Original sentence: In the Netherlands, the Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) issued a statement in 2010 that "there is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene", that it "entails the risk of medical and psychological complications",  runs "contrary to the rule that minors may only be exposed to medical treatments if illness or abnormalities are present" (apart from vaccinations), it "conflicts with the child’s right to autonomy and physical integrity", they call on medical practioners to "explicitly inform parents/carers who are considering non-therapeutic circumcision for male minors of the risk of complications and the lack of convincing medical benefits",  calling for dialogue with religious organisations on this issue, and advising that there are "good reasons for a legal prohibition of non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors, as exists for female genital mutilation" (but recognises the problem that this could lead to the practice taking place in non-medical contexts).These views are endorsed by other major Netherlands medical organisations
Edited sentence: Citing complications they promote a policy of deterrence, ask doctors to inform parents considering circumcision of the risks and "lack of convincing medical benefits", and suggest that legal prohibition may be justifiable.In the Netherlands, the Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) issued a statement in 2010 stating that "non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity"