Circumcision, the “medical” but more often tribal/religious practice of removing a male infant’s penis’ protective layer known as the foreskin, is exactly like female genital mutilation and should only be practiced on consenting adults according to a new study from the academic think tank Wiley.
From the study: “Circumcision is often claimed to be simpler, safer and more cost‐effective when performed in the neonatal period as opposed to later in life, with a greater benefit‐to‐risk ratio. In the first part of this paper, we critically examine the evidence base for these claims, and find that it is not as robust as is commonly assumed. In the second part, we demonstrate that, even if one simply grants these claims for the sake of argument, it still does not follow that neonatal circumcision is ethically permissible absent urgent medical necessity. Based on a careful consideration of the relevant evidence, arguments and counterarguments, we conclude that medically unnecessary penile circumcision—like other medically unnecessary genital procedures, such as ‘cosmetic’ labiaplasty—should not be performed on individuals who are too young (or otherwise unable) to provide meaningful consent to the procedure.”