ABSTRACT
Opinion about neonatal male circumcision is deeply divided. Some take it to be a prophylactic measure with unequivocal and significant health benefits, while others consider it a form of child abuse. This chapter argues against both these polar views. It discusses whether circumcision constitutes bodily mutilation, whether the absence of the child’s informed consent makes it wrong, the nature and strength of the evidence regarding medical harms and benefits, and what moral weight cultural considerations have. Those who believe that circumcision of minors is morally prohibited often suggest that removing the foreskin constitutes mutilation of a child. It has often been claimed that circumcision is protective against penile cancer. Circumcision has also been claimed to be protective against some sexually transmitted diseases, including human immunodeficiency virus. The chapter concludes that nontherapeutic circumcision of infant boys is a suitable matter for parental discretion.
