To think infant circumcision is wrong but also that a total ban on it will not work and is not the most effective way to tackle it?

So why even reference using a non GMC registered doctors? Any random off the street is also a non GMC registered doctor i.e not a doctor. And anyone willing to let someone who ain't a doctor perform a procedure on their baby in a non medical environment (let alone it not even being therapeutic) doesn't have their child's "best interests" on mind in any way.

If we allow people not to vaccinate their kids then it's illogical to tell them they cant chose circumcision

Babies die of and are damaged by measles, whooping cough and other preventable diseases each year and yet parents are allowed to not vaccinate.
If really is all about saving babies from harm....

Yes that's right. They cant pretend to be licenced, that's illegal but also there are no requirements for any qualifications to do a circumcision in the UK

They are just exposing their children to deadly preventable diseases....
A crime of omission.is actually no different to a crime of commission.

I thought this was all about protecting babies from death and harm?

I'm all for seeing parents as irresponsible for not vaccinating their children but you seem to not be grasping someone no vaccinating their kid isn't actually doing anything. Yes they're not giving their child a valuable vaccine that would also help the community at large but they're physically not doing anything to their child. It's not comparable to a parent assuming it's their right to cut off a part of their child's body, which in all other circumstances is illegal.

You can be a doctor and not registered with the GMC, you just dont have a licence to practice medicine in the UK.

Which means it's actually illegal to even present yourself as a "doctor" because you don't have a license to practice medicine. Anyone can do whatever backstreet unregulated procedures they want, doesn't make them a "doctor who carries out circumcisions" it makes them a a doctor either without a license or who has lost their license performing unregulated medical procedures while breaking the law by representing themselves as a medical doctor.

You keep repeating the same lines without addressing the fact that you keep comparing parental decisions and weighing up risks and benefits to procedures or treatments that have an actual medical need or benefit. We don't need to say mutilating babies is less risky than an adult choosing to get themselves circumcised because actually neither are medically necessary at all. You haven't given a single thought to what people are saying is that it should be in line with any other cosmetic or non therapeutic surgery in that it should require the person to choose it for themselves because they want it and feel it's in their beat interests. There's not a single factual reason that cutting off a part of a child's body is in their best interests at all and we accept this with everything else which is why I asked to comment on the example of cultural facial tattoos
That could be massively important in some cultures but you will not be allowed to tattoo the face of a young baby just because you're their parent so why on earth should you be able to cause them pain by cutting their genitals? The only "reason" is a complete lack of respect for your own child and their agency wrapped up as cultural tradition.

I think in an increasingly secular country, performing a religious ritual on a baby, which causes physical harm and distress, is no longer acceptable. In a modern world, with modern sensibilities, these kind of ancient rituals are difficult to condone. Religious freedoms should no longer automatically equate to bring able to distress and disfigure. Religions should change and adapt to modern sensibilities.

Took me two minutes of goggling to find a private hospital with gmc registered doctors which does non therapeutic circumcision.
https://www.princeclinic.co.uk/prince-clinic

No because again we come back to ethics, Drs are well aware of their ethical responsibilities and the risks they take if they do something that could be deemed unethical. And as I pointed out before the private hospitals are all about optics, and are on the whole very risk averse. Our local private hospital is part of a big chain, zero chance will they allow this procedure.

Well, once we've made not vaccinating babies illegal which will save far more babies from death and injury, even assuming that circumcision is harmful.

If we allow parents to choose not to vaccinate kids then we cant ban circumcision. Either parents have choice or they don't

You're not legally able to practice medicine but you are able to carry out circumcisions. Thats the difference. You can be a doctor and not registered with the GMC, you just dont have a licence to practice medicine in the UK.

Plenty of private hospitals and clincis offer non therapeutic circumcision.

You don't know the impact of birthmarks and what role they might play.
You might not want to remove your child's birthmark but im sure youd agree that it's within a parent's remit to decide whether this would be in their child's best interest

And of course nhs shouldn't pay for circumcision done for non medical reasons, like they shouldn't pay for removal of a facial birth mark.

Im not saying YOU should circumcise your sons. Im not saying the NHS should pay. Im not saying it should be unregulated and anyone can do it anywhere. I'm saying that parents make decisions that they think in their child's best interest all the time and, given the current evidence and potential benefits and risk including the increased complications of the procedure as an adult and huge social/cultural/religious importance, safe infant circumcision is well within a parents' authority to decide.
Especially if we allow parents not to vaccinate kids, infestimably more harmful including to others.

Of course they shouldn't. It should be private if non therapeutic. Could help generate money for the NHS actually

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/jan/10/circumcision-classed-as-possible-child-abuse-in-draft-cps-document

Making it illegal is the only way really.

The Graun, timely article.

There’s no way hospital trusts have the money or staff time to fund this. Resources are stretched beyond the limit already. Services are being cut, they are not going to add a non essential service.

Of course, it's non therapeutic
Precisely so how do you justify even just the pain of the procedure and recovery going "well" as not harmful? You're subjecting a non consenting child to a painful and unnecessary procedure.

Foreskins aren't birthmarks though are they? There's no medical benefit to having a birthmark and no one's having unlicenced people performing birthmarks in their living room. Removing a birthmark also doesn't have the same long term downsides and complications either. I haven't been in that position but I'd like to think I'd apply the same principal as I do to piercings that I'd wait until my child was old enough to know they want it removed. You're better of comparing to should I be allowed to tattoo my child's face because my family find it an important custom and they won't remember the pain of we do it now, which sounds as insane as using the same argument to justify mutilating their genitals.

You keep repeating it's a net neutral and completely ignoring the evidence of complications which caused the procedure to no longer be performed in NHS hospitals. It's not a net neutral.

Of course, it's non therapeutic. But the evidence still shows benefits outweigh risks when done as a baby and complications increase with age.
Well it would be less risky on a baby who wouldn’t have the ability to identify the painful area and tug at the wound. Doesn’t make it right.
If you had a baby with a massive birth mark, not harmful in any way but disfiguring and surgically treating it immediately would have lower risks than waiting until adulthood, would it be ok for parents to choose to have it removed for a baby?
I had a baby with a massive birth mark, not harmful, now he is 10. The hospital has monitored him, they advised us that it is best to leave it until he decides, whenever he is asked, he is not ready, he has experienced some teasing, not much as he’s a big strong boy. Doctors prefer for patients to have the last say even in childhood, obviously babies can’t talk.

There no choosing between GMC registered or non GMC registered doctors. If you're not registered with the GMC you are not a legally practicing doctor. Why should any surgical procedure be performed in a non sterile environment? It's not just about it being performed by medical professionals, it's also about it being performed in a proper environment and with the same requirements as other medical procedures, but as I said when they were doing this before in NHS hospitals the rate of complications and lawsuits weren't deemed to be worth continuing to perform a procedure with no therapeutic reason.

Of course, it's non therapeutic. But the evidence still shows benefits outweigh risks when done as a baby and complications increase with age.
Therefore it is a decision well within the remit of parental authority.
I mean, if we dont mandate vaccination and allow parents to choose then definitely circumcision which is either a net benefit or neutral overall should be allowed with cultural and religious importance.

If you had a baby with a massive birth mark on its face, not harmful in any way but disfiguring and surgically treating it immediately would have lower risks than waiting until adulthood, would it be ok for parents to choose to have it removed for a baby?

Actually the whole push for regulation of circumcision is that it should be done by trained medical professionals.
The issue is that the GMC doesnt support circumcision in the community. So that means if a family want a Gmc registered doctor then the circumcision needs to be done in a hospital.