In Canada, the federal Department of Justice warns that anyone performing any type of surgery on a minor for cultural, religious or cosmetic reasons may be prosecuted under assault provisions of the Criminal Code. Now Federal law also specifically prohibits female genital mutilation, a violation of equal protection under the Charter. In each statement they uphold and indeed strengthen their position that circumcision is not necessary, and may be harmful to the infant. In this situation parental consent is invalid. It seems obvious that the removal of skin from an organ as sensitive as the penis must be presupposed to detract from its sensitivity, unless it has been shown otherwise.
Studies show the sexual importance of the foreskin.
Such specific sites of acute sensation in the body are the genital regions, including the prepuce, penis, clitoris, and external genitalia of the female, and the peri-anal skin, lip, nipple and conjunctiva. This anatomy favors acute perception. In light of this, only the patient can judge whether any supposed prophylactic benefits would outweigh the sacrifice of sexual sensitivity. Valid third-party authorization to surgery on a child depends upon the surgical intervention being therapeutic. In the vast majority of circumcisions this is not the case.