Let me preempt one possible line here: I do not love the circumstances under which I would have been circumcised as a neonate in Mississippi in the very early 1980s, and I do not resent the result. Living that far tied up in the past is for men who can't figure out how to do anything else. I am not one of those and despite an essential sympathy with the theoretical basis of their position that no putative benefit remotely justifies the the risk of the intervention, I have a short way with "intactivists."
But if it had been possible safely to administer more than EMLA (perhaps!) for pain relief, not even in that place and time would anyone be so barbaric as to refuse it. Of course. And that, making possible that precise measure of mercy in the case where the intervention is not merely cosmetic, is exactly that at which this research is directed. So, to anyone looking to make a cause of the ghosts of a billion foreskins or whatever, I would say please do not attempt even by implication to recruit my argument in support of your position.