"The greatest harm experienced by many people is to be unloved, unwanted or marginalised rather than have to undergo surgery"

Are you still suggesting that mutilation without consent is justified in order to "belong" to your community? (as you have previously opined on the Conversation - http://theconversation.edu.au/unethical-and-harmful-the-case-against-circumcising-baby-boys-1543 ).

But, of course, if all the "unloved, unwanted" people in the world only had their penis mutilated, perhaps they would be able to belong to a community and all would be well...

Violence against children?! I can't see that judge having much of a future. There are medical benefits to circumcision and its 'violence'? And unnecessary cosmetic surgery or tattooing is on the otherhand ok? What about sports where people can die? Foolish decision.

Even Jewish doctors admit that circumcision is unnecessary .http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/sorrells_2007.pdf

http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/

All of the issues raised by the possibility of banning male circumcision have already been addressed in terms of eliminating female circumcision. It's one of things that makes the ongoing tolerance of male circumcision a strange cultural anomaly.

For example, the issue of religious freedom of parents or 'belonging' to a community (be it ethnic or religious community) were obvious issues with the elimination of female circumcision. The response of the WHO and multiple other international agencies was this:

"While the right to participate in cultural life and to freedom of religion are protected by international law, the law also stipulates that freedom to practise one’s traditions and beliefs may not supersede the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms of people. Therefore, the right to practise religious beliefs and social and cultural traditions cannot be evoked to justify FGM." (female genital mutilation)
(Source: Global strategy to stop health-care providers from performing female genital mutilation UNAIDS, UNDP, UNFPA, UNICEF, UNHCR, UNIFEM, WHO, FIGO, ICN, IOM, WCPT, WMA, MWIA, 2010. Available at: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2010/WHO_RHR_10.9_eng.pdf)

Therefore, the whole issue of whether it is 'acceptable' or 'ethical' to deny parents the right to circumcise young boys has in reality already been addressed. The need to protect children against the adverse effects of this practice was also paramount to the elimination of female circumcision:

"Female genital mutilation is nearly always carried out on minors and is therefore a violation of the rights of the child. The practice also violates the rights to health, security and physical integrity of the person, the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the right to life when the procedure results in death." (Source: Eliminating female genital mutilation: an interagency statement UNAIDS, UNDP, UNECA, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNHCHR, UNHCR, UNICEF, UNIFEM, WHO. 2008)

The same arguments can be raised against male circumcision, which even in modern medical facilities is estimated to have a complication rate of 2%. While most of those complications are regarded as 'minor' (ignoring of course the obvious ethical issue of removing healthy tissue), there are obviously also cases with much more devastating adverse effects, and the medical literature documents many cases like David Reimer (whose penis was damaged beyond repair: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer). Even with so-called 'minor' complications, these represent an unnecessary burden on health care systems through the need for further treatment and follow-up.

Until the protections afforded to female infants are also extended to male infants this issue is a stain on our so-called 'ethical', modern culture, as it represents the gender-selective application of basic human rights. Take headlines from Australia at the end of 2010: "Men treated after botched circumcisions" http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-01-11/men-treated-after-botched-circumcisions/1204768. The exact same case occurring in young girls would be cause for court action and most likely jail. Yet strangely, we regard the same occurrence in young boys as merely 'an unfortunate accident'.

I think this is a storm in a teacup in Australia, if this is correct:

"It’s likely that around one in ten newborn Australian males are circumcised each year, typically outside public hospitals."

When I was a kid, 'helmuts' outweighed 'socks' in the boys locker rooms by about 20 to 1. It seems that this issue has taken care of itself without the State having to get involved. And for the love of god, please keep human rights gnomes in Geneva well away from our penises! Anybody who claims that clitoridectomy is equivalent to male circumcision really needs a dressing down.

Seems hypocritical -- Germany circumcises its nukes.
;]

One further factor not mentioned in this article is the small but real risk of serious complications from circumcision surgery. As a medical student I will never forget being seeing a few pictures of circumcisions gone wrong, including one, done in a major hospital, where the boy lost his entire penis due to the diathermy not being turned down from the previous operation.
From my point of view, in addition to the ethical questions raised above, there is a further one, as a doctor whose first priority is to do no harm, and that is: "what reason do I have to subject this child to a small but real risk of devastating lifelong disability as a result of performing a procedure with no medical indication?"

We live in a secular state. Surely that means if a religious practice is in conflict with the core values, then the latter trumps the former.

Except on the rare occasions when circumcision is medically warranted, it's an assault. That it's done on a child by an adult, at the instigation of another adult, makes it worse, not better. An infant, by definition cannot consent.

I find it hard to believe that here in the 21st century there is any serious debate about this.

Circumcision certainly is a hot potato. I would like to suggest five legal changes that would help to stop abuses.

1 The law should insist that no child is circumcised against the wishes of a parent. If one parent wants circumcision and the other does not, then the decision should be delayed until the owner of the foreskin is a man, and can decide the issue for himself.

2 If a child is circumcised against the wishes of a parent, then the persons involved should be charged with sexual assault.

3 If an older child or an adult is circumcised against his will, then the persons involved should be charged with sexual assault.

3 The law should insist that the only people who are allowed to perform circumcisions are duly authorised. If an unqualified person circumcises a child, that person should be charged with sexual assault.

4 Harmful traditional practices such as metzitzah b'peh, where the traditional circumciser uses his mouth to draw blood from the newly circumcised baby must be discouraged, as the risk of infection is significant. Perhaps the best way of dealing with this is to prohibit oral genital contact between an adult and a child. Those who do this should be prosecuted for child abuse.

5 Incompetent operators should be weeded out fast. Every circumcised child should be checked by an independent doctor. If the job is botched, the circumciser should be put on notice. Three botched jobs and the doctor's licence to circumcise should be withdrawn. The present situation, where incompetent doctors practice for years before the law catches up with them, is just not good enough.

These measures will help to reduce the problems associated with circumcision and should enhance public safety.