procedure lawful. What are the limits of what parents can consent to, specifically with regards to medical procedures*?

*I don't purport to hold an opinion on the matter of whether or not there is any medical benefit, but whether there is or isn't, it clearly falls into the category of 'medical procedure'.

Also, there's the matter that there is a different level of competence to consent at 12 months and 12 years, but that's probably not particularly relevant to this discussion.

Obviously the standard would be different in the US, but the High Court has held the following in Australia in Marion's Case (in which the issue was parent's consenting to a hysterectomy for their mentally disabled 14 year old daughter):

There are exceptions to the requirement for, and the neutralising effect of, consent and therefore qualifications to the very broadly stated principle of bodily inviolability. In some instances consent is insufficient to make application of force to another person lawful and sometimes consent is not needed to make force lawful.

With such examples being that consent does not make euthanasia legal, and lack of consent does not make a lawful arrest illegal.

Medical treatment of adults with full mental capacity does not come within any of the exceptions mentioned. The factor necessary to render such treatment lawful when it would otherwise be an assault is, therefore, consent.

This, again, reflects the principle of personal inviolability echoed in the well-known words of Cardozo J in Schloendorff v Society of New York Hospital:

"Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body; and a surgeon who performs an operation without his [or her] patient's consent commits an assault."​

In the case of medical treatment of those who cannot consent because of incapacity due to minority, the automatic reference point is the minor's parent or other guardian. Parental consent, when effective, is itself an exception to the need for personal consent to medical treatment.

The proposition endorsed by the majority in that case [Gillick v West Norfolk WHA] was that parental power to consent to medical treatment on behalf of a child diminishes gradually as the child's capacities and maturity grow and that this rate of development depends on the individual child.

And the court went on to endorse this position as the law in Australia. I mentioned this in another thread, if anyone saw that; Gillick competence.

The second question arises; namely, whether there are kinds of intervention which are, as a general rule, excluded from the scope of parental power to consent to.

Where their child is incapable of giving valid consent to medical treatment, parents, as guardians, may in a wide range of circumstances consent to medical treatment of their child who is a minor.

Where this parental power exists, two principles are involved. First, the subjective consent of a parent in the sense of a parent speaking for the child, is, ordinarily, indispensable. That authority emanates from a caring relationship. Secondly, the overriding criterion to be applied in the exercise of parental authority on behalf of a child is the welfare of the child objectively assessed. That these two principles become, for all practical purposes, one is a recognition that ordinarily a parent of a child who is not capable of giving informed consent is in the best position to act in the best interests of the child. Implicit in parental consent is understood to be the determination of what is best for the welfare of the child.

In arguing that there are kinds of intervention which are excluded from the scope of parental power, the Commonwealth submitted that the power does not extend to, for example, the right to have a child's foot cut off so that he or she could earn money begging, and it is clear that a parent has no right to take the life of a child. But these examples may be met with the proposition that such things are forbidden because it is inconceivable that they are in the best interests of the child. Even if, theoretically, begging could constitute a financially rewarding occupation, there is a presumption that other interests of the child must prevail. Thus, the overriding criterion of the child's best interests is itself a limit on parental power.

The bolded bit is probably the absolute crux of the issue of parental consent to medical treatment as it applies to whether a procedure as a whole, such as circumcision, is acceptable.

There are, in our opinion, features of a sterilisation procedure or, more accurately, factors involved in a decision to authorise sterilisation of another person which indicate that, in order to ensure the best protection of the interests of a child, such a decision should not come within the ordinary scope of parental power to consent to medical treatment. Court authorisation is necessary and is, in essence, a procedural safeguard.

Sterilisation requires invasive, irreversible and major surgery. But so do, for example, an appendectomy and some cosmetic surgery, both of which, in our opinion, come within the ordinary scope of a parent to consent to. However, other factors exist which have the combined effect of marking out the decision to authorise sterilisation as a special case. Court authorisation is required, first, because of the significant risk of making the wrong decision, either as to a child's present or future capacity to consent or about what are the best interests of a child who cannot consent, and secondly, because the consequences of a wrong decision are particularly grave.

The second concern is that the decision to sterilise, at least where it is to be carried out for contraceptive purposes, and especially now when technology and expertise make the procedure relatively safe, is not merely a medical issue. This is also reflected in the concern raised in several of the cases reviewed, that the consequences of sterilisation are not merely biological but also social and psychological.

The decision by a parent that an intellectually disabled child be sterilised may involve not only the interests of the child, but also the independent and possibly conflicting (though legitimate) interests of the parents and other family members [means that court involvement should exist so as the ensure the child's interest prevails].

The gravity of the consequences of wrongly authorising a sterilisation flows both from the resulting inability to reproduce and from the fact of being acted upon contrary to one's wishes or best interests. The fact of violation is likely to have social and psychological implications concerning the person's sense of identity, social place and self-esteem.

(Sorry if that was a little tl;dr, but I think it is highly relevant; I'll try not to go on about it for too long, as you can probably draw a lot of your own conclusions from it.)

So that would essentially constitute the law in Australia. AFAIK, no-one has attempted to apply it to circumcision.

Circumcision is generally performed on infants, which is why I don't think the question of a the differing competencies of children of varying ages is particularly relevant; we can assume when we're talking about whether circumcision should be legal or not that we're talking about parents making the decision for children who have absolutely no competence to consent to medical treatment. I think this means that requiring court authorisation would not be the route to go down, as the main point of that with regards to sterilisation is to determine whether the individual in question is competent to consent (or disabled enough to make sterilisation in their best interest).

The issue to consider, therefore, is whether or not circumcision is something that parents should be able to consent to. And there are a number of factors involved, the overarching principle of which is whether the decision is in the child's best interest.

Obviously circumcision is not the same thing as sterilisation, but taking the last concern first, one issue is the extent to which 'social and psychological implications' can result from a medical procedure. If there are negative 'social and psychological implications' to circumcision, then that could be reason for parental consent to not be effective, as it would obviously impact upon how beneficial the procedure would be to the child.

Another issue would be the religious one; if a child is being circumcised because of their parents' religion, is that really their interest that is being thought of, and how can the law recognise this as being in the child's interest is that interest is 'objectively assessed'? It would seem to me that the argument that circumcising a child for their religious wellbeing would be entirely inapplicable, and would indeed constitute something outside of what the law sees as "the child's best interest".

The main way this interest applies for a medical procedure like circumcision would be whether or not the procedure is medically beneficial. What health benefits does it provide? What are the side effects for this benefit? As stated above, I don't purport to have an opinion on this matter, and this is why I don't really have an opinion on whether circumcision should be legal or not.

And I would contend that a medical procedure being marginally beneficial on balance would not really be sufficient to allow for parental consent to take a decision that has permanent effects on an individual who will, one day, be able to consent.

So I guess the main point is that, yes, this is an issue of consent. Can parental consent transform what would otherwise be illegal into being legal? Should parental consent extend to procedures such as circumcision? It is important to again note that, as such a medical procedure is prima facie unlawful, without a justification of consent, the onus is on those that think circumcision should be legal to prove that parental consent is effective (and as a side note, although I don't have a strong opinion either way on this argument, I would tend towards the anti-circumcision side for this reason; the burden of proof seems to be rejected or remains somewhat unsatisfied a lot of the time). And for that consent to be effective, it must be a decision made in the best interest of the child.

Therefore the main question to answer for those that think circumcision should be allowed (and the onus is on them to provide an answer (and I'm not actually saying here that that answer hasn't been provided)), is how it is in the best interest of the child?