Article in the Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol. 31, Issue 8, 2005;31:463-469 doi:10.1136/jme.2004.009340. The authors conclude that "it is ethically inappropriate to subject children—male or female—to the acknowledged risks of circumcision and contend that there is no compelling legal authority for the common view that male circumcision is lawful."

An article by Ronald Goldman, PhD, published in Paediatrics & Chid Health, Vol. 9, No. 9, pp. 630-33 (November 2003).  The article provides a very good overview of the current social standing of male infant circumcision. The author makes the point that the current reluctance to confront the religious issue undermines the core values (e.g., the health of the patient is paramount) and ethics (e.g., first, do no harm) that drive medical decision-making.

Paper published in Clinical Ethics, 2009;4:181-186.  doi:10.1258/ce.2009.009029. David Shaw, Faculty of Medicine and Centre for Applied Ethics & Legal Philosophy, University of Glasgow, writes that the current General Medical Council (GMC) guidelines are flawed in stating that any doctor who does not wish to carry out a non-therapeutic circumcision (NTC) on a boy must invoke conscientious objection.

Gender Across Borders, a global feminist blog, discusses the ethics of infant circumcision. The Ethics of Neonatal Circumcision considers personal autonomy. The person undergoing routine infant circumcision is an infant who has not consented to the surgery, which lacks a clear medical need.

British Medical Association page from November 2007 discussing the Law and ethics of male circumcision. The paper states that routine infant circumcision is permitted by UK law. The BMA discusses ethics without declaring if routine infant circumcision is ethical or not.