LogFAQs > #913195605

LinkPizza posted...

Also, people can have stuff done on them without their consent because they have someone who has to consent for them. Such as adults who need surgery now and ask the next of kin to consent. Or parents who have to take children in for surgery and have to consent. So, this isnt different. A baby cant consent. So the parents do it for them.

Key word: need. I specified elective surgery for a reason. When there's clear medical benefit (or more accurately, negative consequences if it isn't done), yes, parents consent on the behalf of their children, or next-of-kin on the behalf of somebody non-communicative. Elective surgery, by definition, isn't needed. This includes all cosmetic surgery, including non-medical circumcision.

LinkPizza posted...

Except there are medical benefits. We talked about them earlier.

Outside of treating phimosis or other conditions for which circumcision is the best treatment option (which would qualify as "medical circumcision"), there really aren't any that can't be provided by just having better hygiene. The only one that can't is the reduction in cancer rates, but that difference is on the order of 1% or so - which is about how much tissue is removed. You have lower penile cancer rates because you have less penis to turn cancerous. That logic could be used to justify lopping off the whole thing.