British courts require consent of all parental-responsibility holders for child circumcision.

Evidence

Re ‘J’ (child’s religious upbringing and circumcision) said that circumcision in Britain required the consent of all those with parental responsibility, or the permission of the court, acting for the best interests of the child, and issued an order prohibiting the circumcision of a male child of a non-­ practicing Muslim father and non-practicing Christian mother with custody. The reasoning included evidence that circumcision carried some medical risk; that the operation would be likely to weaken the relationship of the child with his mother, who strongly objected to circumcision without medical necessity; that the child may be subject to ridicule by his peers as the odd one out and that the operation might irreversibly reduce sexual pleasure, by permanently removing some sensory nerves, even though cosmetic foreskin restoration might be possible. The court did not rule out circumcision against the consent of one parent. — James Renton, Ben Gidley (eds.), Antisemitism and Islamophobia in Europe, 907

Categorization

• QUESTION: The court weighed peer ridicule and reduced sexual pleasure as harms but not the religious significance; worth examining how ‘best interests of the child’ gets operationalized.