The case was brought by the unnamed boy’s father, who describes the operation as mutilation. The mother claims that the operation is medically necessary and has rejected her former husband’s opposition as religious, not medical, after her remarriage to a Jewish man.

The couple, a Polish man and a Slovakian woman, went through an acrimonious divorce in 2003 that awarded them joint custody, giving them equal input on medical decisions.

Since the divorce the boy has lived with his mother and, more recently, his new stepfather and stepbrother, both of whom are circumcised. The mother testified that her former husband’s opposition to circumcision dated to their son’s birth, when she suggested that they have the procedure done. Most American newborn boys are circumcised before leaving hospital but a growing number of parents are rejecting the practice.

Only 60 per cent of American boys are circumcised today, down from 90 per cent in 1970. Most insurance policies do not cover the procedure because the American Academy of Pediatrics decreed it medically unnecessary.

The woman told the court her husband at the time had refused the procedure, saying: “There is no way my son is going to be circumcised. He is not a Jew.”

The issue went away until her son began to suffer from inflammation two years ago. “My child was in the bathroom crying,” she said. “He asked me to come in because his penis did not look normal.” A paediatrician recommended a circumcision after the boy suffered bouts of swelling and cracking that did not respond to other treatment. His father stepped in and was granted a restraining order preventing the operation until a court could rule on the dispute.

Tracy Rizzo, the mother’s lawyer, says that the father is opposed to circumcision because he resents his former wife’s remarriage to a Jewish man. “The father has made this more of a political issue and nothing to do with medicine,” she said.

The father denies the medical need for the procedure, claiming that his former wife wants the procedure so that the boy can fit in with his Jewish stepfamily. “The child is absolutely healthy,” the father said. “I do not want any doctor to butcher my son.”

He has flown in medical experts to testify that the condition could be cured with better hygiene and medication. In court he denied making anti-Semitic remarks but admitted finding gruesome pictures on the internet to show to his son as he helped him to write a letter to his mother asking her not to make him undergo the operation. The boy’s mother also testified that the father had told the boy that he could lose his penis, be left with a limp or even die if he went through with the procedure.

The case is being keenly followed by opponents of circumcision, who regard the practice as an infringement of human rights, citing questionable medical benefits and loss of penile sensitivity. Their influence has led to the development of medical treatments to recreate the foreskins of men who have had theirs removed.

Roger Saquet, the director of the Non-Circumcision Information Center, said: “They’re using the kid as a weapon against each other. It’s really sad. My heart goes out to that kid.”

Emotions and history obscure medical benefits

FEW subjects are capable of causing greater discord between parents than circumcision. It is capable of triggering deep prejudices based on racial, religious and class beliefs.

Circumcision has been a religious rite in Judaism and Islam for thousands of years, and is a tribal custom in many countries.

Until the Second World War it was regarded as a class symbol in many parts of western European society: in the eyes of the poor, circumcision was evidence that a boy’s parents were affluent enough to afford some medical treatment.

The emotions that have surrounded the procedure blinded many parents to its obvious advantages. Uncircumcised children and adults are more likely to suffer recurrent urinary tract infections if the foreskin is so tight that there is not a free flow of urine.

The penis beneath the foreskin is also liable to become inflamed and infected if it does not retract easily. Once an uncircumcised boy has a sex life there is medical evidence that he will have a greater chance of catching most of the sexually transmitted diseases, from the trivial to the potentially lethal, such as HIV or syphilis.

Research has shown that uncircumcised men have a very significant increased risk of catching HIV. Early circumcision also nearly eliminates the risk of cancer of the penis and that of the unpleasant skin complaint known as BXO.

Times Recommends

• Are top lawyers worth their huge fees?
• Solicitor forced to retire claims 'ageism'
• Drug case failure may be last straw for SFO