By the way, who is Robert Darby, the author of this thread
which has gotten may replies?

What's an independent researcher? Does he have any credentials
whatsoever other than to be a fan of foreskin?

Inquiring minds what to know.

"Dr Robert Darby is an independent researcher with an interest in many
aspects of medical and cultural history, bioethics and social issues.
He is the author of several books, including A Surgical Temptation:
The Demonization of the Foreskin and the Rise of Circumcision Britain,
and numerous articles in journals. He lives in Canberra."

We've outlawed this barbaric practise in our public hospitals! The next step has to be; to amend legislation so that young adults can sue consenting parents and or the medicos, who provide this barbaric primitive practise.
If that drives the practise underground and the use of rusty razors etc; which has to result in infections and even death?
Then those who do such harm, ought to find themselves doing some real jail time, in the company of some very violent men, (family men), who might demonstrate their disapproval in an entirely unforgettable way?
There was a time when we used to believe the world was flat; and one could even be excommunicated for challenging, what was once conventional wisdom and entrenched religious dogma.
Today we are wiser and more knowledgeable and have largely dismissed such errant beliefs!

Commentators such as colinsett [1], Hasbeen [2], and runner [3] all state that circumcision is of little consequence, and that debates on the topic are a waste of time.

There are men who are blasé about the state of their genitals, just as there are women who are indifferent to their female circumcision, and who claim it isn’t a big deal for other women. Clearly, approving the modification of someone else’s body just because you aren’t fussed by it is unethical.

Carry this concept to an extreme: One could imagine differing degrees of equanimity in response to being raped. A prostitute specialising in BDSM role-play scenarios might (and this doesn’t suggests that raping a prostitute is a lesser offence) be less troubled about their rape than a member of a teen abstinence organisation. But regardless of the level of personal trauma that results, a rape is a bad thing.

Circumcision may or may not bother the penis owner (who, we should remember, is the person it is attached too. Not the parents, and definitely not their religious organisation). Regardless, the loss of personal autonomy that occurs when a minor is circumcised is unethical, independent of whether the adult man later minds or not.

[1] http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13123#226787
[2] http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13123#226844
[3] http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13123#226883

JON888

"Infants can't consent to anything." Obviously, Its exactly the reason their rights need protection!

"Parents make life and death decisions for their children." Yes they do , but show me one infant who has died because he was NOT circumcised?? But some infants do indeed die FROM the procedure.

"We can all hope that parents have the best interest of the children in mind." Hope indeed. Im sure most do but its not an excuse for misguided judgement.

"Circumcision has documented health benefits and parents should be the ones
to decide if those benefits outweigh the risks." What exactly are the health benefits to a neonate of this procedure? What are the benefits to a child ?? Why can't the procedure be delayed till an individual is old enough to decide for himself ? Because few young me will agree to it! except for cultural, religious or therapeutic indications

To respond to rper1959:

"Obviously, [infants inability to consent is] exactly the reason their rights need protection!" -- first you need to show that they have a right not to be circumcised.

"show me one infant who has died because he was NOT circumcised?? But some infants do indeed die FROM the procedure." -- it's fairly easy to show, actually. Urinary tract infections (affecting a child in infancy), penile cancer and HIV (affecting him later on) can all prove fatal, and since the risk of these conditions is greater in uncircumcised children, it's trivial to show that a certain number of deaths must be due to being uncircumcised. In fact, when you look at the numbers, it's clear that the proportion of deaths due to penile cancer (a relatively rare condition) attributable to lack of circumcision must be greater than those attributable to circumcision.

in reply to jakew

"first you need to show that they have a right not to be circumcised" Seriously jakew? Why don't you start with the UN declarations of human rights and the rights of children, then have a look at Australian legislation, yep kids have rights too, and a guiding principle in medicine is "first do no harm".

"it's fairly easy to show, actually. Urinary tract infections (affecting a child in infancy), penile cancer and HIV (affecting him later on) can all prove fatal, and since the risk of these conditions is greater in uncircumcised children"

Please direct me to the research ( peer reviewed, double blinded, and controlled) that shows a reduction in deaths or significant morbidity from UTI, Penile cancer, and HIV in infants and children attributed to circumcision.

Hint : universities are currently enrolling - look for courses in epidemology and biostatistics, it might cure your ignorance.