| Abstract: | In the last few years, male circumcision has become the subject of controversial discussion. On the one hand, medical and hygienic arguments, ideology, freedom of religion, cultural identity and social adequacy are claimed by those supporting male circumcision. On the other hand, the justification of this practice also has to be critically scrutinized just as the question whether the parents have the right to consent to the operation. Today, opinions range from those who claim that religion and culture alone justify the practice to those who consider circumcision of minors unable to give their consent as bodily injury subject to punishment. In contrast to female genital mutilation, most positions do not postulate that circumcision violates morality. If the person concerned is able to give his consent, freedom of religion may also justify circumcision after weighing its pros and cons as well as its risks and potential side effects. |
