A professor of law recently argues that male circumcision should be outlawed. However, Dr Terry Russell, says doctors who decide not to circumcise infants could be sued.
There are organizations, particularly in California and Sydney, whose agendas demand that boys are left uncircumcised at least until the age of 18, when they can have it done themselves if they wish.
Those organizations have fought circumcision on medical grounds and lost. There are now more than 50 studies in reputable journals showing neonatal circumcision decreases the risk of penile infections, neonatal UTIs, some STDs, HIV/AIDS and cancer of the penis, but not one study shows the same benefit can be achieved by good penile hygiene.
This has led the American Academy of Pediatrics and lately the Australian College of Paediatrics to acknowledge that neonatal circumcision may have medical benefits as a preventive health measure.
The anti-circumcision focus then retreated to a point of ignoring health issues and emphasising the pain of circumcision.
This need no longer be an issue because 'EMLA' anaesthetic cream is a simple, effective and safe method of anaesthesia for neonatal circumcision.
The latest fall-back position is that the circumcision may be illegal and that children might sue their parents - or doctors - for circumcising them without consent.
This is ludicrous and might be compared to a child suing their parents or doctor for permanently altering their immune system by childhood immunisations.
The protagonists of the legal argument rely heavily on the 1990 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, article 24(3).
This article, which says a child has a right not to be exposed to traditional practices that are harmful to that child, was inserted to prevent infibulation (genital mutilation) of females.
There has been a deliberate plot to misname infibulation "female circumcision" to link the two procedures. Both are genital procedures, but all similarity stops there. Infibulation involves amputation of the clitoris, which compares more closely with penile amputation - a common result of penile cancer.
Neonatal circumcision can be expected to substantially reduce the risks of neonatal UTI. 1
Neonatal UTI has a much higher mortality rate than neonatal circumcision. 2,5
Circumcision can be expected to substantially reduce the risks of AIDS for males and their partners. There are more than 30 papers on this subject, best summarised by Moses et al. 3
Neonatal circumcision prevents cancer of the penis, which only affects uncircumcised males. It is not rare in that population, affecting about one in 600 uncircumcised males older than 40. It usually results in amputation of the penis and is often fatal. 4,5
Neonatal circumcision also prevents or reduces the risk of penile inflammatory conditions, some STDs and cancer of the cervix in female partners. 5
The likely legal position is that any person who is advised against, or denied circumcision on spurious grounds, who then goes on to suffer from one of the conditions which might reasonably have been prevented or minimised by circumcision, has a right to damages against the person who advised against or denied circumcision on spurious grounds.