A doctor circumcised a seven-year-old boy without seeking his opinion and without his father's consent, a medical tribunal has heard.

Aren't circumcisions already often done for religious reasons on infants that can't consent? The only different bit here is that only one of the parents consented this time.

Given the child doesn't normally get a say in this no matter what, why act like they care about the child's opinion now?

Edit: Read the article properly, the boy's mother is the one that forced this through, so she did consent - which I think actually makes the above more prudent.