Many medical organizations are against it.
Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) (2015, reaffirmed 2024)
The CPS does not recommend the routine circumcision of every newborn male. It further states that when “medical necessity is not established, …interventions should be deferred until the individual concerned is able to make their own choices.”
Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) (2010)
The KNMG states “there is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene.” It regards the non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors as a violation of physical integrity, and argues that boys should be able to make their own decisions about circumcision.
The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) (2022)
“After reviewing current evidence, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia or Aotearoa New Zealand.” A critique of other aspects of the RACP’s 2022 statement, including of their ethical analysis and anatomical inaccuracies has been published by the Darbon Institute (formerly the Australasian Institute for Genital Autonomy.)
British Medical Association (BMA) (2019)
The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefits from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it. It suggests that it is “unethical and inappropriate” to circumcise for therapeutic reasons when effective and less invasive alternatives exist. See also a recent published critique of weaknesses in the the BMA’s guidance on circumcision.[8]
Expert statement from the German Association of Pediatricians (BVKJ) (2012)
In testimony to the German legislature, the President of the BVKJ has stated, “there is no reason from a medical point of view to remove an intact foreskin from …boys unable to give their consent.” It asserts that boys have the same right to physical integrity as girls in German law, and, regarding non-therapeutic circumcision, that parents’ right to freedom of religion ends at the point where the child’s right to physical integrity is infringed upon.
Danish Medical Association (DMA) (2020)
Citing lack of consent of the child and his right to self-determination, along with a lack of health benefits which thus does not justify the risks of complications, pain, and loss of normal anatomy, the DMA concludes: “From a medical and medical ethics perspective, the Danish Medical Association believes that the current practice of circumcising boys without a medical indication should cease.”
In addition, medical organizations and children’s ombudsmen from a number of other countries, including Belgium, Finland, Norway, Slovenia,South Africa, and Sweden, have gone on record in opposition to non-therapeutic circumcision of boys.
Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) (2015, reaffirmed 2024)
The CPS does not recommend the routine circumcision of every newborn male. It further states that when “medical necessity is not established, …interventions should be deferred until the individual concerned is able to make their own choices.”
Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) (2010)
The KNMG states “there is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene.” It regards the non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors as a violation of physical integrity, and argues that boys should be able to make their own decisions about circumcision.
The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) (2022)
“After reviewing current evidence, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia or Aotearoa New Zealand.” A critique of other aspects of the RACP’s 2022 statement, including of their ethical analysis and anatomical inaccuracies has been published by the Darbon Institute (formerly the Australasian Institute for Genital Autonomy.)
British Medical Association (BMA) (2019)
The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefits from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it. It suggests that it is “unethical and inappropriate” to circumcise for therapeutic reasons when effective and less invasive alternatives exist. See also a recent published critique of weaknesses in the the BMA’s guidance on circumcision.[8]
Expert statement from the German Association of Pediatricians (BVKJ) (2012)
In testimony to the German legislature, the President of the BVKJ has stated, “there is no reason from a medical point of view to remove an intact foreskin from …boys unable to give their consent.” It asserts that boys have the same right to physical integrity as girls in German law, and, regarding non-therapeutic circumcision, that parents’ right to freedom of religion ends at the point where the child’s right to physical integrity is infringed upon.
Danish Medical Association (DMA) (2020)
Citing lack of consent of the child and his right to self-determination, along with a lack of health benefits which thus does not justify the risks of complications, pain, and loss of normal anatomy, the DMA concludes: “From a medical and medical ethics perspective, the Danish Medical Association believes that the current practice of circumcising boys without a medical indication should cease.”
In addition, medical organizations and children’s ombudsmen from a number of other countries, including Belgium, Finland, Norway, Slovenia,South Africa, and Sweden, have gone on record in opposition to non-therapeutic circumcision of boys.