Signal & Brus

🇸🇪 Svenska · 🇬🇧 English · 🇪🇸 Español

In Sweden, you may not dock a healthy dog’s tail because you believe tradition calls for it. But you may have the foreskin removed from a little boy for religious or cultural reasons. In Region Stockholm, the procedure is also subsidised.

On this particular issue, a dog has stronger protection from a procedure without medical grounds than a little boy does. How did that become reasonable?

The dog’s body is left alone

According to guidance from the Swedish Board of Agriculture, tail and ear docking of dogs is prohibited in Sweden unless there are veterinary medical reasons. The owner wanting it is therefore not enough. Nor is the existence of a tradition.

That is a sound principle. A healthy body part should not be cut off simply because someone else prefers it.

There is an exception for little boys

At the same time, Sweden’s Act on the Circumcision of Boys allows the foreskin to be removed without medical reason before the age of 18. The law requires the consent of the child’s guardians, pain relief and hygienic conditions. The boy’s wishes must be ascertained as far as possible, and the procedure may not be performed against his will.

But an infant can neither understand what is about to happen nor take a position on a permanent change to his body. A child’s inability to formulate a no is not the same as having said yes.

My objection concerns circumcision without medical grounds. When a child needs treatment for an illness or other medical problems, he should of course receive the care he needs.

And taxpayers help pay for it

Funding differs between regions. A concrete example can be found here in Stockholm: Barnkirurgen states that Region Stockholm subsidises the price and that the family pays SEK 1,500. The clinic also describes its agreement with the region for circumcision on cultural grounds.

Other regions take a different approach. Region Kronoberg, for example, does not provide religious or cultural circumcision within public healthcare.

To me, it is difficult to justify using public money to remove healthy tissue from children who cannot make the decision themselves. Healthcare resources should be used for medical needs.

Freedom of religion must belong to the child too

I respect that circumcision is highly significant to many families. But the importance of a tradition to adults does not determine who should decide over a child’s body. The child should be able to grow up and choose both his faith and which permanent procedures he wants to undergo.

An adult who wants to be circumcised should be free to make that decision. Parents, however, should not be able to make the same irreversible decision for a small child without medical grounds.

A common argument is that the procedures might otherwise be carried out in more dangerous conditions. That risk needs to be taken seriously. But I do not believe it is enough to make the procedure right or to justify the subsidy. Society’s response should be protection, information and oversight, with the child’s right to his own body as the starting point.

Let the boy decide for himself

My conclusion is simple: circumcision without medical grounds should wait until the person is an adult and can choose for himself. Public funding should be reserved for medically justified care.

We have understood that a dog owner’s wishes are not enough to dock a healthy tail. Then we should also understand that the parents’ tradition is not enough to cut into a healthy child’s genitals.

Little boys should at least have the same obvious protection for their bodies that we give dogs.

Sources checked on 17 October 2026. The image is AI-generated.