What Medical Organizations Say
No major medical organization recommends routine infant circumcision. Most stand firmly against it.
Douglas Diekema, MDAAP Task Force on Circumcision (bioethicist) · interview, Journal of Medical Ethics
“When you look at all the data, I don’t think you can honestly say in a recommendation that the benefits outweigh the risks.”
“The only situation in which I would give a recommendation is to the parent who is on the fence. To them I would say they are probably better off not doing the procedure.”
Diekema, the bioethicist on the AAP’s 2012 Circumcision Task Force, in a 2025 retrospective interview about the policy that expired in 2017 and has not been replaced.
Buckler 2025, JME (PDF) →Andrew Freedman, MDAAP Task Force on Circumcision (pediatric urologist) · interview, Journal of Medical Ethics
“There is nothing wrong with the [uncircumcised] penis; you cannot recommend circumcision based on the medical benefit alone. Nothing about the potential benefits is communicable, so I don’t see how it could be called a public health concern.”
“The best analogy is that the AAP guidelines are a ‘permission slip’ for those who want to circumcise their children so that society cannot say they are bad parents or outlaw the practice.”
“Maybe the AAP should get out of the [circumcision] business, since it’s not really a medical practice. It’s only a ‘medical procedure’ in the sense that medical professionals are performing it.”
Freedman, the pediatric-urology member of the 2012 task force, in a 2025 retrospective interview. (He has separately said he circumcised his own son on his parents’ kitchen table — “for religious, not medical reasons.”)
Buckler 2025, JME (PDF) →Royal Australasian College of PhysiciansUpdated position statement
“Ethical and human rights concerns have been raised regarding elective infant male circumcision because it is recognised that the foreskin has a functional role, the operation is non-therapeutic, there are risks in anaesthesia in this age group and the infant is unable to consent. After reviewing current evidence, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia or Aotearoa New Zealand.”Position statement (PDF) →
Brussels Collaboration on Bodily Integrity
More than 90 international scholars in medicine, ethics, and human rights published a consensus statement in the American Journal of Bioethics: “Clinicians should not be permitted to perform any nonvoluntary genital cutting or surgery in prepubescent minors, irrespective of the child’s sex traits or gender assignment, unless urgently necessary to protect their physical health.”Consensus paper (PDF) →
Belgian Federal Advisory Committee on BioethicsOpinion no. 70
After a three-year inquiry, Belgium’s federal bioethics committee ruled that non-therapeutic circumcision of male children is unethical. The committee chair, Marie-Geneviève Pinsart, summarized: “As circumcision is irreversible and therefore a radical operation, we find the physical integrity of the child takes precedence over the belief system of the parents.”Official page →
Danish Medical Association (Lægeforeningen)
Denmark’s 29,000-member medical association formally declared that “circumcision of boys without a medical indication is ethically unacceptable when the procedure is carried out without informed consent from the person undergoing the surgery,” and recommended that the procedure not be performed before the boy is 18 and able to decide for himself.News report →
UN Committee on the Rights of the ChildCRC/C/GBR/CO/5 · concluding observations on the United Kingdom
The Committee recommended that the UK “ensure that no one is subjected to unnecessary medical or surgical treatment during infancy or childhood, guarantee bodily integrity, autonomy and self-determination to children” — explicitly framing non-therapeutic male circumcision within its concerns about children’s bodily integrity.OHCHR concluding observations →
Finnish Ombudsman for Children & Finnish Medical Association
The Finnish Ombudsman for Children, Tuomas Kurttila, called on the Finnish parliament to prohibit non-medical circumcision of young boys. The Finnish Medical Association opposes use of public funds for ritual circumcision and recommends that parents who request it be counseled to either decline the procedure or postpone it until the boy is old enough to consent.Ministry of Social Affairs (Finland) →
Danish College of General Practitioners
The Danish College of General Practitioners, a group with 3,000 members, made a statement that ritual circumcision of boys was tantamount to abuse and mutilation, according to Danish newspaper BT.Danish news report →
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of EuropeResolution 1952 · Children’s right to physical integrity
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted Resolution 1952, “Children’s right to physical integrity,” which states the Assembly is “particularly worried about a category of violation of the physical integrity of children” — explicitly naming “circumcision of young boys for religious reasons” — and calls on member states to “clearly define the medical, sanitary and other conditions to be ensured for practices… such as the non-medically justified circumcision of young boys.”Official resolution →
Nordic Ombudsmen for Children & Pediatric Experts
“Circumcision, performed without a medical indication, on a person who is incapable of giving consent, violates fundamental medical-ethical principles, not least because the procedure is irreversible, painful and may cause serious complications. There are no health-related reasons for circumcising young boys in the Nordic countries. Circumstances that may make circumcision advantageous for adult men are of little relevance to young boys in the Nordic countries, and on these matters the boys will have the opportunity to decide for themselves when they reach the age and maturity required to give consent.”Joint statement →
Nordic Association of Clinical Sexologists
“As clinical sexologists, we are concerned about the human rights aspects associated with the practice of non-therapeutic circumcision of young boys. To cut off the penile foreskin in a boy with normal, healthy, genitalia deprives him of his right to grow up and make his own informed decision. Unless there are compelling medical reasons to operate before a boy reaches an age and a level of maturity at which he is capable of providing informed consent, the decision to alter the appearance, sensitivity and functionality of the penis should be left to its owner, thus upholding his fundamental rights to protection and bodily integrity.”
