When is it ethically permissible for clinicians to surgically intervene into the genitals of a legal minor? We distinguish between voluntary and nonvoluntary procedures and focus on nonvoluntary procedures, specifically in prepubescent minors ("children"). We do not address procedures in adolescence or adulthood. With respect to children categorized as female at birth who have no apparent differences of sex development (i.e., non-intersex or "endosex" females) there is a near-universal ethical consensus in the Global North. This consensus holds that clinicians may not perform any nonvoluntary genital cutting or surgery, from "cosmetic" labiaplasty to medicalized ritual "pricking" of the vulva, insofar as the procedure is not strictly necessary to protect the child's physical health. All other motivations, including possible psychosocial, cultural, subjective-aesthetic, or prophylactic benefits as judged by doctors or parents, are seen as categorically inappropriate grounds for a clinician to proceed with a nonvoluntary genital procedure in this population. We argue that the main ethical reasons capable of supporting this consensus turn not on empirically contestable benefit-risk calculations, but on a fundamental concern to respect the child's privacy, bodily integrity, developing sexual boundaries, and (future) genital autonomy. We show that these ethical reasons are sound. However, as we argue, they do not only apply to endosex female children, but rather to all children regardless of sex characteristics, including those with intersex traits and endosex males. We conclude, therefore, that as a matter of justice, inclusivity, and gender equality in medical-ethical policy (we do not take a position as to criminal law), clinicians should not be permitted to perform any nonvoluntary genital cutting or surgery in prepubescent minors, irrespective of the latter's sex traits or gender assignment, unless urgently necessary to protect their physical health. By contrast, we suggest that voluntary surgeries in older individuals might, under certain conditions, permissibly be performed for a wider range of reasons, including reasons of self-identity or psychosocial well-being, in keeping with the circumstances, values, and explicit needs and preferences of the persons so concerned. Note: Because our position is tied to clinicians' widely accepted role-specific duties as medical practitioners within regulated healthcare systems, we do not consider genital procedures performed outside of a healthcare context (e.g., for religious reasons) or by persons other than licensed healthcare providers working in their professional capacity.

Contrasting ethical and legal arguments have been made concerning neonatal male circumcision (NMC) that merit the first systematic review on this topic. We performed PRISMA-compliant keyword searches of PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, LexisNexis, and other databases and identified 61 articles that met the inclusion criteria. In the bibliographies of these articles, we identified 58 more relevant articles and 28 internet items. We found high-quality evidence that NMC is a low-risk procedure that provides immediate and lifetime medical and health benefits and only rarely leads to later adverse effects on sexual function or pleasure. Given this evidence, we conclude that discouraging or denying NMC is unethical from the perspective of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which emphasizes the right to health. Further, case law supports the legality of NMC. We found, conversely, that the ethical arguments against NMC rely on distortions of the medical evidence. Thus, NMC, by experienced operators using available safety precautions, appears to be both legal and ethical. Consistent with this conclusion, all of the evidence-based pediatric policies that we reviewed describe NMC as low-risk and beneficial to public health. We calculated that a reduction in NMC in the United States from 80% to 10% would substantially increase the cases of adverse medical conditions. The present findings thus support the evidence-based NMC policy statements and are inconsistent with the non-evidence-based policies that discourage NMC. On balance, the arguments and evidence reviewed here indicate that NMC is a medically beneficial and ethical public health intervention early in life because it reduces suffering, deaths, cases, and costs of treating adverse medical conditions throughout the lifetimes of circumcised individuals.

The British Medical Association (BMA) guidance on non-therapeutic circumcision (NTMC) of male children is limited to ethical, legal and religious issues. Here we evaluate criticisms of the BMA's guidance by Lempert et al. While their arguments promoting autonomy and consent might be superficially appealing, their claim of high procedural risks and negligible benefits seem one-sided and contrast with high quality evidence of low risk and lifelong benefits. Extensive literature reviews by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in developing evidence-based policies, as well as risk-benefit analyses, have found that the medical benefits of infant NTMC greatly exceed the risks, and there is no reduction in sexual function and pleasure. The BMA's failure to consider the medical benefits of early childhood NTMC may partly explain why this prophylactic intervention is discouraged in the United Kingdom. The consequence is higher prevalence of preventable infections, adverse medical conditions, suffering and net costs to the UK's National Health Service for treatment of these. Many of the issues and contradictions in the BMA guidance identified by Lempert et al stem from the BMA's guidance not being sufficiently evidence-based. Indeed, that document called for a review by others of the medical issues surrounding NTMC. While societal factors apply, ultimately, NTMC can only be justified rationally on scientific, evidence-based grounds. Parents are entitled to an accurate presentation of the medical evidence so that they can make an informed decision. Their decision either for or against NTMC should then be respected.