Some european sources who aren't biased from benefitting financially due to selling of stem-cells out of the removed foreskin.


Alternative treatments:
https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/49772
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8976781
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10925099

Additionally I personally had a phimosis as a child when doctors wanted to circumcise me. My mother demanded alternative ways and the simplest was to just daily stretching, as the skin of the foreskin is elastic by nature. I simply had to daily practice stretching it for 3 months and it was all fixed with no further problem. No medics, no surgery, no risks.



German opinions (google-translate is your friend):
http://jme.bmj.com/content/39/7/444.abstract
And his german paper which the 2008 colognes court ruling was based on: http://www.holmputzke.de/images/stories/pdf/2008_fs_herzberg_beschneidung.pdf
German academy for children- and youthmedicine is against circumcision: http://www.dgkj.de/wissenschaft/stellungnahmen/meldung/meldungsdetail/stellungnahme_der_dakj_zur_beschneidung-1/
The german Dresden International University sees circumcision violating the german constitution/basic law as well as it being physical battery: http://www.foerderverein-medizinrecht.de/publikationen/aufsaetze/beschneidung/



German Society for Children-surgery:
"Only the parental consent  to a surgery, which is for the medical welfare of the child after gauging the benefits and risks is legally effective. This is in the case of a circumcision of a boy not the without his own case outside of a medical indcation not fulfilled."
http://www.awmf.org/uploads/tx_szleitlinien/006-052l_S1_Phimose_Paraphimose_2013-08.pdf

The Community of Pediatricians claims only the right of physical integrity counts and warns about the psychological traumas of the surgery:
http://www.kinderaerzte-im-netz.de/news-archiv/meldung/article/rituelle-beschneidungen-bei-minderjaehrigen-kinder-und-jugendaerzte-fordern-allein-das-recht-ein/
http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article108314004/Kinderaerzte-Koerperverletzung-wird-bagatellisiert.html

The German community for (physical) pain claims that infants potentially feel more pain than adults (remember that infants can't get fully anaesthesized) and that such a high amount of pain in this young age can make the boys more pain-sensitive in the future:
http://www.gesundheit-adhoc.de/files/1343986143_7df0315f.pdf

Children-surgeon Maximilian Stehr of the University Munich (top100 university world-wide) says that circumcisions on infants is to be seen as a substantial trauma. He also says that it harms the mother-child relation as well as mentions that the university munich only does circumcisions when it is an absolute medical necessarity for years.
http://www.fr-online.de/wissenschaft/beschneidungen-unterschaetztes-trauma-risiko,1472788,16643734.html
Here from Maximilian Sterh there is some parts in english at the bottom from the time when the university Munich started to not do circumcisions anymore outside of medical necessarities:
https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/abstract/10.1055/s-2001-12876


Now to get to some international perspectives.

Netherlands association of octors:
http://www.theeuropean-magazine.com/819-van-dijk-gert/820-medical-and-ethical-arguments-against-male-circumcision

Royal Dutch Medical Association:
"The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organisations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity. Contrary to popular belief, circumcision can cause complications – bleeding, infection, urethral stricture and panic attacks are particularly common."
http://knmg.artsennet.nl/Publicaties/KNMGpublicatie/77942/Nontherapeutic-circumcision-of-male-minors-2010.htm

British Medical Association:
"In the past, circumcision of boys has been considered to be either medically or socially beneficial or, at least, neutral. The general perception has been that no significant harm was caused to the child and therefore with appropriate consent it could be carried out. The medical benefits previously claimed, however, have not been convincingly proven, and it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks. It is essential that doctors perform male circumcision only where this is demonstrably in the best interests of the child. The responsibility to demonstrate that non-therapeutic circumcision is in a particular child's best interests falls to his parents."
http://bma.org.uk/-/media/Files/PDFs/Practical%20advice%20at%20work/Ethics/Circumcision.pdf

Nordic states decided it's in the end the boys decision:
https://www.crin.org/en/library/news-archive/male-circumcision-nordic-ombudspersons-seek-ban-non-therapeutic-male


"In   an   effort   to   protect   the   rights   of   children,   the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Bioethics developed   a   policy   about   informed   consent   in   cases involving children. Informed parental permission can substitute   for   consent   from   the   child   only   for   medical interventions in  situations of  clear and  immediate medical  necessity,  such  as  an  immediate  threat  to  the  child from   disease,   trauma   or   deformity."
http://arclaw.org/sites/default/files/documents/bju.pdf

The WHO deems the equivalent of the foreskin, the female prepuce, being (partially) removed as genital mutilation:
http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/fgm/overview/en/