I really like the verdict of the german court, because it is very consistent in its application of german penal law as it is. Broken down to the base line: If a qualified person (i.e. a doctor) performs surgery in any kind or form, that isn't done in consent with the patient, commits a criminal assault.
There are exceptions to this baseline:
- If the patient is incapable of articulating his will, the doctor has the obligation to determine the supposed will of the patient. This obligation shrinks (in some cases to zero), if there is some kind of emergency at hand, where there is no time to determine the patients potential will.
- This of course doesn't apply to most cases of circumcision done at a very young age. It's usually done due to religious beliefs of the parents (where I live, I know that it's almost a standard procedure in other countries). The parents replaced the needed permission of the patient by giving their permission.
The verdict ruled out that permission as invalid, because the parents have no right to "harm" their child or give permission to "harm" their child, if there is no medical need to do so. It's just consistent.
Of course the judges were well aware of what they were going to kick off, but they probably just thought "let's watch the trainwreck unfold". I am kidding.