American Academy of PediatricsAAP Task Force on Circumcision · policy statement (expired 2017, not replaced)
Though the 2012 policy is often summarized in the press as claiming the benefits “outweigh the risks,” its actual standing recommendation was: “the American Academy of Pediatrics does not recommend routine circumcision for all newborn males.”
The policy automatically expired in 2017 under AAP rules and has not been replaced — the AAP currently has no active position on infant circumcision. Two of the task force’s own members have since publicly retracted support for its framing (see 2025 entries above).
Policy statement (marked expired) →Swedish Paediatric Society
Circumcision of young boys for religious and non-medical reasons ought to be banned in Sweden. “We consider it to be an assault on these boys,” said Staffan Janson, chairman of the committee for ethical issues and children’s rights. Children are unable to form a decision in the matter. Circumcision is an attack on boys’ integrity. “It’s such a complicated and difficult question, but even so, we’ve decided that this is a procedure to be done away with,” Janson said. “It’s a mutilation of a child unable to decide for himself.”News report →
Royal Australasian College of PhysiciansOriginal position (since updated in 2022)
“Ethical and human rights concerns have been raised regarding elective infant male circumcision because it is recognized that the foreskin has a functional role, the operation is non-therapeutic and the infant is unable to consent. After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand.”
“The foreskin has two main functions. Firstly it exists to protect the glans penis. Secondly the foreskin is a primary sensory part of the penis, containing some of the most sensitive areas of the penis.”
“The potential harms include contravention of individual rights, loss of choice, loss of function, procedural and psychological complications…. A boy circumcised as an infant may deeply resent this when he grows older; he may want what he cannot have – not to have been circumcised…. The option of leaving circumcision until later, when the boy is old enough to make a decision for himself does need to be raised with parents and considered…. The ethical merit of this option is that it seeks to respect the child’s physical integrity, and capacity for autonomy by leaving the options open for him to make his own autonomous choice in the future.”
Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG)
“There is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene. Partly in light of the complications which can arise during or after circumcision, circumcision is not justifiable except on medical/therapeutic grounds…. Contrary to what is often thought, circumcision entails the risk of medical and psychological complications…. Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is contrary to the rule that minors may only be exposed to medical treatments if illness or abnormalities are present…. Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors conflicts with the child’s right to autonomy and physical integrity…. Complications in the area of sexuality have also been reported as have extreme pain experiences in newborns causing behavioral changes which are still apparent years later. Similarly, the high social costs of circumcision as a result of complications have been cited…. The foreskin is a complex, erotogenic structure that plays an important role in the mechanical function of the penis during sexual acts, such as penetrative intercourse and masturbation. The many attempts by men to restore their foreskins by mechanical or surgical means also contradict the idea that the foreskin is a useless part of the body.”Official KNMG download →
British Medical Association
“The BMA does not believe that parental preference alone constitutes sufficient grounds for performing a surgical procedure on a child unable to express his own view. Parental preference must be weighed in terms of the child’s interests…. The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefit from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it…. Some doctors may wish to not perform circumcisions for reasons of conscience. Doctors are under no obligation to comply with a request to circumcise a child.”Official page →
Canadian Paediatric SocietyReaffirmed in 2002
“Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed.”Official page →
No major medical organization in the world recommends routine infant circumcision.
Compiled with thanks to Ronald Goldman, Ph.D., who first gathered many of these statements at circumcision.org.